Description: The Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) developed this data set in fulfillment of a grant from the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) to test a conceptual climate risk assessment model developed for transportation infrastructure. WSDOT applied the model using scenario planning in a series of statewide workshops, using local experts, to create qualitative assessment of climate vulnerability on its assets in each region and mode across Washington. For the purposes of this statewide effort, managed assets were defined as sections of highway or railroad, and whole facilities (Ferry Terminal or Airport). Fourteen workshops engaged experts across all WSDOT regions, state ferries, rail, and aviation. The outcome of each workshop was a subjective evaluation of asset vulnerability agreed upon by participants. This feature class contains the results for airports. This study assumed 100% probability of climate change impacts previously identified in the University of Washington Climate Impacts Group's 2009 assessment. Types of impacts discussed in the workshops with local experts included: temperature changes, increase in extreme weather events, precipitation changes, sea level rise, fire risk, and high winds. The scientific community's understanding of climate impacts continues to evolve as the models and collective understanding of feedback systems improve. We do not have perfect information about exactly how, when, where, and to what magnitude climate changes will unfold in Washington State. After reviewing the extreme weather events and other impacts projected for their area, workshop participants defined sections of highway, rail, or specific facilities with consideration of the local geology, natural and constructed drainage and hydrology, elevation, slope, land use and operational maintenance issues. Once defined, each corridor or facility was then ranked for two variables: asset criticality and potential impact. Asset criticality (which was defined by the workshop participants) should not be confused with other measures such as highway functional class. 1) How critical is that site or corridor to overall transportation operations and public safety? The following scale guided the qualitative assessment of criticality: a. 1-3 = Low - facility/corridor with low daily traffic, available alternate routes, not part of the National Highway System b. 4-6 = Medium - facility/corridor has low to medium daily traffic, serves as an alternate route of other state corridors or facilities c. 7-10 = High - facility/corridor is an Interstate or other major highway, is considered a lifeline route or is the sole access to a population center or critical facility. 2) How might potential climate changes impact site or corridor operations? The following scale guided the assessment of climate impacts: a. 1-3 = Low - Reduced Capacity: facility/corridor partially open to use and full operations can be restored within 10 days b. 4-6 = Medium - Temporary Operational Failure: Facility/corridor closed for hours or days. Reopening or repair could be completed within 60 days. c. 7-10 = High - Complete Failure: facility/corridor likely to require major repair or rebuild with closures lasting more than 60 days These qualitative rankings for impacts and asset criticality and some general descriptions were captured in spreadsheets that were later used to create GIS layers. This data is intended for use in statewide or regional planning and to assist in adapting maintenance and engineering policies and practices to protect our transportation infrastructure over the coming decades. The rankings here were based on our knowledge and understanding at the time of the study, and should only be taken as a best professional estimate for considering potential conditions that might put people or infrastructure at risk. Current information about projected climate changes and asset use and condition should always be taken into account, especially as time progresses.
Copyright Text: WSDOT Climate Impacts Vulnerability Assessment Team: Mark Maurer, Carol Lee Roalkvam, Sandra L. Salisbury, Elizabeth Goss, Mark Gabel, Elizabeth Lanzer, Tanya Johnson, Casey Kramer, Jim Park, Rebecca Nichols.
Description: The Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) developed this data set in fulfillment of a grant from the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) to test a conceptual climate risk assessment model developed for transportation infrastructure. WSDOT applied the model using scenario planning in a series of statewide workshops, using local experts, to create qualitative assessment of climate vulnerability on its assets in each region and mode across Washington. For the purposes of this statewide effort, managed assets were defined as sections of highway or railroad, and whole facilities (Ferry Terminal or Airport). Fourteen workshops engaged experts across all WSDOT regions, state ferries, rail, and aviation. The outcome of each workshop was a subjective evaluation of asset vulnerability agreed upon by participants. This feature class contains the results for WSDOT facilities. This study assumed 100% probability of climate change impacts previously identified in the University of Washington Climate Impacts Group's 2009 assessment. Types of impacts discussed in the workshops with local experts included: temperature changes, increase in extreme weather events, precipitation changes, sea level rise, fire risk, and high winds. The scientific community's understanding of climate impacts continues to evolve as the models and collective understanding of feedback systems improve. We do not have perfect information about exactly how, when, where, and to what magnitude climate changes will unfold in Washington State. After reviewing the extreme weather events and other impacts projected for their area, workshop participants defined sections of highway, rail, or specific facilities with consideration of the local geology, natural and constructed drainage and hydrology, elevation, slope, land use and operational maintenance issues. Once defined, each corridor or facility was then ranked for two variables: asset criticality and potential impact. Asset criticality (which was defined by the workshop participants) should not be confused with other measures such as highway functional class. Descriptions of potential impacts to the WSDOT facilities in this feature class were not rated for impact or criticality. 1) How critical is that site or corridor to overall transportation operations and public safety? The following scale guided the qualitative assessment of criticality: a. 1-3 = Low - facility/corridor with low daily traffic, available alternate routes, not part of the National Highway System b. 4-6 = Medium - facility/corridor has low to medium daily traffic, serves as an alternate route of other state corridors or facilities c. 7-10 = High - facility/corridor is an Interstate or other major highway, is considered a lifeline route or is the sole access to a population center or critical facility. 2) How might potential climate changes impact site or corridor operations? The following scale guided the assessment of climate impacts: a. 1-3 = Low - Reduced Capacity: facility/corridor partially open to use and full operations can be restored within 10 days b. 4-6 = Medium - Temporary Operational Failure: Facility/corridor closed for hours or days. Reopening or repair could be completed within 60 days. c. 7-10 = High - Complete Failure: facility/corridor likely to require major repair or rebuild with closures lasting more than 60 days. These qualitative rankings for impacts and asset criticality and some general descriptions were captured in spreadsheets that were later used to create GIS layers. This data is intended for use in statewide or regional planning and to assist in adapting maintenance and engineering policies and practices to protect our transportation infrastructure over the coming decades. The rankings here were based on our knowledge and understanding at the time of the study, and should only be taken as a best professional estimate for considering potential conditions that might put people or infrastructure at risk. Current information about projected climate changes and asset use and condition should always be taken into account, especially as time progresses.
Copyright Text: WSDOT Climate Impacts Vulnerability Assessment Team: Mark Maurer, Carol Lee Roalkvam, Sandra L. Salisbury, Elizabeth Goss, Mark Gabel, Elizabeth Lanzer, Tanya Johnson, Casey Kramer, Jim Park, Rebecca Nichols.
Description: The Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) developed this data set in fulfillment of a grant from the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) to test a conceptual climate risk assessment model developed for transportation infrastructure. WSDOT applied the model using scenario planning in a series of statewide workshops, using local experts, to create qualitative assessment of climate vulnerability on its assets in each region and mode across Washington. For the purposes of this statewide effort, managed assets were defined as sections of highway or railroad, and whole facilities (Ferry Terminal or Airport). Fourteen workshops engaged experts across all WSDOT regions, state ferries, rail, and aviation. The outcome of each workshop was a subjective evaluation of asset vulnerability agreed upon by participants. This feature class contains the results for ferries. This study assumed 100% probability of climate change impacts previously identified in the University of Washington Climate Impacts Group's 2009 assessment. Types of impacts discussed in the workshops with local experts included: temperature changes, increase in extreme weather events, precipitation changes, sea level rise, fire risk, and high winds. The scientific community's understanding of climate impacts continues to evolve as the models and collective understanding of feedback systems improve. We do not have perfect information about exactly how, when, where, and to what magnitude climate changes will unfold in Washington State. After reviewing the extreme weather events and other impacts projected for their area, workshop participants defined sections of highway, rail, or specific facilities with consideration of the local geology, natural and constructed drainage and hydrology, elevation, slope, land use and operational maintenance issues. Once defined, each corridor or facility was then ranked for two variables: asset criticality and potential impact. Asset criticality (which was defined by the workshop participants) should not be confused with other measures such as highway functional class. 1) How critical is that site or corridor to overall transportation operations and public safety? The following scale guided the qualitative assessment of criticality: a. 1-3 = Low - facility/corridor with low daily traffic, available alternate routes, not part of the National Highway System b. 4-6 = Medium - facility/corridor has low to medium daily traffic, serves as an alternate route of other state corridors or facilities c. 7-10 = High - facility/corridor is an Interstate or other major highway, is considered a lifeline route or is the sole access to a population center or critical facility. 2) How might potential climate changes impact site or corridor operations? The following scale guided the assessment of climate impacts: a. 1-3 = Low - Reduced Capacity: facility/corridor partially open to use and full operations can be restored within 10 days b. 4-6 = Medium - Temporary Operational Failure: Facility/corridor closed for hours or days. Reopening or repair could be completed within 60 days. c. 7-10 = High - Complete Failure: facility/corridor likely to require major repair or rebuild with closures lasting more than 60 days. These qualitative rankings for impacts and asset criticality and some general descriptions were captured in spreadsheets that were later used to create GIS layers. This data is intended for use in statewide or regional planning and to assist in adapting maintenance and engineering policies and practices to protect our transportation infrastructure over the coming decades. The rankings here were based on our knowledge and understanding at the time of the study, and should only be taken as a best professional estimate for considering potential conditions that might put people or infrastructure at risk. Current information about projected climate changes and asset use and condition should always be taken into account, especially as time progresses.
Copyright Text: WSDOT Climate Impacts Vulnerability Assessment Team: Mark Maurer, Carol Lee Roalkvam, Sandra L. Salisbury, Elizabeth Goss, Mark Gabel, Elizabeth Lanzer, Tanya Johnson, Casey Kramer, Jim Park, Rebecca Nichols.
Description: The Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) developed this data set in fulfillment of a grant from the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) to test a conceptual climate risk assessment model developed for transportation infrastructure. WSDOT applied the model using scenario planning in a series of statewide workshops, using local experts, to create qualitative assessment of climate vulnerability on its assets in each region and mode across Washington. For the purposes of this statewide effort, managed assets were defined as sections of highway or railroad, and whole facilities (Ferry Terminal or Airport). Fourteen workshops engaged experts across all WSDOT regions, state ferries, rail, and aviation. The outcome of each workshop was a subjective evaluation of asset vulnerability agreed upon by participants. This feature class contains the results for railroads. This study assumed 100% probability of climate change impacts previously identified in the University of Washington Climate Impacts Group's 2009 assessment. Types of impacts discussed in the workshops with local experts included: temperature changes, increase in extreme weather events, precipitation changes, sea level rise, fire risk, and high winds. The scientific community's understanding of climate impacts continues to evolve as the models and collective understanding of feedback systems improve. We do not have perfect information about exactly how, when, where, and to what magnitude climate changes will unfold in Washington State. After reviewing the extreme weather events and other impacts projected for their area, workshop participants defined sections of highway, rail, or specific facilities with consideration of the local geology, natural and constructed drainage and hydrology, elevation, slope, land use and operational maintenance issues. Once defined, each corridor or facility was then ranked for two variables: asset criticality and potential impact. Asset criticality (which was defined by the workshop participants) should not be confused with other measures such as highway functional class. 1) How critical is that site or corridor to overall transportation operations and public safety? The following scale guided the qualitative assessment of criticality: a. 1-3 = Low - facility/corridor with low daily traffic, available alternate routes, not part of the National Highway System b. 4-6 = Medium - facility/corridor has low to medium daily traffic, serves as an alternate route of other state corridors or facilities c. 7-10 = High - facility/corridor is an Interstate or other major highway, is considered a lifeline route or is the sole access to a population center or critical facility. 2) How might potential climate changes impact site or corridor operations? The following scale guided the assessment of climate impacts: a. 1-3 = Low - Reduced Capacity: facility/corridor partially open to use and full operations can be restored within 10 days b. 4-6 = Medium - Temporary Operational Failure: Facility/corridor closed for hours or days. Reopening or repair could be completed within 60 days. c. 7-10 = High - Complete Failure: facility/corridor likely to require major repair or rebuild with closures lasting more than 60 days These qualitative rankings for impacts and asset criticality and some general descriptions were captured in spreadsheets that were later used to create GIS layers. This data is intended for use in statewide or regional planning and to assist in adapting maintenance and engineering policies and practices to protect our transportation infrastructure over the coming decades. The rankings here were based on our knowledge and understanding at the time of the study, and should only be taken as a best professional estimate for considering potential conditions that might put people or infrastructure at risk. Current information about projected climate changes and asset use and condition should always be taken into account, especially as time progresses.
Copyright Text: WSDOT Climate Impacts Vulnerability Assessment Team: Mark Maurer, Carol Lee Roalkvam, Sandra L. Salisbury, Elizabeth Goss, Mark Gabel, Elizabeth Lanzer, Tanya Johnson, Casey Kramer, Jim Park, Rebecca Nichols.
Name: Climate Impact Vulnerability Assessment - State Route
Display Field: SR
Type: Feature Layer
Geometry Type: esriGeometryPolyline
Description: The Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) developed this data set in fulfillment of a grant from the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) to test a conceptual climate risk assessment model developed for transportation infrastructure. WSDOT applied the model using scenario planning in a series of statewide workshops, using local experts, to create qualitative assessment of climate vulnerability on its assets in each region and mode across Washington. For the purposes of this statewide effort, managed assets were defined as sections of highway or railroad, and whole facilities (Ferry Terminal or Airport). Fourteen workshops engaged experts across all WSDOT regions, state ferries, rail, and aviation. The outcome of each workshop was a subjective evaluation of asset vulnerability agreed upon by participants. This feature class contains the results for state routes. This study assumed 100% probability of climate change impacts previously identified in the University of Washington Climate Impacts Group's 2009 assessment. Types of impacts discussed in the workshops with local experts included: temperature changes, increase in extreme weather events, precipitation changes, sea level rise, fire risk, and high winds. The scientific community's understanding of climate impacts continues to evolve as the models and collective understanding of feedback systems improve. We do not have perfect information about exactly how, when, where, and to what magnitude climate changes will unfold in Washington State. After reviewing the extreme weather events and other impacts projected for their area, workshop participants defined sections of highway, rail, or specific facilities with consideration of the local geology, natural and constructed drainage and hydrology, elevation, slope, land use and operational maintenance issues. Once defined, each corridor or facility was then ranked for two variables: asset criticality and potential impact. Asset criticality (which was defined by the workshop participants) should not be confused with other measures such as highway functional class. 1) How critical is that site or corridor to overall transportation operations and public safety? The following scale guided the qualitative assessment of criticality: a. 1-3 = Low - facility/corridor with low daily traffic, available alternate routes, not part of the National Highway System b. 4-6 = Medium - facility/corridor has low to medium daily traffic, serves as an alternate route of other state corridors or facilities c. 7-10 = High - facility/corridor is an Interstate or other major highway, is considered a lifeline route or is the sole access to a population center or critical facility. 2) How might potential climate changes impact site or corridor operations? The following scale guided the assessment of climate impacts: a. 1-3 = Low - Reduced Capacity: facility/corridor partially open to use and full operations can be restored within 10 days b. 4-6 = Medium - Temporary Operational Failure: Facility/corridor closed for hours or days. Reopening or repair could be completed within 60 days. c. 7-10 = High - Complete Failure: facility/corridor likely to require major repair or rebuild with closures lasting more than 60 days These qualitative rankings for impacts and asset criticality and some general descriptions were captured in spreadsheets that were later used to create GIS layers. This data is intended for use in statewide or regional planning and to assist in adapting maintenance and engineering policies and practices to protect our transportation infrastructure over the coming decades. The rankings here were based on our knowledge and understanding at the time of the study, and should only be taken as a best professional estimate for considering potential conditions that might put people or infrastructure at risk. Current information about projected climate changes and asset use and condition should always be taken into account, especially as time progresses.
Copyright Text: WSDOT Climate Impacts Vulnerability Assessment Team: Mark Maurer, Carol Lee Roalkvam, Sandra L. Salisbury, Elizabeth Goss, Mark Gabel, Elizabeth Lanzer, Tanya Johnson, Casey Kramer, Jim Park, Rebecca Nichols.
Description: This feature class contains environmentally sensitive areas that front state highways, including wetlands, waterbodies, streams, and channel migration zones. Roadway segments within 300 feet of a sensitive area were located using GPS. The sensitive areas are represented by lines segments which have had their beginning and ending points buffered an additional 300 feet. Data has been synchronized to the LRS December, 31 2017.
Copyright Text: Washington State Department of Transportation
Description: This dataset is to inform WSDOT and other state agencies of a known invasive species currently found in Washington State waterways. The New Zealand Mud Snail (NZMS) has been identified in a number of locations throughout the state. If in-water work is necessary within water bodies or connecting tributaries within a two-mile radius of the documented location (latitude and longitude), all personal gear (waders, tools, instruments, etc.) and heavy equipment must be fully decontaminated before being used at any other site. Transport to a secure site for cleaning/decontamination is allowed as long as precautions are taken to avoid any dropping of mud or debris between the work site and the cleaning/decontamination location.This dataset is used as a general reference layer for geographic information systems at the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT). It is maintained by the WSDOT ESO office. Updates to this dataset are on an as needed basis.
Description: This dataset is to inform WSDOT and other state agencies of a known invasive species currently found in Washington State waterways. The New Zealand Mud Snail (NZMS) has been identified in a number of locations throughout the state. If in-water work is necessary within water bodies or connecting tributaries within a two-mile radius of the documented location (latitude and longitude), all personal gear (waders, tools, instruments, etc.) and heavy equipment must be fully decontaminated before being used at any other site. Transport to a secure site for cleaning/decontamination is allowed as long as precautions are taken to avoid any dropping of mud or debris between the work site and the cleaning/decontamination location.This dataset is used as a general reference layer for geographic information systems at the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT). It is maintained by the WSDOT ESO office. Updates to this dataset are on an as needed basis.
Description: This data set is a snapshop of the current inventory of all Chronic Environmental Deficiency (CED) sites on WSDOT highways, including all active, resolved (constructed) and stabilized CED sites. A CED is a site along a state highway where recent, frequent, and chronic maintenance or emergency repairs (typically 3 times in 10 years) to WSDOT infrastructure are causing impacts to fish or fish habitat.
Copyright Text: Washington State Department of Transportation, Chronic Environmental Deficiency Program