HomeMy WebLinkAboutRESPONSE - RFP - 8150 EXTREME EVENT PREPAREDNESS FACILITATIONProposal Response to RFP 8150
Extreme Event
Preparedness
Facilitation
for the City of Fort Collins
Submitted by
Cascadia Consulting Group, Inc.
and Keys Consulting, Inc.
8150 Extreme Event Preparedness Facilitation for the City of Fort Collins
Response from Cascadia Consulting Group, Inc. and Keys Consulting, Inc.
Proposal | page 1 of 10
1. Methods and Approach
Methods
Changes in temperature and precipitation are projected to have wide-ranging impacts on the Fort Collins and
Front Range region in the coming decades. As demonstrated by the 2012 High Park Fire, increased extreme
heat and wildfire risk can bring severe consequences for City operations, services, and residents. Fort Collins’
interest in understanding and managing these extreme event risks is therefore both timely and essential for
making sound investments and protecting local residents in the years ahead.
Cascadia Consulting Group Inc. (Cascadia) and Keys Consulting Inc. (KCI) are pleased to submit this proposal to
facilitate an effective and productive engagement process for addressing the impacts of wildfire smoke and
extreme heat in Fort Collins. Our team of scientists, resilience specialists, and skilled facilitators and writers will
bring to bear significant locally relevant knowledge and science that we will use to help the City identify and
triage planning around key extreme event vulnerabilities and priorities. The strategies, actions, and
considerations identified through this process will serve as an essential roadmap for minimizing impacts and
enhancing City and community resilience for years to come.
With over 20 years of experience developing strategies to achieve sustainability goals and translating complex
science to guide actionable outcomes, Cascadia and KCI are well positioned to assist the City of Fort Collins in
this effort. Core elements of our approach include:
Building on a strong foundation of research and assessment from City departments, other research
institutions, and Cascadia’s established database of sector-specific impacts and best practices.
Applying dynamic, efficient, and effective multi-stakeholder resilience planning approaches.
Employing tested facilitation techniques to elucidate a clear and agreed upon path forward for
achieving target adaptation and resilience outcomes.
Crafting written products that are clear, concise, visually appealing, and easily implemented.
Our expectation is that the end result of this process will be a product that clearly details the most significant
risks and priorities for City assets and residents; the extent of the key information gaps; and strategies, actions,
and timelines for action and further analysis. We believe our team possesses the right skills, knowledge, and
passion to deliver that product.
Approach
Our approach, detailed below, centers around building a unified and clear understanding and path forward
through inclusive and effective engagement. By emphasizing upfront planning, use of available data and
knowledge, and field-tested facilitation techniques, we will leverage valuable staff time and empower City
departments and residents to take action against extreme events.
Task 1. Development of a facilitated dynamic planning process
We will begin by convening a kick-off meeting with City of Fort Collins staff to solidify a common
understanding of project goals; gain a full understanding of work completed to date and available data and
resources; and agree on any study areas or systems that warrant special attention. Our goal will be to design a
8150 Extreme Event Preparedness Facilitation for the City of Fort Collins
Response from Cascadia Consulting Group, Inc. and Keys Consulting, Inc.
Proposal | page 2 of 10
facilitation approach that helps summarize and build from existing knowledge to lay out an actionable path
forward for the City.
We will work closely with City staff to outline a series of workshops and detail workshop attendees, agendas,
exercises, and preparatory materials. We will also seek to align our approach with existing City frameworks and
planning processes. Prior to the workshops, we will complement available regional research and data with
information from Cascadia’s pre-loaded database of climate impacts and best practices to compile a
comprehensive list of sector-specific impacts and potential department-focused resilience options. We will
categorize all identified impacts and options by corresponding departments and sectors to help focus
discussion. We anticipate the initial list to include a wide diversity of options, from planning adjustments, to
capital improvements, to public outreach initiatives.
Outcomes from this task will be a clear work plan for preparation and implementation of 2-3 extreme event-
focused workshops, as well as participant packets containing workshop agendas, science summaries, and
option lists.
Task 2. Workshop facilitation
Local climate resilience expert Patrick Keys with support from key Cascadia personnel will lead a series of
workshops from late October to early November 2015, prior to the holiday season. We will employ field-tested
methods to foster participation and make the science easily accessible, while respecting workshop
participants’ time and existing workloads. We envision the workshops as a combination of whole-group
discussions and department- or resource-focused breakout exercises to best utilize staff time and expertise.
Workshop topics will likely begin with higher-level overviews of key priorities, vulnerabilities, and goals; and
later build to definition of specific options, actions, and schedules. During the initial workshop, we will present
a brief summary of projected future extreme event impacts and scenarios. We will then use the pre-developed
option list as a basis to employ action matrices or planning visualization tools that help clarify and define
relationships between proposed actions, strategies, and desired goals and outcomes. Outlining these
relationships will enable subsequent discussions to stay on track and address key priorities.
The relationships defined during the initial workshop will inform subsequent workshops, during which
participants will begin prioritizing concrete actions and considering timelines for implementation. Each
identified response option will be discussed individually to assess feasibility, relevance, and effectiveness,
keeping in mind current City initiatives and priorities, unique windows of opportunity, and perceived potential
challenges. Options that are shortlisted through that discussion will be further examined during the final
workshop to determine short- and long-term next steps, responsible parties, resource needs, and schedules
for implementation. Particular attention will be paid to actions that could be tiered to account for different
impact thresholds, allow for flexibility or sequenced approaches, or can be readily integrated into existing
policies or plans.
Task 3. Approach identification and synthesis
The first outcome from the workshop series will be a concise summary of identified strategies, actions, gaps,
and next steps, organized by department and timeframe. The goal will be to provide a document that all
departments can use to understand overarching goals and responsibilities, begin implementation, and track
progress. It will also describe opportunities and next steps for funding, implementation, and further research.
8150 Extreme Event Preparedness Facilitation for the City of Fort Collins
Response from Cascadia Consulting Group, Inc. and Keys Consulting, Inc.
Proposal | page 3 of 10
Task 4. Written summary for public communication
The summary document produced in Task 3 will inform development of a second document that can be
shared publically to communicate City priorities and plans around extreme event response and resilience. Our
experienced team of written and visual communicators will craft a visually appealing one- to two-page
document that presents information in an actionable and easy-to-understand way.
Task 5. Schedule of actions, objectives, and required resources
The final output from the workshop series will be a comprehensive schedule for implementing identified
actions and next steps. The schedule’s design will facilitate updates and adjustments over time as the City
makes progress on identified actions. We will organize the schedule in a manner that depicts clear
responsibility, timeframes, and metrics of success, with an eye towards overarching goals and strategies that
will be met through these actions.
Task 6. Project Management
We have kept our team small to minimize resources spent on project management. Our approach relies on
clear communication and careful attention to budget. We will work closely with the City of Fort Collins to
develop a clear work plan for achieving project goals while respecting the available resources, and to ensure
that work progresses according to the agreed-upon timeline. We strive to identify and correct issues early, and
we use project management software to ensure that we have daily desktop access to current budget and cost
status. Cascadia also pays strict attention to quality control. Our editorial board checks every major document
before release, ensuring that each product upholds our clients’ standards of quality.
Sustainability
Cascadia Consulting Group is composed of individuals who feel strongly about the impact we have on human
and environmental health, so we place a high priority on ensuring that the internal choices of the company
reflect our values. Cascadia has five green initiatives and an active Green Team that evaluates and improves
company-wide sustainability practices:
Green Office Operations Initiative promotes water efficient fixtures and motion-sensor lighting.
Movement toward a Paperless Office reduces inefficient paper use with double-sided defaults and
100% post-consumer recycled paper printing.
Commuting and Transportation Initiative provides flexible workplace and videoconferencing options.
Recycling Brigade offers accessible infrastructure, clear signage, and centralized recovery options for
hard-to-recycle items.
Green Purchasing Initiative supports environmentally friendly businesses, products, and practices.
Keys Consulting (KCI) also strives diligently to conduct its business in a sustainable manner. Aside from
recycling, composting, and minimizing paper waste by working digitally whenever possible, KCI endeavors to
reduce carbon emissions by biking or telecommuting. To address other facets of sustainability, Keys Consulting
also aims to work with partners who address social justice issues.
8150 Extreme Event Preparedness Facilitation for the City of Fort Collins
Response from Cascadia Consulting Group, Inc. and Keys Consulting, Inc.
Proposal | page 4 of 10
2. Qualifications and Experience
Founded in 1993, Cascadia Consulting Group, Inc. brings 22 years of experience working with planners,
stakeholders, and scientists to develop solutions to community and environmental challenges. Cascadia’s
climate adaptation experts specialize in designing and facilitating participatory planning processes that
translate complex data into actionable information; identify adaptation options; evaluate environmental,
community, and economic implications; and build support and capacity for long-lasting resilience. Team
features include strong multi-stakeholder facilitation skills, up-to-date technical understanding of climate
science, and expertise in risk management and options analysis.
Keys Consulting Inc. (KCI), based in Colorado and founded by Patrick Keys in 2011, specializes in cutting-edge
environmental research, analysis, and facilitation. The firm has worked on-site throughout the US and
internationally, collaborating with a broad range of clients to design, develop, and implement community
responses to climate change impacts.
Project Experience
Below is a selection of projects that Cascadia and KCI have completed for clients with similar needs. We are
pleased to furnish additional references and/or work products upon request.
Climate Adaptation Facilitation and Planning | Yakama Nation | 2015
Cascadia is facilitating nine stakeholder workshops for the Yakama Nation in eastern Washington, and leading
participants through a process to prioritize adaptation measures and identify key uncertainties. The workshops
highlight vulnerabilities related to water, fisheries, forests, and wildlife. Cascadia is also helping to draft a
scoping report on potential climate change impacts on important tribal cultural and natural resources.
Reference: Yakama Nation Fisheries Resource Management Program | Bob Rose, Hydrology
Coordinator | (509) 945-0141 | rosb@yakamafish-nsn.gov
Climate Change Decision Support and Facilitation in Vietnam | USAID | 2012-2015
Cascadia and KCI worked together to empower planners to identify location-specific climate impacts and make
land-use decisions that improve the resilience of new infrastructure investments in Vietnam. The team
customized and deployed Cascadia’s Climate Impact Decision Support Tool, which provides climate impacts
information specific to the user’s timeframe and sector of interest, as well as tailored adaptation
recommendations. Cascadia and KCI provided expert guidance on climate science, facilitated conversations
around potential adaptation strategies, and compiled climate information into the customized tool.
Reference: Engility Corporation | Michael Cote, Senior Climate Adaptation Specialist | (703) 664-2802
| Michael.cote@engilitycorp.com
Work product: http://www.ccrdproject.com/adaptation-partnership/climate-impacts-decision-
support-tool
Climate Adaptation Planning in the Transportation Sector | Sound Transit | 2014-2017
Cascadia is supporting Sound Transit to assess, prioritize, and implement adaptation options to address climate
impacts on its infrastructure systems, from heat-induced rail buckling on light rail tracks to increased flooding
of transit station infrastructure. In 2014, Cascadia facilitated staff workshops to prioritize adaptation options,
conducted market research, and developed adaptation metrics for the agency’s Sustainability Plan. In 2015,
Cascadia is supporting formalization of an adaptation strategy and implementation of prioritized measures.
8150 Extreme Event Preparedness Facilitation for the City of Fort Collins
Response from Cascadia Consulting Group, Inc. and Keys Consulting, Inc.
Proposal | page 5 of 10
Reference: Sound Transit (Puget Sound Regional Transit Authority) (WA) | Amy Shatzkin, Sustainability
Manager | (206) 903-7454 | amy.shatzkin@soundtransit.org
Work product: Sound Transit Climate Adaptation Strategy still under development. Sustainability Plan
2015 Update available through the following link:
http://www.soundtransit.org/sites/default/files/documents/pdf/about/environment/20150122_sustai
nabilityplan.pdf
Climate Adaptation Research and Planning | City of Tucson, AZ | 2012-2013
The City of Tucson contracted Cascadia to lead a team of consultants in identifying, studying, and
communicating the potential impacts of climate change on the city. This work involved assessing the
vulnerability of human systems, infrastructure, and ecosystems to climate change and developing adaptation
strategies. Cascadia also led a collaborative process with the City and its stakeholders to develop a list of top
ten strategic next steps in climate adaptation planning.
Work product: See Appendix A
Washington Climate Change Impact Assessment | UW Climate Impacts Group | 2007-2009
Patrick Keys served as co-author for the Infrastructure section within the Washington Climate Change Impact
Assessment, which was part of a broader multi-sector analysis of climate change impacts in the State of
Washington. Other sectors included agriculture, energy, forests, human health, and water resources.
Reference: UW Climate Impacts Group | Amy Snover, Director | (206) 221-0222 | aksnover@uw.edu
Work product:
http://www.stillwatersci.com/resources/2010stormwater_infrastructure_climate_change.pdf
3. List of Project Personnel
Led by Cascadia Consulting Group, our proposed team provides leading expertise in climate science, climate
resilience planning, and facilitation. All our key personnel have worked together in the past to deliver highly
effective facilitation and climate adaptation planning products for our clients.
Andrea Martin | Project Manager, Facilitation Support
Andrea Martin, Senior Associate at Cascadia, will have primary responsibility for the contract. Andrea
specializes in developing and employing customized tools and techniques to support better decision-making.
Currently, she manages regional transit agency Sound Transit’s On-Call Sustainability Services contract, which
includes development and implementation of the agency’s Climate Adaptation Strategy. She also serves as
manager and technical lead for development of a climate adaptation planning tool for Public Works staff in
Snohomish County, WA.
Reference 1: Sound Transit | Amy Shatzkin, Sustainability Manager | (206) 903-7454 |
amy.shatzkin@soundtransit.org
Reference 2: Engility Corporation | Michael Cote, Senior Climate Adaptation Specialist | (703) 664-
2802 | Michael.cote@engilitycorp.com
Reference 3: Seattle Public Utilities | Philip Paschke, Commercial Water Conservation | (206) 684-
5883 | phil.paschke@seattle.gov
Patrick Keys | Local Lead Facilitator, Climate Science Advisor
Patrick Keys, Principal Consultant at Keys Consulting Inc. based in Fort Collins, CO, will serve as lead facilitator
and local liaison. He has 10 years of experience on the topic of climate change, ranging from policy
8150 Extreme Event Preparedness Facilitation for the City of Fort Collins
Response from Cascadia Consulting Group, Inc. and Keys Consulting, Inc.
Proposal | page 6 of 10
visualization, to on-site adaptation decision-support, to primary research on changes in extreme precipitation.
Patrick has both participated in and helped facilitate workshops on municipal responses to climate change
impacts. He has a strong background in communicating physical science concepts in non-technical language,
and is well connected to the climate and citizen science community in Fort Collins.
Reference 1: International Water Management Institute | Jennie Baron, Theme Leader – Sustainable
Agricultural Water Management | j.barron@cgiar.org
Reference 2: Climate Change Research Group | Bill Dougherty, Principal | billd@ccr-group.org
Reference 3: Institute for Social and Environmental Transition | Ken MacClune, CEO | ken@i-s-e-t.org
Nora Ferm | Strategic Advisor, Backup Facilitator
Nora Ferm, Senior Associate and Cascadia’s climate practice area lead, will serve as strategic advisor,
supervisor, and backup facilitator. Nora works with local tribes, counties, and municipalities to develop
stakeholder-led resilience initiatives. Prior to joining Cascadia, Nora was at the U.S. Agency for International
Development, where she led the Global Climate Change Office's work on risk management, innovative finance,
and urban resilience, and advised on the design of adaptation programs in more than 10 countries. Nora also
managed the Climate Resilient Infrastructure Services program, which worked with stakeholders in five cities
to make key services like water provision and waste management more resilient to climate change impacts.
Reference 1: San Juan Islands Conservation District | Linda Lyshall, District Manager | (360) 378-6621
| linda@sjislandscd.org
Reference 2: Hood Canal Coordinating Council | Haley Harguth, Watershed Planning & Policy
Coordinator | (360) 328-4625 | hharguth@hccc.wa.gov
Reference 3: The Madrona Institute | Ronald Zee, CEO | info@madrona.org
4. Organizational Chart / Proposed Project Team
Nora Ferm, Strategic Advisor Andrea Martin, Project Manager Patrick Keys, Lead Facilitator
Nora will provide strategic
advice, review, and support for
development of the facilitation
process, associated materials,
and resultant products.
Andrea, point of contact for the City of
Fort Collins and primarily responsible
for the contract, will coordinate the
facilitation process and lead
development of workshop products.
Patrick, a local of Fort Collins,
will lead on-the-ground
facilitation work and support
development of accompanying
planning products.
5. Availability
Below is the anticipated availability of project personnel to participate in this project in the context of other
commitments, as well as our team’s availability for an on-site interview.
8150 Extreme Event Preparedness Facilitation for the City of Fort Collins
Response from Cascadia Consulting Group, Inc. and Keys Consulting, Inc.
Proposal | page 7 of 10
Project Personnel Project Availability Interview Availability
Andrea Martin
Project Manager
Fully available to lead and participate in all project activities.
Support facilitator.
Available for call-in.
Patrick Keys
Lead Facilitator
Fully available with the exception of tentative travel on Oct.
27 through Nov. 6. Will utilize back-up facilitators as needed.
Available for on-site
interview.
Nora Ferm
Strategic Advisor
Available as-needed to provide strategic advisory support
throughout the project time frame. Back-up facilitator.
Available for call-in.
6. Schedule of Rates
The table below details a schedule of hourly rates that will apply for the tasks described in Section 1. We
estimate $31,525 in labor costs and $1,675 in expenses, totaling $33,200 for project completion.
Task Personnel Hourly Rate Est. Hours Est. Cost
1. Development of a facilitated dynamic
planning process
A. Martin $110 40 $4,400
P. Keys $75 48 $3,600
N. Ferm $165 6 $990
2. Workshop facilitation (assumes 3
workshops)
A. Martin $110 32 $3,520
P. Keys $75 36 $2,700
N. Ferm $165 12 $1,980
3. Approach identification and synthesis A. Martin $110 24 $2,640
P. Keys $75 24 $1,800
N. Ferm $165 8 $1,320
4. Written summary for public
communications
A. Martin $110 24 $2,640
P. Keys $75 16 $1,200
N. Ferm $165 2 $330
5. Schedule of actions, objectives, and
required resources
A. Martin $110 16 $1,760
P. Keys $75 12 $900
N. Ferm $165 2 $330
6. Project Management A. Martin $110 10 $1,100
P. Keys $75 2 $150
N. Ferm $165 1 $165
Vendor Statement
I have read and understand the specifications and requirements for this Request for Proposal and I agree to comply
with such specifications and requirements. I further agree that the method of award is acceptable to my company.
I also agree to complete PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT with the City of Fort Collins within 30 days of notice
of award. If contract is not completed and signed within 30 days, City reserves the right to cancel and award to the
next highest rated firm.
FIRM NAME: Cascadia Consulting Group, Inc.
ADDRESS: 1109 First Avenue, Suite 400
EMAIL ADDRESS: andream@cascadiaconsulting.com PHONE: (206) 449-1112
BIDDER’S NAME: Andrea Martin, Senior Associate
8150 Extreme Event Preparedness Facilitation for the City of Fort Collins
Response from Cascadia Consulting Group, Inc. and Keys Consulting, Inc.
Proposal | page 8 of 10
8150 Extreme Event Preparedness Facilitation for the City of Fort Collins
Response from Cascadia Consulting Group, Inc. and Keys Consulting, Inc.
Proposal | page 9 of 10
8150 Extreme Event Preparedness Facilitation for the City of Fort Collins
Response from Cascadia Consulting Group, Inc. and Keys Consulting, Inc.
Proposal | page 10 of 10
Appendix A.
City of Tucson Climate Adaptation Project Summary
Report and Select Attachments
Summary Information
City
of
Tucson
Climate
Adaptation
Project
DECEMBER 2012
Summary
Information
|
City
of
Tucson
Climate
Adaptation
Project
|
Page
2
Contents
Connecting
Adaptation
Priorities
to
General
Plan
Objectives
......................................................
3
Visualizations
of
Exposure
and
Vulnerability
............................................................................
6
Listing of Attachments
Summaries
of
Climate
Related
Vulnerability
................................................................................
9
Vulnerability
Primer
2012
.........................................................................................................
9
Sector
Specific
Vulnerability
Summaries
...................................................................................
9
Vulnerability
Assessment
Background
Information
....................................................................
10
Vulnerability
&
Adaptation
Criteria
from
CCC
Summary
Information
|
City
of
Tucson
Climate
Adaptation
Project
|
Page
3
Connecting Adaptation Priorities to General Plan Objectives
We
surveyed
the
CCC
to
see
how
a
broader
set
of
community
goals
might
be
used
to
guide
the
prioritization
of
climate
adaptation
strategies
and
actions.
The
City’s
General
Plan
update
(a.k.a.
“Plan
Tucson”)
offered
a
source
of
possible
objectives
for
the
CCC
members
to
consider.
While
Summary
Information
|
City
of
Tucson
Climate
Adaptation
Project
|
Page
4
The
above
information
could
be
used
to
construct
a
prioritization
scheme
using
a
method
such
as
that
presented
to
the
CCC
during
the
2012
summer
and
fall
workshops
(see
Viguie
&
Hallegatte,
Nature
Climate
Change,
May
2012)
that
allows
multiple
objectives
to
be
jointly
considered
in
establishing
priorities.
Summary
Information
|
City
of
Tucson
Climate
Adaptation
Project
|
Page
5
Table
3.
Tucson
candidate
strategy
ideas
(TOP
10)
Strategy
ID Brief
Description Avg.
Score
Strategy
H5 Updated
Urban
Forestry
Plan 3.00
Strategy
B3 Water
Vulnerability
Assessment 3.00
Strategy
I3 Critical
Infrastructure 3.00
Strategy
P1 Planting
Guide 3.00
Strategy
P2 Use
Earthworks
for
Water
Harvesting 3.00
Strategy
P6
Assess
Parks
and
Open
Spaces
for
Alternative
Values,
such
as
cooling
centers. 3.00
Strategy
Summary
Information
|
City
of
Tucson
Climate
Adaptation
Project
|
Page
6
Visualizations of Exposure and Vulnerability
We
have
worked
with
U
of
A
staff
to
develop
some
initial
visualizations
of
both
heat
and
flood
related
exposure
and
vulnerabilities.
Although
they
continue
to
be
refined,
examples
of
both
types
are
shown
in
Figures
1
thru
4
below.
Visualizations
such
as
these
may
be
highly
Summary
Information
|
City
of
Tucson
Climate
Adaptation
Project
|
Page
7
Figure
2.
Overview
of
flood
exposure
and
community
stress
index
zones
Figure
3.
Zoom
area
of
flood
exposure
and
community
stress
index
zones
; ^
V
K
")
«¬77
«¬86
VU210
WI10 I10 E
NI19 I19 S
VALENCIA RD
22ND ST
GRANT RD
SPEEDWAY BL
ALVERNON WY
MISSION RD
SWAN RD
AJO WY
PARK AV
IRVINGTON RD
12TH AV
STONE AV
1ST AV
BROADWAY BL
AJO HY
6TH AV
Summary
Information
|
City
of
Tucson
Climate
Adaptation
Project
|
Page
8
Figure
4.
Overview
of
temperature
exposure
and
community
stress
index
zones
This
remainder
of
this
document
provides
a
listing
and
high-‐level
summary
of
the
key
products,
documents,
and
materials
developed
for
the
City
of
Tucson
and
the
CCC
as
part
of
the
Tucson
Climate
Adaptation
Project.
In
addition
Summary
Information
|
City
of
Tucson
Climate
Adaptation
Project
|
Page
9
Listing of Attachments & Document Summaries
Attachment A: Climate Strategy Matrix
This
excel
spreadsheet
is
the
repository
for
all
the
candidate
climate
adaptation
strategy
descriptions
and
key
attribute
information
for
the
various
concepts
that
were
discussed
and
developed
during
the
October
22nd,
2012
CCC
workshop.
Attachment B: Vulnerability Primer 2012
This
1-‐page
document
provides
a
high-‐level
overview
of
how
our
team
Summary
Information
|
City
of
Tucson
Climate
Adaptation
Project
|
Page
10
Vulnerability Assessment Background Information
Attachment D: Vulnerability & Adaptation Criteria from CCC Workshop
This
excel
spread
sheet
provides
a
summary
of
some
of
the
work
done
by
the
CCC
during
a
workshop
to
identify
the
key
“issue
criteria”
and
“adaptation
criteria”
to
be
consider
for
each
sector
when
assessing
vulnerability
and
developing
adaptation
strategies.
The
relative
importance
of
each
Summary
Information
|
City
of
Tucson
Climate
Adaptation
Project
|
Page
11
Other Project Related Material
Attachment H: Observed and Projected Climate Impacts for the City of Tucson
This
report,
prepared
by
Taryn
Kong
and
Gregg
Garfin
of
CLIMAS
at
the
University
of
Arizona
provides
a
summary
of
the
key
historical
trends
and
potential
future
climate
exposures
for
the
City
of
Tucson.
Development
of
this
document
was
coordinated
with
the
consultant
team
project
manager,
Summary
Information
|
City
of
Tucson
Climate
Adaptation
Project
|
Page
12
Prepared
for
the
City
of
Tucson
by:
Cascadia
Consulting
Group
1109
First
Ave.,
Suite
400
Seattle,
WA
98101
(206)
343-‐9759
www.cascadiaconsulting.com
Acknowledgements
Cascadia
would
like
to
thank
our
partners
on
this
project
at
Adaptation
International,
The
Stockholm
Environment
Institute,
and
local
Tucson
team
members
Lee
Alter
of
the
Climate
Vulnerability
Primer August,
2012
I. V
ulnerability combination Climate
of
to
two
Vulnerability
climate
key
factors:
change
and
1)
Climate
extreme
Exposure
weather
and
events
2)
Sensitivity.
is
due
to
a
Vulnerability
=
(Potential
Climate
Exposure)
x
(Sensitivity)
Climate flooding, importance sector example,
has
Exposure
drought,
the
depends
throughout
transportation
–
and
Extreme
on
wildfire
the
Tucson.
climate
weather
sector
are
The
impact
the
in
related
some
Tucson’s wide
variety
households Households
and
range
represent
of
climate
Climate
a
diverse
related
Vulnerability
mix
vulnerabilities.
of
individuals
Summary
The
and
households
families August,
with
sector
2012
a
focuses I. E
xtreme climate Key
impacts
on
weather
Tucson’s
Climate
of
related
greatest
residents
Related
events,
importance
Vulnerabilities
and
particularly
residential
to
households
extreme
housing.
throughout
heat,
and
flooding
the
City.
are
the
Climate Vulnerability Potential
Vulnerability
=
(Potential
The related County
Pima
hazards
has
County
a
very
(5%
Hazard
high
exceedance
probability
Mitigation
any
of
Plan
given
reaching
(2007)
year)
temperatures
assessed ,
and
determined
frequency
classified
that
of
the
as
heat
dangerous researchers summer T
here
are
days
also
or
at
even
that
many
the
will
U
extremely
of
potential
exceed
A
suggests
dangerous
110oF
indirect
a
significant
(approximately
impacts
(115+
increase
of ).2
also and H
ousehold
found
examined
that
sensitivities
the
poor
correlation
and
vary
minority
substantially
between
neighborhoods
heat
across
and
socio-‐
Tucson.
were economic
significantly
In
2000,
characteristics
7.
hotter.2%
of 6
the
population income (not during 59,
have 360
extreme
constitutes
households)
the
was
ability
over
heat
40,
to
events.
65
had
relocate 352
(34,
an
households,
The
income 828
or
people)
Neighborhood
pay
of
for
<
30.
$.7
additional 20,
Lower assistance events
income
and
are
other
vulnerable
residents
climate
and
related
to
changes
children
changes.
in
already
food
Since
prices
dependent
Tucson
due
to
imports
on
extreme
emergency
about
weather
97%
food
of
its global
food
market
supply,
forces
local
food
for
the
security
foreseeable
will
be
future.
dependent 18
on
regional,
national,
and
Flooding Extreme residences, upon
which
precipitation
stormwater
households
events
management
depend.
and
For certain and
those
the
sections
resources
households
of
of
Tucson
the
affected,
residents
have
the
a
substantial
(
effects financial
of
wildfire
&
risk.
social
The
can
resources)
type
be
severe,
of
neighborhood
will
though,
ultimately
only
determine speaking, to
wildfire
the
their
are
outlying
more
ability
affluent
areas
to
respond
in
and
and
thus,
to
around
and
have
recover
Tucson
a
relatively
from
that
wildfires.
have
greater
a
greater
adaptive
Generally
exposure
capacity
(case I
V. T
here vulnerability i.e.,
they
and
are Possible
non-‐
have
a
number
assessment recoverable
the
Next
resources
of
Steps
next
and
damage
steps
to
identify
rebuild)
that
is
certainly
the
could .
However,
specific
be
likely
used
neighborhoods
this
in
to
some
further
is
not
cases.
universally
refine
where
the
it
the
would
be resilience.
most • Review flood layers
beneficial
zone
for
and
the
and
to
augment
City
target
above)
of
efforts
Tucson
(
and if
necessary)
medium-‐
to
to
reduce
ensure
mapping risk
vulnerability
they
(500-‐
reflect
of year
“high-‐
current
/
and
0.risk” 2%
increase
flood
knowledge
(100-‐
zone)
climate year
/
and 1%
• • • data. Review/examine layer. Look neighborhoods Assess changes
in
the
more
may
in creation
current
combination
be
detail
most
warranted.
of
efficacy
urban
at
at
potential
risk
with
forest
of
and
warning
Pima
equity
their
canopy
County
ability
systems
impacts
and
Neighborhood
to
urban
to
respond.
of
determining
wildfire.
heat
island
stress
Consider
what
maps
index
and
GIS
floods
systems
can
cause
and
other
erosion
types
and
of
damage
infrastructure
to
I
n a Agua (Some Pantano,
population
Tucson,
Caliente
areas
Santa
there
along
of
and
25,
Cruz,
are
the
& 841
6,
Tanque
Santa
Rincon 775
and
residential
a
Cruz
Verde
potential
Creek
and
currently
are
Rilliato
buildings
exposure
also
vulnerable)
Rivers
have
in
of
the
the
$
have 1.
100-‐
highest 2
Billion..20
very year
risk.
steep 19
flood
Areas
Other
banks
plain
such
basins
with
with
as
channels security may S
ensitivity
erode
to
running
will
banks
property
vary
and
40
based
owners
feet
endanger
below
on
near
the
upland
the
individual
those
banks.
properties.
banks
This
household’s
where
may 21
provide
in-‐fact
ability
high
a
false
to
velocity
prepare
sense
flows
of
for
flood areas relatively
events
of
the
large
city
and
at-‐
that
the risk
Neighborhood
have
population
increased
in
Stress
susceptibility.
the
"Black
Index
Wash"
is
a
For
useful
area
example,
indicator
in
the
there
Southwest
for
is
those
a
corner Caliente substantial A
wareness
of
and
the
of
adaptive
Tanque
city.
climate 22
By
capacity.
Verde
hazards
comparison,
areas 23
and
are
emergency
relatively
also
exposed
warning
affluent
to
flood
households
systems
risk,
but
can
in
they
help
the
have
people
Agua
avoid National can
frequently
some
Weather
of
the
provide
most
Services
advanced
hazardous
operates
notice
risks
a
flood
associated
of
flood
and
flash
events
with
flood
to
those
allow
warning
events.
people
system
The
to
move
and
18 19 20 21 22 23 24
Garfin,
Pima
Personal
Pima
Personal
Ibid.
Pima out W
ildfire Wildfire, structures
County
County
County
of
G.
communication,
communication,
harms ,
&
Kong,
in
Hazard
Hazard
Hazard
and
addition
way.
T.
human ,
Mitigation
Mitigation
Mitigation
2012. 24
Pima
Pima
to
safety,
the
County
County
Plan,
Plan,
Plan,
direct
2007
2007
2007
creates
Flood
Flood
and
Control
Control
local
immediate
and
Meeting,
Meeting,
often
physical
10/
10/
acute 18/18/11 11
risk
air
quality
posed
to
hazards.
The 8% 000.
of
lowest
Stress
the 8,9
cooling
Lower
households
20%
Index
of
income
or
developed
Tucson
water
in
Tucson
groups
supplies
household
by
Pima
may
County I
n
Arizona,
provides
22.7%
an
of
indication
the
population
of
this
under
differential
65
years
sensitivity.
old
does 10
not
have
health
insurance census vulnerable found came
from
that
data
coverage.
among
older
population.
for
Tucson,
adults
Arizona 11
Superimposing 12
aged
104,
A
residents,
study 000
65
years
people
on
mortality
37.
or
the
would 2%
older.
state
of
fatalities
due
fall
average
Among
under
to
extreme
immigrants,
due
on
this
the
to
category,
heat
heat
2010
in
exposure
71%
population
Arizona
as
of
a
excessive The
direct
heat
impacts
deaths
of
extreme
occurred
heat
in
young
are
only
adults
one
aged
concern
20-‐44.
for 13
households.
Warming possible water
is
needed
dengue
temperatures
for
fever)
mosquito
due
have
to
the
life-‐
warmer
potential cycle,
summer
so
drier
for
increases
temperatures,
summers
in
could
West
though
decrease
Nile
Virus
sufficient
this
(and
impact.immitis, conditions Households 14
especially
There
(
will probable)
also
will
with
also
experience 15.
wetter
be
a
potential
fall
summer
(possible)
increase
and
and
fall
in
increases
drier
"valley
spring/
fever"
in
ozone summer
due
to
C.
as developed 1992-‐Section. 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
Dr.
Pima
U.
Pima
The
Cohen
U.
Mrela,
Garfin,
Ibid.
Ibid.
Ibid.
part S. S. concentrations air growing
Eisenberg,
Census
Census 2009.
Pima
County
County
of
quality
Arizona
C.
and
G.
the
in ,
Torres,,
County
Pubic
&
Bureau,
Makuc,
1983
City
Bureau,
Kong,
Hazard
Hazard
season
2011,
Department
will
of
Health
to .
Neighborhood
C.
Tucson’s
T.
2008
2011
predict
increase
Issue
2011 ,
Mitigation
Mitigation
ranging
2010. ,
2012.
and
Services.
Brief
higher
Deaths
of
neighborhood
Sustainable
Health
from
health
Plan,
Plan,
on
Bureau
Stress
Heat,
from
levels
2007
2007
Services.
4
impacts.
to
Index
Exposure
Land
Public
of
need.
11
of
Public
Use
is
carbon
parts-‐
Health,
a
set
Code
Health
to
Aeroallergens
Excessive
of per-‐
and
dioxide
Integration
27
Statists.
socio-‐
Sustainable billion
Natural
are economic
Health
(
Project. ppb)
increases
also
Heat
Zoning
Status .
an
indicators 16
Occurring
This
area
Code
and
due
decreasing
Vital
of
Requirements,
initially
to
in
concern.
longer
Statistics
Arizona, 17
increasing
Also,
three
analysis
in
the
additional
temperatures.
number
conducted
weeks)
of
by .3
Extreme produced disproportionately
heat
healthy
may
food.
add
affect
to
It
lower-‐
social
will
increase
isolation income
the
segments
and
costs
potentially
of
of
cooling,
the
population
reduce
which
access
will
absent
to
locally
outside accompany increased
financial
cooling
the
anticipated
assistance.
costs.
changes
However,
in
climate;
decreased
thus,
winter
somewhat
heating
offsetting
costs
will
the
also
A
lthough uncertain,
local
increases
changes
in
flood
in
precipitation
intensity
and
due
duration
to
climate
will
change
harm
individuals,
are
somewhat
displace increase
people,
demand
damage
for
emergency
buildings,
services.
increase
repair
and
maintenance
costs,
and
Increasing temperatures, season III.
length Sensitivities
wildfire
is
increased
expected
risk
and
severity
to
tree
increase
mortality
and
by
duration
20
is
days
expected
of
per
droughts,
year
due
by
to
and
2070.
higher
disease. 4
Fire
Extreme A health mortality
2006
states
update
Heat
risks
that:
of
from
the
“Climate
climate-‐
U.S.
National
change sensitive
Assessment
is
expected
health
determinants
to
of
increase
climate
change
morbidity
and
outcomes
and
and
human
such
as
extreme in the
future
effectiveness
heat
years
events
will
of
increase
identifying,
and
flooding.
overall
implementing,
A
vulnerability
larger
and
and
relatively
to
monitoring
health
older
risks,
appropriate
U.
depending S.
population
on
adaptation the Arizona.
urban
Research
heat
measures.
island
conducted
effect ”5
Direct
according
in
exposure
Phoenix
to
Dr.
examined
to
extreme
Eisenberg
heat
heat
at
islands
the
will
University
be
and
accentuated
compared
of
by
heat 5-‐was day
highest
in
heat
eight
wave
in
urban
the
in
neighborhood
2003
neighborhoods.
varied
4°
that
Fahrenheit
The
was
highest
most
between
densely
average
those
populated.
temperatures
neighborhood
This
during
study
and
a
March United Perspectives. 2 3 4 5
Pima
Garfin,
Ibid.
Ebi,
K.
County
29,
States: ,
G.
Mills,
2012. ,
&
114
Kong,
Hazard
An
D.,
Update
Smith,
(9)
T.
Mitigation
1318-‐,
2012,
J.
on ,
Grambsch, 1324
the
Observed
Plan,
Results
pg
1322.
2007
A.
and
of ,
2006.
the
Projected
U.
Climate S.
National
Climate
Change
Assessment.
Impacts
and
Human
for
Environmental
the
Health
City
of
Impacts
Tucson,
Health
in
DRAFT,
the
Ranking
climate
exposure)
x
(Sensitivity)
Climate
Exposure
Sensitivity
Slight Moderate High Severe
Very
High
High
Medium
T
he
=
key
Extreme Low
climate
Heat
related
=
Flooding
vulnerabilities
=
Wildfire
identified
1
are
as
follows:
• • • • Residents Residents serious Residential risk) Increasing degrees
flood
medical
Fahrenheit.
with
with
zone
frequency
buildings
limited
sub-‐
and
conditions, standard
“moderate
and
of
mobility
extreme
people
the
housing
elderly,
risk”
and
heat
located
health
(
and
days 0.
and 2%
in
limited
with
issues
annual
the
the
“high-‐
extremely
temperatures
resources
including
risk) risk”
flood
young.
(
those 1%
zones.
over
annual
with
115
II. Both sensitive standard
extreme Description
populations
housing,
heat
with
and
of
such
key
flooding,
limited
as
climate
the
mobility
expected
elderly
impacts
and
or
to
very
low
worsen,
of
concern
access
young,
will
to
those
directly
transportation,
living
impact
in
sub-‐
as
well
as services concern,
those
such
in
are
the
expected
air
lower
conditioning.
income
to
lessen
groups
Periods
over
with
time.
of
extreme
less
ability
cold,
to
pay
a
current
for
additional
issue
of
1
Icons
from
www.glyphicons.com
amount
climate
of
parts
concern
events,
change
of
Climate
of
Tucson
particularly
and
impacts
Exposure
on
has
geography.
of
a
extreme
greatest
much
a
particular
greater
For
heat,
exposure S
ensitivity sector and
quality
will
to
-‐
respond
of
Takes
flooding
infrastructure
into
to
(
a i.
account e.
particular
higher
for
existing
flood
the
climate
built
risk)
factors
environment,
related
than
and
other
impact.
condition
areas.
or
socio-‐
Examples
to
determine economic
include
status
how
age
a
and Capacity particular I
I. F
or the climate
one
each
health Climate
exposure
below.
and
sector,
climate/
conditions
determine
The
Vulnerability
the
and weather
vertical
vulnerability
the
for
the
households.
horizontal
event.
placement
ability
Ranking
for
of
placement
each
sectors
These
of
the
climate
elements
to
icons
indicates
respond
impact
indicates
relate
(
the
is or
shown
adapt)
the
to
sensitivity.
Adaptive
relative
in
to
a
a
table
level
The
like
of
color relative resilience
coding
importance
in
that
goes
area.
from
of
taking
Green
green
action
(
and lower
yellow
to
left)
reduce
areas
to
red
vulnerability
have
(upper
low
right)
exposure
and
and
increase
reflects
and/or
the
low
sensitivity high prioritization Potential
exposure
Climate
and
efforts.
and/
thus
are or
high
not
sensitivity.
of
immediate
These
concern.
tables
Orange
are
provided
and
red
to
areas
assist
have
in
Exposure
Sensitivity
Slight Moderate High Severe
Very
High
High
Medium
III. Throughout climate
=
Extreme Climate
impacts Low
the
Heat
Impact
summaries
of
concern
=
Icons
Flooding
for
you
Tucson.
will
see
=
Wildfire
the
following
=
Drought
icons
to
represent
the
key
Western
Climate
Initiative,
and
Ralph
Marra
of
SouthWest
Water
Resources
Consulting
for
their
various
and
significant
contributions.
We
would
also
like
to
extend
a
special
thanks
to
Gregg
Garfin
and
his
collaborators
Taryn
Kong,
Carlos
Mauricio
Carrillo
Cruz,
Denise
Garcia,
and
others
at
the
University
of
Arizona
for
their
creativity,
esprit
de
corps,
commitment,
and
untiring
efforts
to
supply
the
best
available
climate
information
for
this
project,
as
well
as
their
unique
insights.
Finally,
to
Leslie
Ethen
of
the
City
of
Tucson,
who
oversaw
this
project,
and
to
the
members
of
the
City’s
Climate
Change
Committee
and
a
variety
of
City
and
County
staff
(too
many
to
be
named
here),
who
together
inspired
our
team
by
their
vision
and
commitment
to
their
community’s
future
vitality
in
the
face
of
increasingly
daunting
climate
related
challenges.
Spencer
Reeder.
Attachment I: City of Tucson Climate Adaptation Planning Regulator Review
This
document
provides
a
thorough
examination
of
the
potential
barriers
and
opportunities
related
to
incorporating
climate
change
adaptation
actions
and
planning
into
the
existing
regulatory
framework
in
Tucson,
Pima
County,
and
to
lesser
extent,
the
state
of
Arizona.
A
few
outstanding
issues
remained
during
our
research,
so
this
document
is
provided
in
MSWord
mark-‐up
form
so
you
can
see
firsthand
some
of
the
ongoing
points
of
discussion
in
its
annotated
form.
Attachment J: Tucson Strategy Cross-Reference with Regulator Review
This
document
examines
and
discusses
a
few
of
the
specific
adaptation
strategies
within
the
context
of
the
issues
identified
within
the
Regulatory
Review
Document.
Attachment K: Tucson Climate Phase II Summary
An
interim
project
summary,
this
document
highlights
the
ongoing
process
of
identifying
climate
related
vulnerabilities
for
the
City
of
Tucson.
It
describes
the
proposed
process
used
to
identify
those
vulnerabilities,
some
key
potential
areas
of
concern,
and
a
few
potential
areas
for
where
developing
adaptation
strategies
may
be
particularly
valuable.
This
document
is
included
primarily
for
completeness.
Some
information
may
have
changed
between
this
document
and
the
final
vulnerability
summaries
described
above
based
on
additional
comments
by
the
City
of
Tucson
or
the
Climate
Change
Committee
or
analysis
of
additional
or
new
information.
Attachment L: PowerPoint Presentation from June 14th Workshop
These
slides
provide
a
good
overview
of
the
project
motivation
and
highlight
key
findings
including
a
good
summary
of
the
vulnerability
assessment.
Attachment M: PAG memo - Possible Impacts of Climate Change on
Transportation Planning
This
is
a
memo
from
Susanne
Cotty
of
PAG
that
describes
current
activities
and
programs
with
a
nexus
to
climate
change
including
Urban
Heat
Island
and
Flooding,
and
a
short
description
of
perceived
vulnerabilities.
The
memo
also
discusses
a
few
of
the
tradeoffs
and
cost
issues
that
need
to
be
weighed
when
considering
certain
strategies.
item
is
shown
with
the
use
of
asterisks
(more
*
=
more
important)
and
was
determined
by
the
CCC
using
a
dot
voting
process.
Issue
Criteria
–
Are
the
key
issues
of
concern
that
should
be
used
when
evaluating
the
importance
of
each
potential
climate
impact.
Adaptation
Criteria
–
Are
the
key
criteria
that
should
be
used
when
identifying
and
prioritizing
potential
adaptation
strategies.
Attachment E: Tucson Climate Vulnerability Analysis Issue Rankings by Sector
This
excel
file,
comprised
of
a
number
of
different
spreadsheets,
contains
the
key
foundation
information
used
to
construct
the
sector
specific
vulnerability
rankings.
The
“cover
sheet”
tab
provides
a
high
level
graphical
overview
of
normalized
climate
related
sensitivities
by
climate
impact
for
each
sector.
The
subsequent
spreadsheets
in
this
file
provide
the
detailed
information
used
to
construct
the
sensitivities
and
sector
based
vulnerabilities.
Each
sector
has
a
summary
page
(tab)
that
lists
the
potential
climate
impacts
in
the
far
left
column
(extreme
heat,
extreme
cold,
flooding,
drought,
wind,
monsoon,
and
wildfire).
The
key
secondary
affects
for
each
climate
exposure
are
described
in
the
second
column.
The
criteria
listed
along
the
top
are
consolidated
and
re-‐worded
criteria
based
on
the
inputs
of
the
Climate
Change
Committee.
Each
specific
climate
impact
is
evaluated
against
each
criterion
on
a
sliding
scale
(0
to
3
points
based
on
increasing
severity
or
extent).
The
points
are
added
together
and
totaled
in
the
far
right
column.
The
sensitivity
for
each
climate
impact
is
identified
and
color
coded
as
either
low
(green),
medium
(yellow),
or
high
(red).
Finally,
the
last
three
tabs
of
the
sheet
provide
information
on
how
we
condensed
and
reworded
the
criteria
developed
by
the
Climate
Change
Committee
to
make
them
consistent
across
sectors
where
possible
and
how
the
sensitivity
ranks
were
normalized.
Attachment G: Example of GIS Based Vulnerability Analysis
This
document
provides
an
example
of
how
Geographic
Information
System
(GIS)
analysis
could
be
used
to
combine
climate
related
exposure
(flood
risk)
and
local
sensitivity
(critical
infrastructure
location
or
neighborhood
stress
index)
to
identify
key
geographically
specific
areas
of
vulnerability.
evaluated
climate
related
exposures
and
sensitivity
to
determine
climate
vulnerabilities.
(Vulnerability)
=
(Climate
Exposure)
x
(Sensitivity)
It
also
describes
the
climate
vulnerability
matrix
used
in
each
of
the
sector
specific
climate
vulnerability
summaries.
Attachment C: Sector Specific Vulnerability Summaries
Our
team
created
six
sector
specific
vulnerability
summaries.
Each
summary
describes
the
climate
related
vulnerabilities
for
that
sector
and
show
the
relative
vulnerability
for
each
of
the
climate
impacts
of
concern
in
a
climate
vulnerability
matrix.
The
summaries
also
describe
the
key
climate
impacts
of
concern,
sensitivity,
and
potential
next
steps.
The
six
sector
summaries
cover:
⎯ C1:
Household
⎯ C2:
Business
⎯ C3:
Infrastructure
⎯ C4:
Transportation
⎯ C5:
Parks
and
Open
Space
⎯ C6:
Natural
Ecosystems
to
the
short
descriptions
found
below,
the
full
documents
are
available
in
separate
attachments.
Surface Temperature Variations
and Averages in Downtown Tucson
0 0.1 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
Miles
I- 19
I- 10
I- 19
I- 10
I- 10
I- 19
I- 19
I- 10
Stress zone mean temp (F)
Value
High : 55.1961
Low : 43.682
Downtown_extent
I-10 Interstate
Highways
Roads
Landsat Surface Temp (F)
May 28, 2008
Value
High : 98.0139
Low : -79.5931
Landsat Surface Temp (F)
Mean Landsat Surface Temp (F) by Stress Index Neighborhoods
Ü
CRAYCROFT RD
NOGALES HY
PRINCE RD
SILVERBELL RD
DREXEL RD
CAMPBELL AV
KINO PW
ORACLE RD
BILBY RD
ROGER RD
CARDINAL AV
ANKLAM RD
FORT LOWELL RD
BENSON HY
STARR PASS BL
GOLF LINKS RD
COUNTRY CLUB RD
OLD VAIL CONNECTION RD
PALO VERDE RD
EUCLID AV
GRANDE AV
GREASEWOOD RD
LOS REALES RD
ROMERO RD
CAMINO DE OESTE
GORET RD
LA CHOLLA BL
IRONWOOD HILL DR
HUGHES ACCESS RD
RUTHRAUFF RD
SWEETWATER DR
SAN XAVIER RD
NEBRASKA ST
TETAKUSIM RD
DODGE BL
6TH ST
DREXEL RD
BENSON HY
CAMPBELL AV
SAN XAVIER RD
WETMORE RD
LOS REALES RD
FORT LOWELL RD
SWAN RD
6TH AV
¦¨§19
Tucson High Stress Neighborhoods Affected
by High Flood Zones
0 1 2
Miles
Focus 1
Focus 3
Focus 2
Ü
*High Risk Stress Neighborhoods include the following categories: Highest, High, and Medium-High Risk
Data Sources: Pima County GIS Library- 2000 Stress Neighborhood Index (2002); FEMA 5-year flood estimates for 2005; FEMA 10-year
flood estimates for 2011; FEMA 100-year estimates for 2003, 2008; FEMA 500-year flood estimates for 2006
Barraza Aviation Highway
W Ajo Way
^ El Con Shopping Center
; James A Walsh U.S. Courthouse
") Reid Park
V Tucson Mall
K Tucson Medical Center
Interstates
Highways
Roads
High Stress
Medium-High Stress
FocusZones Areas Flood
Ü
^
«¬77
«¬77
«¬210
GRANT RD
STONE AV
SPEEDWAY BL
PRINCE RD
1ST AV
ROGER RD
CAMPBELL AV
ORACLE RD
FORT LOWELL RD
ALVERNON WY
COUNTRY CLUB RD
EUCLID AV
RIVER RD
ROMERO RD
MIRACLE MILE
SAINT MARYS RD
KINO PW
SILVERBELL RD
FLOWING WELLS RD
DODGE BL
6TH ST
DRACHMAN ST
¦¨§10
Tucson High Stress Neighborhoods and Flood Zones: Focus Area 3
0 0.5 1
Miles
*High Risk Stress Neighborhoods include the following categories: Highest, High, and Medium-High Risk
Data Sources: Pima County GIS Library - 2000 Stress Neighborhood Index (2002); FEMA 5-year flood estimates for 2005; FEMA 10-year flood estimates for 2011; FEMA 100-year
estimates for 2003, 2008; FEMA 500-year flood estimates for 2006
Tucson Overview
^ El Con Shopping Center
Interstates
Highways
Roads
Medium-High Stress
Very High Flood Risk
High Flood Risk
Medium Flood Risk
FEMA Unmapped areas
Focus 3 Area
effective
components
of
future
outreach
efforts.
Figure
1.
Critical
infrastructure
and
flood
exposure
$1
$1
$1
$1
$1
u "
u "
u"u "
u "
u "
u "
u "
u "
u "
u "
u "
u "u "
u "
u "
u "
u "
v®
v®
$+
$+
$+
$+
$+
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
nn
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
22ND ST
BROADWAY BL
CONGRESS ST
6TH AV
SPEEDWAY BL
STONE AV
KINO PW
PARK AV
EUCLID AV
CAMPBELL AV
SAINT MARYS RD
STARR PASS BL
GRANDE AV
6TH ST
MISSION RD
!¨§
10
!"210
Ü
Tucson Flood Zone Categories and Critical Infrastructure Buildings:
Downtown Area
Critical Infrastructure
$1 Fire station
u "Health facility
v® Hospital
$+ Police station
n School
Downtown Area
Highways
Interstates
Roads working
Very High Flood Risk
High Flood Risk
Medium Flood Risk
FEMA Unmapped areas
0 0.4 0.8
Miles
Tucson Overview Downtown Area
NE2 Expand
natural
habitat
in
flood
prone
areas 3.00
Strategy
H3 Community
Cooling
Centers 2.89
Strategy
H9
Integration
of
Climate
Concerns
in
Emergency
Management/Response
Plan 2.89
Strategy
H13 Surveillance
of
Climate-‐Related
Public
Health
Factors 2.89
Strategy
B5 Increase
Robustness
of
Business
Community 2.89
Another
38
candidate
strategies
organized
within
six
different
sector
designations
are
included
in
the
matrix
in
Attachment
A.
Table
2
below
contains
the
list
of
more
explicit
objectives
identified
by
the
CCC
to
guide
the
selection
and
prioritization
of
adaptation
strategies.
Table
2.
Climate
adaptation
objectives
from
October
22
meeting
(from
whiteboard
&
discussions)
Don’t
increase
GHGs
Reduce
utility
costs
(improve
energy
efficiency)
Reduce
Urban
Heat
Island
Address
vulnerability
and
equity
of
sensitive
populations
(homeless,
very
low
income)
Better
emergency
planning
&
risk
assessment
Better
disaster
response
(finding
those
most
at
risk
and
letting
them
know)
Tools
that
assist
in
learning
about
how
to
deal
with
risk
(capacity
building
at
the
local
level,
avoiding
temporary
“band-‐aids”)
Relocation
of
people
and
infrastructure
away
from
risk
zones
(considering
short-‐term
vs.
long-‐term
costs)
Food
for
low-‐income
and
those
with
limited
access
The
matrix
in
Attachment
A
contains
the
full
list
of
adaptation
strategies
(including
the
scoring)
that
were
developed
by
our
consultant
team
with
additional
strategies
added
from
the
October
22nd
CCC
meeting/workshop.
Each
has
a
long
list
of
attributes
that
are
described
in
the
columns
to
the
right
of
each
strategy
(brief
description,
pros/cons,
costs,
complexities,
potential
indicators).
The
matrix
also
lists
other
communities
that
are
known
to
be
taking
similar
actions
along
with
links
to
references.
The
top
10
strategies,
based
on
the
CCC
members’
voting,
are
summarized
in
the
Table
3
below.
the
Plan
Tucson
objectives
do
not
all
have
relevance
to
climate
adaptation;
we
were
interested
in
investigating
whether
there
was
potential
alignment
with
the
goals
of
adaptation
that
would
also
supports
the
City’s
larger
objectives.
CCC
members
were
asked
to
review
nineteen
objectives
and
select
no
more
than
five
(in
no
particular
order
of
importance)
from
the
list
of
19
contained
in
the
Oct.
15th
draft
of
Plan
Tucson.
We
also
provided
CCC
members
the
opportunity
to
add
additional
ideas
or
objectives
that
they
didn’t
see
listed.
We
received
votes
from
six
CCC
members
(one
responded
and
stated
that
felt
he
could
not
select
only
five,
so
abstained).
13
of
the
19
objectives
received
votes,
with
two
clearly
identified
as
the
top
choice
(see
table
below).
No
one
added
new
objectives.
Table
1.
Ranking
of
options
Rank Option Total
Votes
1 A
secure,
high
quality,
reliable,
long-‐term
supply
of
water
for
humans
and
the
natural
environment 5
1 An
urban
form
that
conserves
natural
resources,
improves
and
builds
on
existing
public
infrastructure
and
facilities,
and
provides
an
interconnected
multi-‐modal
transportation
system
to
enhance
the
mobility
of
people
and
goods
5
2 A
reputation
as
a
national
leader
in
the
development
and
use
of
locally
renewable
energy
technologies,
water
conservation,
waste
diversion
and
recovery,
and
other
emerging
environmentally-‐sensitive
industries
3
2 Less
dependence
on
carbon-‐based
energy
and
greater
energy
independence 3
3 A
mix
of
well-‐maintained,
energy-‐efficient
housing
options
with
multi-‐
modal
access
to
basic
goods
and
services
2
3 A
healthy
community
physically,
mentally,
and
environmentally 2
3 A
sustainable
urban
food
system 2
3 Strategic
public
and
private
investments
for
long-‐term
economic,
social,
and
environmental
sustainability
2
4 A
stabilized
local
economy
with
opportunities
for
diversified
economic
growth
supported
by
high-‐level,
high-‐quality
public
infrastructure,
facilities,
and
services
1
4 An
educated
citizenry 1
4 A
safe
and
secure
community 1
4 Timely,
accessible,
and
inclusive
processes
to
actively
engage
a
diverse
community
in
City
policy,
program,
and
project
planning
1
4 Sound,
efficient,
ecological
policies
and
practices
in
government
and
in
the
private
sector
1
Workshop
.......................................................
10
Tucson
Climate
Vulnerability
Analysis
Issue
Rankings
by
Sector
............................................
10
Example
of
GIS
Based
Vulnerability
Analysis
..........................................................................
10
Other
Project
Related
Material
...................................................................................................
11
Observed
and
Projected
Climate
Impacts
for
the
City
of
Tucson
...........................................
11
City
of
Tucson
Climate
Adaptation
Planning
Regulator
Review
..............................................
11
Tucson
Climate
Phase
II
Summary
..........................................................................................
11
PowerPoint
Presentation
from
June
14th
Workshop
..............................................................
11
PAG
memo
-‐
Possible
Impacts
of
Climate
Change
on
Transportation
Planning
.....................
11
SIGNATURE:
PRIMARY SERVICES ISSUES CONTACT: Andrea Martin
TELEPHONE: (206) 449-1112 CELL: (704) 604-5727
EMAIL: andream@cascadiaconsulting.com