CLIMATE ADAPTATIONTHE STATE OF PRACTICE IN U.S. COMMUNITIESNOVEMBER 2016

AUTHORS

Jason Vogel
Karen M. Carney
Joel B. Smith
Charles Herrick
Missy Stults
Megan O’Grady
Alexis St. Juliana
Heather Hosterman
Lorine Giangola

About This Report
This report was written by Abt Associates with funding from The Kresge
Foundation.
Author affiliations:
ABT ASSOCIATES:
Jason Vogel
Karen M. Carney
Joel B. Smith
Charles Herrick
Megan O’Grady
Alexis St. Juliana
Heather Hosterman
Lorine Giangola

INDEPENDENT ADAPTATION CONSULTANT:
Missy Stults

The Kresge Foundation is a $3.6 billion private, national foundation that works
to expand opportunities in America’s cities through grantmaking and social
investing in arts and culture, education, environment, health, human services,and, community development in Detroit.
Abt Associates is a mission-driven, global leader in research, evaluation, andprogram implementation in the fields of health, social and environmental
policy, and international development. Known for its rigorous approach tosolving complex challenges, Abt Associates is regularly ranked as one of the
top 20 global research firms and one of the top 40 international development
innovators. The company has multiple offices in the U.S. and program offices
in more than 40 countries.

CLIMATE ADAPTATION

Acknowledgements

Abt Associates and The Kresge Foundation would like to acknowledge the invaluable contributions of the following
individuals for their guidance, expertise and assistance in producing this report:
PROJECT ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEMBERS

PROJECT TECHNICAL ADVISORS

Steve Adams, Institute for Sustainable Communities
Vicki Arroyo, Georgetown Climate Center
Rosina Bierbaum, University of Michigan
Garrett Fitzgerald, Urban Sustainability Directors’ Network
Paul Fleming, Seattle Public Utilities
Hector Galbraith, EcoSolutions
Nancy Gilliam, Model Forest Policy Program
Tonya Graham, Geos Institute/ClimateWise®
Lara Hansen, EcoAdapt
Kathy Jacobs, University of Arizona
Jim Murley, Office of Resilience, Miami-Dade County, FL
Jacqui Patterson, NAACP
Cara Pike, Climate Access
Julie Rochman, Insurance Institute for Businessand Home Safety
Jim Schwab, American Planning Association
Ed Thomas, Natural Hazard Mitigation Association

Ron Brunner, University of Colorado
Susi Moser, Susanne Moser Research & Consulting
Missy Stults, Independent Adaptation Consultant
PROJECT STAFF
Christine Jacobs, The Kresge Foundation
Hugh McDiarmid, The Kresge Foundation
Joanna Pratt, Abt Associates
Karen Raucher, Abt Associates
Christine Teter, Abt Associates
ADDITIONAL ADVISORS
Lois DeBacker, The Kresge Foundation
John Nordgren, The Climate Resilience FundREPORT DESIGN AND LAYOUT
MillerCox Design

The report authors would also like to thank the 50 thought leaders who generously shared their time at the beginningof this research effort to help us frame our project and understand the contours of the field of climate adaptationfrom many different professional standpoints. Furthermore, we would like to thank the community-based champions
in each of the 17 communities that went out of their way to discuss in person and over the phone why and how they
took action to reduce vulnerability in their own communities. These people are listed as acknowledgements in each of
the case studies associated with this report. And finally, we would like to thank The Kresge Foundation for its visionand initiative in commissioning this project.

1

2

CLIMATE ADAPTATION

Table of Contents

Foreword.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

4

Executive Summary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

6

CHAPTER ONE
Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

10What We Did. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

13

CHAPTER TWO
Case Studies and Cross-Case Findings. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

18

What Motivates Communities to Take Adaptive Action?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

22

What are Communities Doing to Adapt?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

25

How are Communities Implementing Adaptation Actions?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

28

What are Communities Achieving Through Adaptation?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

34

Conclusion.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

38

CHAPTER THREE
Conclusions and Tactical Recommendations.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

40Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

42

Tactical Recommendations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

45

Summary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

47

CLIMATE ADAPTATION

CLIMATE ADAPTATION: CASE STUDIES
Avalon, New Jersey. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

48

Baltimore, Maryland.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

61

Boston, Massachusetts. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

76

Chula Vista, California. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

87

Cleveland, Ohio. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

98

El Paso County, Texas. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

109

Flagstaff, Arizona. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

121

Fort Collins, Colorado. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

132

Grand Rapids, Michigan. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

140

Miami-Dade, Florida. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

150

Coastal Mobile County, Alabama. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

163

Norfolk, Virginia. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

173

Oakland, California. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

183

Seattle, Washington.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

197

Southwestern Crown, Montana. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

211

Spartanburg, South Carolina. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

223

Tulsa, Oklahoma. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

231

APPENDICES
A. Key Definitions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 240
B. Methods. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 242
C. List of Thought-Leader Interviews.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 246
D. Thought-Leader Questionnaire. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 248
E. Summary of Insights from Thought-Leader Interviews.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

251

F. References. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 255

3

4

CLIMATE ADAPTATION

ForewordAs members of the Project Advisory Committee (PAC) for this research effort, Climate
Adaptation: The State of Practice in U.S. Communities, we represent diverse fields,
including climate adaptation, natural hazards mitigation, land-use and municipal planning,
environmental justice, natural resource management, insurance, community engagement,
and communications.
We all identify as climate change adaptation professionals. That is, we are professionally engaged in helping
communities understand and adapt to changing climate
risks. We provided advice and guidance to The Kresge
Foundation and the Abt Associates research team on theobjectives, conduct, and findings of this project.
We strongly recommend this report as essential reading for those working to create more resilient local andregional communities. It provides valuable insights
into the practice of climate change adaptation in the
United States, including how to support the many
community-based champions working to reduce theircommunities’ vulnerability to climate change impacts.
While our support of the report does not imply our individual endorsement of each finding, we believe there isgreat value for the adaptation field. In particular, we findthat the report makes the following contributions:• Provides 17 case studies of communities taking action
to prepare for climate change, climate variability, or
extreme events. The local experiences documented
in the case studies are invaluable at this stage of thedevelopment of the adaptation field.
• Demonstrates that the practice of adapting to climate
variability, extreme events, and climate change has
been occurring for many years, even if those taking
such action did not explicitly label it adaptation.
The formal practice of climate adaptation, however,remains emergent.
• Assesses what has worked in preparing for andresponding to extreme events so it can be applied tothe threats from climate change.
• Identifies that mechanisms for coordinating adaptation action across the U.S. are growing, yet remain
in early stages of development. As such, until thosemechanisms mature, many communities are working
on adaptation in parallel and learning as they go.

CLIMATE ADAPTATIONThis project is timely. It taps the experience of communities across the U.S. to explore how adaptation is coming
into practice and the gains that are being made. It also
helps us consider how we can all advance the field of
adaptation by pointing out where more work is needed.
Given this, we recommend the report to you.

Nancy Gilliam, Model Forest Policy Program

Steve Adams, Institute for Sustainable Communities

Jim Murley, Office of Resilience, Miami-Dade County

Vicki Arroyo, Georgetown Climate Center,
Georgetown Law

Jacqui Patterson, National Association for the
Advancement of Colored People

Rosina Bierbaum, School of Natural Resources andEnvironment, University of Michigan

Cara Pike, Climate AccessGarrett Fitzgerald, Urban Sustainability Directors
Network
Paul Fleming, Seattle Public Utilities
Hector Galbraith, EcoSolutions

Tonya Graham, Geos Institute/ClimateWise®
Lara Hansen, EcoAdapt
Kathy Jacobs, Center for Climate Adaptation Scienceand Solutions, University of Arizona

Julie Rochman, Insurance Institute for Business andHome Safety
Jim Schwab, American Planning Association
Ed Thomas, Natural Hazard Mitigation Association

5

6

CLIMATE ADAPTATION

Executive SummaryCommunities in the U.S. are undertaking a rich array of climate adaptation actions thatare making them more resilient to climate impacts. These actions provide models andlessons that can immediately help other communities better protect themselves fromclimate risks like flooding, heat waves, wildfires, and severe storms. In aggregate, these
activities demonstrate that more U.S. communities are attempting to prepare for climate
risks than previously thought (Melillo et al., 2014).
However, many of these promising practices are piecemeal
and fail to comprehensively address climate change andits associated uncertainties. This suggests that, despite
the many concrete vulnerability reductions achieved byour case study communities, much more work is needed
for communities to holistically reduce their vulnerability
to climate variability, extreme events, and climate change.
This research project was motivated by the immense
challenges posed by climate change, the need forcommunities to adapt to those challenges, and theopportunity to learn from communities that have alreadybegun adapting. Through this project, we identified manyactions that U.S. communities have taken to prepare forand build resilience to climate variability, extreme events,
and climate change.
Our research methodology included a review of selected
technical and professional literature aimed at evaluating
the state-of-the-practice of climate adaptation; interviews with 50 thought leaders from a variety of fields

relevant to community-based adaptation—including climate adaptation, natural hazards mitigation, planning,
environmental justice, natural resource management,
insurance, and community engagement and communications; and primary research that involved selecting,examining, and profiling 17 communities that have taken
particular actions to attempt to tangibly reduce theirvulnerability to climate variability, extreme events, andclimate change.
Within this report, we document our findings, profilinga single activity or small subset of adaptation activities
undertaken in each of the 17 communities, paying specific attention to findings that hold across multiple casestudy communities. While this analysis did not aim tocomprehensively assess all of the adaptation activities
unfolding in each of the case study communities, we
believe results from this analysis provide useful information for community-based champions of adaptation
action and adaptation professionals looking to design
locally appropriate vulnerability reduction activities.

CLIMATE ADAPTATION

After two years of research on the state of community-based adaptation and the particular actions taken bythese 17 communities, we found that communities have
many of the tools needed to plan for and respond toclimate change; they just need to get started.

Key Questions
During the course of the project, we examined four key
questions.
1. What motivates communities to take adaptive
action?
FINDINGS: Most adaptation actions draw upon, promote, and sustain multiple community values. Climatechange was not typically the exclusive justification forcommunity-based adaptation in the cases we studied. However, experiencing extreme climate eventscommonly initiated or accelerated adaptation efforts.
2. What are communities doing to adapt?
FINDINGS: Most of the profiled communities areattempting to tangibly reduce their vulnerability
to climate variability, extreme events, and climatechange. In a few cases, these communities are taking
action to reduce exposure; more often their work is
aimed at reducing sensitivity and building adaptive
capacity.
3. How are communities implementing adaptation
actions?
FINDINGS: Communities use diverse strategies toimplement adaptation actions—from deploying conventional policy tools to mainstreaming adaptation
into existing efforts to developing new decision-making processes. These strategies often capitalize on
effective leadership and consciously build community
support.
4. What are communities achieving throughadaptation?
FINDINGS: The communities we examined are reducing their vulnerability to current climate impacts; a
few are also explicitly reducing their vulnerability tofuture climate impacts. Sometimes these vulnerability

reductions are limited in temporal or spatial scope oraddress only a particular vulnerability type (e.g., only
drought). Adaptation actions frequently go hand-inhand with progress on other community priorities.

Our Conclusions
Based on the totality of work completed in support ofthis project, we draw the following conclusions:
1. Adaptation actions at the community level are reducing vulnerability to climate variability and extreme
events, and possibly to climate change.
2. Addressing only climate variability and extreme
events may constrain the effectiveness of long-termclimate adaptation.
3. Communities can begin addressing climate changerisks now.
4. Communities can overcome barriers to action, identify
opportunities, and begin implementing adaptation
measures.
5. Adaptation actions explicitly addressing climatechange are in a formative stage.
6. Through our case study communities, we have identified components of a hypothetical, well-adapted
community (see graphic below).
7. Community-based champions of adaptation action
and adaptation professionals should use vulnerability
reduction as a key baseline to assess and facilitate
progress in adaptation.

Tactical Recommendations
Based on our research and analysis, we offer the following recommendations to community-based champions
and adaptation professionals seeking to advance adaptation and vulnerability reduction within communities.
Start Now: Community development is an on-goingprocess, climate vulnerability already exists, and climatechange is increasing these vulnerabilities. Waiting does
not guarantee more or better information, but it does

7

8

CLIMATE ADAPTATIONA HYPOTHETICAL, WELL-ADAPTED COMMUNITYOver the course of this two-year project, we found an abundance of bold, successful community-based
adaptation underway now and, in some cases, already tangibly reducing community vulnerability. However,as many of the leaders in our case study communities agree, even our profiled communities must do more toadapt to climate change.
We cannot say what a perfectly adapted community would look like. Nonetheless, if the types of actions
that each of our case study communities took were combined into a single hypothetical community effort,
it would arguably comprise an impressive climate change adaptation program (see below). We believe thishypothetical community can serve as an aspirational target for ambitious local champions who are working
to build local resilience and protect their communities from the impacts of climate change.

Comprehensive, climatechange-informed planning
processes, as seen in
Chula Vista, California

Mainstreaming
climate considerations into
existing decisionmaking processes,
as seen in Seattle,
Washington

Neighborhood-scalecapacity-building efforts,
as seen in Cleveland, Ohio.

Aggressive exposurereduction policies, as seen
in Tulsa, Oklahoma

What would awell-adapted
community
look like?

Creative useof existing
regulatory
powers, as seen
in Boston,
Massachusetts

Systematic monitoringand evaluation processes,
as seen in the Southwest
Crown, Montana

CLIMATE ADAPTATION

waste valuable time as vulnerability reduction is a longterm process. Thus, communities can and should work
now to reduce current and future risks to climate.
Look for Co-Benefits, Cross-Sector Leveraging, andOpportunities to Piggyback Climate Adaptation onto
Other Salient Community Issues: Climate adaptation
actions that also address longstanding problematicconditions—for example, decaying infrastructure or
weakened ecosystems—can help win important allies,
enhance community support, and facilitate progress.
Employ Commonly Used Policy Tools to Mainstream
Adaptation: Many of the tools needed to reduce vulnerability—including standard measures such as ordinances,permits, bonds, utility fees, easements, zoning, andhazard mitigation planning—already exist and can bebrought to bear to move adaptation forward.
Use Windows of Opportunity to Advance Climate
Adaptation: Windows of opportunity, such as response
to natural disasters or scheduled updates to municipalplans, present an opening to advance public discourse,
galvanize community support, and facilitate progress.
Build Flexibility into Policies, Projects, and Programs:
Given the uncertainties around the effects of climatechange, municipal programs should be designed to
evolve and adapt to changing conditions.
Consider the Needs and Capabilities of More-Vulnerable
Populations: Climate adaptation actions should reflect
and address the varying needs of different groups or
populations, paying particular attention to populations
that are most vulnerable, which are often the poorest,
those already overburdened by pollution, those who lackeconomic opportunity, and individuals facing disenfranchisement and racism.
Consider Natural Systems in Adaptation: Climatechange is often experienced through a community’s
interaction with natural systems, such as forests, rivers,
coastlines, and floodplains. These natural systems canalso play a vital role in reducing the impact of climatechange on community infrastructure and resources.

Craft Outreach or Engagement Efforts, as Needed, to
Build Community Support: Well-focused outreach campaigns enhance public buy-in for adaptation actions.
Furthermore, engaging a community in the developmentof adaptation actions is a more time intensive, but potentially more productive means of building community
buy-in and support.
Take Prudent Risks and Adjust Over Time: To successfully reduce risk to communities through adaptation
requires innovation, experimentation, and some level ofrisk-taking. Adaptation policies, projects, and programs
will likely need to be adjusted over time.
Consider Local Context When Determining Whether toExplicitly Frame Actions in Terms of “Climate Change”:
Explicit articulation of climate change can constrain
action in some settings, while galvanizing action inothers; communities should recognize this reality andrespond accordingly.
Provide Leadership: While leadership was an important
aspect of making adaptation progress across all of thecommunities we profiled, that leadership came from many
places. The most conventional sources of leadership camefrom a proactive mayor, city council, county commission,or senior municipal or departmental executive. But ourcase studies indicate that non-governmental organizations, grassroots activists, and non-senior municipal staff
can also provide the leadership necessary to initiate andsustain climate adaptation actions.
Use Partnerships to Advance Adaptation: Working
with other like-minded individuals and organizations
can amplify the effectiveness of an adaptation action.
Singular actors often face limited capacity and financial
resources.
We strongly encourage our readers to dive deeply into
the full report to examine our findings, recommendations, and, in particular, the 17 case studies at the heartof the project. Each case study represents a piece of one
community’s path to climate adaptation—a path that caninspire ongoing, forward-thinking action and that canserve as a guiding example for other communities andadaptation professionals as they work to reduce climate
vulnerability and advance the field of climate adaptation.

9

10

CLIMATE ADAPTATIONCHAPTER 1

Introduction

CLIMATE ADAPTATIONA

daptation is an emerging field that is growing quickly as citizens and leaders becomeaware of the impacts climate change will have on their communities. Consequently,
we approached this empirical assessment of community-based adaptation explicitly toempower community-based champions and to advance the state-of-the-practice. Our
goal was to take a snapshot in time of community-based adaptation and learn as muchas we could from the realities of on-the-ground community action to reduce climate
vulnerability. We framed our work within the overarching theme of reducing community
vulnerability to climate impacts.
We strongly encourage our readers to dive deeply into
the full report to examine our findings, conclusions, recommendations, and, in particular, the 17 case studies at
the heart of the project. Each case study represents one
community’s path to climate adaptation—a path that
can inspire ongoing, forward-thinking action and thatcan serve as a guiding example for other communities
and adaptation professionals as they reduce climate vulnerability and advance the field of climate adaptation.
Over the last 10 to 15 years, adaptation to climate change
has experienced a substantial increase in interest andactivity (Hughes, 2015; Shi et al., 2015; Meerow et al.,2016). It has become a major topic of international negotiations (e.g., UNFCCC, 2014); bilateral and multilateraldevelopment agencies annually pledge billions of dollars to address climate adaptation (e.g., MDB, 2012); thefederal government has encouraged and even required
climate adaptation through executive orders, agency-specific planning, and post-disaster recovery grantrequirements (e.g., Bierbaum et al., 2013); states haveengaged in climate adaptation planning (e.g., Ray and
Grannis, 2015); nongovernmental organizations andcharitable foundations have supported communities inaddressing climate risks (e.g., Rapson, 2013); and hundreds of U.S. communities are considering how climatechange might affect them (e.g., Carmin et al., 2012).
Over this period, many community-based champions ofadaptation and adaptation professionals have shifted
their focus from hazard mitigation and recovery to morecomprehensive and systematic efforts to prepare for andbuild resilience to climate variability, extreme events, andclimate change (e.g., Higbee, 2014; Meerow et al., 2016).
This shift began around the time of Hurricane Katrina
in 2005—an event that became the costliest natural
disaster in recent U.S. history—and was further fueledby events such as Superstorm Sandy and the California
drought. Despite the growth and evolving focus in thefield of climate change adaptation, specific questions
remain for those serving as community-based champions of adaptation, such as:

We address two audiences throughout this report, whom we call “community-based champions” of adaptation and “adaptation professionals.” A community-based champion is a person who initiates action within acommunity to address its current and future climate vulnerabilities. These people are typically grounded in aparticular community as elected officials, municipal staff, grassroots activists, community organizers, or interested citizens. Adaptation professionals, on the other hand, self-identify as experts on the issue of adapting
to climate change across many communities. They may come from disciplines as varied as climate adaptation, natural hazards mitigation, land use and municipal planning, environmental justice, natural resource
management, insurance, community engagement, and communications. There is overlap between these two
audiences, but we found it useful to consider them separately as they have different motivations, identifications, skill sets, and needs.

11

12

CLIMATE ADAPTATION• What motivates communities to take adaptive
action?

Project caveats
Over the course of this project we made several
key decisions for both practical and substantive
reasons that limited the scope of our work. We
recount here some key issues we feel compelled
to state explicitly for the reader:
1. Our portfolio of 17 case studies is relatively
small. Including more communities could bring
additional insights to our cross case analysis
discussed in Chapter 2.
2. Each case study is structured around asingle policy action taken by that community. Consequently, the case studies do notprovide insight into the totality of climate-related actions taken by any single case study
community.
3. The case studies were purposefully sampled
and are not intended to be representative ofany population.
4. In focusing on specific actions in each community and the outcome of reduced vulnerability,
we biased our portfolio of case studies toward
single-sector actions. We tried to compensate
by purposefully selecting several case study
communities that appeared to be implementing a more holistic, cross-sectoral approach.
5. This research is not intended as a set of bestpractices, and we do not claim that our casestudies are models of adaptation. The project
was designed to be exploratory and empirical.

• What are communities doing to adapt?
• How are communities implementing adaptation
actions?
• What are communities achieving throughadaptation?
This project provides a critical assessment of community-based adaptation to climate vulnerability. Many
surveys of adaptation actions have covered dozens oreven hundreds of communities (e.g., Kauneckis and Cuffe,
2011; Carmin at al., 2012; Finzi Hart et al., 2012; Thayer etal., 2013; Shi et al., 2015). Although these surveys provided breadth of coverage, they tended to assess work at
a broad level and offered only limited explorations of thecomplex interacting factors that explain why and how
communities have addressed climate vulnerabilities. On
the other end of the spectrum are specific, place-based
adaptation case studies. These case studies tend to focus
on a single community or a very small number of communities, diving deeply into processes and lessons. But,
this narrow focus is less conducive to comparative analysis (e.g., Srivastava and Laurian, 2006; Dow et al., 2013;
Ekstrom and Moser, 2014). As recognized in the Third
National Climate Assessment (nca2014.globalchange.
gov), this means there is a shortage of multi-community
adaptation case studies and cross-case analyses in theadaptation literature (Melillo et al., 2014). This research
effort was intended to fill this gap.
Here, we present the results of our research effort—
an in-depth, case-based critical assessment ofcommunity-based adaptation—that can provide
insight to community-based champions to help reduce
vulnerability in their own communities and make evidence-based proposals for adaptation professionals toadvance the state-of-the-practice. You can find the fullcase studies that form the empirical backbone of thisproject after chapter 3.

CLIMATE ADAPTATION

What We Did
This report summarizes the results of a two-year research
effort conducted by Abt Associates,1 with funding fromThe Kresge Foundation, and which was supported by agroup of experts, including our project technical advisors
and a Project Advisory Committee (PAC; see the reportacknowledgments for a list of all project participants). The
intent of the project was to conduct a critical assessmentof community-based adaptation through a project that
had both methodological breadth and depth. We surveyed the field of climate adaptation through a review
of selected technical and professional literature that
aimed to evaluate the state-of-the-practice (e.g., NRC,
2010; Bierbaum et al., 2013; Carmin et al., 2012; Hansen etal., 2013; Thayer et al., 2013; and Melillo et al., 2014). We
supplemented this effort with interviews of 50 thought
leaders from a variety of fields relevant to climate adaptation (see Appendix C). This allowed us to understandself-assessments by adaptation professionals of the stateof-the-practice. We then engaged in primary research bydeveloping case studies of specific adaptation efforts in 17
U.S. communities, through site visits, archival reviews, andinterviews for each community (see Exhibit 1.1 for a summary of our research design and methods and Appendix
B for a more thorough explanation of our methods).

The intent of the project wasto conduct a critical assessment of community-based
adaptation through a projectthat had both methodologicalbreadth and depth.
At the beginning of this project, we articulated theassumptions and normative perspectives that would
underpin our work, enable progress, align the perspectives of multiple researchers, and ensure transparencyof our research approach. The five most important

assumptions and normative perspectives are describedin the following five sections. As a project team, werepeatedly reviewed these considerations, requesting
input from our technical advisors and the PAC.

A Selective and Practical Assessment
Our purpose in conducting an empirical assessment was
to develop a sense of the state-of-the-practice of climatechange adaptation through a review of selected technical and professional literature that aimed to evaluate thestate-of-the-practice (e.g., NRC, 2010; Bierbaum et al.,2013; Carmin et al., 2012; Hansen et al., 2013; Thayer etal., 2013; and Melillo et al., 2014). We supplemented thisselected literature review with 50 interviews of thought
leaders from a variety of disciplines related to community-based climate vulnerability reduction. Building off thiswork, we then documented and assessed the empiricalexperiences of 17 communities engaged in a particularaction that tangibly reduced their vulnerability to climate
impacts. Our purpose was to generate insight into what itmeans to implement climate adaptation on-the-groundin communities, to tell 17 stories of community-based
adaptation, and to develop a sense of what helps communities make progress through a cross-case analysis.
This critical assessment was intended to be selective,
not comprehensive. We purposefully chose communities that had achieved or were likely to achieve tangible
vulnerability reduction (described below). We were
motivated to generate insight into how to make progress
at a community-level by examining community-based
action and facilitating peer-to-peer learning.

A Community-Based Focus
Action at many levels can address climate vulnerability.
For example, local and state laws, federal regulations,private industry or market actions, and household decisions can all facilitate or impede climate adaptation.
Although all of these levels are important, our projectfocused on action taken at the community level. We
define community as a group of people living together

1. The Kresge Foundation provided a grant for this project to Stratus Consulting Inc., which merged with Abt Associates during the course of the
project.

13

14

CLIMATE ADAPTATIONEXHIBIT 1.1. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS
Activity Stream 1: Understand community-based
adaptation state-of-the-practice• Conducted a targeted literature review• Interviewed 50 thought leaders• Conducted follow-up interviews• Case studies reviewed by interviewees, projectteam, technical advisors, and PAC
Activity Stream 5: Compare case studies

Activity Stream 2: Develop an analytical framework• Developed cross-case findings• Created a case study selection protocol• Developed and tested cross-case narratives• Developed a research protocol for case study
development• Analysis performed by project technical leads

Activity Stream 3: Obtain external expert guidance• Engaged a PAC of experts in climate adaptation
and related fields• Rounded out project team with three leading experts
in climate adaptation as technical advisors• Extensive review performed by project team, technical advisors, and PAC
Activity Stream 6: Share project findings• Wrote final project report• Finalized 17 case studies• Developed companion website

Activity Stream 4: Develop case studies• Selected 17 communities for case studies out of 110
candidate communities• Hosted webinars and delivered conference
presentations• Developed popular and peer-reviewed publications• Conducted background research• Undertook site visits and interviews• Developed case study

in a common geographic area, typically under a municipal jurisdiction such as a city or county, but sometimes
defined by a watershed or other geographic characteristic. We chose this focus for four reasons:
1. Communities have been leaders in addressing
adaptation; communities began addressing adaptation before states and the federal government(Rosenzweig et al., 2010; Bierbaum et al., 2013).
2. The community level provides a direct path to observing tangible vulnerability reductions.

Note that some of these activities were conductedin parallel. Refer to Appendix B for a more detailed
discussion of our methods.

3. It is at this local level that community-based champions
have the detailed knowledge of local circumstances,
the individual and collective motivation, and the senseof responsibility needed to implement cohesive adaptation actions.
4. The real-life experiences of communities are integral
to advancing the state-of-the-practice of climate
adaptation. By exploring a relatively large and diverse
set of case study communities, we are able to provide
evidence-based insights and a critical assessment ofcommunity-based adaptation.

CLIMATE ADAPTATION

Including Responses to Climate Variability,
Extreme Events, and Climate Change
There is extensive literature discussing the definitionand nature of climate adaptation (e.g., Smit et al., 2000;
Adger et al., 2005; Brunner and Lynch, 2010; Moser andBoykoff, 2013; IPCC, 2014). For our research, we included
responses to climate variability, extreme events, and climate change all within the rubric of climate adaptation.
We did so for the following reasons:
1. It is not clear where climate variability ends and climate change begins. Although it is unequivocal thatthe climate is changing (IPCC, 2013), scientific attribution of individual events to climate change is an
emerging science.
2. Extreme events and climate variability typicallyinvolve weather or climatic conditions similar to thosethat scientists expect will become more frequent or
intense with climate change.
3. The tools, policies, and strategies deployed to address
extreme events and climate variability are often similar or can be modified by communities aiming toadapt to climate change.
4. Community-based champions often do not label orparse their activities by the stringent terms of someacademic disciplines. Climate change adaptation,
natural hazards mitigation, and the normal day-today management of climate variability were often
considered collectively or as part of a continuum ofpotential policy emphasis.

For our research, we included
responses to climate variability, extreme events, andclimate change all within the
rubric of climate adaptation.
Avoiding Pre-Judging “Adaptation”
For the empirical portion of this project, we acceptedcase study interviewees’ perspectives on the adequacy
or appropriateness of given adaptation actions without

pre-judgment of what counted as an “adaptation” or an“adequate” adaptation in a particular case study. We
looked at community adaptation actions through thisinclusive lens in order to allow a more diverse set ofcommunities to inform our critical assessment than if we
had explicitly required particular traits or qualities (e.g.,
explicitly considering climate change) for a community
to count as having engaged in adaptation. We only
passed judgment as to whether a particular adaptation
action was likely to lead to tangible vulnerability reduction, as described below. As a result, we included cases inthis project that are variously motivated by or responsive
to climate variability, extreme events, climate change,sustainable development, or a combination of these factors. In Chapter 3, we apply our own judgment when we
discuss our conclusions and tactical recommendations.

Community-based champions
often do not label or parse
their activities by the stringent terms of some academic
disciplines. Climate change
adaptation, natural hazards
mitigation, and the normal
day-to-day management ofclimate variability were often
considered collectively oras part of a continuum ofpotential policy emphasis.

Focusing on Reducing Vulnerability to
Climate Impacts
Although we accepted case study interviewees’ perspectives regarding the applicability or adequacy of
the adaptation actions undertaken in their communities, we were nevertheless careful to select only caseswith distinct outcomes that already have resulted or are
likely to result in tangible reductions of vulnerability to
climate variability, extreme events, or climate change.
We chose vulnerability reduction as a filter by which to

15

16

CLIMATE ADAPTATION

select case studies because one of the key objectives ofadaptation—as well as of greenhouse gas mitigation—is
to reduce vulnerability. As such, across our case study
portfolio, we focused on actions that reduced exposure,
reduced sensitivity, or enhanced adaptive capacity—allof which ultimately can contribute to reducing a community’s vulnerability to climate impacts. We use theIntergovernmental Panel on Climate Change definition ofvulnerability, which contains three components—exposure, sensitivity, and adaptive capacity—to categorize
the actions the case study communities have taken to
reduce their vulnerability (see Exhibit 1.2).

We focused on actions that
reduced exposure, reduced
sensitivity, or enhanced
adaptive capacity—allof which ultimately cancontribute to reducing acommunity’s vulnerability to
climate impacts.

EXHIBIT 1.2. WHAT IS VULNERABILITY?
Vulnerability: The degree to which a system
is susceptible to, and unable to cope with, theadverse effects of climate change, including
climate variability and extremes. Vulnerability is afunction of the character, magnitude, and rate ofclimate change and variation to which a system is
exposed, its sensitivity, and its adaptive capacity.
Exposure: The presence of people or assets inlocations that could be adversely affected byclimate impacts.
Sensitivity: The degree to which a system isaffected, either adversely or beneficially, by
climate variability or change. Sensitivity is about
what happens to a system once it is exposed to a
climate impact.
Adaptive capacity: The ability of a system toadjust to climate change (including climate variability and extremes) or to moderate potential
damages, to take advantage of opportunities, orto cope with the consequences.
See the Appendix A glossary for more detailed
definitions.

CLIMATE ADAPTATION

17

18

CLIMATE ADAPTATIONCHAPTER 2

Case Studies and Cross-Case Findings

CLIMATE ADAPTATIONAs discussed in Chapter 1, four central questions guided our work: What motivates
communities to take adaptive action? What are communities doing to adapt? Howare communities implementing adaptation actions? And what are communities achieving through adaptation? Using these questions as our guide, we conducted a cross-caseanalysis of our 17 detailed case studies and found:• Motivations: Most adaptation actions draw upon,
promote, and sustain multiple community values.
Climate change was not typically the exclusive justification for community-based adaptation in thecases we studied. However, experiencing extreme
climate events commonly initiated or accelerated
adaptation efforts.
• Actions: Most of the profiled communities areattempting to tangibly reduce their vulnerability to climate variability, extreme events, and climate change.
In a few cases, these communities are taking action
to reduce exposure; more often, their work is aimed
at reducing sensitivity and building adaptive capacity.
• Implementation: Communities use diverse strategies
to implement adaptation actions—from deploying
conventional policy tools to mainstreaming adaptation into existing efforts to developing newdecision-making processes. These strategies often
capitalize on effective leadership and consciously
build community support.

• Achievements: The communities we examined are
reducing their vulnerability to current climate impacts;a few are also explicitly reducing their vulnerability tofuture climate impacts. Sometimes these vulnerability
reductions are limited in temporal or spatial scope oraddress only a particular vulnerability type (e.g., only
drought). Adaptation actions frequently go hand-inhand with progress on other community priorities.
In the following sections, we detail the cross-case findings, commonalities, differences, and other noteworthy
observations developed through multiple independent
streams of analytical activity. Although this summary of
our cross-case findings speaks to the common themes
we identified, each case study represents a single community’s path to climate adaptation. These paths caninspire forward-thinking action by other communities
and climate adaptation professionals. Because of thedetailed and useful information embedded in each casestudy, we encourage readers to read each of the 17 casestudies included in this report after Chapter 3. We summarize these case studies in Exhibit 2 below.

EXHIBIT 2. CASE STUDY SUMMARIES
ReportPage
NumberCase study
community

Page 48

Page 61

Action profiled

Brief case description

Avalon, NJ

Comprehensive
Shoreline Protection
Strategy

Avalon developed a number of physical shoreline barriers, boughtdamaged shoreline properties, purchased additional undeveloped
land, limited shoreline development, and created and maintained
extensive shorefront sand dunes to protect the borough’s property
and tourism industry from coastal storms.

Baltimore, MD

Integrating Climate
Change Adaptation
into an All-Hazard
Mitigation Plan

In 2012, city staff used a periodic update of the city’s AllHazards Mitigation Plan as an opportunity to integrate a climatechange risk and vulnerability assessment into the new Disaster
Preparedness Project and Plan. This case focuses on 2 out of the
231 actions identified: the disaster preparedness initiative, Make
a Plan, Build a Kit, Help Each Other; and the capacity-building
initiative, Resiliency Hubs.

19

20

CLIMATE ADAPTATIONEXHIBIT 2. CASE STUDY SUMMARIES
ReportPage
NumberCase study
community

Page 76

Action profiled

Brief case description

Boston, MA

Climate Change
Preparedness andResiliency Checklist

With a focus on sea level rise and coastal and inland flooding, theBoston Redevelopment Authority mandated that climate change
be considered as part of the review process for large new developments (over 20,000 square feet) and large renovation projects(over 100,000 square feet).

Page 87

Chula Vista, CA

Cool Roofs Ordinanceand Shade Trees
PolicyChula Vista implemented a stakeholder-driven climate planning
process to develop a suite of climate adaptation actions. Two
specific actions focused on addressing rising temperatures in the
San Diego region are profiled in this case: Chula Vista’s cool roofs
ordinance, and Chula Vista’s shade trees policy.

Page 98

Cleveland, OH

Neighborhood Climate
Action Toolkit andClimate Action Fund

Cleveland tied its climate change efforts to date to neighborhood revitalization through a citywide climate action plan and
the Cleveland Neighborhood Climate Action Toolkit, which helps
neighborhoods leverage existing assets to fight economic decline,
increase adaptive capacity, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, andprepare for a climate-altered future.

Page 109El Paso County,
TX

Kay Bailey Hutchison
Inland Desalination
Facility

El Paso Water Utilities’ project focused on addressing the combined challenges of population growth and drought. El Paso Water
Utilities, in an unusual alliance with the U.S. Army military baseFort Bliss, constructed the Kay Bailey Hutchison Desalination Plant
to convert formerly unusable brackish water into drinking water.

Page 121

Flagstaff, AZ

Flagstaff WatershedProtection Project

In response to the 2010 Schultz fire and subsequent flooding,
voters in Flagstaff passed a $10 million bond measure to use city
funding to reduce catastrophic fire risk in critical but hard-to-treat
areas on U.S. Forest Service lands.

Page 132

Fort Collins,
CO

Water Demand
Management

In response to severe drought events, Fort Collins updated its
Water Supply and Demand Management Policy to: (1) outline
specific regulatory measures to reduce water use quickly during asevere drought, and (2) reduce water use through water conservation programs.

Page 140

Grand Rapids,
MI

Vital Streets andSidewalks Spending
Guidelines

Flooding, aging stormwater infrastructure, and public discontent about the state of the roads led Grand Rapids to create theVital Streets and Sidewalk Spending Guidelines, which mandate
green infrastructure use during upgrades. In a 2014 election,
66 percent of voters supported the guidelines and a tax to fundimplementation.

Page 150

Miami-Dade
County, FL

Integrating Climate
Change Adaptation
into a Comprehensive
Development MasterPlan

In 2013, the Board of County Commissioners approved integrating climate change considerations into multiple elements of theComprehensive Development Master Plan. These changes will
require county departments to consider climate change during
processes such as capital improvement projects.

Page 163

Mobile County,
AL

Oyster Reef
Restoration

The cultural and economic impacts of coastal ecosystem degradation have generated support for restoration actions in Alabama’s
Mobile Bay. In 2009, The Nature Conservancy received a grantthrough the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act to rebuild
oyster reefs along a stretch of degraded coastline in Mobile Bay.

CLIMATE ADAPTATIONEXHIBIT 2. CASE STUDY SUMMARIES
ReportPage
NumberCase study
community

Page 173

Action profiled

Brief case description

Norfolk, VA

Coastal Resilience
Strategy

Norfolk passed changes to its flood and coastal zone ordinancefollowing increases in severe coastal flooding and in anticipationof potential sea level rise. The ordinance requires that new structures in coastal flood zones must be built at least 3 feet above
the 100 year floodplain (i.e., a 3-foot freeboard); certain existing
structures must also meet this standard.

Page 183

Oakland, CA

Oakland Climate
Action Coalition
Moves Climate Change
Adaptation Forward

In 2009, 30 organizations interested in advancing policies on sea
level rise, environment, public health, and social justice issues
came together to form the Oakland Climate Action Coalition. This
coalition has become a community-led platform for supporting
climate change adaptation strategy and action through a social
justice lens.

Page 197

Seattle, WA

Mainstreaming
Climate Change Into
Internal Planning and
Decision Making

Seattle Public Utilities integrated climate considerations into thefour levels of their internal planning and operations: (1) organization-wide strategic planning, (2) planning at the water divisionand drainage and sewer division levels, (3) capital investment
decision making, and (4) day-to-day operational decision making.

Page 211

Southwest
Crown, MT

Forest Restoration

In response to more severe and longer wildfire seasons anticipated
to worsen under climate change, the community used federal
funding to conduct forest and watershed restoration, including
forest thinning and prescribed fires, to reestablish natural wildfire
dynamics and reduce the risk of catastrophic wildfire.

Page 223

Spartanburg,
SC

Mainstreaming
Climate Change
into Programs,
Management Actions,and Culture

Droughts, extreme rainfall, and concern about climate change led
Spartanburg Water to integrate climate change into the utility’s
operations, culture, programs, and actions and helped increase thecapacity of staff concerning climate variability and impacts.

Page 231

Tulsa, OK

Acquisition and
Relocation

After several severe flooding events, Tulsa began an extensive program to acquire repeatedly flooded properties, remove or relocate
buildings on those properties, and convert repetitively flooded
properties into parks and other public uses. Since the 1970s, Tulsa
has acquired more than 1,000 repetitively flooded properties.

These 17 case studies, each of which profiled a particularaction taken to reduce climate vulnerability, form theheart of this project. As we address the key questions
below, we provide example cases in each subsection that
illustrate findings particularly well. In most subsections,
there are several other examples among our case studies that could also illustrate that point. The case studies
should be seen as illustrative examples for each of thepoints made in this chapter, not as a comprehensive
accounting of all relevant case examples. For the sakeof brevity, we reference the name of the community
in which an adaptation action occurred, rather than adetailed description of the action profiled. For convenience, Exhibit 2 provides a table of the 17 case studies
for reference when reading this chapter.

21

22

CLIMATE ADAPTATION

What Motivates Communities to Take
Adaptive Action?
Across our 17 case studies, a wide variety of motivations
drove communities to address climate vulnerabilities,
including extreme climate events, shared community
values, planning for climate change, and government mandates. These motivating forces often raised
awareness of community-level vulnerability to climate
impacts, as well as the opportunity to take action.
Sometimes, adaptation actions were part of a broader
policy effort aimed at community priorities beyond
reducing climate vulnerabilities.

Extreme Climate Events
The incidence of extreme climate events—like hurricanes,
severe storms, droughts, and catastrophic wildfires—wasa common theme across all of our case studies. The relative importance of the extreme event varied significantly,
but in almost every case, an extreme event played an
important role in raising awareness of climate vulnerability or in motivating action directly. In some cases, asingle event, such as a hurricane, wildfire, or drought,
had such severe impacts that it served as a “wake-up
call” to motivate action. In other cases, repeated extreme
events built on one another to generate action or breakloose stalled deliberations. Extreme events often sensitized people to climate vulnerabilities, increased public
engagement, changed attitudes about addressing climate vulnerability, galvanized support for actions thatmoved beyond the status quo, and provided windowsof opportunity to implement significant policy actionthat might not have been politically feasible, otherwise.
In some cases, extreme events raised awareness about
vulnerability specifically associated with climate change.
• Avalon, NJ, began its shoreline protection efforts
because of damage wrought by the 1962 Nor’easter.
Progress slowed over time, and only accelerated after
Hurricane Gloria damaged the borough’s property andthriving summer tourism industry in 1985.
• Chula Vista, CA, experienced severe wildfire in 2003
and 2007 that helped motivate the community totackle the broader issue of climate adaptation acrossmultiple hazards. The fires burned to the city limits,providing a visible reminder of climate vulnerability
to all citizens.
• Flagstaff, AZ, experienced a series of record-breaking
fires throughout the 1990s and 2000s that sensitizedpeople to wildfire vulnerability. However, the 2010
Schultz fire and the subsequent flooding convinced
Flagstaff’s leadership and citizens to self-fund forest
fire mitigation projects through a bond issue.
• Tulsa, OK, started its property acquisition and relocation program in response to floods in 1974 and 1976;
however, efforts stalled until the Memorial Day Floodof 1984 brought new life to Tulsa’s acquisition andrelocation efforts.
Multi-hazard adaptations. The prevalence of severe
events did, in certain case study communities, help
to keep stakeholders and the public aware of climatechange as an evolving issue and an important area ofpolitical focus.
• Chula Vista, CA, experienced severe wildfires that
helped motivate its stakeholder engagement process
for climate adaptation. However, Chula Vista’s process extended beyond wildfire to identify adaptation
actions across a number of climate vulnerabilities.
• Tulsa, OK, started out addressing only inland flooding, but that experience eventually helped city leadersdevelop the capacity to address other community vulnerabilities, such as tornadoes and terrorism.

Shared Community Values
Community identification with nearby natural resources
or ecosystems, community cohesion and social equity,and the desire to revitalize, maintain, or enhance socioeconomic conditions are examples of shared community
values that motivated action. These shared values
extended beyond, while remaining consistent with, themotivation to reduce community vulnerability to climate
impacts. These shared values often emerged as bundlesof multiple, sometimes interacting, motivations, which
served to bring together diverse policy participants andenable action.

CLIMATE ADAPTATION

Community identification with nearby natural
resources or ecosystems,
community cohesion andsocial equity, and the desire
to revitalize, maintain, or
enhance socioeconomic
conditions are examples ofshared community values
that motivated action.

Community identification with nearby natural resources
or ecosystems. The economy, social welfare, and cultural identity of some communities depend on natural
resources; protecting these resources galvanize somecommunities to take action.
• In Flagstaff, AZ, citizens approved a bond to fundfire mitigation activities because forests were central
to the identity of the community, providing criticalgoods and services such as clean water and recreational opportunities.
• In Mobile County, AL, the Nature Conservancy gained
the buy-in necessary to implement oyster reef restoration because the community identified with fishing
as a way of life threatened by storm inundation. The
restoration effort helped protect valued local wetlands,
the health of local fisheries, and the sustainability of
livelihoods that depend on coastal resources.
• In Southwestern Crown, MT, communities implemented fire mitigation because they valued the forests
they lived in, the local timber resources they provided,
watershed health, and the terrestrial and aquatic habitats supported by a healthy forest.
Community cohesion and social equity. Some actions
emphasized the additional strain that climate change
may place on entrenched social and economic conditions such as poverty, economic inequality, and social
or environmental justice issues.

• Cleveland, OH, chose to closely tie its climate adaptation efforts to the revitalization of neighborhoods.
The city aims to provide residents with safe and stableneighborhoods that have economic opportunities,
viewing stronger neighborhoods as enabling conditions supportive of adaptation.
• Baltimore, MD, chose to work directly with community
members, educating them on climate vulnerabilities
and helping residents and neighborhoods prepare forand potentially respond to extreme events, such as
flooding or heat waves.
• In Oakland, CA, the Oakland Climate Action Coalitioncame together to advance local climate adaptationthat reflected the community’s priorities and social
justice concerns.
Desire to revitalize, maintain, or enhance socioeconomic conditions. In some communities the desire to
improve economic or social conditions motivated action.
This often emerged from a sense of civic pride and community identity.
• El Paso County, TX, has been aware of and managing for the potential effects of drought for decades.
However, when the closure of Fort Bliss came underdiscussion through the Department of Defense’s baserealignment and closure process—along with the pressures of a growing population, limited low-cost watersupply options, and few additional options to lower
water demand—a new partnership was born. The local
utility and its allies worked together to successfully
lobby for the funding and cross-jurisdictional cooperation necessary to develop a desalination facility inpartnership with Fort Bliss.
• In Fort Collins, CO, city leaders realized that an acutewater shortage that might affect water delivery tomajor industries, especially their thriving brewing
industry, would be a serious threat to the city’s economy and identity.
• In Boston, MA, many commercial developers hadproperty in areas that were hit by Hurricane Sandy. As
a result of direct financial losses from Sandy—and, forsome, the perception of increased potential for futurefinancial losses—the development community largely

23

24

CLIMATE ADAPTATION

accepted voluntary requirements under Boston’s
Zoning Article 80. Despite likely increases to the costof construction, the requirements are intended toreduce future economic losses from inundation andextreme heat.
• Repetitive flooding in Tulsa, OK, adversely affected
the city’s physical infrastructure, its economy, andthe lives and livelihoods of its citizens. The community’s support to address this persistent threat to
Tulsa’s prosperity eventually overcame resistanceby the Home Builders Association, which viewed
flood-control measures as anti-development in a
pro-development political climate.

Desire to Address Climate Change
Some communities appeared to take action out of adesire to demonstrate innovation concerning climatechange. In some cases information about climate change,alone, appeared to raise the awareness of potential climate impacts and drive adaptation actions.
Demonstrate innovation concerning climate change.
Many of the communities in this category have been leaders and early movers in efforts to address greenhouse gas
mitigation or sustainability, and subsequently extended
their efforts to climate adaptation. Furthermore, peer
learning and friendly competition seem to lead some communities to take action (see the peer-to-peer networking
finding on page 33).
• Miami-Dade County, FL, has a long history of environmental action, including its 1993 Urban CO2 Reduction
Plan. The county expanded into adaptation in 2006,
when the county commissioners appointed the Climate
Change Advisory Task Force to bring climate impacts,
especially sea level rise, into public discourse. This consistent leadership on environmental issues has enabledcounty staff to integrate climate change and climate
vulnerability throughout the county’s Comprehensive
Development Master Plan.
• Chula Vista, CA, started working on climate change
in the early 1990s and adopted its first Climate Action
Plan to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions in 2000.
Chula Vista revised this plan in 2008 to include climatechange mitigation measures; a second revision, in 2011,

evaluated how the city could prepare itself for climatechange impacts.
• In Boston, MA, former Mayor Thomas Menino firstchampioned a green building agenda to reduce theenergy footprint of Boston’s buildings in the late
1990s and early 2000s. Mayor Menino undertook thiswork under Zoning Article 80, which was later used
to implement the Climate Change Preparedness andResiliency Checklist to assess how climate change andextreme weather conditions could affect new development and redevelopment over their design life.
Information about the effects of climate change. In someof our case studies, climate change information raised
awareness and drove action in two main ways. First, thepublication of regional, national, or international assessments focused attention on the issue of climate change
and provided a rationale for taking action. Second,tailored climate information from academics or otherclimate change experts informed decision-makers andprovided the necessary background and understandingof climate impacts to facilitate and motivate action.
• Leaders in Seattle, WA, used international andregional reports—such as various Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change assessments, and the first
Pacific Northwest Assessment on Climate Change—toraise awareness among the general public and city
leadership about the effects of climate change and tobuild political support for taking action. This complemented independent and proactive assessments by
SPU staff that did not wait for permission from political leaders to begin climate impacts assessment work.
• The San Diego Foundation’s Focus 2050 Reportprovided Chula Vista, CA, with downscaled climatechange impact data in a digestible report that raised
awareness and motivated policymakers and city staff
to tackle climate adaptation.
• In Norfolk, VA, regional sea level rise projections
through 2100 convinced the Planning Commissionthat adopting a higher freeboard standard than
Department of City Planning staff initially recommended was imperative to protecting the safety of
the city’s infrastructure.

CLIMATE ADAPTATION

Government Mandates and Existing
Regulation
Government mandates, regulations, or enforcement
actions generally did not drive action in the communities,
with the exception described below. However, we call it
out here because government mandates can serve as asignificant motivating force in the future. Note that thelack of community actions driven by government mandates may be due to the case study selection. There aremany cases, for example, of combined sewer overflows(CSO) enforcement actions. But the range of actions
driven by government mandates seems limited to us.
• Grand Rapids, MI, addressed its vulnerability to flooding along the Grand River, at least in part, because thestate of Michigan began citing the city for being inviolation of water quality requirements. During heavy
rainfall events, the city’s combined sewer and storm
water system became overwhelmed, and untreatedsewage was flowing into the Grand River.

What Are Communities Doingto Adapt?
In this section, we examine our case studies to provide
some answers to the question of what communities are
doing to adapt to climate change and climate variability.
We group our findings under the three main componentsof vulnerability identified by the Intergovernmental Panelon Climate Change definition of vulnerability, which are
discussed in Chapter 1.

Reducing exposure means
moving human populationsand valued asset or activities out of harm’s way… We
found examples of reducing
exposure to climate vulnerability through: (1) land-use
regulations and (2) property
buy-outs and relocation.

Reduce Climate Exposure
Exposure is the presence of people or assets in places
that could be adversely affected by climate impacts.
Reducing exposure means moving human populationsand valued assets or activities out of harm’s way. In ourcase studies, we found examples of reducing exposure
to climate vulnerability through: (1) land-use regulations and (2) property buy-outs and relocation. These
strategies were employed in only two communities.
Interestingly, both communities originally took action
with the motivation of addressing climate impacts fromextreme weather events. The actions they took, however, reduced vulnerability to changes in climate such as
potential increases in precipitation, flooding, and coastal
storm surge.
Land-use regulations• In the 1960s, Avalon, NJ, undertook a number ofactions that limited shoreline development, including
restricting residential and commercial development anddeveloping a shoreline setback policy. This prevented
development that would have been vulnerable to storm
surge and future sea-level rise.
• Tulsa, OK, adopted regulatory floodplain maps thatexceeded Federal Emergency Management Agency
requirements to limit development in flood-prone
areas. Tulsa’s floodplain maps were one part of acomprehensive strategy to reduce the community’s
exposure to flooding.
• In Boston, MA, developers are now required to complete a “Climate Change Preparedness and Resiliency
Checklist” as a prerequisite to development of newbuildings over 20,000 square feet and renovations
over 100,000 square feet.
Property buy-outs and relocation• After the 1962 Nor’easter, Avalon, NJ, started a property-exchange or buy-out program to acquire properties
as borough land and compensate landowners who losttheir homes in the storm.
• Since the 1970s, Tulsa, OK, has acquired more than 1,000
repeatedly flooded properties, removed or relocatedassociated buildings, and converted the properties to

25

26

CLIMATE ADAPTATION

public parks; these actions have reduced the exposureof buildings and people to riverine flooding, and is proving beneficial now in light of the prospects of more
extensive flooding anticipated from climate change.

Reduce Sensitivity to Climate Impacts
In our case studies, we found a diversity of actions
that reduced sensitivity to climate impacts. The
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change defines
sensitivity as the degree that a system is affected byclimate variability or change. Efforts to address climate
sensitivity seek to reduce the consequences of a climate
impact. The communities in our case studies reduced
their climate sensitivity through widely applied municipal policy actions or tools, managing ecosystems or
natural resources, and infrastructure-related actions.

Efforts to address climate
sensitivity seek to reduce theconsequences of a climate
impact. The communities
in our case studies reduced
their sensitivity throughwidely applied municipal
policy actions or tools,
managing ecosystems or
natural resources, and infrastructure-related actions.
Municipal policy actions or tools. Zoning and municipal ordinances were popular amongst the 17 case study
communities as a way to reduce the sensitivity of different sectors to climate impacts.
• In Boston, MA, developers are now required to complete a “Climate Change Preparedness and Resiliency
Checklist” that assesses how climate change andextreme weather conditions could affect the development of new buildings over 20,000 square feet or
proposed renovations over 100,000 square feet. As aresult of this checklist, nearly all projects now locate

critical systems above flood levels, reducing sensitivity
to flooding.
• Chula Vista, CA, developed a cool roofs ordinance anda shade trees policy to reduce the urban heat islandeffect and the city’s sensitivity to extreme heat events.
• Norfolk, VA, changed its flood and coastal zone ordinance, implementing a three-foot freeboard standard
for new structures in flood and coastal zones to reduce
the sensitivity of those structures to tidal and coastal
flooding, as well as to sea-level rise.
Managing ecosystems or natural resources. Other cases
study communities chose to reduce their sensitivity bycarefully managing their natural ecosystems.
• Flagstaff, AZ, and the Southwestern Crown, MT,
improved forest management through forest-thinning treatments and prescribed burns; these efforts
reduced the communities’ sensitivity to catastrophic
wildfire. In the case of Flagstaff, these efforts also
addressed vulnerabilities to flooding.
• In Mobile County, AL, oyster reefs were restored toreduce sensitivity to storm surge following Hurricane
Katrina.
Green and gray infrastructure-related actions. Somecase study communities focused on employing infrastructure—conventional “gray” infrastructure, as well as“green” infrastructure2 —to reduce sensitivity to climate
impacts. Many communities combined these sensitivity-reducing strategies with actions to reduce exposure.
• Avalon, NJ, has engaged in extensive dune restoration and beach nourishment, both of which reducethe borough’s sensitivity to coastal storms. These
actions were part of Avalon’s comprehensive shoreline protection strategy, which also included exposure
reduction, such as property buy-outs, and educational
programs and flood insurance to enhance adaptive
capacity (see below).
• El Paso County, TX, constructed an inland desalination
facility. With this facility, El Paso is able to convert
formerly unusable brackish groundwater into drinking
water for the community, reducing the community’s
sensitivity to droughts.

2. We use “green infrastructure” to refer to the use of vegetation, soils, native species, ecosystems, or natural processes to provide a valued community
function, such as vulnerability reduction; green spaces for public use, recreational opportunities, or improved ecosystem health; and natural resource
enhancement.

CLIMATE ADAPTATION• Grand Rapids, MI, created “Vital Streets and Sidewalk
Spending Guidelines,” mandating the use of green
infrastructure when upgrading road and stormwater
infrastructure. These guidelines reduce the city’s sensitivity to inland flooding.

Enhance Adaptive Capacity
Some community actions increased adaptive capacity—a system’s ability to prepare for and adjust to climatechange (including climate variability and extremes),for example, by educating vulnerable populations,improving social networks at the neighborhood level,or protecting natural resources and watersheds. These
actions stemmed from an understanding of the need todevelop and bolster human, social, and natural capital;
develop and build technical capacity; and use existingand develop new institutional capacity to engage in climate-specific planning and implementation.
Develop and bolster human and social capital. These
actions helped case study communities alleviate both
vulnerability to climate impacts and long-standing socioeconomic issues in neighborhoods and communities.
• Baltimore, MD, implemented actions to build theadaptive capacity of residents and neighborhoods.
Make a Plan, Build a Kit, Help Each Other is a disaster preparedness initiative for residents and Resiliency
Hubs aims to improve neighborhoods’ capacity to prepare for and respond to hazardous events.
• Cleveland, OH, designed and implemented theCleveland Neighborhood Climate Action Toolkit to build
social cohesion in neighborhoods, which is a criticalaspect of adaptive capacity; the toolkit focuses on
addressing baseline socioeconomic conditions, eventhough specific consideration of climate vulnerability isrequired. Interestingly, Cleveland is the only case in ourstudy that clearly falls into this “generic,” non-climate
adaptive capacity category.
• In Oakland, CA, the Oakland Climate Action
Coalition—a community-led coalition of 30 organizations—spurred a comprehensive public engagement
process on climate mitigation and adaptation planning.
The coalition now conducts community educationand outreach concerning Oakland’s vulnerability to

extreme heat, wildfires, coastal flooding from sea levelrise, and air quality, as well as future food, water, andelectricity prices.
Develop and build technical capacity. Other communities relied on municipal, government, private industry,
academic, or public sector leaders to build a better
understanding of climate vulnerabilities and what theymean for an individual’s project or job functions.
• Chula Vista, CA, worked with academics and The San
Diego Foundation to use the Focus 2050 Report tobuild capacity among staff and stakeholders to understand the projected impacts of climate change as partof their planning process.
• Seattle Public Utilities in Seattle, WA, created an internal Climate Resiliency Group in the late-2000s, in partto build up staff capacity for climate adaptation. This
included a major self-education effort, engagementwith the Water Utility Climate Alliance, commissioning
and conducting tailored research, and participation in
the National Climate Assessment.
Use existing or develop new institutional capacity.
Some communities used planning processes as a way tobuild on existing staff or community capacity to address
climate vulnerabilities.
• Chula Vista, CA, developed a stakeholder-driven climate
planning process to identify, evaluate, and implementa suite of climate adaptation actions. City staff, working with the stakeholder group, reviewed 180 potential
adaptation actions and ultimately recommended 11 climate adaptation actions to the City Council.
• Miami-Dade County, FL, integrated climate change
considerations into its Comprehensive Development
Master Plan—including land use; transportation; conservation, aquifer recharge, and drainage; water, sewer andsolid waste; coastal management; and intergovernmental coordination. This helped the county mainstream
climate considerations across county functions.
• Seattle Public Utilities in Seattle, WA, integrated climate change into internal planning to ensure thatclimate was considered as a matter of course in strategic business planning, department-wide planning,and capital improvements.

27

28

CLIMATE ADAPTATION

How Are Communities Implementing
Adaptation Actions?
Our case studies profile actions that use a diversity ofstrategies to achieve reductions in vulnerability; understanding how actions succeed or fail depends on thecommunity and its ability to capitalize on effective
leadership, to build community support, and otherapproaches to facilitate implementation. Some of thestrategies in this section can occur at various points inthe process: during the planning stages, after leaders
have chosen an action and need to secure support, or
during implementation.

Leadership is a critical component of enacting change…
We focus on three key aspectsof successful leadership: theability to identify needs andsupply a vision for change; theability to work in a coalition;and the ability to sustain
efforts over a long period oftime to enact to change.
Capitalize on Effective Leadership
Leadership is a critical component of enacting change.
Nearly all of our case narratives highlight the importance of leaders and leadership to establish meaningful,ongoing, community-scale, climate adaptation efforts.
However, the case narratives also illustrate that no single
type or approach to leadership will be appropriate forall circumstances or occasions. Some case narratives
show the effectiveness of top-down leadership (e.g.,
Boston, El Paso), while others tell a story of leadership that evolved from the bottom-up (e.g., Flagstaff,
Oakland, Seattle). Here, we focus on three key aspectsof successful leadership: the ability to identify needs
and supply a vision for change; the ability to work in a
coalition; and the ability to sustain efforts over a long
period of time to enact change.

Ability to identify needs and supply a vision for change.
An important manifestation of leadership is the ability toidentify a need for change and articulate a vision for analternative future. Implementation of a suite of adaptation actions will require complex leadership capabilities,
such as: (1) high-level leadership from elected officials,
department heads, or organizational executives to articulate a vision and inspire change; (2) leadership frommid-level managers to translate the vision into specificaction items or technical specifications; and (3) citizen-facing leaders willing to communicate persuasively
with the public.
• In Miami-Dade County, FL, former County Commissioner
Harvey Ruvin began to push for more action on climatechange, including the organization of an ad hoc committee on climate adaptation, years before the county
took actual steps toward implementation. The committee made a number of recommendations, including
actions to address flood protection, saltwater intrusion,
and Everglades restoration.
• Boston, MA, faced growing vulnerabilities from sealevel rise and coastal storms. In response, Mayor
Thomas M. Menino started a series of initiatives to“green” the built environment. These efforts paid off
in 2013, when the Boston Redevelopment Authority
Board mandated that climate change be considered aspart of the review process for large new developments
and large renovation projects.
• In Seattle, WA, Paul Fleming worked with colleagues
to promote the consideration of climate change within
Seattle Public Utilities, among peer utilities, andamong colleagues at SPU. His leadership has played
an important role in making Seattle a leader on climatechange adaptation.
• In Oakland, CA, the Oakland Climate Action Coalition,
made up of environmental and social justice organizations, developed into a grassroots force advocating forclimate mitigation initiatives in the city’s official plan.
Ability to work in a coalition. Among our cases, adaptation is rarely implemented single-handedly. Leaders
often needed to rally the support of a broader coalitionof citizens, nongovernmental organizations, elected officials, municipal staff, the private sector, consultants, andCLIMATE ADAPTATION

state or federal agencies. Leadership in some cases ismanifested as collaboration across multiple individuals
and groups driving a joint agenda.
• In El Paso County, TX, the president and chief executive officer of the water utility, Edmund Archuleta,
had a key role in identifying the opportunity for andeventually constructing the inland desalination facility.
However, collaboration with Fort Bliss personnel, other
Department of Army officials, and members of the U.S.
Congress was necessary to overcome jurisdictionaland financial hurdles.
• In Flagstaff, AZ, the city’s fire management officer,
Paul Summerfelt, pitched an approach to city manager Kevin Burke to support forest management. The
city manager was supportive of the idea, and saw an
expiring city bond as a potential avenue for funding.
Flagstaff had an existing team of citizens working onforest management issues who joined in support ofthe idea and helped propose it to the City Council.
These same citizens later organized a Political Action
Committee to raise support for the measure. Once thecommunity passed the bond extension, a collaborative
partnership among the city, the U.S. Forest Service, thecounty, and local tribes has formed to ensure coordination during project implementation.
• In Oakland, CA, the city’s intention to develop a climate change mitigation plan generated interest fromlocal environmental and social justice organizations
to help shape the plan through community engagement. The various organizations developed a formal
partnership, the Oakland Climate Action Coalition, toprovide community-based leadership on Oakland’s
climate initiatives.
• In Mobile County, AL, The Nature Conservancy
received federal funding to restore Mobile Bay’s oyster
reefs; however, collaboration among multiple groups—
including nongovernmental organizations, academic
researchers, citizens, and state and federal governments—was crucial to the design and implementationof The Nature Conservancy oyster reef project.

Ability to sustain effectiveness over a long periodof time to enact change. In a few of our case studies,
adaptation actions are implemented quickly. However,in most of our cases, enduring leadership was needed.
This extended commitment by an individual or group
appears to be critical to making progress. In some cases,
the mantle of leadership can be passed from one individual or one group to another, particularly between formal
institutions.
• In Miami-Dade County, FL, Mr. Ruvin played an
important role over decades, pushing a climatechange mitigation program that evolved into a climate
adaptation agenda. This agenda has been carriedout by dedicated and long-serving county staff, inpart through their involvement in the South Florida
Regional Climate Change Compact. The Compact itself
has enabled county leaders to take a more aggressive
stance on climate issues than would otherwise be thecase, including newer voices in Miami-Dade County,
such as Commissioner Rebecca Sosa, Commissioner
Daniella Levine Cava and Mayor Carlos A. Gimenez.
• Following Tulsa, OK’s 1974 and 1976 flooding events,
project champions—particularly Ann Patton, Ron
Flanagan, and J.D. Metcalfe—began to move a comprehensive flood management program from conception
to implementation. However, it was not until the city’s
worst flooding event—the 1984 Memorial Day flood—
when project champions, including the new Mayor
Terry Young, were able to use momentum from thatflooding event, as well as established partnerships andprevious work in developing and advocating sophisticated solutions to flood mitigation, to fully implement
a comprehensive flood-management program along
the city’s tributary streams. Two of these project
champions continue to work today on flood management. In addition, newer project champions are also
continuing the work through Tulsa Partners, Inc.
• A small group of staff at Seattle Public Utilities in
Seattle, WA—including Paul Fleming, Joan Kersnar,and Alan Chinn—worked together for almost a decade
to push a climate adaptation agenda forward, including the most recent effort to integrate climate change
into long range supply planning.

29

30

CLIMATE ADAPTATION

Build Community Support
In many of our case studies, strong community support
for an issue was as instrumental—and varied—as effective leadership. Community support came in different
forms and at different times. Here, we discuss leveraging support after extreme events; broadening support
through a focus on co-benefits; tailoring discussion ofclimate change to fit with the politics and attitudes of the
public; enhancing support through grassroots or community organizations; and focusing, or not focusing, on
engagement of more-vulnerable populations.
Use extreme events to build support. In many case studies, leaders leveraged the consensus that “somethingneeds to be done” after an extreme event to push forpolicy changes to reduce vulnerability to future extreme
events. The strategic move in the aftermath of an extreme
event can capitalize on a short window of opportunity
before the event starts to fade from community memory.
• In Flagstaff, AZ, leaders of the bond initiative wereable to appeal to the personal experience of citizens
and garner community support for the proposed“Flagstaff Watershed Protection Plan” because thearea had experienced a string of wildfires, culminatingin the Schultz fire and subsequent flooding.
• In Avalon, NJ, a history of coastal storms threatened
the borough’s property and thriving summer tourism
industry, which led the city to undertake shoreline protection efforts. Smaller storms helped to make thecase for ongoing shoreline protection efforts, such as
beach nourishment and community education efforts.
• Tulsa, OK, advanced comprehensive flood management after the 1984 Memorial Day flood by relying on:(1) established partnerships among grassroots citizens,technical experts, and public-sector officials—relationships that were developed during earlier flooding
events; and (2) the community’s previous work indeveloping and advocating for sophisticated solutions
to flood mitigation. Once the 1984 Memorial Day Floodhit, the community was able to “seize [the] momentand execute bold plans” (Patton, 2009, p. 89).
Broadening support through a focus on co-benefits.
An action aimed at reducing vulnerability to a particularclimate impact often provides other benefits that may
more strongly motivate some citizens to understandthe value of taking action. Building community support
around those other benefits can broaden support for an
adaptation action.
• Grand Rapids, MI, understood that by appealing to thebenefits of improving dilapidated roads, and making
multi-modal transportation improvements, they could
attract a broader coalition of interests in support ofdeveloping green infrastructure to address flooding
from stormwater.
• In El Paso, TX, the water utility, the Chamber ofCommerce, and local elected officials all advocatedfor the development of a desalination plant, not justto increase available water sources in the county, butalso to help keep U.S. Army Base Fort Bliss operating.
The fort is a major economic driver in the community.
• Chula Vista, CA, prioritized climate adaptation
actions with multiple co-benefits. For example, Chula
Vista’s stakeholder working group recommended
the implementation of a shade trees policy becauseof its significant co-benefits for the city: the shadetrees not only acted as a natural cooling mechanism
for urban areas, but they also provided habitat for
wildlife, reduced storm water runoff, and increased
property values.

In many of our case studies,strong community support
for an issue was as instrumental—and varied—aseffective leadership.
Tailoring discussion of “climate change” to fit with thelocal politics and attitudes of the public. Politics andpublic attitudes/local values affect whether communities explicitly discussed climate change in the context
of their vulnerability reduction efforts. Our case studies
demonstrate that community leaders made intentional
choices about whether, when, and how to bring climatechange into the discussion about an adaptation action.

CLIMATE ADAPTATION

Politics and public attitudes /local values affect whether
communities explicitly discussed climate change in thecontext of their vulnerability
reduction efforts.
• In Seattle, WA; Baltimore, MD; Boston, MA; Chula
Vista, CA; Oakland, CA; and Miami-Dade County, FL,leaders explicitly cited climate change as a primaryreason for the adaptation action taken. In these cases,
the general public and community leadership oftenpressed for action because of widespread support foraddressing the issue of climate change.
• In Norfolk, VA; Cleveland, OH; and Grand Rapids,
MI, leaders discussed climate change explicitly, but
not as a primary motivator for adaptation actions.
Typically, benefits such as economic development or
the impacts of climate variability were the primarypoint of discussion.
• Spartanburg Water, SC, made a conscious effort
to tailor its communications to its audience. The
utility’s chief financial officer, Rebecca West, foundthat addressing the immediate and future effects
of droughts and flooding was a more effective way
to communicate than using the phrase “climatechange,” which some residents perceived as a politically loaded term.
• Some communities avoided the term “climate change”
entirely. Although Fort Collins, CO, has committed toreduce its greenhouse gas emissions and vulnerability
to climate change, the water utility did not discuss
climate change explicitly in its current supply management plans because it could trigger the permitting
process for Halligan Reservoir to start over. Thisbureaucratic requirement silenced a proactive community when it came to explicitly addressing climatechange in the design of a long-lived infrastructure
asset as well as other water projects that might arise
from the supply management plan.

• Tulsa, OK; and Mobile County, AL, did not discuss climate change at all, potentially because of a difficult
political environment or because of a focus on different community priorities. In the early stages of the
Tulsa case, climate change was not discussed because
these efforts began before climate change became apublic policy concern, but it is notable that climatechange still has not become a priority concern for thisongoing case of vulnerability reduction.
Enhancing support through grassroots or community
organizations. In some cases, progress on adaptation
actions was a result of collaboration with grassrootscommunity organizations. Such collaboration may evenhave been central to success.
• In Oakland, CA, the Oakland Climate Action Coalition
developed into a grassroots force advocating for climate mitigation initiatives in the city’s official plan. The
coalition also ensured that community member voices
were heard in Oakland climate adaptation initiatives,
moving forward.
• Cleveland, OH, worked with community development
corporations to understand what the pressing issues
were on a neighborhood-by-neighborhood basis toprioritize actions that would provide the most benefit
and buy-in at that level.
• In Flagstaff, AZ, citizens formed a political action committee to lobby for the passage of their respective tax
initiatives to fund adaptation actions.

In some case studies, theissues of environmental
justice and social equity
played a significant role; inothers, it was considered, but
it did not drive the process.
In still others, the issue did
not arise at all.

31

32

CLIMATE ADAPTATIONEngagement of more-vulnerable populations.3 In somecase studies, the issues of environmental justice andsocial equity played a significant role; in others, it wasconsidered, but did not drive the process. In still others,
the issue did not arise at all.
• In some communities, like Baltimore, MD; Cleveland,
OH; and Oakland, CA; more-vulnerable populations
got involved or were brought into the planning process and then played a central role in the adaptation
action taken.
• In some communities, like Flagstaff, AZ, more-vulnerable populations were considered, but their needsor positions were not considered in a way that fundamentally altered the adaptation action implemented.
• In still other communities, like Fort Collins, CO; andSpartanburg Water, SC, more-vulnerable populations
were not considered at all. In these and other casestudies, it appears that the issue was not addressed
because leaders wanted to apply a uniform rule toall people regardless of circumstances. For example,
it seems that Fort Collins leaders may have felt that
all citizens should have the same water-service levels
and rates.

Other Approaches to Facilitate
Implementation
Implementing adaptation actions was achieved in thecase study communities through a variety of facilitating
mechanisms, including mainstreaming adaptation into
existing efforts; starting small and scaling up; developing
new forums for dialogue, learning, and collaboration;using diverse strategies to secure funding; using peer-topeer networking and learning; and collaborating within
and across government.
Mainstreaming adaptation into existing efforts. Some
adaptation efforts involved integrating adaptation into
strategic planning, comprehensive planning processes,
capital improvements planning, and other decision-making processes to ensure that leadership would consider
climate as a matter of course across dozens or hundreds of decisions moving into the future. Often it also
included deploying existing policy tools in creative ways.
In many of our case studies, community actors were able

to negotiate existing initiatives and policy tools to findcreative ways to implement an adaptation action.
• Miami-Dade County, FL, integrated climate change considerations into multiple elements of its Comprehensive
Development Master Plan, including land use; transportation; conservation, aquifer recharge and drainage;
water, sewer and solid waste; coastal management; andintergovernmental coordination.
• In Boston, MA, Mayor Menino and his staff used
Zoning Article 80 as a way to require private parties to fill out a Climate Change Preparedness andResiliency Checklist to ensure developers considered
the climate vulnerability of proposed development
and redevelopment.
• Seattle Public Utilities in Seattle, WA, integrated climate change into its Stage Gates process for reviewing
and implementing infrastructure projects. This process
requires specific questions, including questions aboutclimate change, to be answered before a proposed
project can advance to the next stage of consideration
for funding.
• When the Baltimore, MD, All-Hazard Mitigation Plan
was due for a periodic update, city staff decided to use
the opportunity to integrate climate vulnerability analyses into the updated plan—the Disaster Preparedness
Project and Plan.
• In Norfolk, VA, policymakers used a floodplain ordinanceto propose a freeboard standard to reduce climate vulnerability to storm surge and coastal flooding.
Developing new forums for dialogue, learning, andcollaboration. Some actions required significant modifications to existing decision-making processes ordeveloping new ones. These adaptation actions are perhaps the most ambitious strategies because they require
new mechanisms or significant modification of existingmechanisms through which to tackle the issue of climatechange more holistically.
• Seattle Public Utilities in Seattle, WA, created a staffrun Climate Resiliency Group to integrate climatechange into internal planning to ensure that climate
was a part of strategic business planning, department-wide planning, and capital improvements.

3. We define “more-vulnerable populations” as those populations that have greater exposure to climate vulnerabilities (e.g., are located in vulnerable
areas, lack access to air conditioning) and who are more sensitive to those climate impacts (e.g., have fewer financial resources to recover from adisaster, have pre-existing medical conditions).

CLIMATE ADAPTATION

Many of our cases indicate theimportance of learning fromother communities or programs in similar situations.
• Chula Vista, CA, developed a climate change stakeholder group of community members to identify,
evaluate, and select climate adaptation actions. Thiseffective process went beyond standard community
engagement.
Starting small and scaling up. Several of our case studies
illustrate that using an incremental and phased approachfacilitated the adoption of more ambitious programs
down the line.
• Southwestern Crown, MT, started by developing“zones of agreement” that allowed each community
to start out with actions upon which they agreed on.
In this case study, different parties began with theagreement that they did not want homes to burn incatastrophic wildfires; this point of agreement allowed
the group to start with fuel-reduction projects aroundhomes. Once the group understood the science andthe process through taking this incremental step, it
became easier to agree on more projects, as well as abroader range of projects, including projects focusedon climate adaptation.
• Boston, MA, began its green building efforts by first
implementing them on government buildings, an action
known as “LEEDing by example,” before applying these
efforts to commercial buildings. City leaders also began
working with commercial developers on climate vulnerability, first through informal questionnaires that did
not inform permitting decisions, then through an online
survey, and then finally by developing the checklist as aformal requirement under Zoning Article 80.
Using diverse strategies to secure funding. Funding
is often cited as a primary barrier to taking adaptation
action. Some of our cases show significant creativity in funding adaptation actions. Some actions wereself-funded by communities, others were supported
by charitable foundations, and yet others tapped into

state and federal resources. Notably, once a community
acquired one source of funding, other sources of funding
followed.
• In Flagstaff, AZ, city leadership recognized the expiration of an existing bond as an opportunity to generate
momentum and funding to address the risk of catastrophic wildfire. Flagstaff decided to self-financeapproximately $10 million for wildfire mitigation througha citizen vote on a bond question. Once this funding was
secured, the U.S. Forest Service added $1.6 million; theState of Arizona, Coconino County, Northern Arizona
University, and local citizens pitched in $400,000.
• Grand Rapids, MI, extended an income tax that was
about to expire, using the funds to finance needed
repairs to roads and develop green infrastructure to
reduce flood vulnerability.
• Avalon, NJ, secured an estimated $50 million in federal, state, and local funding to implement much of its
shoreline protection strategy over many years. In years
when state and federal resources have been insufficient, the borough has relied on local taxes and bonds
to cover the shortfall.
• Tulsa, OK, established a storm-water utility fee on
citizens’ water bills. These funds have provided
approximately $24 million annually to the City of Tulsa.
This funding has been used for planning processes,
acquiring repeatedly flooded properties, maintaining
existing facilities, completing small drainage projects,
and providing matching funds for federal grants.
Using peer-to-peer networking and learning. Many of
our cases indicate the importance of learning from othercommunities or programs in similar situations. This peerto-peer learning can take place at different points in thepolicy process and appears to be a key strategy for learning, planning, and taking adaptation action. This learningoften included what kinds of action were being taken, how
to implement such actions, information sharing, and more.
• Fort Collins, CO, looked at the approaches of otherwater utilities in the region, such as Denver Water,which is part of a water utility network called theWater Utility Climate Alliance. Reviewing the actionsof neighboring utilities allowed Fort Colling to devise
its own response to critical water shortages.

33

34

CLIMATE ADAPTATION• Miami-Dade County, FL; Chula Vista, CA; Boston,MA; Baltimore, MD; Cleveland, OH; Oakland, CA; andFlagstaff, AZ, are members of multi-jurisdictional, collaborative, peer-learning groups such as the Urban
Sustainability Directors Network, C-40, the Western
Adaptation Alliance, the South Florida Regional
Climate Compact, the San Diego Foundation Climate
Program, ICLEI USA, and others. These groups share
information about climate change, planning processes,
implementation strategies, and, more importantly,
provided opportunities for real human-to-humaninteraction about how to get things done in comparable municipal contexts.
• Leaders in El Paso County, TX, toured desalinization
plants in Florida to begin to understand the scope ofbuilding their own inland desalinization facility.
• Flagstaff, AZ, learned about citizen willingness-to-pay
for wildfire mitigation when leaders from Santa Fe,
NM, shared their experience at a wildfire conference.
Collaborating within and across government. Adaptation
actions often required implementers to move outside
their particular agency, division, or area of expertise. In
some cases, implementers worked across multiple divisions or expertise areas within a department or agency. In
others, implementers worked with different departments,
agencies, or external partners, such as nongovernmentalorganizations or academic institutions. Such collaboration was often difficult to accomplish due to a varietyof governance, perception, and self-interest barriers thatdisincentivize collaboration. But those who implemented
adaptation actions overcame a range of barriers byengaging in such collaborations; for example, they gained
legal authority, community trust, technical expertise, andenhanced political support.

Adaptation actions often
required implementers tomove outside their particular
agency, division, or area ofexpertise.

• Norfolk, VA and Boston, MA, provide examples ofadaptation actions that were led by a specific municipal or utility department, but required collaboration
across departmental divisions or practice areas thatmight not normally communicate with one another.
• El Paso County, TX; Avalon, NJ; and Grand Rapids, MI,provide examples of adaptation actions that required
collaboration across administrative jurisdictionalboundaries (e.g., municipal departments or levelsof government) that spanned traditional patterns ofauthority or went beyond standard operating procedures. For example, El Paso Water Utilities needed
to coordinate with personnel from the U.S. Army atFort Bliss to cost-effectively develop and manage adesalinization plant.
• Flagstaff, AZ; Southwest Crown, MT; and Mobile
County, AL, offer examples of adaptation actions that
required collaboration across jurisdictional boundaries
and across different types of institutions to work at thescale of a natural system. For example, Flagstaff, AZ,
required collaboration across city, federal (U.S. Forest
Service), county, and tribal jurisdictions to address
wildfire risks. Mobile County, AL required collaboration across nongovernmental organizations, federal
funders, and local governments.

What Are Communities Achieving
through Adaptation?
After an adaptation action is identified and implemented,
what effect does it actually have on the community? To
understand achievements in community-based adaptations, we looked for: tangible reductions in vulnerability;
innovative types of vulnerability reduction; limitations
to vulnerability reduction; co-benefits of community-based adaptation; and monitoring and evaluation of
approaches, frameworks, or tools.

Vulnerability Reduction
Some communities have reduced their vulnerability to
climate variability and extreme events in a measurable orobvious way. While it is not possible to empirically assess
whether this progress has also reduced vulnerability toCLIMATE ADAPTATION

projected climate change impacts, the tangible vulnerability reduction is notable.
• El Paso County, TX, increased the operation of its
desalinization facility from 10 percent to full capacity
during the recent Texas drought; this minimized thedrought’s effects on the community by ensuring sufficient water for citizens and businesses.
• Fort Collins, CO, realized long-term water savings
from its conservation programs and supply-shortage
response plan. According to Fort Collins staff, further
water-use restrictions were not necessary during themost recent drought because of this long-term reduction in water use.
• Tulsa, OK, has not suffered significant flood damages
to managed floodplain areas since project implementation, despite several 25-year flooding events.
Prospective vulnerability reduction to current or
future climate impacts. Some adaptation actions are
expected to reduce vulnerability, even though they have
not yet proven themselves. In some communities, thisis because climate impacts have not tested the action
or climate change has not yet reached a magnitude totest the action; in others, the community has not fully
implemented the action. How long any effort reduces
overall vulnerability depends on the nature of the effort,
how extensively it is taken up, and the speed of climatechange. The research team applied our professional judgment to affirm such prospective vulnerability reduction.
• Grand Rapids, MI, is still in the process of constructing
green infrastructure projects in tandem with transportation improvements. However, once a sufficientamount of green infrastructure is in place, this action
can be expected to reduce effects from periodic
storm-water floods.
• Although Flagstaff, AZ, has passed and funded its
watershed protection project, it has not yet implemented the project because the community is awaiting
the completion of an environmental impact statement.
Once it is complete, the proposed forest management
work is expected to reduce wildfire hazards.
• In Miami-Dade County, FL, changes to the comprehensive plan called for the county to consider climatechange through regular decision-making processes. For
example, new roadway siting and designs are expected
to reduce exposure and sensitivity to storm surge andsea level rise, thus reducing the county’s vulnerability
to climate change over time.
Increasing adaptive capacity. Some adaptation actions
increase both generic and specific adaptive capacity (Eakin et al., 2014), thereby changing the nature ofvulnerability for particular places or populations. As discussed on page 27, adaptive capacity is a factor in theIntergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s three-folddefinition of vulnerability. Adaptive capacity can include
addressing the baseline socioeconomic conditions thatlead to vulnerability—such as poverty or an aging housing
stock. Addressing underlying conditions can enhance theresources a community can use to reduce its climate vulnerability or respond to extreme events. Other approaches
focus on strengthening neighborhood networks to
improve response to extreme events; and improving technical skills, such as training municipal staff to understandclimate impacts on the systems they manage.
• In Baltimore, MD, two campaigns were created to educate community members about local climate hazards
and the options to prepare for and respond to thesehazards. The campaigns are expected to enhancecommunity capabilities to respond to extreme events.
• In Oakland, CA, the city and a coalition of community-based organizations are in the process ofdeveloping adaptation strategies that incorporatesocial justice. In the meantime, a number of community-based organizations have begun to educate
their respective audiences on local climate hazards
and appropriate approaches to prepare and respond.

Adaptive capacity can
include addressing baselinesocioeconomic conditions
that lead to vulnerability—
such as poverty or an aging
housing stock.

35

36

CLIMATE ADAPTATION

Co-Benefits of Community-Based
Adaptation Action
Many communities implement adaptation actions forreasons beyond climate vulnerability reduction. Manyinterviewees across our case studies cited progress on
non-vulnerability outcomes, what we call co-benefits,
as an important sign of success. Communities viewed
recognizing non-climate vulnerability outcomes as asignificant dimension of what they achieved throughadaptation action. These co-benefits are often closely
tied to the non-climatic motivations that encouraged
action in the first place.
Outcomes beyond climate vulnerability reduction.
• Grand Rapids, MI supported efforts to develop amulti-modal transportation system and improve roadmaintenance as well as reduce the effects of inland
flooding through a single income tax extension.
• Cleveland, OH has supported community and neighborhood redevelopment through its adaptation
program. This meant that actions to support neighborhood climate adaptation sometimes included
initiatives that could seem, to some, tangential toclimate change adaptation, such as the promotionof local foods and businesses. However, these were
important co-benefits for the city and its residents.
• In El Paso, TX, the promise of expanded water
resources contributed to the retention and eventual
growth of Fort Bliss. Because Fort Bliss is a major
economic driver in the community, this was seen asa major co-benefit related to the development of thecity’s desalination facility.
• Avalon, NJ helped protect their summer tourism industry through particular vulnerability reduction actions.
For example, the community has accelerated efforts
to rebuild eroding sand dunes or segments of shoreline, ahead of partner agencies’ schedules, to ensure a
profitable summer tourist season for local businesses.

Limitations to Vulnerability Reduction
Several of our case studies involved implementation ofactions whose vulnerability-reduction benefits may erode
over time. In some cases, a small and discreet adaptation action achieved tangible or indirect vulnerability

reductions, but those reductions may become less effective over time or may have only a narrow effect. We felt
it was important to note these potential limitations forthe sake of transparency.
Become less effective over time. Because some projects
did not factor in climate change or other forms of social
or environmental change, the level of vulnerability reduction they provide will likely degrade over time in the faceof a changing climate. For example, actions that provide
a particular level of protection against storm surge will
provide less protection as sea levels rise.
• In Mobile County, AL, restoration project managers
have observed wave attenuation behind the restored
oyster reefs, which indicates that reefs are providing
protection from storm surge. However, reefs in this area
have sunk over time because of land subsidence; as sea
level continues to rise, the reefs will become less effective in reducing storm surge before it reaches the coast.
• In Norfolk, VA, the three-foot freeboard standard will
provide a decreasing buffer from storm surge as sea
levels rise. Eventually, the level at which construction
is built above the 100-year floodplain will be overwhelmed by sea level rise.
• In Avalon, NJ, the natural buffer of dunes and beaches
only provides a natural buffer if the borough periodically nourishes the beaches and dunes. This is because
small weather events and extreme events wash away
the sand. Beach nourishment will be required on amore frequent basis as sea levels rise and coastal
storms intensify, eventually becoming untenable asclimate change progresses.

Because some projects did
not factor in climate change
or other forms of social orenvironmental change, thelevel of vulnerability reduction they provide will likely
degrade over time in the faceof a changing climate.

CLIMATE ADAPTATION

Narrow effectiveness. Although adaptation actions
in some of our case study communities have tangibly reduced vulnerability, they address only a specificaspect of overall community vulnerability. As such, thevulnerability reductions achieved by such actions may
be insufficient to mitigate the climate impacts they areintended to address. In some cases where an individual
adaptation action stood alone, the action may proveless effective than it would have been as part of a portfolio of actions.
• Norfolk, VA, for example, passed a three-foot freeboard requirement for new buildings developed incoastal and flood zones. Although this action helped
Norfolk address the effects of sea level rise and tidal
flooding on new buildings, it did not address new
public infrastructure, such as sewer lines and the
public streets necessary to serve buildings in flood andcoastal zones, nor did it address existing structures atrisk prior to their being damaged.
• The Boston, MA, climate change preparedness andresiliency checklist requires the consideration of climate change only for new commercial development
over 20,000 square feet and renovations over 100,000
square feet. Hence, smaller developments and residential development are not subject to the checklist.
It remains to be seen whether Boston will extend
and strengthen use of the checklist or use otherapproaches to ensure the resilience of smaller-scale
development projects.

Monitoring and Evaluation of Approaches,
Frameworks, or Tools
Monitoring and evaluation is commonly discussed as a
critical component of climate adaptation, and indeed
any policy process. Nonetheless, evaluation is often
neglected, and we found this reflected in our study. In
most of our case study communities, local actors evaluated progress anecdotally; however, formal evaluation
programs occurred in only a few communities.
Local actors evaluated progress anecdotally. In nearly
every case study, we asked interviewees to identify
progress, lack of progress, and next steps. Typically,
interviewees cited a variety of factors that they used
as indicators of progress relative to a historical baseline(e.g., community buy-in, use of a program, increased
issue awareness). These factors tended to be subjectively
chosen and assessed. However, local actors found themsufficient to evaluate progress and make adjustments
for the practical purpose of recalibrating the adaptation
action before taking further steps.
• In Avalon, NJ, local officials tout a statement from
Assistant Secretary of the Army Jo-Ellen Darcy, who
after Hurricane Sandy said, “…The property behind thebeaches in Avalon were well protected… where there
has been no federal beach project, the community
didn’t fare that well.” They take this as an indicationthat their shoreline protection efforts are effective andshould continue.
• Oyster reef restoration project managers in coastal
Mobile County, AL, have observed wave-energy
attenuation behind the reefs, in addition to ecological benefits such as improved reef habitat andgreater presence of marine life. Restoration leaders
also describe an increase in public awareness about
the value of healthy coastal ecosystems, particularly tocoastal cultures and livelihoods; the leaders work withvolunteers at restoration events and thus are in a position to monitor such increases. Anecdotal evidence of
restoration effectiveness is strong, but project staff
recognize the importance of monitoring and adaptive management for maintaining long-term benefits,
and they are pursuing funding for monitoring existing
restoration sites.
Formal evaluation programs occurred in some communities. We did observe some indication of formalmonitoring and evaluation to measure progress toward
stated objectives for climate adaptation.
• In the Southwestern Crown, MT, the community
collaborative decided early on that monitoring theeffects of forest treatments was a high priority andthe collaborative set aside 10 percent of its budget touse for monitoring. The collaborative has an adaptive
management framework that relies on this monitoring program to change management activities and to
tailor resource expenditures.
• Fort Collins, CO, tracks water use in gallons per
capita per day. This has enabled the city to monitor

37

38

CLIMATE ADAPTATION

the effectiveness of its conservation programs andwater-supply shortage response plan. The city attributes long-term water savings to the effectiveness ofboth conservation and regulatory programs.
• In Baltimore, MD, city staff used a relatively simple
scale to measure their progress in implementing climate adaptation and hazards-mitigation initiatives.
The scale does not address program effectiveness or
performance, but it is an important tool to help track
implementation progress.

Conclusion
The case studies and cross-case findings discussed
in this chapter represent the empirical and analyticalheart of this project. Each case study represents a stepin a single community’s path to climate adaptation—apath that can inspire forward-thinking action by othercommunities and climate adaptation professionals. And
the cross-case findings represent the collective wisdomthat our research team could gather across this portfolioof 17 unique cases of adaptation to climate impacts. In
an important sense, the cross-case findings presented
here provide a baseline of the state of community-based
adaptation in the United States. This baseline should
be assessed and evaluated against the real-world
experiences of other community-based champions
and adaptation professionals. If found practical, thesefindings should be disseminated and adapted by othercommunities to facilitate efforts in their own communities to reduce vulnerability to climate impacts.

CLIMATE ADAPTATION

39

40

CLIMATE ADAPTATIONCHAPTER 3

Conclusions and Tactical Recommendations

CLIMATE ADAPTATIONA

s recently as 2014, the U.S. National Climate Assessment observed that “substantial
adaptation planning is occurring…however, few measures have been implemented”(Melillo et al., 2014). Although accurate in many respects, this message may obscure important progress being made to reduce vulnerability to climate risks at the community level.
Through the course of this study, we have found thatwhen one considers actions to address climate variability
and climate-related extreme events—as well as actions
to address long-term climate change—one finds many
communities have implemented actions designed toreduce vulnerability to current and future climate risks.
These actions that communities are taking provide arich trove of models and lessons that can inform future
adaptation activities. Adaptation professionals should
continue to observe and critically analyze these actions
and others. And community-based champions can use
these actions as a basis for expanding vulnerability-reduction activities in their own communities.
While much can be learned from these community-based
actions, it is our strong impression that none of the communities profiled in this study have comprehensively

addressed the climate change or extreme weather
vulnerabilities that they do or will face, particularly if
evaluated in terms of principles of adaptation such as
those outlined in Exhibit 3.1. This means that while progress is being made on reducing vulnerability to climate
impacts, in our view, much more must be done.
In this chapter we share conclusions synthesized fromour case study research and analysis, thought leader
interviews, and a review of selected technical and professional literature that aimed to evaluate the state of thepractice of climate adaptation. Along with these conclusions, we provide a series of tactical recommendations
framed for community-based champions seeking to initiate and expand climate adaptation programs in theirown communities.

EXHIBIT 3.1. PRINCIPLES OF CLIMATE CHANGE ADAPTATION
1. Go beyond climate variability and extreme
events; address the anticipated impacts ofclimate change (e.g., Solecki et al., 2011).
2. Incorporate climate change systematically in relevant decision-making processes (e.g., Haywood
et al., 2014).
3. Design decision processes to adjust over time inresponse to changing climate conditions (e.g.,
Quay 2010).
4. Avoid measures that result in an increase invulnerability to changing climate risks (e.g.,
Bours et al., 2014).
5. Consider the implications of an adaptation action
both over the near- and long-term to ensure anaction is effective over time (Kates et al., 2012).
6. Avoid adaptations that shift vulnerability fromone sector or community to other locations,sectors, or natural systems unless there are clear
net benefits and compensations (e.g., Barnett
and O’Neil, 2010).

7. Ensure that the needs of more-vulnerable populations are addressed (e.g., Schrock et al., 2015).
8. Consistently build adaptive capacity acrosspopulations within a community, particularly themost vulnerable (e.g., Smit and Wandel, 2006).
9. Engage in monitoring and evaluation of climatechange adaptation progress (e.g., Bierbaum etal., 2013).
10. Ensure that climate change adaptation and mitigation actions are consistent with and supportiveof each other (e.g., Laukkonen et al., 2009).
These principles were collectively informed by thethought leaders who advised this project throughour Project Advisory Committee (PAC). We haveadded citations to ground these ideas from our PAC
in the adaptation literature.

41

42

CLIMATE ADAPTATION

Conclusions
Adaptation Actions at the Community Level Are
Reducing Vulnerability to Climate Variability andExtreme Events, and Possibly to Climate Change
The communities profiled appear to be achieving realvulnerability reductions. In some cases, communities
are already seeing the benefits of action in response
to current climate impacts. In other cases, adaptation actions have not have been tested by an extreme
weather event, but are sound investments given current
understanding of the risks. While many of the actions
we addressed respond to climate vulnerability rather
than climate change, we anticipate the benefits will
carry over and evolve over time to address vulnerability
due to climate change.

However, planning solely
based on current or historicclimate exposure, the mostintense extreme event onrecord, or the most recent
extreme event experienced
will likely leave a community
under-prepared for a climatealtered future(Adger et al., 2011).
Addressing Only Climate Variability and Extreme
Events May Constrain the Effectiveness of Long-Term
Climate Adaptation.
This report profiles actions undertaken to address
observed climate variability and extreme events aswell as climate change. We made this choice because
1) it is generally not clear where climate variability
ends and climate change begins; 2) extreme eventsand climate variability typically involve conditions
similar to those expected under scenarios of climatechange; 3) the tools, policies, and strategies deployed
to address extreme events and climate variability may

help communities begin adapting to climate change;
and 4) community-level practitioners often consider
climate change adaptation, natural hazards mitigation,and preparation for climate variability as part of a continuum of potential policy and management actions.
However, planning solely based on current or historicclimate exposure, the most intense extreme event onrecord, or the most recent extreme event experienced
will likely leave a community underprepared for a climate-altered future (Adger et al., 2011). Given thatclimate change is increasing the frequency and intensity of some extreme events and is likely to introduce
new vulnerabilities due to slow-onset climate changes,
it is important for policies and practices that address
only climate variability or extreme events to evolve andaddress climate change as well (NRC 2010, Solecki etal., 2011). In some cases, such as long-term infrastructure investment decisions, the time to consider climatechange is already upon us.
Communities Can Begin Addressing Climate
Change Risks Now
Our research indicates that municipal staff and community leaders in a variety of organizations are becoming
increasingly aware of the need to incorporate climate-related risks into their planning and operational routines
and, in many cases, already have the tools needed to
begin implementing climate vulnerability reduction
efforts and climate change initiatives. Local champions
and policy entrepreneurs have successfully brought theissue of climate impacts and/or climate change to bearin operational and strategic decision making across a
range of community service streams, including housing, infrastructure development, public utilities, natural
resource protection, social services, and hazard mitigation planning (Carlson and McCormick, 2015; Viguiéand Hallegatte, 2012). This includes embedding climate
adaptation initiatives within routine municipal activities,
such as comprehensive planning, multi-hazard mitigation planning, long-term water supply planning, andpermitting review procedures. Given the progress thathas been made across our 17 case study communities,
we believe that any community can make meaningfulprogress by getting started now.

CLIMATE ADAPTATION

Communities Can Overcome Barriers to Action,
Identify Opportunities, and Begin Implementing
Adaptation Measures
The adaptation literature and thought leaders interviewed for this study identify a long list of potential
barriers to climate adaptation, including limited funding, lack of actionable information, hostile politicalenvironments, and limited technical capacity, among
others (e.g., Bierbaum et al., 2013, Carmin et al 2012,
Moser and Ekstrom 2010, Ekstrom and Moser 2014,
Adger et al 2009, Brody et al 2010). Although thesebarriers remain prevalent, our case studies demonstrate
a variety of opportunities to overcoming them, including
developing new or repurposing existing funding streams
to support climate vulnerability reduction and climatechange initiatives, mainstreaming climate change into
existing community programs (Eisenack et al., 2014), anddeveloping programs that enhance overall community
social capital and adaptive capacity to set the stage forclimate adaptation. Whereas previously published work
has postulated the possibility of overcoming such barriers (Moser and Ekstrom 2010, Adger et al 2009, GAO2009), this study emphasizes how a variety of strategies
used across our case study communities have allowed
them to actually implement adaptation actions by using
well established opportunities to overcome barriers thatare often more perceived than real.

Community-based adaptationthat explicitly addresses
climate change is still in aformative stage.
Adaptation Actions Explicitly Addressing Climate
Change Are in a Formative Stage
Community-based adaptation that explicitly addresses
climate change is still in a formative stage, with manysmall-scale innovations and policy experiments occurring in a variety of geographical, political, and othercontexts. This conclusion is in agreement with findings
from the peer-reviewed literature (Berrang-Ford et al.,2011; Smith et al., 2009; Tompkins et al., 2010). Some ofour case study communities have embarked on comparatively ambitious and comprehensive efforts to address
climate change by developing standalone climate actionplans or implementing programs to alter community
level decision-making processes so that climate change
is considered as a matter of course. Others have implemented climate change adaptation actions intended toreduce sector or impact-specific vulnerabilities. It is not
yet clear that initiatives focused on climate change havetangibly reduced vulnerability. But the promise of doing
so is potentially greater than policy actions that respondjust to climate variability or a particular extreme event(Berrang-Ford et al., 2011; IPCC 2012). Implementation ofthese climate change adaptation processes is in a formative stage, so we cannot draw meaningful conclusions
about the ultimate effectiveness of any particular process structure or their relative effectiveness compared tomore incremental efforts focused on climate variability
or extreme events.
Through Our Case Study Communities We Have
Identified Components of A Hypothetical, WellAdapted Community
Over the course of this two-year project, we found anabundance of bold and successful community-based
adaptation—underway now and, in some cases, alreadytangibly reducing community vulnerability. However,as many of the leaders in our case study communities
would agree, even our profiled communities must do
more to adapt to climate change.
We cannot say what a perfectly adapted community
would look like. Nonetheless, if the types of actions thateach of our individual case study communities took werecombined into a single hypothetical community effort, it
would arguably comprise an impressive climate change
adaptation program. We believe this hypothetical community can serve as an aspirational target for ambitious
local champions who are working to build local resilience and protect their communities from the impactsof climate change. At this point, we believe, no single
community in the United States approaches the breadthand depth of this hypothetical community. As such, we
hope this hypothetical community can serve as a model
for communities looking for the next pragmatic step in
adapting to climate change.

43

44

CLIMATE ADAPTATIONA HYPOTHETICAL, WELL-ADAPTED COMMUNITY
Comprehensive, climatechange-informed planning
processes, as seen in
Chula Vista, California

Mainstreaming
climate considerations into
existing decisionmaking processes,
as seen in Seattle,
Washington

Aggressive exposurereduction policies, as seen
in Tulsa, Oklahoma

What would awell-adapted
community
look like?

Neighborhood-scalecapacity-building efforts,
as seen in Cleveland, Ohio.

Community-Based Champions of Adaptation
Action and Adaptation Professionals Should Use
Vulnerability Reduction as a Key Baseline to Assess
and Facilitate Progress in Adaptation
Our case studies lend empirical credence to Moser andBoykoff (2013, p. xxii), who state, “There still is not, andlikely never will be one answer that adequately addresses
all of the intersecting dimensions of adaptation success.”
In fact, most adaptation professionals believe that climate adaptation is a process, not an end-state, which
may preclude defining ultimate success. Nevertheless, itis critical that current efforts to address climate change,
climate variability, and extreme events be monitored andevaluated against some metric of progress so as to:• Provide community-based champions with a baseline
against which to set goals and assess progress;

Creative useof existing
regulatory
powers, as seen
in Boston,
Massachusetts

Systematic monitoringand evaluation processes,
as seen in the Southwest
Crown, Montana• Provide adaptation professionals with a frame of reference through which to assess what works and does
not work and, as appropriate, make improvements;• Identify innovative approaches that deserve further
investment and investigation; and• Identify opportunities for scaling up or diffusing promising practices.
Given our experience during the course of this project, we recommend that adaptation professionals andcommunity-based champions use vulnerability reduction as one key aspect of assessing the effectivenessof adaptation actions. We emphasize here that we do
not propose vulnerability reduction as the exclusive
dimension of progress because other dimensions may
be important or even the principal factor in assessing

CLIMATE ADAPTATION

adaptation progress in any given context. Other dimensions might include:• sustainability—the ability of an adaptation to endure
over time,• breadth—the range of vulnerabilities addressed by anadaptation action, or• flexibility—the ability of an adaptation action to adjust
to different social, environmental, or policy conditions(e.g., Adger et al., 2011).

We recommend that adaptation professionals andcommunity-based championsuse vulnerability reduction as
one key aspect of assessing
the effectiveness of adaptation actions.

Tactical Recommendations
Based on our research and analysis, we offer these specific recommendations to community-based champions
and adaptation professionals seeking to advance adaptation and vulnerability reduction within communities.
Start Now: Communities should not give in to the temptation to put their adaptation efforts on hold and wait for
improved information, shifts in the political environment,or other changes in circumstance. The time to start anadaptation initiative is now. Here is why:
• Community development is an ongoing process.
A choice not to think about adaptation now means
allowing current development patterns to continue,
potentially increasing climate vulnerability.
• Climate vulnerability already exists, and climatechange is increasing these vulnerabilities. Reducing
current vulnerabilities and considering how they may
change yields benefits now and into the future.

• Waiting does not guarantee more or better information. Projections of climate change suffer from several
important uncertainties, some of which are not likely
to be resolved soon—such as future development trajectories, energy use profiles, land-use patterns, anduncertainty associated with natural climate variability(Hallegatte, 2009).
• Real vulnerability reduction takes time. Whether it
is moving people and property out of harm’s way,protecting vulnerable areas, or developing capacity in neighborhoods to respond to extreme events,
adaptation can take years to decades to implement.
Beginning to address climate vulnerability now, evenin a limited way, builds the foundation to take more
ambitious and comprehensive action in the future.
Look for Co-Benefits, Cross-Sector Leveraging, andOpportunities to Piggyback Climate Adaptation onto
Other Salient Community Issues: Climate adaptation
actions that also address longstanding problematicconditions—for example, decaying infrastructure or
weakened ecosystems—can help win important allies,
enhance community support, and facilitate progress(Tompkins et al., 2010). Similarly, support for adaptation can grow when communities understand that there
can be multiple reasons for engaging in adaptation andthat adaptation actions can be beneficial across multiple
sectors. Linking adaptation to established community
issues in this way is motivating; it helps make climatechange tangible, familiar, and local.
Employ Commonly Used Policy Tools to Mainstream
Adaptation: The tools that our case study communities most commonly employed to reduce vulnerability
included standard and proven policy tools such as ordinances, permits, bonds, utility fees, easements, zoning,and hazard mitigation planning. Some communities usedcreative mixtures of mutually reinforcing policy tools to
address climate vulnerabilities, given the unique local context. Thus, while policy innovation may be useful, it may
not always be necessary for initiating adaptation activities.
Use Windows of Opportunity to Advance Climate
Adaptation: Windows of opportunity, such as response
to natural disasters or scheduled updates to municipalplans, present an opening to advance public discourse,

45

46

CLIMATE ADAPTATION

galvanize community support, and facilitate progress(Kingdon 1995). To fully take advantage of such windows, communities need to have ideas generated andplans in place for rapid deployment when an opportunity
arises (Berrang-Ford et al., 2011). For example, a community should consider developing a plan to respondto an extreme event by not just putting things back theway they were, but by “building it back better” (e.g.,incorporating consideration of climate change into infrastructure design in risky locations or rebuilding in lessvulnerable locations). Other windows of opportunity
may include fulfilling administrative requirements (e.g.,
Baltimore’s All-Hazards Mitigation Plan update), capitalizing on economic development opportunities (e.g.,
Cleveland’s efforts to tie climate adaptation to neighborhood revitalization through Community Development
Corporations), responding to state or federal mandates(e.g., State of Michigan citing Grand Rapids for violation of water-quality requirements), addressing federal
policy initiatives (e.g., the Southwest Crown’s use of the
Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration Program todevelop a collaborative to address wildfire mitigation), or
pursuing funding opportunities (e.g., Tulsa using FEMA
grants to support its acquisition program).
Build Flexibility into Policies, Projects, and Programs:
Given the uncertainties around the effects of climatechange, municipal programs should be designed to
evolve and adapt to changing conditions. This means
avoiding irreversible outcomes, such as infrastructure
design that precludes modification or that does notaccount for projected changes in climate. It can mean
keeping options open such as purchasing or setting
aside land that may be needed in the future for adaptation. It also means avoiding policies likely to create
additional climate vulnerabilities, such as committing todevelopment in areas that are already known to be prone
to wildfire or flooding and likely to face increasing risks.
Consider the Needs and Capabilities of More Vulnerable
Populations: Climate adaptation actions should reflect
and address the varying needs of different groups
or populations, and involve these people in the decision-making process. Adaptation actions should pay
particular attention to populations that are the mostvulnerable, which are often the poorest, those alreadyoverburdened by pollution, those who lack economic

opportunity, and individuals facing disenfranchisement
and racism (Schrock et al., 2015; Morello-Frosch et al.
2009; Park 2009). More specifically, communities mustleverage existing efforts to build community stability andsocial connectedness—a critical prerequisite for effectively tackling climate change. Simply put, widespreadpoverty and social and racial disparity impede efforts to
reduce climate vulnerability.

Simply put, widespreadpoverty and social and racialdisparity impede efforts to
reduce climate vulnerability.
Consider Natural Systems in Adaptation: Climate change
is often experienced through a community’s interaction
with natural systems, such as forests, rivers, coastlines,
and floodplains. These natural systems can also play avital role in reducing the impact of climate change on
community infrastructure and resources. Conversely,
poor natural system health can exacerbate impacts.
Action to restore or maintain natural system function
can be a cost-effective, long-term adaptation action
and should be considered alongside socioeconomic andinfrastructural actions.
Craft Outreach or Engagement Efforts, as Needed, to
Build Community Support: Well-focused communications and outreach campaigns enhance public buy-in
for adaptation actions (Carlson and McCormick, 2015;
Hughes, 2015; Few et al, 2006). An outreach campaign
may be necessary when:• Adaptation actions will affect a resource valued andused by a range of community members• Public support is needed for an action to be adopted,
e.g., the funding for an action depends on a bond issueor another publicly determined measure.
In structuring outreach efforts, it is important to do so
in ways that include and facilitate the participation of
the most affected and the otherwise least able to participate. However, a formal outreach campaign may

CLIMATE ADAPTATION

be unnecessary when actions lie within the purview ofagency operations or staff-level decision-making. As
such, practitioners should use public outreach efforts
strategically to help build support for key climate adaptation related issues. However, outreach efforts can also
be used to develop adaptation actions in collaboration
with the community, rather than asking for community
support for pre-determined actions. This is more appropriately a form of community engagement, which is amore time intensive, but potentially more productivemeans of building community buy-in and support.
Take Prudent Risks and Adjust Over Time: Climatechange is a complex issue affecting many sectors andcommunities across the country and the world. To successfully reduce risk to communities through adaptation
requires innovation, experimentation, and some level ofrisk-taking. Some of these efforts are bound to fail. The
lessons learned from those failures are as important as
the lessons learned from successful innovations. Local
champions and practitioners should be aware that what
they are putting in place will likely need to be adjusted
over time and be willing to share what is working and
not working on the ground.
Consider Local Context When Determining Whether toExplicitly Frame Actions in Terms of “Climate Change”:
Explicit articulation of climate change can constrain
action in some settings, while galvanizing action inothers; communities should recognize this reality andrespond accordingly. For some communities, it makes
more sense to approach routine municipal renewal,
public works, and resource-management projects ina manner that considers future climate vulnerabilities,
without making climate change the rationale for theaction. For other communities, speaking explicitly aboutclimate change can draw upon existing social or politicalsupport to pursue an adaptation action.
Provide Leadership: While leadership was an important aspect of making adaptation progress across all of
the communities we profiled, that leadership came frommany places. The most conventional sources of leadership across the communities we profiled came froma proactive mayor, city council, county commission, or
senior municipal or departmental executive. But our casestudies indicate that non-governmental organizations,
grass roots activists, and non-senior municipal staff canalso provide the leadership necessary to initiate and sustain climate adaptation actions. In fact, it is often thework of these less conventional leaders that facilitates
progress even where there is also a proactive senior
executive, or when such executives serve their communities for only a limited term.
Use Partnerships to Advance Adaptation: Working
with other like-minded individuals and organizations
can amplify the effectiveness of an adaptation action.
Singular actors often face limited capacity and financial
resources. But by banding together with others—othercommunities in a region, other departments within yourmunicipality, other organizations in a community, universities and academics, and more—resources can beleveraged to improve adaptation actions and enhanceaccomplishments. While implementation is often
required at a municipal or a departmental level, partnership can still provide needed support, motivation,
information sharing, and resource pooling.

SummaryThis research project was motivated by the immense challenges posed by climate change, the need for communities
to adapt to those challenges, and the opportunity to learn
from communities that have already begun adapting. After
two years of research on the state of community-based
adaptation and the particular actions taken by 17 communities, we found that communities have many of thetools needed to plan for and respond to climate change;
they just need to get started. As such, we hope that theconclusions and tactical recommendations in this chapter
will help community-based champions make tangible andimmediate progress on climate vulnerability reduction. We
offer these conclusions and recommendations as a way tosupport the diffusion and adoption of the promising practices identified in our case studies to other communities
across the United States. We hope that other adaptation
professionals will join us in circulating and elaborating onthese conclusions and recommendations with the practical purpose of empowering community-based champions
to make progress in their own communities.

47

48

CASE STUDY: AVALON, NEW JERSEY

Avalon, New Jersey

Comprehensive Shoreline
Protection Strategy
AVALON, NEW JERSEYAUTHORS: Alexis St. Juliana, Jason Vogel, and Karen Carney

In this case study, you will learn about:• The role of strong municipal leadership• The importance of ongoing activities (non-complacency)
and implementing actions as feasible• Ongoing public education and engagement• Communicating across levels of government

CLIMATE ADAPTATION: THE STATE OF PRACTICE IN U.S. COMMUNITIESCASE STUDY: AVALON, NEW JERSEY

Case Study Summary
The borough of Avalon comprises a portion of a slenderbarrier island at the far southern end of New Jersey(Exhibit 1). It regularly experiences extreme weather
events such as nor’easters and hurricanes. These events
threaten the borough’s property and thriving summer
tourism industry. After a severe nor’easter in 1962,
Avalon developed a number of physical shoreline barriers. The borough also created a number of policies
that set the stage for future action in Avalon. These
policies allowed the borough to buy damaged shoreline properties and turn them into borough property,
purchase additional undeveloped land, and limit shoreline development. With these policies in place, Avalon
developed extensive sand dunes to protect the boroughfrom the impacts of coastal storms. In the 1980s, theborough renewed efforts to construct natural barriers,
hard physical barriers, and emergency response programs. Over time, these shoreline protection efforts
have required extensive maintenance. The borough hasrelied on local, state, and federal support to develop
and maintain protective structures. Avalon’s work has
not extensively considered climate change, yet it has
experienced few structural losses and has been able torebound quickly from recent storms, such as Hurricane
Sandy. In addition, the borough is considering incorporating sea level rise projections in its design of new
breakwaters. Avalon has received a number of accolades for its work, and regularly shares information
about its efforts with coastal communities around theUnited States. Avalon continues to plan and prepare
for coastal storms. Future work includes the possible
development of several “T”-shaped breakwaters perpendicular to the shore. The borough expects that thesestructures will help protect beaches and reduce thefrequency of beach nourishment activities.

over this period. Maintenance of Avalon’s efforts ispossible through strong leadership that works with community members and elected officials to foster ongoingsupport and financing.
Nevertheless, Avalon does not have an official shoreline protection strategy. Rather, its strategy has comeabout through a confluence of other planning efforts.
For instance, the community has completed a numberof shoreline protection efforts to garner points on the
National Flood Insurance Program’s Community Rating
System (CRS) to earn lower flood insurance premiums for its residents, which it joined in 1996 (FEMA,
2014). These CRS efforts are guided by Avalon’s FloodManagement Plan, which it evaluates annually (Boroughof Avalon, 2013). The borough’s Dune Management Plan,finished in 2009, serves as a guide for dune monitoring and maintenance (Borough of Avalon, 2009). Also,
Avalon prepared its first hazards mitigation plan in 1983,
the Storm Mitigation Planning report (Farrell and Sinton,1983). Since then, there have been several iterations of
this plan. The last plan was finalized in 2010 and as of2015 the borough is working on another update. These
plans, in addition to the borough leadership’s ongoing
push for action, have helped Avalon to piece together acomprehensive shoreline protection strategy. This casestudy highlights Avalon’s efforts to develop and maintaina comprehensive shoreline protection strategy. Exhibit 2
provides a timeline of actions in Avalon.

Why and How Avalon Developedand Maintained its Shoreline
Protection Strategy
Avalon has a long history of preparing for and respond-

Broader Context
Avalon has implemented a variety of shoreline protection
efforts since the 1960s, including the construction ofprotective infrastructure, the build-up of natural barriers, and the development of effective hazards mitigationand communication plans. Moreover, the borough has
worked to maintain these shoreline protection efforts

ing to coastal storms. A number of major storms
motivated the borough to take notice and begin to planand prepare for future storms. Strong leadership has
maintained motivation to continue shoreline protection
efforts. These motivators are described in more detaillater in this section. They also helped to form Avalon’s
shoreline protection efforts, which include three general
types of activities.

49

50

CASE STUDY: AVALON, NEW JERSEYExhibit 1. Map of Avalon and beaches.

CASE STUDY: AVALON, NEW JERSEY

Comprehensive shoreline protection strategy

1980s–present• Ongoing upkeep of shoreline protection measures, mostly beach nourishment• Ongoing public outreach and communication• Ongoing outreach to acquire state and federal funding
Nor’easterdevastates
Avalon

1962

Late
1960s

Hurricane
GloriaStorm
Mitigation
Planning
reportAvalonbuilds hard
infrastructure,dunes, and buys
destroyed
properties

1983

1985

Joins theNational Flood
Insurance
Program’s
Community
Rating System

1996

Revised local
Dunemanagement code to increaseheight ofplanbulkheads along
back bay andbuild elevation
above floodplain

2009

2014

Boroughweighing
addition of“T”-shaped
breakwaters

2015

Exhibit 2. Timeline of actions in Avalon.

1. Protective Infrastructure
After the 1962 nor’easter, the borough invested in several structural barriers, including a seawall, a 4,500-footbulkhead, and a jetty at the north end of the island(Farrell and Sinton, 1983; Perez, 2013). These types ofbarriers help to mitigate the impact of coastal storms,
and reduce damage and flooding. Avalon has worked tomaintain these barriers, create additional barriers, andimprove building codes. Representative examples of themaintenance these structures have required over time
include $14 million in 2003 ($18 million in $2014) fromthe Army Corps of Engineers to reconstruct the seawall
built after the 1962 storm, $1.5 million in repairs to the
8th Street jetty in 1991 ($2.6 million in $2014), and a
1,400-foot expansion of the jetty in 2002 (Barlas, 1991;
The Times, 2003).
The borough has also worked to protect hard infrastructure through building codes. For example, Avalon
recently increased the lowest elevation at which structures can be built in order to reduce flood potential. Due
to vulnerability concerns along Avalon’s back bay, theborough also adopted a higher bulkhead standard toprotect bayside homes from waves.

The borough has willingly become a testing ground forcertain storm mitigation techniques. Tests of both hardand natural barriers have been coordinated with and monitored by the Richard Stockton College of New Jersey,
Rutgers University, the Army Corps of Engineers, andothers (e.g., Farrell and Sinton, 1983; Nordstrom et al.,2002). For example, the borough tested whether an artificial reef would reduce wave energy and beach erosion in
1993 (Page, 1993). In 1995, the borough tested the installation of geo-tubes (large cylindrical tubes filled with sandand covered in a flexible porous material), which stretch
along the shoreline and serve as the foundation for smalldunes. While not permanent, these structures have successfully worked to slow or break waves during storms in
Avalon (Press of Atlantic City, 1995).

2. Natural Buffers and Soft Structural
Approaches
Sand dunes are an important shoreline protection barrierin Avalon. Avalon made several important decisions in
the 1960s to limit immediate shoreline development andconstruct an expansive dune system. The dune systemprovides a protective barrier from storm surge, wind, andflooding associated with coastal storms. In some places,

51

52

CASE STUDY: AVALON, NEW JERSEY

the dunes stand 20–25 feet tall (Dean, 2012; Richard
Stockton College Coastal Research Center, 2013). Thesedunes were expanded in the 1980s to protect more of
Avalon’s shoreline. Managing these dunes has required
much time and attention by the borough’s Environmental
Commission. The borough has worked with specialists at
the Cape May County Extension Office of the Federal
Department of Agriculture to select appropriate plants
and grasses to build the dune system’s root structure,including the development of a specialized “Cape Dune
Grass” that is suitable for Avalon and other areas of thecountry with similar climate and soil conditions. Local
nurseries and the Department of Public Works propagate these grasses, which are planted by volunteers
on scheduled dune maintenance days. The dunes mustalso be maintained after storm events. Currently there isa dune template (i.e., blueprint) approved by the Army
Corps of Engineers that the borough must comply withwhen conducting any maintenance efforts (deButts,
2015; Pagliughi, 2015; Wahl, 2015).
Replenishing beaches with sand is another important
aspect of Avalon’s shoreline protection efforts. Beaches
along Avalon’s northern shoreline regularly lose sand due
to storms, tides, currents, and an eddy created by the
8th Street jetty. This sand is washed to southern points
on the island, where the beaches are actually widening.
Beach erosion is a problem for the borough because
sand is vital for both storm protection and tourism. Whenpermits and sand volume allow, beach fills are completedwith sand dredged from the Townsend Inlet or fromthe south end of Avalon. Beach fills are an expensive
endeavor, often costing more than $100,000. To more
systematically address the problem, Avalon entered into
a $62 million ($80 million in $2014), 50-year agreementwith the Army Corps of Engineers in 2003 for scheduledbeach nourishment activities (replenishing beaches withsand) every three to five years. Unfortunately, the Army
Corps of Engineers fell several years behind schedule andhas since been working with Avalon to conduct beachnourishment activities after storm events rather than at
a specified schedule.
Interviewees note that regulations have become a barrier
to dune maintenance and beach fill activities. Avalon
previously managed its own nourishment activities;

however, regulations have prohibited the borough fromindependently conducting activities due to environmental concerns in recent years, such as the protection of thepiping plover that is listed as “endangered” under the
New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection’s
Endangered and Nongame Species Program and “threatened” under the federal Endangered Species Act (U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, 2012; New Jersey Departmentof Environmental Protection, 2015; Pagliughi, 2015). In
certain cases, Avalon has been able to obtain temporary
legal exemptions to these regulations. Avalon officials
feel that the regulations are overly invasive because its
beach nourishment activities benefit both wildlife andtourism (deButts, 2015; Pagliughi, 2015; Wahl, 2015).
Regulations have also prevented Avalon from implementing beach nourishment approaches when andwhere borough officials feel they are needed.

3. Hazard Mitigation Planning andCommunication
Avalon Business Administrator Scott Wahl insists that the
number-one goal of all its shoreline protection efforts
is to save lives. It also tries to learn from storms, evenones that do not occur in Avalon. Scott Wahl sharedthat “every event is an education.” As such, Avalon
has invested in a number of strategies to improve its
capacity to share information and respond to storms.
These efforts are outlined in the borough’s 2010 hazards mitigation plan, which it is working to revise as of2015. Avalon has an online and social media presence toshare up-to-date information when storms occur. It has areverse 911 system to contact residents with emergency
information, as well as a dedicated AM radio station.
Telephone poles throughout the borough also display
tide markers, so individuals know what a certain levelof tide means and can prepare appropriately. Avalon
recently acquired a mobile animal shelter after witnessing that residents were reluctant to leave their homesduring storms.

1962 Nor’easter Motivates Avalon toCreate Policies Supporting Developmentof Natural Dune System
On Ash Wednesday in 1962, a large nor’easter hit the
New Jersey coast. At the time, Avalon was not a tourist

CASE STUDY: AVALON, NEW JERSEYExhibit 3. Avalon’s sand dune system.
Source: Borough of Avalon, 2009.

destination and was not as developed as it is today.
Nevertheless, the storm devastated structures and theshoreline. News articles and reports stated that up tosix feet of sand had moved 1,000 feet inland; homes
were gutted and some were picked up and moved fromtheir foundations. There were vacant tracts of land where
homes once stood (Gabbet, 1962; New York Times, 1963;
Farrell and Sinton, 1983).
This storm motivated Avalon to take some important
steps to prepare for future storms. Some efforts took
more than a decade to put in place. The first major effort
was the development of physical infrastructure. Avalon
built a seawall, a 4,500-foot bulkhead, a jetty at thenorth end of the island, and four groins perpendicular
to the sea wall about 1,500 feet apart (Farrell and Sinton,
1983; Perez, 2013).
Avalon’s second major effort to prepare for futurestorms was changing development codes to reduce thepotential impact of future storms. For example, Avalon
restricted the number of motels and controlled the sizeof private homes (Sullivan, 1966). In 1962, Avalon also

started a property exchange or buy-out program toacquire properties as borough land and compensate landowners who lost their homes in the storm (Ianieri, 2009).
As noted in a news piece, Avalon zoning official Frank
McCall shared that in the late 1960s, Avalon created DuneLine Ordinance 442, which created a no-build zone along
the beachfront and set properties back from the ocean(Barlow, 2012). In 1968, Avalon bought hundreds of acresof beachfront to create a 500-foot buffer between its
dunes and its first row of homes (Hanley, 1998). Finally, in
1979, Avalon created its first master development plan tohelp articulate its long-term growth plans. Avalon developed this plan later than neighboring communities and,according to Mayor Pagliughi, this enabled the boroughto learn from their experience. For example, Avalon’s lot
sizes are bigger than neighboring communities, whichhelps control the quantity of structures, stormwaterrunoff, and flooding potential.
The third, and most important, action further prepared
Avalon for future storms by developing a sand dune
system (Exhibit 3). These dunes were constructed by theborough on vacated portions of land (Ianieri, 2009). As

53

54

CASE STUDY: AVALON, NEW JERSEYExhibit 4. Avalon’s maritime forest.
Source: Borough of Avalon, 2009.

a concession, Avalon allowed a four-block section of theborough to be developed in order to preserve the larger
dunes (Sullivan, 1966). Today, these dunes have been
expanded and have naturally developed into maritime
forests in some locations (Exhibit 4). While most of thesedunes are owned by the borough, there are cases whereindividuals have retained ownership of dune-covered
land. These owners never officially accepted Avalon’s
buy-out, and pay nominal property taxes each year (lessthan $1; Ianieri, 2007).

Private property ownership of some of the dunes hascreated some problems for the borough. For example, in 2012, the Avalon was ordered to pay one couple$284,000 ($292,834 in $2014) to compensate themfor their property, which they had intended to rebuild
decades after the 1962 nor’easter (Ianieri, 2007; Leach,
2010; Associated Press, 2012). In other parts of Avalon,
housing was allowed to remain. In the north end of
Avalon, an extensive dune system was never plannedor established, and development exists just behind theseawall (Farrell and Sinton, 1983). This area remains
highly vulnerable to coastal storms even with a numberof natural and hard barriers.

Hurricane Gloria Motivates Avalon to Renew
its Shoreline Protection Efforts
Despite the development of dunes, a seawall, and a jetty
after the 1962 nor’easter, Mayor Pagliughi shared thatthe borough still needed to use “stop-gap” measures
to mitigate the damage of individual storms, particularly along the north end of the borough where dunes
were not established. After these protections were put
in place, Avalon did not work to intensively maintain orbuild upon these efforts. When Hurricane Gloria hit inlate September 1985, the borough experienced extensive damage. A portion of the dune system, valued at$821,000 to replace ($1.8 million in $2014), blew away
(Sullivan, 1985). Borough officials identified this time as
critical for renewed shoreline protection efforts. MayorCASE STUDY: AVALON, NEW JERSEYMartin Pagliughi said, “We concentrated on the beachfront as the primary focus (of our efforts) because in1985 and 1986 water was running through the livingrooms of the houses. There was zero protection. We
said ‘We’ve got to look at something here.’ Nobody elseis going to do it. They’re not going to come to you andsay this is what you’ve gotta do. The town’s gotta comeup with it. We’ve got to find a solution.”Long-Serving Leadership Maintains
MomentumThe leadership of Avalon has changed little over the past
25 years. Mayor Martin Pagliughi served on the BoroughCouncil for four years before being elected as mayor in1991 (State News Service, 2014), and has been serving as
mayor ever since. Several borough staff have been active
for nearly as long, including semi-retired Public Works
Director Harry deButts, who now serves as the borough’s
Deputy Emergency Manager. These individuals helped
to develop and oversee shoreline protection in Avalon;
rally public, state, and federal support; and ensure thatnecessary funding is there to maintain the borough’svarious protection efforts in a timely manner.

Building and Maintaining Community Buy-in
Avalon’s shoreline protection efforts involve an ongoing public education and outreach campaign. Scott
Wahl put it quite simply, “Dunes and beaches provide
an overwhelming benefit to the town.” Avalon engages
the community in a number of ways. The borough holds
annual talks with the Avalon Home and Land Owner
Association to explain the role the dunes and hard infrastructure play in protecting the borough. Additionally,
the borough reminds residents that its shoreline protection efforts have a direct benefit to them through lower
flood insurance premiums. Shoreline protection is also
incorporated into the local school curriculum. Children
help to grow seeds at the borough’s greenhouse and later
plant Avalon’s specialized variety of dune grass with theborough’s Public Works Department. Borough officials
feel that children are the best and most invested advocates for Avalon’s dune system and protection efforts.
Each spring the borough’s Environmental Commission
holds a volunteer dune grass planting event, or “Dune
Grass Planting Party.” This event usually brings in arange of groups, including the Avalon Home and Land
Owner Association and scout troops. The volunteers
plant grasses and learn about Avalon’s dune system.
The Wetlands Institute, a local nonprofit, also conducts
weekly tours of the dune system in summer months
for tourists. The Avalon Environmental Commission
has developed educational placards along the beachaccess paths. Finally, the borough uses severe eventsas an opportunity to remind the community about theimportance of Avalon’s shoreline protection efforts. As aresult of these public education and outreach activities,
there is broad community support for shoreline protection projects, even when local taxes are needed to fundprotection efforts.

Maintaining Shoreline Protection
Infrastructure for Ongoing Resiliency
to Storms
Avalon sees shoreline protection as vital to protect humanlife as well as to maintain its built infrastructure and tourism industry. Officials stress that Avalon cannot rely
entirely on state or federal dollars given the importanceof these efforts and the need to act quickly. Waiting toreceive outside funding would leave Avalon vulnerable tostorms and could jeopardize its beach tourism economy.
Avalon officials stated that they do not get frustrated
with the near-constant need for repairs. They see maintenance as part of their job, and something that needs tobe planned and budgeted for. Scott Wahl said, “The beachis an investment, not an expense.” Avalon budgets 5–10
years into the future, with maintenance efforts usuallyoccurring every few years and after storms.

Funding Shoreline Protection
Avalon officials recognize that diverse funding has beena crucial resource for Avalon’s efforts. Over the past 25
years, the borough has used tens of millions of dollars onbeach nourishment activities. Locally, Avalon’s funding
has come from a combination of local taxes and bonds
acquired by the borough. Avalon is a relatively wealthy
community with a strong property tax base, which canbe used for its comprehensive shoreline protection strategy. At times, even after major storms, state and federal
funding have failed to come through, pushing Avalon to
rely on its own tax base.

55

56

CASE STUDY: AVALON, NEW JERSEY

Beginning in 1992 and 1993, the borough hired consultants to navigate funding opportunities and lobby forpressing shoreline protection measures at the state andfederal levels. Lobbyists have helped Avalon access more
funding than if it had tried to identify and pursue funding
avenues on its own. Lobbyists also give the borough apresence in Washington, DC, freeing it to focus on local
matters. Key borough officials, such as the mayor, also
make trips to Trenton, NJ, and Washington, DC, fromtime to time to advocate for shoreline protection effortsin Avalon. This includes several meetings and presentations with high-level staff in the Congress and Executive
Branch. Avalon estimates that over time it has obtained
more than $50 million in federal, state, and local funding
to support natural buffers, hard infrastructure, and otherhazard mitigation activities. For state and federal funding, Avalon almost always needs to provide matchingfunding or meet certain requirements to be eligible. For
federal funding, the borough typically needs to contribute 9 percent of the total project cost (deButts, 2015).
A key challenge for Avalon is convincing others of theimportance of shoreline protection. Particular pushback
has come from the federal Office of Management andBudget (OMB). Borough staff reported that OMB is trying
to increase coastal communities’ share of the cost of Army
Corps of Engineer beachfill projects. To work against thesebarriers, borough officials inform agency staff and elected
officials that $1 invested by the federal government forbeach protection results in $320 ($376 in $2014) in federal tax revenue from beach tourism (Houston, 2008).
Borough staff also emphasize the importance of beachtourism as a national economic driver.

Accomplishments of Avalon’s
Shoreline Protection Efforts
Avalon’s dune system has helped the borough weather anumber of storms with minimal property damage. Whilemostly tied to anecdotal evidence, all those interviewed
for this case study agree that Avalon’s work has helped
protect it from storm damage and is a model for othercommunities. One measure of this is that after Hurricane
Sandy, Avalon did not have a single total loss property
in the entire borough (though many homes experienced

flooding) (Pagliughi, 2015; Wahl, 2015). Borough officials also tout a statement from Assistant Secretary of
the Army Jo-Ellen Darcy after Hurricane Sandy that “…
the property behind the beaches in Avalon were well
protected…where there has been no federal beach project, the community didn’t fare that well.” However, CapeMay County and Avalon were not among the hardest-hit
counties in the state (O’Dea, 2013). Avalon officials see
its efforts as necessary for the survival of the community.
These efforts “keep (Avalon) from washing off the faceof the Earth,” says Mayor Pagliughi. However, Avalon officials admit that they cannot protect Avalon from every
storm. While officials feel they are doing everything they
can to prepare for storms, even potentially more severe
ones that might come with climate change, they knowthat a truly severe storm still has the potential to inflict
serious damage. Nevertheless, borough officials have notseriously considered new potential impacts of climatechange such as sea level rise.
Avalon’s efforts have helped it earn a number of achievements and accolades. First, Avalon has the best ratingon the National Flood Insurance Program’s CRS amongcoastal communities in New Jersey. This low rating gives
residents a reduced flood insurance rate. Avalon has carried out a number of activities to specifically addresscomponents of the program to achieve this rate. For
example, Avalon is “increasing building heights; getting easements on the beach; maintaining a large dune
system; having a flood warning system for residents;
completing beach replenishment projects; installing 14
pumping stations to remove water; requiring flood ventson homes to prevent houses from being pushed off theirfoundation; maintaining drainage systems; setting up an
emergency evacuation center in Cumberland County;
and preserving open space” (Degener, 2013). Second,
Avalon has a Standard & Poor’s AAA bond insurance
rating (deButts, 2015; Pagliughi, 2015). This high ratingmeans Avalon is a good investment. It helps the borough to secure better financing rates on loans when itaims to carry out shoreline protection measures. Third,in 1996 Avalon earned recognition from the InsuranceInstitute for Property Loss Reduction with a Community
Spotlight Award (Press of Atlantic City, 1996). Finally, in1997 Avalon won the Hurricane Mitigation Award during
the National Hurricane Conference—an event sponsoredCASE STUDY: AVALON, NEW JERSEY

by the U.S. Federal Emergency Management Agency(FEMA), the American Red Cross, the National Weather
Service, and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (Keough, 1997).
Avalon officials regularly share information on theircommunity’s shoreline protection efforts, indicatingthat they have spoken with counterparts in places suchas Anchorage, AK; Galveston, TX; Saco, ME; as well as
nearby communities. Additionally, they have presented
at national conferences, and held meetings and presentations with high-level staff in the Congress andExecutive Branch. The borough is eager to share its story
with other communities that can learn from Avalon’s
efforts. Officials encourage other communities to reachout to them.

Moving Forward
Despite its efforts to protect itself against storms, Avalon
still has a number of vulnerabilities. As already described,
since Avalon sits on a barrier island, flooding and storm
surge pose a threat to back-bay properties, which are
not protected by natural barriers. However, several
pump stations were recently installed to address thisissue. The borough also recently passed an ordinanceto heighten bulkheads as properties are redevelopedor undergo significant improvements. Borough officials,
including Mayor Pagliughi, acknowledge that thesebulkheads will not prevent flooding, but instead will
reduce the impacts of waves during storms. It will take
15–30 years before most of the bulkheads along Avalon’sback bay meet the new height requirements.
The north end of the borough is also still quite vulnerable, despite the installation of rip rap and a small dune
system. Avalon continually re-evaluates its options forprotecting this area, but acknowledges it will likely
remain the most vulnerable section of the borough, evenwith significant improvements.
Limited storm evacuation routes also contribute to
Avalon’s vulnerability. There is only one bridge leading to the island. The bridge has sufficient capacity tocope with an evacuation in winter months, when the

Exhibit 5. Japanese black pines in
Avalon’s dune system.
Source: Alexis St. Juliana, Stratus Consulting.

population level is low. However, during the summer, thebridge presents a critical vulnerability to quickly evacuate tens of thousands of visitors in both Avalon andStone Harbor.
Avalon’s next big project is the probable developmentof several “T”-shaped breakwaters perpendicular to theshore. The borough expects that these structures will
reduce beach loss and the need for expensive beachnourishment activities by the Army Corps of Engineers—
helping to save money in the long run. Sea level rise isbeing considered in the development of the design ofthe breakwaters. The height will be adjusted based on

57

58

CASE STUDY: AVALON, NEW JERSEY

mid-range projections for the region. The major concern
among Avalon residents with this project is the aesthetics of the breakwaters, which the project consultant
intends to address in the final recommendation report.
Other alternatives were considered, but the breakwaters
have emerged as the most feasible option consideringboth cost and engineering. In the meantime, the BoroughCouncil recently approved a $12 million beach nourishment project to address beach lost during Hurricane
Sandy (Nevitt, 2015). It has garnered support from thecommunity despite the cost. Future action might also
include the elevation of properties (not just structures),when significant redevelopment occurs.

Acknowledgments

The Environmental Commission is also leading efforts topopulate the dunes with native plants and grasses forfurther dune maintenance and storm protection. Whenthe dunes were first developed, Japanese black pines
were the optimal choice to develop a strong root system
and resist pests (Exhibit 5). However, the pines are invasive, susceptible to pests, and present a fire hazard. The
Environmental Commission is working with the Avalon
Home and Land Owner Association and others to remove
the invasive species. The borough’s Dune Management
Plan, finished in 2009, serves as a guide for selecting
desirable plants and carrying out the invasive removal
and re-vegetation in an appropriate manner (Boroughof Avalon, 2009). Communities in New Jersey andDelaware have expressed an interest in the dune vegetation management plan as a model for their beach anddune management efforts. Avalon’s nearest neighbor,
Stone Harbor, recently adopted a similar plan.

• Scott Wahl, Avalon Business Administrator (former
Public Information Officer).

Another challenge for Avalon is an impending change
in leadership. The mayor has been in office for over 20
years, and its long-time Public Works director retired
several years ago. While there have been some efforts
to groom current borough staff for leadership roles in
the future, it is hard to know if strong leaders exist to fillthis void. Current officials in Avalon point to the fact thatanyone involved in borough government plays a numberof roles due the borough’s small size; this helps to build
dedication and a positive culture in Avalon government.

We would like to thank the following people for participating in interviews as part of this case study:• Martin Pagliughi, Mayor of Avalon and Cape May
County Emergency Manager• Harry deButts, Avalon Deputy Emergency Manager(former Public Works Director)• Brian Reynolds, Chair of the Avalon Environmental
Commission• Thomas Thornton, Hatch Mott MacDonald hired as
Avalon’s Borough Engineer

Bibliography
American Community Survey. 2012. American
Community Survey. American FactFinder. U.S. Census
Bureau. Available: http://factfinder.census.gov/faces/
nav/jsf/pages/index.xhtml. Accessed August 19, 2013.
Associated Press. 2012. After 50 years, couple wins
beach house suit. The Times (Trenton). April 7.
Barlas, T. 1991. Storm’s cost nears $27M / Final damage
estimate expected to top $30M, Cape Officials say. The
Press of Atlantic City. November 5.
Barlas, T. 1993. Cape May point officials say persistence
got reef funding. The Press of Atlantic City. August 12.
Barlow, B. 2012. Are we ready for next time? Changes
in forecasting, building codes mean better safety, but
most agree there’s always another storm. Shore News
Today. March 7.
Borough of Avalon. 2009. Dune Vegetation
Management Plan. Lomax Consulting Group.
December 16. Available: http://www.avalonboro.org/
news/dune-vegetation-plan/Website%2012_16_09%20
Dune%20Veg%20Mgmt%20Plan.pdf. Accessed
March 9, 2015.

CASE STUDY: AVALON, NEW JERSEY

Borough of Avalon. 2013. Flood Mitigation
Plan Progress Report. September. Available:
http://avalonboro.net/wp-content/
uploads/2012/09/2013-Progress-Report.Final_.pdf.
Accessed March 10, 2015.
Dean, C. 2012. Costs of shoring up coastal communities. The New York Time. November 5.
deButts, H. 2015. Interview with Harry deButts,
Borough of Avalon. February 26.
Degener, R. 1994. Storms steal shore towns’ sand. The
Press of Atlantic City. March 5.
Degener, R. 2013. Avalon builds foot higher to save on
insurance. The Press of Atlantic City. July 26.
Dowling, J. 1998. A stormy relationship / for decades,
Barrier-Island communities and the tumultuous ocean
have been entangled in a delicate dance of man vs.
nature. The Press of Atlantic City. February 15.
Farrell, S. and J. Sinton. 1983. Storm Mitigation
Planning for Avalon, New Jersey. Stockton Center
for Environmental Research. Available: http://www.
gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CZIC-qc944-f37-1983/pdf/CZICqc944-f37-1983.pdf. Accessed January 22, 2015.
FEMA. 2014. Community Rating System.
June 1. Available: http://www.fema.gov/
media-library-data/1408050845935-ee33e56e81c3aa3f26e569ff6b248fa7/19_crs_508_oct2014.pdf.
Accessed April 8, 2015.
Gabbett, H. 1962. Storm-spawned 30-foot seas wreck
large sections of coastal resort. The Washington Post,
Times Herald (1959–1973). March 8.
Hanley, R. 1998. As beaches erode, a debate on who’ll
pay for repairs. New York Times. April 20.
Houston, J. 2008. The economic value of beaches—A 2008 update. Shore & Beach 72(3):22–26.
Available: http://www.lee-county.com/gov/dept/naturalresources/documents/economic_value_of_beaches_%282008%29_coe_jhouston.pdf. Accessed
March 11, 2015.

Ianieri, B. 2006. Avalon at sea about much-needed
beach replenishment. Press of Atlantic City. January 19.
Ianieri, B. 2007. Couple wants to rebuild Avalon House
washed away in ‘62 storm. Press of Atlantic City.
January 30.
Ianieri, B. 2009. Appeals court says Avalon can keep
property from ‘62 storm. Press of Atlantic City. July 29.
Kaskey, J. 1998. The next step / officials begin tosurvey damage to (Cape May) county. The Press ofAtlantic City. February 6.
Keough, W.F. 1997. Avalon takes national award bystorm. The Press of Atlantic City. April 18.
Leach, B. 2010. Avalon must pay for land seized in ‘60s.
The Press of Atlantic City. June 23.
Nevitt, C. 2015. Avalon approves $12 million beachfill project. The Press of Atlantic City. February 12.
Available: http://www.pressofatlanticcity.com/news/
breaking/avalon-approves-million-beach-fill-project/article_5bba6d56-b2fb-11e4-98f5-834ba76f9bd0.html.
Accessed March 16, 2015.
New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection.
2015. New Jersey’s Endangered and Threatened
Wildlife. Available: http://www.njfishandwildlife.com/
tandespp.htm. Accessed July 14, 2015.
New York Times. 1963. Storm Damage of 1962 Is
Repaired in Jersey Areas: Jersey Shoreline Gets a New
Look. May 14.
Nordstrom, K.F., N.L. Jackson, M.S. Bruno, and H.A. De
Butts. 2002. Municipal initiatives for managing dunes
in coastal residential areas: A case study of Avalon,
New Jersey, USA. Geomorphology 47:137–152.
O’Dea, C. 2013. Interactive Map: Assessing
Damage from Superstorm Sandy. NJ Spotlight.
March 15. Available: http://www.njspotlight.com/
stories/13/03/14/assessing-damage-from-superstorm-sandy/. Accessed March 16, 2015.
Page, P. 1993. Stopping shifting sands. The Times(Trenton). July 15.

59

60

CASE STUDY: AVALON, NEW JERSEY

Pagliughi, M. 2015. Interview with Martin Pagliughi,
Borough of Avalon. February 26.

Smith, V. 1991. Storms help shift opinion on dunes. The
Press of Atlantic City. November 18.

Parry, W. 1998. Coastal towns love shore-up efforts—
Skeptics call beach rebuilding too costly. The
Star-Ledger. May 17.

State News Service. 2014. Disaster Awareness is a
Priority for Avalon Mayor, Cape May County OEM. State
News Service. August 11.

Perez, I. 2013. Jersey Shore Town Makes Its ‘Own Luck’and Escapes Sandy. E&E Publishing. May 9.

Strawley, G. 1993. Avalon pushes for federal funds toprotect coast. The Press of Atlantic City. February 7.

The Press of Atlantic City. 1995. The Sand Trap/Shore
Towns Try to Fill the Funding Gap. March 5.

Sullivan, J.F. 1985. Politics; plans for fund to aid
beaches are pressed. New York Times. October 6.

The Press of Atlantic City. 1996. Avalon Honored/
Defending the Dunes. July 2.

Sullivan, R. 1966. New Jersey’s Avalon faces an era ofchange. New York Times. August 21.

The Press of Atlantic City. 1997. Speaking of
Hurricanes…/Avalon’s Dunes. April 23.

The Times. 2003. Expert: Storms take toll, but beaches
are resilient. The Times (Trenton). May 21.

The Press of Atlantic City. 1999. Keeping Sand in its
Place/Cape May Point’s Artificial Reefs Halt Tide ofBeach Erosion. March 7.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2012. Piping Plover,Atlantic Coast Population. Available: http://www.fws.
gov/northeast/pipingplover/overview.html. Accessed
July 14, 2015.

Richard Stockton College Coastal Research Center.
2013. New Jersey Beach Profile Network 2012 Annual
Report on Shoreline Changes in New Jersey’s Four
Coastal Counties Raritan Bay to Delaware Bay Springof 2011 Through Fall of 2012. Richard Stockton Collegeof New Jersey. July 31.

Wahl, S. 2015. Interview with Scott Wahl, Borough of
Avalon. February 26. Case Study Summary

CASE STUDY: BALTIMORE, MARYLAND

Baltimore, Maryland

Integrating Climate Change
Adaptation into an All-Hazards
Mitigation PlanBALTIMORE, MARYLANDAUTHORS: Alexis St. Juliana, Karen Carney, and Jason VogelIn this case study, you will learn about:• Using an existing process to integrate climate change adaptation into practice• Community engagement processes, including advisory committees, town hall events,
and community meetings• Strategies for engaging in meaningful discourse at community events• Easing the transition from planning to implementation by identifying links between
existing programs and future work
• Using existing community leaders to help spread key messages and engage others• Using grant funding to support initiatives

CLIMATE ADAPTATION: THE STATE OF PRACTICE IN U.S. COMMUNITIES

61

62

CASE STUDY: BALTIMORE, MARYLAND

Case Study Summary
The City of Baltimore is a large, diverse city; it isvulnerable to a number of climate threats, including
heavy precipitation, drought, wind storms, hurricanes
or tropical storms, storm surge, coastal inundation,
sea level rise, extreme heat, and degraded air quality. In 2012, the city’s All-Hazards Mitigation Plan
was due for a periodic update. City staff used thisopportunity to integrate a climate change risk and vulnerability analysis into the updated plan − the Disaster
Preparedness Project and Plan (DP3). To develop theDP3, city staff conducted a variety of engagement
strategies to gather input from the community. They
felt that a thorough and intentional engagement process would help build a plan with feasible actions that
had community member support. The plan’s vulnerability analysis identified flooding, extreme heat, andmultiple types of storms as the greatest threats to
Baltimore. The DP3 included 50 strategies and 231
actions intended to help Baltimore reduce its vulnerability to current hazards and future changes in climate.
Baltimore staff also believed that educating community
members on existing hazards and climate change would
help residents and neighborhoods be better prepared
to respond to extreme events and climate hazards.
Building off of the process and the consensus that DP3
generated, the city quickly transitioned from developing the DP3 to implementing vulnerability reduction
actions, with a specific focus on reducing vulnerability
to flooding, storms, and extreme heat. These actions
included the city’s new disaster preparedness initiative
for residents, called Make a Plan, Build a Kit, Help Each
Other, and the city’s effort to improve neighborhoods’
capacity to prepare and respond to hazardous events,
called Resiliency Hubs (see below for a detailed exploration of these two actions).
In 2015, the city’s comprehensive adaptation planning andimplementation efforts earned Baltimore the American
Society of Adaptation Professionals’ Prize for Progress
in Adaptation. However, it remains to be seen whether
building the capacity of residents and neighborhoods will
reduce the city’s vulnerability to climate impacts.

The Broader Context of CommunityBased Adaptation in Baltimore
Baltimore has been working on environmental sustainability endeavors for nearly a decade; these efforts laid
the groundwork for its all-hazards mitigation and climatechange adaptation efforts (Exhibit 1). Many of the same
people who were involved in early efforts remained involved
as the city began to address climate change adaptation.
One of the city’s first sustainability efforts was The
Baltimore Sustainability Plan. Development of the plan
began in 2006, when three Baltimore leaders spurred
the city to begin thinking more critically about environmental sustainability. These leaders included Mayor
Shelia Dixon, City Council Member Jim Kraft, and Beth
Strommen in the Department of Planning (Baja, 2015;
Heller, 2015). By 2007, with the support and actions ofthese leaders, the City Council approved the creation of a
new Baltimore Commission on Sustainability (Baltimore
city Council, 2007a, 2007b). In 2009, the city released
The Baltimore Sustainability Plan (Baltimore Office ofSustainability, 2009).
In 2007, the city created the Office of Sustainability,
which now leads Baltimore’s all-hazards mitigation and climate change adaptation planning efforts,
as well as many other sustainability-related initiatives. The Office of Sustainability grew fromtwo people in 2007 to 12 in 2015 (Kennedy, 2015). Staff
actively seek grants from a variety of sources including
state funding and foundations; this has helped them todevelop plans and projects, and to fund staff positions.
As discussed later in this case study, many of Baltimore’s
sustainability, climate change mitigation, all-hazards
mitigation, and climate change adaptation activities are
funded through grants (Baja, 2015; Kennedy, 2015).
In 2012, the Office of Sustainability and the Baltimore
Climate Action Plan (CAP) Advisory Committee guided
the development of the CAP, which focused on greenhouse gas mitigation efforts (Baltimore Office ofSustainability, 2013). Climate change adaptation priorities appeared in the CAP as an area for future work. In
2011, at the same time that Office of Sustainability staff
were drafting the CAP, Baltimore’s 2006 All-Hazards

CASE STUDY: BALTIMORE, MARYLAND

All-Hazards
Mitigation
Plan

2006

Establish
commission onsustainability,
Office of
Sustainability

2007

The Baltimore
Sustainability
Plan

2009

ClimateRequest to
ActionFederalPlan
Emergency
Management
Agency toincorporate
climate change
adaptation in
all-hazards
mitigation plan

2011

2012

Baltimore
DisasterPreparedness
Project andPlan (DP3)2013

Baltimore earns
American Societyof Adaptation
Professionals’
Prize for Progress
in Adaptation

Make a Plan, Build a Kit, Help
Each Other campaign
Resiliency Hubs pilot project
2014

2015

2016

Exhibit 1. Timeline of actions in Baltimore, MD.

Mitigation Plan was due for its five-year update—asmandated by the Federal Emergency Management
Agency (FEMA). Staff requested and received a one-year
extension from FEMA so that they could integrate risk
analysis, vulnerability assessment, and climate change
adaptation planning. This process yielded 231 actions
to reduce Baltimore’s vulnerability to current hazards
and future changes. Of the actions in the DP3, this casestudy focuses on two of the early and ongoing actions
implemented by Baltimore that help build capacity inresidents and neighborhoods—Make a Plan, Build a Kit,
Help Each Other and Resiliency Hubs. The city has completed a number of these actions in order to reduce its
vulnerability (see text box).

Why and How Baltimore Integrated
Climate Change Adaptation into
the DP3City Staff Seized Opportunity to Include
Adaptation in an All-Hazards Mitigation
Plan Update
As discussed above, Baltimore and its Office ofSustainability had a long history in working on climate change mitigation and sustainability. During its
efforts on the CAP, staff in the Office of Sustainability
had originally wanted to include an in-depth coverageof climate change adaptation. However, they were ultimately only able to include a short discussion of future
adaptation planning. Thus, the staff decided to include
comprehensive adaptation planning within the DP3. Thisseemed like a natural fit to the staff, given their feelingthat climate change adaptation planning should alignclosely with all-hazards mitigation and climate change
mitigation (Baja, 2015; Kennedy, 2015). Kristin Bajasaid, “Everything that you do with a climate adaptation
plan, like a risk assessment, a vulnerability assessment,
needs to be done in an All-Hazards Mitigation Plan.
Both of these things were coming up at the same time…
they were so similar. We thought it made more sense tocombine these efforts and make the connection with…
climate mitigation, so that all of these plans are morecomprehensive, working together, and complementing
each other” (Baja, 2015). To develop and integrate adaptation into the DP3, staff Beth Strommen and Kristin
Baja obtained additional funding from the Maryland
Department of Natural Resources and the Maryland
Emergency Management Agency (MEMA; Baja, 2015).

Analysis of Climate Change Risks andVulnerabilities Shaped the Plan
The DP3 included analyses of climate change risks, vulnerabilities across Baltimore, and Geographic Information
Systems information. These assessments were integral todeveloping the strategies and actions in the DP3.

63

64

CASE STUDY: BALTIMORE, MARYLAND

EXAMPLES OF OTHER ADAPTATION ACTIONSRESULTING FROM DP3
Adoption of a new floodplain code—Baltimore
now regulates to the 0.2 percent chance of aflood citywide (or, a flood once in 500 years),
has a Flood Resilience Area in tidal zones, andenforces a two-foot freeboard requirement.
Multiple new and redeveloped structures havebeen flood-proofed or elevated to reduce risk topeople and property.
Adoption of the International Green Construction
Code, Electrical Code, and Plumbing Code—The city considers energy efficiency, greening,and stormwater management for building
permits citywide.
Development of the Growing Green Initiative—
The initiative transforms vacant land to green
space, reduces stormwater runoff, grows food,and creates community spaces. Seven major
projects are currently being implemented.
Capital Improvement Process—The city requires
all departments to explain how their project takes
climate change into account and makes the city
more resilient.
Removal of impervious surface and planting oftrees—The city and partners are using these efforts
to manage flooding and high heat. Thousandsof trees have been planted and many sections ofimpervious surface have been removed.
Sources: City of Baltimore, 2015; City of Baltimore, 2014.

information on future climate conditions, such as more
extreme events and events not experienced in the past.
City staff relied on readily available climate data fromexperts including Rich Foot, a local climate scientist,and agencies and organizations including NOAA, theNational Climate Assessment, the Maryland Departmentof Natural Resources, MEMA, the Union of Concerned
Scientists, and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change (IPCC). As an example, the city used sea level
rise projection ranges from the Maryland Climate Change
Commission and the IPCC. Temperature and precipitation projections came from the IPCC (City of Baltimore,2013). However, the IPCC projections were for a verybroad region. City staff understood this was a limitation;
data were not available at a local scale and the city did
not have the resources for new modeling efforts.

EXHIBIT 2. HAZARDS ADDRESSED IN THE DP3
Poor air quality
Coastal storms
Dam failures
Droughts
Earthquakes
Extreme heat events
FloodsHurricanes/tropical storms
Landslides/land slumps
Sea level rise
Severe winter storms
Storm surge/coastal inundation
Tornadoes
Tsunamis
Windstorms
Winter Storms and Nor’Easters
Thunderstorms (lightning and hail)
Source: City of Baltimore, 2013.

Climate change risk analysis: Two types of informationinfluenced Baltimore’s climate change risk assessment.
First, city staff consulted information from FEMA,
MEMA, and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA) to develop a list of key local
climate hazards or risks (Exhibit 2), described the risks
in detail, and shared information on historic events ortrends related to those risks. Second, the city locatedVulnerability analysis: City staff developed an in-house
Vulnerability Assessment Tool for Advisory Committee
members to rank possible hazards in terms of probabilityof occurrence, human impact, property impact, economic impact, and the city’s level of preparedness. This

CASE STUDY: BALTIMORE, MARYLAND

tool showed that extreme heat, as well as multiple typesof storms presented the greatest risks for Baltimore (Cityof Baltimore, 2013).
Geographic Information System analysis: The city also
carried out an in-house geographic information systemanalyses. One component of this was a Community Asset
Inventory to identify physical and societal vulnerabilities.
This inventory mapped major employers, cultural assets,
and specific segments of the population such as children, elderly, and residents who did not speak English.
Additional assessments mapped potential climate risks
or current land use to help identify the community assetsthat were most vulnerable to a given hazard (see forexample, Exhibit 3; City of Baltimore, 2013). For example,
using FEMA’s Hazus-Multi-Hazards tool, the city mapped
wind, storm surge, and sea level rise vulnerability acrossthe city.

Broad Scale Community Engagement
Influenced the Plan
To ensure the actions in the plan were feasible and had
community member support, city staff aimed to educate community members and gather input on disaster
preparedness and climate change adaptation during thedevelopment of the DP3. To accomplish this, they developed an intentional community engagement process.
They wanted the DP3 process to start a dialogue thatwould continue after the development of the plan. This
community engagement process went beyond what thecity had done in the past for efforts like the Sustainability
Plan or CAP; the engagement process was central tobuilding support for the DP3. The three main engagement pathways included an Advisory Committee, town
hall meetings, and community meetings.
Advisory committee and sub-committees: The DP3
Advisory Committee consisted of 35 representatives
from city agencies, emergency response entities, public
utilities, public health agencies, hospitals, businesses,
neighborhoods, local non-profits, and other entities.
Initially, city staff wanted to have nearly 60 members on
the advisory committee, but decided to cap participation
at 35 members and involve additional individuals throughsubcommittees (Baja, 2015). Subject matter experts andstakeholders served on infrastructure, buildings, natural
systems, and public services subcommittees. The fullcommittee met five times throughout the developmentof the DP3. City staff helped keep the advisory committee informed and connected between meetings.
Part of the city’s strategy in selecting the advisory committee was to bring in community liaisons that could
effectively inform the community of the city’s plans. At
the same time, the advisory committee allowed representatives of various community entities to contributeto the plan in a forum where their ideas were weighed
equally and not readily dismissed (Baja, 2015). Inez Robb
served on the Advisory Committee for the SandtownWinchester neighborhood and said that she joined
because, “I thought it would educate the community. It
would help me to help others to understand. I believe
in it genuinely, I know it is important. …I have to lookat all angles…to help me to have a better quality of life
and the people I know.” She felt that many of her contributions were accepted by the Advisory Committee,
such as her suggestion to include telephone numbers
in all outreach documents because not all community
members have access to email. She also felt that theAdvisory Committee was an effective body overall. The
committee members were engaged and willing to workthrough differences to reach consensus (Robb, 2015).
Gene Taylor, the Chief Security Officer at Baltimore’s
National Aquarium, has contributed to several emergency management activities in the city and served on
the building sub-committee for the DP3. The aquarium islocated adjacent to water in the city’s Inner Harbor andis highly vulnerable to storms, such as Hurricane Isabelin 2003. Kristin Baja, also the city’s Floodplain Manager,
put the builder of a new downtown facility in touchwith Gene Taylor to share guidance. With his advice, thebuilder ultimately installed floodgates and other storm
protection measures (Taylor, 2015).
Town Hall meetings: City staff coordinated two town
hall meetings as part of the DP3. These meetings are
typical of community engagement processes in thecity; similar events were held to develop the CAP (Baja,
2015; Kennedy, 2015). To encourage meeting attendance,
the city offered transportation support, childcare, andrefreshments (Baja, 2015). A total of 153 people attended

65

66

CASE STUDY: BALTIMORE, MARYLAND

Exhibit 3. Baltimore City tree canopy map developed to determine community assets
susceptible to extreme heat.
Source: City of Baltimore, 2013.

CASE STUDY: BALTIMORE, MARYLAND

the two meetings (City of Baltimore, 2013). In addition to sharing information about climate hazards andpreparedness and gathering input from dialogue with
community members, staff conducted two participatory
exercises (City of Baltimore, 2013):
Each participant was given 500 “DP3 Dollars” and asked
where the city should spend the $500 to create resilience. Participants’ spending reflected:• 22 percent on stormwater infrastructure• 21 percent on resilient energy systems• 19 percent on transportation infrastructure• 15 percent on human health programs• 12 percent on trees and greening

Exhibit 4. Community member voting in a town
hall participatory exercise.
Source: City of Baltimore, 2013.

• 10 percent on building codes
Each participant was given six stickers to place next
to individual strategies he or she felt were important(Exhibit 4). From most selected to least selected, community members chose:• Integrate resiliency, redundancy, and structural stability into the city’s drinking and water system to ensure
safe and reliable water storage and distribution• Modify urban landscaping requirements and increase
permeable surfaces to reduce stormwater runoff• Create an interconnected network of green spaces
to support biodiversity and watershed based water
quality management• Use green corridors and parks to help protect surrounding communities from the impacts of hazard events.
Community meetings: City staff coordinated several smaller community meetings with typically 20 or
fewer people in residents’ homes, churches, community centers, or libraries (City of Baltimore, 2013). Thesemeetings focused on climate changes, including floodrisk or extreme heat, and educated community members about the risks in their neighborhood. The sessions
identified and shared preparedness measures and theactions participants could take to reduce the chance of

injury or damage if a hazard occurred. The sessions also
helped inform the strategies and actions established forthe DP3. City staff targeted these meetings in neighborhoods most vulnerable to impacts and worked witha community member or liaison to identify participants
and host the event (Baja, 2015).
Kiesha Allen hosted one of the events in her home
(Exhibit 5). She felt that it was important for her andher neighbors to learn about flood risk because several
waterways separate their neighborhood from the restof Baltimore, they are far from some emergency services, there is no natural community meeting-place in theevent of a disaster, and the June 2012 derecho storm hadheightened their concerns about natural disasters (Allen,2015).4 Kiesha Allen said, “It ended up being 15 people in
my dining room…just to get together and brainstorm andanswer questions… We used software…to determine ourrisk factor on flooding. Where I live, it wasn’t a surprise.
It was a surprise for people that lived on the higher land.
They thought they were safe. They realized ‘Oh, so we’re
not safe.’ We wouldn’t have known otherwise” (Allen,2015). She felt that she and her neighbors learned a lot
about current flood risk in their neighborhood and future
flood risk from climate change, as depicted using thesoftware tools. The meeting included information on how
to prepare for flood events by elevating appliances and

4. A derecho is “a widespread, long-lived wind storm. Derechos are associated with bands of rapidly moving showers or thunderstorms” (NOAA, 2015).
The derecho produced approximately 60- to 70-mile-an-hour winds, caused major wind damage, and knocked out power to nearly 900,000 homes
in Maryland. Because the power outages occurred during the hottest portion of the year, a lack of air conditioning contributed to several heat-related
deaths (U.S. DOC, 2013).

67

68

CASE STUDY: BALTIMORE, MARYLAND

waterproofing basements. She felt that flood insurance,in particular, is not a viable option for everyone becauseof the cost (Allen, 2015; City of Baltimore, 2013).
As a result of the multiple engagement activities, theAdvisory Committee and city staff developed 50 strategies and 231 actions to reduce Baltimore’s vulnerability
to current hazards and future changes in climate. The
Advisory Committee and city staff considered and prioritized each action’s feasibility and a number of othercriteria (Baja, 2015). Exhibit 6 represents a subset ofstrategies and actions with high-priority scores.

Exhibit 5. One of several community meetings.
Source: City of Baltimore, 2013.

EXHIBIT 6. SAMPLE STRATEGIES AND ACTIONS FROM THE DP3.
Strategy Infrastructure-1: Protect and enhance theresiliency and redundancy of electricity system

list of plant and tree species known to have abroad range of environmental tolerances• Action: Partner with utility to evaluate protecting power and utility lines from all hazards• Action: Establish a comprehensive maintenance program that includes pruning for soundstructure and the removal of hazardous limbs
and trees. First focus on areas where vulnerable infrastructure is nearby such as energy
supply and roads• Action: Determine low-lying substation vulnerability and outline options for adaptation andmitigation
Strategy Buildings-2: Enhance city building
codes that regulate building within a floodplainor near the waterfront• Action: Develop Construction Best Practices fordevelopment within floodplains• Action: Encourage green roof installations toinclude vegetative and reflective technologies
for all new commercial, industrial, multifamily,
and city-owned development
Strategy Natural Systems-2: Utilize green
corridors and parks to help protect surrounding
communities from the impacts of hazard events• Action: Anticipate the impacts of futurechanges in temperature and weather on theurban forest by developing a comprehensive

Strategy Public Services-3: Designate community
leaders and organizations that can assist andprovide support during hazard events• Action: Identify and evaluate plans already inplace and work to improve utilization of community-based leaders to assist in preparedness
and response
Strategy Public Services-8: Conduct climate,resiliency, and emergency planning educationand outreach• Action: Educate and train community groups
to participate in responding to hazards• Action: Generate a comprehensive community-specific all-hazards outreach campaign
Source: City of Baltimore, 2013.

CASE STUDY: BALTIMORE, MARYLAND

City Staff Moved Quickly from Drafting the
DP3 to Implementation
Once the DP3 was complete, implementation began
immediately. One item that Kristin Baja identified as facilitating this transition was cross walking the strategies
and actions with existing plans and projects in the city,
state, and among stakeholder groups (Baja, 2015). She
said, “Implementation is not solely on the city. Because
stakeholders developed the plan and overlapped planelements with existing projects, this made it more likelythat they will embrace the plan and try to integrate climate change into future thinking” (Baja, 2015). Make aPlan, Build a Kit, Help Each Other and Resiliency Hubs are
two examples of high-priority climate change adaptation
actions that helped Baltimore meet DP3 goals.
Make a Plan, Build a Kit, Help Each Other: This programis the city’s disaster preparedness initiative for residents,
which relies on multiple avenues to educate and prepare citizens. The program kicked off in April 2014 at a large event with
300 participants. Since then, Office of Sustainability staff,
including Kristin Baja, Zane Hadzick, and Alice Kennedy,
have conducted approximately 40 smaller meetings
throughout Baltimore, reaching more than 1,450 community members (Baja, 2015; Hadzick, 2015, Kennedy, 2015).
Meetings occur in neighborhoods that have requested participation in the program or are particularly vulnerable tocertain impacts (Baja, 2015; Hadzick, 2015). Staff tailor the
discussion to each neighborhood’s relative risks or vulnerabilities (Baja, 2015; Hadzick, 2015). The staff shared three
specific principles that they use to conduct the meetings.
Staff do not use a presentation or slides to share
information on existing hazards and climate changerisks, vulnerability, or preparedness. This information is in the room on posters and handouts, and staff
are prepared to speak to these topics. Staff prefer tobegin a dialogue with the participants to learn how
recent events have affected residents and what they
perceive as the biggest risks in their neighborhood(Exhibit 7). This leads to a discussion on how climate change might alter the types of risks theneighborhood faces, or the frequency or intensity ofexisting hazards. In many cases, community members point to changes that are already taking place(e.g., the frequency or intensity of rainfall).

Participants make emergency plans with the assistanceof city staff. The plans help community members collectimportant contact information, identify an evacuationroute and meeting place, and list neighbors who mightneed assistance in an emergency. Then participants makeemergency kits. The kits are not prepared in advance;
participants visit stations throughout the meeting space
to learn about each item that goes into a kit. Staff havea few selected community members build their kits at
the end of the meeting to ensure attendance throughthe full event.
Staff emphasize building trust with community members. Many of the participants have had few interactions
with city staff, or have historically had negative interactions with city officials. Staff members try to changethat by taking citizen concerns seriously. If a community
member identifies a specific problem on their property
or in the neighborhood, no matter its relation to the topic
at hand, staff make sure to convey it to the relevant city
department and follow up until the problem is addressed.
Staff hold themselves accountable for making these connections across city agencies and stakeholder groups(Baja, 2015; Hadzick, 2015, Kennedy, 2015).
Resiliency Hubs: This program is a new initiative of the
Office of Sustainability; the program’s focus is to build
neighborhood resiliency to climate change and otherhazards. From city staff perspective, these hubs should
be a neighborhood building that can serve as a daily
community center and a go-to location in the event of adisaster. The location would not be a city-owned building, but rather the building of a trusted neighborhoodorganization, like a non-profit. Ideally, the hubs alreadyoperate as neighborhood institutions that are used for awide range of purposes throughout the year. Over time,
the hope is that the hubs can meet additional or changing neighborhood needs in addition to helping reducethe vulnerability of neighborhoods to climate change.
Additional criteria include capacity to store or collectemergency food and supplies, accessibility, multiple
spaces to assist people in the event of a disaster, and astrong liaison to lead the hub. Elements that the project
brings to the hubs include increased communication andenergy capacity through solar power and back-up batteries. Ideally, the hubs would also be environmentally

69

70

CASE STUDY: BALTIMORE, MARYLAND

Exhibit 7. Sample poster used at various community events.
Source: City of Baltimore, 2013.

CASE STUDY: BALTIMORE, MARYLAND

sustainable and limit energy and water use, and contribute to urban agriculture and neighborhood stormwater
management (Baja, 2015). City staff believe these hubs
help improve the capacity of entire neighborhoods toprepare and respond to extreme events or climate hazards. For example, the hubs serve as a meeting place forresidents to come together, which can help them build
connections and work together to respond to or recoverfrom an event.
Community member Earl Johnson serves on theBaltimore Sustainability Commission and is a trained
Community Emergency Response Team (CERT) member.
He had a similar idea for “Sustainable Blocks,” and idea
which closely resembles the city’s vision for Resiliency
Hubs. Johnson said, “It was important for me for ourblocks to be more sustainable when it comes down
to bad weather…. I wanted to figure out a way for thecommunity members who respond on the ground to
be more prepared. If things really went bad, who dopeople turn to? Will they be prepared? That is where we
started to think about how do we make our blocks moresustainable and connect people” (Johnson, 2015). The
city is now working with Johnson to align his ideas with
Resiliency Hubs. Some of Johnson’s sustainable blocks
criteria that the city is considering are:
• Being or becoming aware of basic city services andwho to contact with problems (e.g., trash pickup andrecycling)• Making sure the blocks are clean• Identifying who is at risk in the neighborhood, such as
seniors, people with medical conditions, and parents
with young children• Identifying who on the block can help manage thatat-risk population• Identifying infrastructure issues (e.g., basements vulnerable to flooding, storm drainage issues)• Identifying evacuation needs• Ensuring that individuals are prepared for disasters
and have sufficient food and water (Johnson, 2015).

Accomplishments
Those interviewed for this case study agree that
Baltimore is headed in the right direction to reduce its
vulnerability to climate change. In addition to developing
the DP3 and educating stakeholders through the DP3
process, the city has completed a number of the plan’s
231 actions to reduce its vulnerability to existing hazards
and climate change.
Considering the three priority climate change concerns
for Baltimore—extreme heat, flooding, and storms—
Baltimore’s actions help reduce vulnerability in a number
or ways. For example, city staff believe that Make a Plan,
Build a Kit, Help Each Other and Resiliency Hubs help
improve residents’ ability to appropriately prepare andrespond to climate change impacts, including extreme
heat, storms, and other events. Similarly, city staff feelthat the city’s new floodplain code will, over time, help
ensure that structures are less vulnerable to flooding.
Likewise, staff identify the Growing Green Initiative,
removing impervious surface, and tree planting as efforts
that will help the city better manage stormwater andlessen impacts from extreme heat events.
Make Plan, Build Kit, Help Each Other, and Resiliency
Hubs are making progress to help Baltimore reach its
goals within the DP3. Since Make a Plan, Build a Kit,
Help Each Other began, the city hasn’t had a significant
climate-related disaster. However, there are anecdotal
stories of the program’s pervasiveness. Earl Johnson
regularly brings up preparedness topics at monthly
meetings for his neighborhood, Oliver, and surrounding
neighborhoods. As a result of this work, he said that hisneighbors, “…know there are options. They are changing
knowing that there is more than one option. The option
they typically had was, ‘Make this decision by myself,
I’m alone—I don’t know what to do.’ Now we collectively
make decisions when it comes down to emergencies.”
Staff are planning to revisit the neighborhoods where
they have hosted events to refresh community members’ knowledge and answer further questions (Hadzick,2015). Resiliency Hubs has also made progress on a pilot
project, having established a back-up power source and

71

72

CASE STUDY: BALTIMORE, MARYLAND

Exhibit 8. Cool roof installation at the Resiliency Hubs pilot.
Source: City of Baltimore, 2015.

a “cool roof” with The Door, a local nonprofit (Exhibit 8).
However, Make a Plan, Build a Kit, Help Each Other faces
a major challenge; its current grant funding ends in2015 and future funding remains uncertain (Baja, 2015).
Resiliency Hubs also face several challenges; for example, some city officials are reluctant to invest in facilities
not owned by the city. As a result, Office of Sustainability
staff are seeking outside funding for activities. In addition, more work needs to done to train the hub liaisons(Baja, 2015).

(Baja, 2015). They hope to have these new indicatorsdeveloped by winter 2015–2016. In a separate effort,
the city is working with George Mason University todevelop a more rigorous and analytical method for
determining the effectiveness of its efforts. Specifically,
the city wants to be sure it asks residents appropriate
baseline questions so that it can later assess improved
knowledge of concepts and the effectiveness of its
capacity-building programs.

City staff annually track the progress of each of theDP3’s 231 actions along a continuum—pending, very
early stage, early stage, mid stage, advanced stage,or implemented (Baja, 2015; Exhibit 9). For example,“Develop stricter flood regulations for critical facilities,”
part of strategy Buildings-1, is noted as “implemented”
because staff successfully changed the floodplain code
(Baja, 2015). However, city staff acknowledge it can bedifficult to track the success of educating community
members through programs such as Make a Plan, Build
a Kit, Help Each Other (Baja, 2015). They are trying to
identify new and better indicators through a collaboration with the Urban Sustainability Directors Network

Exhibit 9. Summary of the status of
the 231 DP3 Actions
Pending

62

Very early

85

Early

44

Mid

23

Advanced

7

Implemented/ongoing

10

Source: City of Baltimore, 2014.

CASE STUDY: BALTIMORE, MARYLAND

Moving Forward
To further reduce the vulnerability of residents to existing hazards and the impact of climate change, city staff
plan to continue to implement the 231 actions in theDP3. The actions and strategies within the DP3 were
designed with multiple criteria, including feasibility, inmind. Despite this, city staff recognize that they cannot
implement all 231 actions at one time (Baja, 2015). See
Exhibit 10 for a summary of the status of the actions asof 2014. Some of the actions have a lower priority, arehigher cost, or are targeted for a later date. These actions
will take longer to accomplish. A few priority activities
exist in the near-term:
Continue to make headway on Resiliency Hubs. Just
one pilot hub is in progress, but staff envision hubs
throughout the city. Resiliency Hubs may also serve as
an extension of Make a Plan, Build a Kit, Help Each Other.
The current funding for Make a Plan, Build a Kit, Help
Each Other will run out in 2015, but city staff see scaling
up from individual preparedness to neighborhood preparedness as a natural continuation of this action, andone that might attract new funding (Baja, 2015).
Ongoing work to revitalize vacant lots and remove
impervious surfaces. Like Resiliency Hubs, revitalizing vacant lots and removing impervious surfaces areactivities that have been started, but that staff plan tocontinue as a way to help manage stormwater.
Protect cultural and historic assets against climatechange. Protecting cultural and historic assets was nota major element of the DP3, but the importance of theseassets was acknowledged. Staff hope to include retrofitting and protecting historic assets into the DP3 within
the next year. They feel the plan is flexible enough tomeet these emerging needs (Baja, 2015).
Continue to effectively earn grant funding for adaptation. Many of the actions in the DP3 will only beachievable with outside support. In this, the Office ofSustainability staff recognize that they might need
to be flexible, or make modest adjustments to theirDP3 climate change adaptation prioritization to earn
grant funding.

Strengthen public-private partnerships. City staff areproud of the work they have done to engage private
entities through the DP3 process. They plan to continue
to engage these entities and help them adapt to climatechange. For example, the city is starting an outreachcampaign with waterfront and industrial businesses.
Use three principles to guide ongoing work. (1) ensurethat social equity continues to be a core value in planningand implementation efforts, (2) continue to collaborate
with regional and national networks to enhance climatechange adaptation efforts and learn best practices, and(3) prioritize actions that have both climate change mitigation and adaptation benefits.

Acknowledgments
We would like to thank the following people for participating in interviews as part of this case study:• Keisha Allen—Resident and DP3 community
meeting host
• Kristin Baja—Baltimore City Department of Planning,climate and resilience planner• Zane Hadzick—Baltimore City Department ofPlanning, environmental planner• Lynn Heller—Abell Foundation, vice president; andBaltimore Sustainability Commission member• Earl Johnson—Resident and trained CERT member• Alice Kennedy—Baltimore City Department ofPlanning, sustainability coordinator• Inez Robb—Resident and DP3 Advisory Committee
member• Gene Taylor—National Aquarium Baltimore, chief
security officer; and DP3 Sub-committee member.

73

74

CASE STUDY: BALTIMORE, MARYLAND

Bibliography
Allen, K. 2015. Interview with Keisha Allen, Resident.
June 24.
Baja, K. 2015. Interview with Kristin Baja, Baltimore
City Department of Planning. June 24.
Baltimore City Council. 2007a. 06-0506: Baltimore City
Office of Sustainability for the Purpose of Establishing
the Baltimore City Office of Sustainability; Providing
for the Appointment of an Executive Director andStaff for the Office; Providing for the Establishment
and Implementation of an Environmental Management
Program; Specifying the Powers and duties of the
Office and the Executive Director; and Generally
Relating to an Office of Sustainability. Available:
https://baltimore.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.
aspx?ID=2175270&GUID=DC369803-D559-417B-957F-9B67FB291A51&Options=ID|Text|&Search=sustainability. Accessed July 2, 2015.
Baltimore City Council. 2007b. 07-0582: Resource
Sustainability FOR the Purpose of Renaming theCommission on Resource Conservation and Recycling
to be the Commission on Resource Sustainability;
Reconstituting the Commission’s Membership; Restatingand Modifying the Commission’s Duties; Expanding
the Information to be included by City Agencies intheir Annual Energy Consumption Reports; Requiring
City Agencies to Submit an Annual Greenhouse
Gas Emissions Reduction Report; Providing for theCommission to Develop a Comprehensive Recycling
Plan for the City; and Generally Relating to Resource
Conservation, Recycling, and Sustainability. Available:
https://baltimore.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=2175413&GUID=0E16EC60-1BE1-4DF6-A94A-673E8
28AAB74&Options=ID|Text|&Search=07-0582. Accessed
July 2, 2015.
Baltimore City Council. 2007c. 07-0834: Baltimore
City’s Membership in the International Council for
Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI)’s Cities for
Climate Protection Campaign for the Purpose ofExpressing Approval for the City of Baltimore to Join
ICLEI as a Full Member, to Participate in the Cities for
Climate Protection Campaign, and, as a Participant,to Pledge to Take a Leadership Role in Promoting

Public Awareness about the Causes and Impactsof Climate Change; and Providing for a Special
Effective Date. Available: https://baltimore.legistar.
com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=2175805&GUID=CCAD11AC-5979-4032-935D-0B5F807DCC94&Options=ID|Text|&Search=sustainability. Accessed
July 2, 2015.
Baltimore Office of Sustainability. 2009. The
Baltimore Sustainability Plan. Baltimore Office ofSustainability, MD. Available: http://www.baltimoresustainability.org/sites/baltimoresustainability.org/
files/Baltimore%20Sustainability%20Plan%20FINAL.
pdf. Accessed July 2, 2015.
Baltimore Office of Sustainability. 2013. Baltimore
Climate Action Plan. Available: http://www.baltimoresustainability.org/sites/baltimoresustainability.org/
files/BaltimoreCAP_FINAL_130415.pdf. Accessed July
7, 2015.
Baltimore Office of Sustainability. 2014. The 2014
Annual Sustainability Town Hall—A Success!! March
31. Available: https://baltimorehazards.wordpress.
com/2014/03/31/join-us-at-the-annual-town-hallevent/. Accessed July 6, 2015.
City of Baltimore. 2006. All-Hazards Plan for Baltimore
City: A Master Plan to Mitigate Natural Hazards. City ofBaltimore Department of Planning, MD.
November 11. Available: http://emergency.baltimorecity.gov/Portals/Emergency/documents/Baltimore%20
City%20Mitigation%20Plan.pdf. Accessed July 2, 2015.
City of Baltimore. 2013. City of Baltimore Disaster
Preparedness and Planning Project: Disaster
Preparedness and Planning Project. October 15.
Available: https://www.dropbox.com/sh/kgfosha0v04pm0p/AADc1tnWqP7yKGndIrUmRUHda/
Baltimore_DP3Plan2013_Spreads_LowRes.pdf?dl=0.
Accessed June 26, 2015.
City of Baltimore. 2014. 2014 Annual Sustainability
Report. Available: http://baltimoresustainability.
org/sites/baltimoresustainability.org/files/Annual_
Report_2014_Pages_Web_2.pdf. Accessed August 20,
2015.

CASE STUDY: BALTIMORE, MARYLAND

City of Baltimore. 2015. Climate Resilience: A
Combined Hazard Mitigation and Climate Adaption
Process. Submission for the ASAP Prize for Progress in
Adaptation.
Hadzick, Z. 2015. Interview with Zane Hadzick,Baltimore City Department of Planning. June 24.
Heller, L. 2015. Interview with Lynn Heller, Abell
Foundation. June 24.
Johnson, E. 2015. Interview with Earl Johnson,
Resident. June 24.
Kennedy, A. 2015. Interview with Alice Kennedy,
Baltimore City Department of Planning. June 24.
NOAA. 2015. About Derechos. Storm Prediction Center.
U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,
National Weather Service, National Centers forEnvironmental Prediction. June 9. Available: http://
www.spc.noaa.gov/misc/AbtDerechos/derechofacts.
htm. Accessed August 6, 2015.
Robb, I. 2015. Interview with Inez Robb, Resident. June 24.
Taylor, G. 2015. Interview with Gene Taylor, National
Aquarium Baltimore. June 24.
U.S. DOC. 2013. The Historic Derecho of June 29, 2012.
U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic andAtmospheric Administration National Weather Service,
Silver Spring, MD. Available: http://www.nws.noaa.gov/
os/assessments/pdfs/derecho12.pdf. Accessed August
6, 2015.

75

76

CASE STUDY: BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS

Boston, Massachusetts

Climate Change Preparedness andResiliency Checklist
BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS
AUTHORS: Missy Stults, Jason Vogel, and Karen Carney

In this case study, you will learn about:• Techniques to ensure public and private-sector building projects are preparing
for climate change• Building partnerships with the private sector to ensure strategies are appropriate
and to enhance compliance with implementing key strategies• How Boston is using green buildings as a launch pad for larger community‑wide
actions related to reducing vulnerability and enhancing overall resilience

CLIMATE ADAPTATION: THE STATE OF PRACTICE IN U.S. COMMUNITIESCASE STUDY: BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS

Case Study Summary

Broader Context

The City of Boston has historically been shielded fromsevere impacts associated with extreme weather events
thanks to its location and the protection afforded by
the 34 harbor islands, which substantially dampen anddissipate storm surges. According to the Boston Living
With Water Design Competition, the downside of thisstrategic location is that “approximately 30 percent of
Boston (our filled tidelands) lie within 8’ of today’s hightide and, without intervention, will be at risk of chronic
saltwater flooding by 2100” (City of Boston, 2015c). The
possibility of this breech, as well as more inland flooding, is growing due to climate change. More specifically,
climate change projections for the Boston area indicatethat flooding, particularly flooding related to sea levelrise, is very likely to increase over the coming decades.

As the largest city in New England, Boston has andcontinues to be a major center of economic activity,
cultural diversity, and social opportunity. Its location on
the coast affords it numerous advantages but also poses
serious threats in the form of issues such sea level rise,coastal and inland flooding, and severe weather suchas Nor’easters. These threats have been getting more
intense, frequent, and of longer duration over the lastfew decades, and these trends are projected to continue
due to climate change (Melillo et al., 2014).

In the face of this threat, Boston Mayor Thomas M. Menino
started a series of initiatives to “green” the built environmentthat culminated in 2013 when the Boston Redevelopment
Authority (BRA) Board mandated that climate change
be considered as part of the review process of large newdevelopments and large renovation projects. This mandate
revised Article 80 of the Boston Zoning Code to require allprivate property owners proposing to develop new buildings over 20,000 square feet or proposing renovations over
100,000 square feet to “identify changes in the climate andenvironment and how such changes will affect the project’s
environmental impacts including survivability, integrity, andsafety of the project and its inhabitants” (BRA, 2013). This
mandate has been implemented by requiring developers
to complete a Climate Change Preparedness and Resiliency
Checklist (Checklist). The purpose of this Checklist is toassess how climate change and extreme weather conditions could affect a building over its design life. The
completed Checklist is submitted to the BRA as part of a
project’s Article 80 Review and is factored into decisions
regarding whether or not to permit a project for development. To date, a number of projects have been redesigned
to accommodate projected changes in climate and nearly
all projects now locate systems above flood levels. One
example is the Spaulding Rehabilitation Hospital, profiled
below. Overall, however, the time lag between proposing a
new development and completing the project means thatthe full impact of the Checklist and the larger change to
Article 80 cannot yet be fully assessed.

According to the National Climate Assessment (Melillo
et al., 2014) and the Massachusetts Climate Change
Adaptation Report (Commonwealth of Massachusetts,2011), the average annual temperature in the Northeast
is projected to rise between 3°F and 10°F by 2080, with
the number of days over 90°F in Boston rising from thecurrent average of 10 to between 31 and 62 per year due
to climate change. Climate projections also suggest thatwhile the absolute amount of precipitation falling peryear will stay close to current levels, this precipitation will
fall in fewer, more intense storms (City of Boston, 2013).
Additionally, Boston is subject to significant changes in
sea levels. This is due to both rises in global sea levels andthe fact that Boston’s land mass is subsiding, or sinking,at about six inches per century (City of Boston, 2013).
These changing weather conditions, combined witha growing population, caused the City of Boston to
begin a comprehensive program to address climatechange. Initially, this effort focused on reducing thecity’s contribution to climate change by mitigating cityand community-wide greenhouse gas emissions. Overtime, however, this work evolved to include efforts to
prepare for the risks and impacts associated with achanging climate. These climate preparedness efforts
began to crystallize in 2007, when Mayor Menino issued
an Executive Order directing all city offices to incorporate climate change into municipal and community
planning, projects, permitting, and review processes(City of Boston, 2013). In 2010, the Mayor’s Climate
Action Leadership Committee, building on the 2007
Executive Order, recommended that “every city government department and agency undertake a formal
review of the possible implications of climate change

77

78

CASE STUDY: BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS

Mayor Menino
elected

1993

BRA develops
Article 80

1996

Menino createdGreen Building
Task Force2003

Menino issues
an Executive
Order relative
to Climate Action
in Boston

2007

Online survey
created by BRA,
Environment
Department,
and private
sector2012

Article 80 revised torequire all large-scale
projects to consider
climate change

2013

City is creating
preparedness
indicators

Present

Exhibit 1. Case study timeline.

for its on-going programs and infrastructure in the nextten years, and implement changes or establish programs
and policies based on that review” (City of Boston, 2013).
Based partly on this recommendation, the City of Boston
decided to integrate a comprehensive climate adaptation framework into the 2011 Boston Climate Action Plan
update (City of Boston, 2011).
Today, the City of Boston is working on a number of
initiatives to create a more resilient and prepared city,
including the Complete Streets program, green infrastructure installations, an urban forestry program,numerous educational initiatives to help businesses andcitizens understand their vulnerabilities, and updates
to its wetland and floodplain ordinances. In addition,
the city now requires that developers consider climatechange when designing new large developments orwhen undertaking large renovations of existing buildings. This effort is the focus of this case study.

Why and How Boston Created
the Checklist
Article 80 of Boston Zoning Code Createdto Address Unique Review Requirementsfor Large-Scale Projects
Boston has and continues to be a major center of economic development and innovation for the region.
Recognizing the importance of the city and the impactsof post war urban-flight, in 1957, the Boston City Council
and the Massachusetts Legislature created the BRA(see Exhibit 1). Today, the BRA is Boston’s planning andeconomic development agency and is tasked with overseeing development within the City of Boston (BRA,
2015a). For the majority of its history, the BRA utilized
formal and informal guidelines including the zoning codefor how development and redevelopment projects werereviewed by the city. As projects became larger andmore complicated, in 1996 the BRA officially adopted
Zoning Article 80, which codified policy and practices
to “provide clear guidelines for the development review
process relating to large projects (adding more than
50,000 square feet), small projects (greater than 20,000
square feet), planned development areas (new overlay
zoning districts for project areas larger than 1 acre), andinstitutional master plans (projects relating to academic
and medical campuses)” (BRA, 2015b).

Innovation Around Green Building andClimate Action Emerges in the Public Sector
From its inception, Article 80 of the Boston Zoning Codehas been used to improve the performance of Boston’sbuilding stock. The work to significantly scale-up theenvironmental performance of buildings subject to
Article 80, as well as other buildings, gained traction;
however, shortly after the election of Mayor Menino in
1993, the Mayor and his staff began working on a numberof initiatives focused on greening the built environment,
including reducing energy consumption in city buildings,

CASE STUDY: BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS

installing onsite renewable energy installations, and purchasing renewable energy offsets (Hunt, 2006). In theearly 2000s, Boston’s green building efforts became
more sophisticated when city staff approached themayor with an idea of “developing more formal green
building standards” following the guidance provided
in the recently released U.S. Green Building Council’s(USGBC’s) Leadership in Energy and Environmental
Design (LEED) standard (Dalzell, 2014). In response to
the suggestion, Mayor Menino created a Green Building
Task Force in 2003 to explore what a formal green building standard for the city could look like and to identify
barriers to building green in Boston (City of Boston,
2003; Hunt, 2006).
In November 2004, Mayor Menino announced a threeyear mandatory implementation plan for how the city
would implement the Green Building Task Force’s 10
recommendations (Hunt, 2006). Included within the
Action Plan was the requirement that any new city buildings achieve LEED certification. This action was known
as LEEDing by Example. The Mayor’s Action Plan also
required that all projects receiving financial support fromthe city meet LEED certifiability requirements (i.e., new,non-city of Boston buildings receiving financial support
from the city had to demonstrate that they could meet
LEED requirements but they did not have to go throughthe official certification process) (City of Boston, 2007a).
Shortly thereafter in 2007, Mayor Menino issued an
Executive Order, An Executive Order Relative to Climate
Action in Boston, focusing explicitly on mitigating andadapting to climate change (City of Boston, 2007c).
Among the many things included in the Executive
Order, the most pertinent to the city’s climate adaptation efforts was a mandate that all city departments
and agencies include climate projections in their planning and project-review efforts (Spector, 2014; City of
Boston, 2015b). “Effectively, this Executive Order began
the process of integrating climate change into everything
the city does,” noted Carl Spector, Director of Climate
and Environmental Planning in the Boston Environment
Department (2014).
According to Carl Spector, the impetus for including
climate change into city operations was the increasing

frequency of flooding and extreme heat events, combined with growing information about projected futureclimate impacts in Boston. In particular, work coming
out of organizations such as the Union of Concerned
Scientists and the National Climate Assessment demonstrated how the climate in Massachusetts could change(e.g., Massachusetts could feel more like New Jersey by
mid-century), as well as how Boston could be impacted(e.g., Boston will likely experience 2.5 feet of sea level
rise by mid-century), were strong motivators for action(City of Boston, 2007b, 2013).
Both the LEEDing by Example program and the requirements from An Executive Order Relative to Climate Action
in Boston affirmed the city’s commitment to greening the
public sector. These actions also set a precedent that thecity would eventually build upon to promote voluntary,and eventually mandatory, green building efforts in theprivate sector (City of Boston, 2007a, 2007c).

Partnering with the Private Sector to
Bring Climate Considerations to Bear in
Development Planning
As mentioned above, until the late 2000s, Boston’s adaptation efforts within the built environment focused on
government buildings or buildings that received financial
support from the city. However, city staff decided thatin order for Boston to become more sustainable andresilient in the long-term, the private sector, and private
developers in particular, would need to both mitigate
and adapt (Dalzell, 2014; Spector, 2014).
The first step in this process was a requirement that all
private developers subject to Article 80 of the Boston
Zoning Code demonstrate that their projects were LEED
certifiable. The specific green building requirement of theZoning Code, known as Article 37, requires developers
to demonstrate to the BRA and the Boston Environment
Department that their proposed projects could achieve
LEED certification utilizing the most appropriate LEED
Rating System(s). Although USGBC certification is not
required, most projects seek certification, especially at
the Silver, Gold, and Platinum performance levels, tofully demonstrate their leadership and realize market
value (Dalzell, 2014). According to John Dalzell, a senior

79

80

CASE STUDY: BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS

architect at the BRA, this work was essential as it merged
the “regulatory tools and the leadership process totransform market practices” and “allowed us to start a
conversation with our community about how to build
better buildings” (2014).
Given the success of using Article 80 to transformbuilding practices, combined with growing awarenessabout the impacts of climate change, BRA and Boston
Environment Department staff decided to explore
strategies for getting the private sector to also adapt
to projected climate impacts. To initiate this process,staff began intermittently asking developers during the
project review process if and how they were integrating climate change considerations into their designs for
new buildings or their operations of existing buildings(Spector, 2014). These questions were asked informallyand responses were not used to inform decisions about
permitting. Since developers were not required to answer
these questions, no changes to Article 80 of the Boston
Zoning Code were needed.

“We want to see buildingsthat are resilient for theoccupants. It gets into core
strategies of resilience—wedon’t want to lose businesses,
employment opportunities orendanger our residents.”
JOHN DALZELL

Nevertheless, the answers to these informal questions
provided insight to city staff about private developers’
thinking as it pertained to preparing for climate change;in addition, these questions provided the city withfeedback about “what developers saw as their responsibilities and capacity to take action” (Spector, 2014).
Asking these questions also provided the city with anopportunity to set the expectation with the development
community that climate change was a city priority andshould be considered during project design.

While the informal questions during project review
provided some useful information, BRA and Boston
Environment Department staff wanted more specifics
about (1) what developers had already done to prepare
their buildings, (2) what developers were planning to do,and (3) what developers saw as the city’s responsibility in regards to preparing for climate change (Dalzell,
2014; Spector, 2014). To that end, in 2012 the BRA andthe Boston Environment Department collaborated withreal estate associations and other development partners
to create an online survey to deepen their understanding of and how climate change was being considered indevelopment and redevelopment projects. Collaboration
with the development community from the onset
helped ensure the questions were clear for builders anddevelopers and helped enhance the number of survey
respondents (Dalzell, 2014; Spector, 2014). Initially, thesurvey was only sent to a select number of building
owners and developers, with a particular focus on thosenear the coast. Over time, however, the survey was given
to all applicants for new projects. Carl Spector points outthat “the survey was still informal and completion of it
was optional, albeit strongly encouraged. However, wewere clear to point out that there were no right or wrong
answers” (2014).
In part, the development community was willing toengage in these informal discussions between 2009
and 2012 because the timing coincided with a heightened awareness about the threats of extreme weather
and climate change to the built environment. In particular, many of the developers that operate in Boston also
have operations in New York City, which were affectedby Superstorm Sandy.

Integrating Climate Change Consideration
Into Article 80 and Requiring Completionof the Checklist
By late 2013, the BRA Board, driven by the work of BRA
and Boston Environment Department staff, decided toformally require that all large-scale projects consider
climate change impacts (Dalzell, 2014). This was officiallyachieved in November 2013 through a policy revision to
Article 80 of the Boston Zoning Code review processthat required all new development projects over 20,000
square feet and all major renovations over 100,000

CASE STUDY: BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS

square feet (i.e., those subject to review under Article80) to utilize the best available science to “identify
changes in the climate and environment and how suchchanges will affect the project’s environmental impacts
including survivability, integrity, and safety of the projectand its inhabitants” (BRA 2013).

Exhibit 3 provides a general schematic of the projectreview process for projects subject to Article 80.

Leveraging Strong Leaders and StrategicPartnerships

To help developers meet this requirement, BRA and
Boston Environment Department staff updated theirinformal questionnaire and created the Checklist.
Developers are now required to complete the Checklist
as part of their project review application. The Checklist“requires all projects to consider the impacts of futureclimate conditions, over the expected life of the project,
due to Extreme Heat and Weather and, for projects inor near floodplains or areas prone to flooding, due toRising Sea-Levels. For any environmental impacts due toclimate change that are identified, [respondents must]describe planning, design, and / or construction strategies that will be employed to avoid, eliminate or mitigate
any adverse impacts” (BRA, 2013).

The process to embed climate adaptation considerations
into the Boston Zoning Code unfolded over nearly 10
years. During that time, the city worked closely witha number of partners to ensure their proposed path
was realistic, manageable, and achievable. One of the
key elements of their work, according to John Dalzell,
was ensuring that the city was first to act. The city’s
leadership and innovation in preparing the built environment for climate impacts was evident through boththe LEEDing by Example program and Mayor Menino’s
2007 Executive Order on Climate Action. What both ofthese initiatives did was change how internal government operations were unfolding, thereby demonstrating
to private developers that preparing for climate change
was feasible.

Exhibit 2 provides an example of climate adaptation-related
questions into the Checklist. According to the instructions
accompanying the Checklist, respondents have to answer
questions pertaining to how both direct impacts (e.g., sealevel rise, higher maximum and mean temperatures), as wellas cascading impacts (e.g., longer interruptions of utility
services or disruptions to transportation systems), could
impact their proposed projects (BRA, 2013).

During the development and initial implementationof the Checklist, Brian Sweat was the Director of the
Boston Environment Department. He came to the cityfrom Boston Properties, the largest commercial property
owner in Boston, where he worked on the organization’s sustainability team. His experience with property
development in Boston gave him credibility both withingovernment as well as with private developers. Because

Exhibit 2. Snapshot of Boston’s Checklist.

81

82

CASE STUDY: BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS

of his wealth of experience, if a developer were to claimthat certain activities simply were not feasible, he could
draw upon his experience to counter their claims, pointing out examples of work that he had done or that heknew about which refuted such claims. According toCarl Spector, Brian Sweat’s experience allowed him to“identify areas where it was practical to move moreaggressively than we might have otherwise” (2014). He
was a trusted source of information for the private sector
and helped to bridge the divide between the city andprivate developers.

“Developing in the city iscomplex and there are often
tradeoffs. By embedding
climate adaptation concerns
in the development process,we are sending a signal thatclimate adaptation is an
important element that needs
to be considered on par withother development concerns.”
CARL SPECTOR

Opposition to Boston’s efforts did and continues to exist.
The opposition focused on how expensive it would be
and who would be responsible for paying for the requisite
adaptive measures. Additionally, property developers
want to know that the city is taking action within the
public realm to ensure the resilience of services such astransportation, electric, sewer, and other public infrastructure. As noted by one developer, “if I make all thesechanges to my building but my tenants aren’t able to getto the facility because the roads or subway is flooded,
why should I bother?” (Spector, 2014). This is why, as
noted by John Dalzell, it was imperative that the city go
first and demonstrate that integrating climate adaptationconsiderations into built environments was feasible andcost effective.

Using the Checklist to Reduce
Vulnerability in Boston
Boston is in the process of implementing the revisions
to Article 80 and the requirement to complete theChecklist. BRA and Boston Environment Department
staff are quick, however, to point out that the city does
not prescribe solutions when a climate impact affects theviability of a development or redevelopment project. The
Checklist does, however, reference promising practices
that developers are encouraged to consider. What thismeans is that developers have the flexibility to determine
how best to respond to projected climate impacts. For
example, for a site facing sea level rise in the coming
decades, the developer may choose to raise the base elevation of a building. Alternatively, a builder may decidethat the first floor could be sacrificed and design thebuilding with breakaway walls and windows. By leaving
the implementation flexible, the City of Boston is giving
developers the option of designing solutions that arecontext specific. According to John Dalzell, “we recognize that there is no one solution, that solutions need tobe site and context specific” (2014).
While the BRA and the Boston Environment Department
provide developers with flexibility, they can still requirechanges through the permitting process if the solution
proposed by the developer is deemed insufficient. For
example, a building proposed for development near thecoast or in a Federal Emergency Management Agency(FEMA) floodplain will be required to adhere to practices that ensure the building is capable of withstanding
flooding. If the city feels that the proposed practices
are insufficient, it can require the developer to consider
alternative options. Similarly, if developers fail to address
climate change in their applications and the projectreviewers believe their proposed projects are likely to bevulnerable, the city can require that applicants redo their
Checklists. If a project still fails to address climate change,
the reviewers can deny the project, thereby removing itfrom development consideration. This type of intervention has been rare to date. More commonly, the Checklist
provides a foundation for meaningful discussions andbrainstorming with project developers about how theycan ensure their facilities are maintained for the full lifecycle of the building (Dalzell, 2014; Spector, 2014).

CASE STUDY: BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS

Exhibit 3. BRA large project review process.

83

84

CASE STUDY: BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS“The requirement in Article 80
design review guidelines does
not specify what builders
should do, but it gives astrong signal that somethingneeds to be done while
recognizing that there arelots of different approaches toaddress climate concerns.”
CARL SPECTOR

There are not many projects that have been built since
this change in Boston has taken place, meaning that few
projects have had to adhere to the climate adaptation
requirements in the Checklist. Part of the reason forthis is the newness of the requirement as well as thelong timeline associated with moving a project fromconception to completion. One project that has factored climate change into its major renovation is theSpaulding Rehabilitation Hospital. Spaulding, locatedon the edge of the Charlestown Navy Yard, had been
looking to make a series of upgrades to its facility. But
after Hurricane Katrina struck the Gulf Coast, the organization realized that it had to rethink its design in orderto ensure the safety of patients and staff in extreme
weather situations. Working with the city, Spaulding
identified a series of activities, including raising all critical power equipment to higher floors, ensuring thatall patient windows are operable, and putting backup
power generators on the roof, to help ensure the hospital could stay operational and safe in the case of
extreme weather conditions. When making decisions
about what actions to take, the Spaulding design team“looked at the worst-case scenario of flooding during
a major coastal storm —not just today, but at any point
over the next century” (Wickersham, 2012). The results,
according to Carl Spector, are one model for how climate change can and should be factored into building
design and renovations.

Accomplishments of Boston’s
Checklist
While clear metrics for gauging the impacts of embedding climate adaptation considerations into Article 80 of
the Boston zoning code do not yet exist, what is clear isthat the requirement has not slowed down developmentin the city. According to Carl Spector, the requirement
has also led to an increase in awareness and the overall
education level of the development community (2014).
This can be seen in the increasing quality and depth of
responses to Checklist questions that have emerged overtime (Spector, 2014).
When asked if the city’s work in this area has been a
success, John Dalzell and Carl Spector note that Boston’sefforts are a work in progress. “I’m reluctant to call it a
success yet, but I say it’s certainly a productive step,”
notes Carl Spector. John Dalzell comments, “our work is
still nascent but we are making good progress.” Perhaps
the most important sign that the change to Article 80
and the requirement to complete the Checklist is working is that “it’s both changing practice and providing
information today so that we can iteratively change
practice in the future” (Dalzell, 2014). Ultimately, therequirement is about transforming practice and making
climate change considerations part of the mainstream
way to develop in Boston, which appears to be happening (Spector, 2014).

Moving Forward
Going forward, the BRA and the Boston Environment
Department plan to revise the Checklist to ensure thatquestions are as clear and direct as possible. In particular,
a thorough review of responses received from Checklists
indicated that some of the questions were ambiguously
worded, leading to some questionable responses. Given
this, the city is trying to do a better job of writing clear
and direct questions.
The city is also working to develop more specific recommendations on promising practices that developers
will be encouraged to consider. For example, instead of

CASE STUDY: BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS

providing a reference to the National Climate Assessment,
which the city currently does in the Checklist, Boston is
working to extract promising practices from the assessment that it can provide directly to developers. Thisshould streamline the time required to complete theChecklist while also sending a much stronger signal thatthese promising practices are the types of things Boston
is looking for its development community to consider.
John Dalzell notes that, “we are already starting to pushfor other practices that are dual purpose or that havemultiple benefits. For example, one of the big things
relevant to keeping buildings occupiable or functional ismaintaining a reliable source of energy. As such, we areencouraging developers to look at onsite renewable andor clean energy generation. The goal is to be clean andresilient, which is sustainable and financially attractive”(Dalzell, 2014).

designed as “quantitative measures of the preparednessof the Boston community, [which will help the city] set
goals…, and [allow the city] to report on [their progress]
annually” (City of Boston, 2014).

In regards to larger next steps, the city is focused on
implementing the various strategies included in theGreenovate Boston: 2014 Climate Action Plan Update. In
particular, the goal of “ensuring public and private sector
developments and major capital projects are preparedfor expected climate change over their projected life” islikely to drive much of the city’s culture adaptation work
(City of Boston, 2014). Specific actions that fall under thisgoal area include (City of Boston, 2014):

BRA. 2013. Climate Change Preparedness and Resiliency
Guidelines. Boston Redevelopment Authority, City of
Boston, MA.

• “Work[ing] with property owners, neighborhoodgroups, and other stakeholders to establish building
preparedness priorities, best practices, guidelines for
implementation, and cost/benefit information• Explor[ing] mechanisms to provide property owners
financial and technical support for increasing climate
preparedness• Work[ing] with the Commonwealth, the insurance
and finance sectors, and property owners to identify
modifications to building codes in accordance with,and align insurance policies and incentives and loan
underwriting with best practices in building resiliency.”
To track progress in these areas as well as the other climate adaptation actions identified in Greenovate Boston:
2014 Climate Action Plan Update, the city is creating a setof preparedness indicators. These indicators are being

Acknowledgments
We would like to thank the following people for participating in interviews as part of this case study:• John Dalzell, senior architect, BRA• Carl Spector, director of climate and environmental
planning, Boston Environment Department.

Bibliography

BRA. 2015a. A History of the BRA. Boston
Redevelopment Authority. Available:
http://www.bostonredevelopmentauthority.org/
about-us/bra-history. Accessed March 2, 2015.
BRA. 2015b. Boston’s Article 80 Review Process.
Boston Redevelopment Authority. Available: http://
www.bostonredevelopmentauthority.org/projects/
development-review/what-is-article-80. Accessed
January 15, 2015.
City of Boston. 2003. Menino Announces Green
Building Task Force. June 18. Available: http://www.
cityofboston.gov/news/Default.aspx?id=1734. Accessed
April 16, 2015.
City of Boston. 2007a. Article 37: Green Buildings.
Article inserted on January 10. Available: http://
www.bostonredevelopmentauthority.org/getattachment/7fb975b2-e811-4a5d-98cf-48c20469c70c.
Accessed March 2, 2015.
City of Boston. 2007b. Climate Change. The City of
Boston’s Climate Action Plan. City of Boston, MA.

85

86

CASE STUDY: BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS

City of Boston. 2007c. Executive Order of Mayor
Thomas M. Menino: An Order Relative to Climate
Action in Boston. Available: http://www.cityofboston.
gov/images_documents/Clim_Action_Exec_Or_tcm33890.pdf. Accessed January 15, 2015.
City of Boston. 2011. A Climate of Progress: City of Boston
Climate Action Plan Update. Available: http://www.cityofboston.gov/images_documents/A%20Climate%20of%20
Progress%20-%20CAP%20Update%202011_tcm3-25020.
pdf. Accessed March 6, 2015.
City of Boston. 2013. Climate Ready Boston. City of
Boston, MA.
City of Boston. 2014. Greenovate Boston: 2014 Climate
Action Plan Update. Summary Report. Available:
http://www.cityofboston.gov/images_documents/
Greenovate%20Boston%202014%20CAP%20Update_
Summary_tcm3-49733.pdf. Accessed March 6 2015.
City of Boston. 2015a. 2014 Draft Climate Action Plan:
For Public Comment. City of Boston. Available: http://
www.cityofboston.gov/images_documents/Draft%20
2014%20CAP%20Update%20For%20Public%20
Comment_12NovFINAL2_tcm3-48598.pdf. Accessed
March 2, 2015.
City of Boston. 2015b. Archives Guide—Planning
Board (4030). Available: http://www.cityofboston.
gov/archivesandrecords/guide/planning.asp. Accessed
March 2, 2015.
City of Boston. 2015c. Boston Living With Water.
Available: http://www.bostonlivingwithwater.org/.
Accessed March 6, 2015.

Dalzell, J. 2014. Interview with John Dalzell, Senior
Architect, Boston Redevelopment Authority.
December 5.
Hunt, III, J. 2006. Sustainable Boston: A Greenprint for
Our Future. Available: http://www.usmayors.org/energysummit/atlanta06/presentations/friday/hunt.ppt.
Accessed December 2, 2014.
Melillo, J.M., T.C. Richmond, and G.W. Yohe (eds.). 2014.
Climate Change Impacts in the United States: The
Third National Climate Assessment. U.S. Global Change
Research Program. doi: 10.7930/J0Z31WJ2.
Spector, C. 2014. Interview with Carl Spector, Directorof Climate and Environmental Planning with the
Boston Environment. December 5.
Commonwealth of Massachusetts. 2011. Massachusetts
Climate Change Adaptation Report: September 2011.
Submitted by the Executive Office of Energy andEnvironmental Affairs. Available: http://www.mass.gov/
eea/docs/eea/energy/cca/eea-climate-adaptation-report.pdf. Accessed August 4, 2015.
Wickersham, J. 2012. Spaulding Rehab puts climate change in concrete terms. The Boston Globe.
April 20. Available: http://www.bostonglobe.com/
opinion/2012/04/19/spaulding-rehab-puts-climatechange-concrete-terms-preparing-for-great-flood/
VIv8s4C42oWkFX0wFaVuiI/story.html. Accessed
March 2, 2015.

CASE STUDY: CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA

Chula Vista, California

Cool Roofs Ordinance and Shade
Trees Policy
CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIAAUTHORS: Heather Hosterman, Karen Carney, and Jason VogelIn this case study, you will learn about:• Implementation of a climate change adaptation process to engage the community
in selecting adaptation options• Reducing vulnerability to warming temperatures and the urban heat island effectthrough a cool roofs ordinance and a shade tree policy

CLIMATE ADAPTATION: THE STATE OF PRACTICE IN U.S. COMMUNITIES

87

88

CASE STUDY: CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA

Case Study Summary
The City of Chula Vista, the second largest city in the
San Diego metropolitan area, developed a stakeholder-driven climate planning process to identify, evaluate,
and implement a suite of climate adaptation actions. The
suite of actions targets energy use; the urban heat islandeffect; public health; coastal resources; water supply andreuse; and the local, green economy (Reed, 2014). In thiscase study, we focus on two specific actions intended toaddress warming temperatures in the San Diego region(City of Chula Vista, 2011):• Chula Vista’s cool roofs ordinance mandates the use ofreflective or “cool” materials for roofs in new residential developments to reduce urban heat island effects(City of Chula Vista, 2011). From 2012 to 2013, Chula
Vista required cool roofs on all new inland residential
developments (Reed, 2014, 2015). The city is currently
revising its cools roofs program to meet California
building standards; the city expects to expand thecool roofs policy to new residential buildings in theentire city (Reed, 2015).
• Chula Vista’s shade trees policy mandates the plantingof shade trees in new parking lot projects to reduce
urban heat island effects; these plantings must achieve
50 percent canopy cover over parking stalls within
5 to 15 years of planting (City of Chula Vista, 2012;
Reed, 2014).
Chula Vista developed policies that require the integration of these actions into new development projects in
2010; these policies were approved by the City Council in
October 2010. According to Brendan Reed, Chula Vista’s
Environmental Resource Manager, city staff are now
working with developers to implement these policies.
Between 2012 and 2013, Chula Vista had incorporated
some cool roofs into new developments; since 2013,
the program has been on hold while the city evaluates
how its green building standards will meet California’s
new building codes (Reed, 2015). As of March 2015, thecity had not incorporated shade trees into new developments, but city staff are working with developers toensure their inclusion in future projects (Radley, 2015).

Although it will take more time to know the full impact of
Chula Vista’s actions, community members feel that theimplemented actions will reduce the city’s vulnerability
to the urban heat island effect.

Broader Context
The City of Chula Vista started working on climate change
in the early 1990s.5 Chula Vista was the first local government of fewer than one million residents to becomea founding member of the International Council for Local
Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI; Reed et al., 2005). The
city adopted a Climate Action Plan in 2000 to address
the threat of climate change to their community (Cityof Chula Vista, 2000). The Climate Action Plan identified Chula Vista’s carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions andmitigation measures to reduce CO2 emissions (City of
Chula Vista, 2000). In 2008 and 2011, Chula Vista revised
its Climate Action Plan to incorporate climate change
mitigation and climate change adaptation, respectfully.
To revise and implement the city’s Climate Action Plan,
Chula Vista developed and implemented a stakeholder-driven climate planning process. This process involved
several steps:
Step 1. Develop a roadmap. City staff developed a roadmap that (1) clearly outlined the tasks for the Climate
Change Working Group (CCWG); (2) established a timeline for the tasks; and (3) listed community sectors thatshould be represented through the process. In essence,
the roadmap established the ground rules for identifying
and evaluating climate adaptation actions.
Step 2. Engage stakeholders. City staff used the sectors
identified in the roadmap to invite residents, businesses,
and community representatives to the CCWG. The City
recruited 16 members from organizations that would bevulnerable to the local impacts of climate change (or that
had constituents who would be) as well as organizations
in a position to help implement climate adaptation strategies. Over a one-year time period, city staff worked with
the CCWG and the community to identify and evaluate

5. Interviewees were unable to specify why the city started working on climate change in the early 1990s. However, they believe that the City of
Chula Vista had a baseload power plant in its jurisdiction at that time and environmental justice issues around the power plant were a motivator for
involvement in climate change (Reed, 2015).

CASE STUDY: CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA

climate mitigation or adaptation actions to present to
the City Council. The CCWG also helped city staff hostpublic workshops on the planning process that engage
other residents and encourage other community members to contribute to the planning effort at City Council
or commission meetings.
Step 3. Gather information. Throughout the year, the
CCWG gathered technical information, such as projectedclimate change impacts for the region and a range ofpotential mitigation or adaptation actions to mitigate oradapt to those impacts. The CCWG also invited technicalexperts in the region to present regional climate change
data and information.
Step 4. Analyze options. The CCWG, with input from city
staff, then analyzed the options. The public was often
involved in providing comments on the options.
Step 5. Select and recommend options. Finally, the
CCWG prioritized and selected the final options toinclude in the Climate Action Plan. The selected options
were then recommended to the City Council and thecommunity. The CCWG participated in city commission

meetings, City Council meetings, and public workshops
to introduce the city’s climate adaptation risks and recommend adaptation actions to address those risks.
In 2008, the CCWG used this process to review over 90
climate change mitigation measures designed to reducegreenhouse gas emissions in Chula Vista’s municipal
operations and the broader Chula Vista community. The
CCWG ultimately recommended seven climate mitigation measures, which the City Council approved and are
implementing (Exhibit 1).
Recognizing that even with mitigation efforts, the climate will still change, the City Council directed staff
to reconvene the CCWG to look at how the city could
prepare itself for climate change impacts and create aclimate adaptation strategy. The CCWG reviewed 180
potential adaptation actions and ultimately recommended 11 climate adaptation actions. See Appendix A
for information about the climate adaptation matrix used
to quantify climate risks, categorize the 180 potential
adaptation actions, and score the adaptation actions.
In October 2010, the City Council accepted the CCWG’s
recommendation to implement the 11 climate adaptation

Exhibit 1. List of Chula Vista climate mitigation measures and climate adaptation actions
Climate mitigation measures:

Climate adaptation actions:• Clean vehicle replacement policy for city fleet• Cool pavinga• Clean vehicle replacement policy for city-contracted fleets• Shade treesa• Business energy evaluations• Cool roofsa• Green building standard• Local water supply and reuse• Solar and energy-efficiency conversion program• Stormwater pollution prevention and reuse• Smart growth around trolley stations• Education and wildfires• Turf lawn conversion program• Extreme heat plans• Open space managementa• Wetlands preservationa• Sea level rise and land development codes• Green economya

a. These measures have the potential for both mitigation and adaptation benefits.
Sources: City of Chula Vista, 2008, 2011.

89

90

CASE STUDY: CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA

actions, including a cool roofs ordinance and shade trees
policy in new development projects to reduce vulnerability to urban heat island effect (Exhibit 1). We focus thiscase study on these two programs.
In addition to Chula Vista’s work on climate change, Chula
Vista is part of a larger, regional collaborative in San
Diego—the San Diego Regional Climate Collaborative(Climate Collaborative). The Climate Collaborative wasestablished in 2011 to provide a forum for public agencies
to share experiences, leverage resources, and advancesolutions on climate change planning (Hedge, 2015).
The mission of the Climate Collaborative is “to be a
network for public agencies that serve the San Diego
region by sharing expertise, leveraging resources, andadvancing comprehensive solutions to facilitate climatechange planning” (Climate Collaborative, 2014). Climate
Collaborative members include public agencies—for
example, the cities of Chula Vista and San Diego and
the San Diego Airport Authority—and supporting members—for example, the San Diego Foundation and San
Diego Gas & Electric (Climate Collaborative, 2014). Chula
Vista is involved in the Climate Collaborative’s efforts
to develop a Multi-Jurisdictional Hazards Management
Plan that incorporates climate change risks (Reed, 2015).

Chula
Vista
beginsworkingonclimatechange
1990s

Chula
Vista
adoptsClimateActionPlan

2000

Significant
wildfireseasons

2003
and
2007

How and Why Chula Vista
Implemented Its Suite of Adaptation
Actions, Specifically the Cool Roofs
Ordinance and Shade Trees Policy
As we describe below, several factors led to Chula Vista’s
implementation of the cool roofs ordinance and shadetrees policy to reduce the city’s vulnerability to urban
heat island effect. Exhibit 2 shows the timeline of factors
leading to community action.

Chula Vista Citizens Sensitized to Climate
Change through Climate Hazards
Climate hazards are already affecting the Chula Vista
community. The San Diego region is prone to wildfires(San Diego Foundation, 2008) –persistent dry weather
and low moisture, combined with Santa Ana winds, created fire-conducive conditions that enabled the 2003
wildfire in the San Diego region to spread rapidly and may
have enabled the 2007 wildfire (Exhibit 3; Viswanathan
et al., 2006). These wildfires burned approximately
745,600 acres in San Diego County, destroyed morethan 4,200 homes and many other structures, killed
25 people, and resulted in significant local firefighting

2009–2010
Chula Vista implements
stakeholder-driven climate
planning process to identify,
evaluate, and implement a suiteof climate adaptation strategies
2010
October: Chula Vista Climate
Change Working Group
Chula Vista revises presents final recommendations
Climate Action Plan for the climate adaptation
to incorporate new strategies to the City Council;
climate mitigation the City Council approves therecommendations and directs
measurescity staff to develop Climate
Publication of
Adaptation Strategies
Focus 2050 Report Implementation Plans

2008

2009–
2010

January: City
Council creates
new cool roofs
ordinance
May: City
May: Climate
Council creates
Adaptation
new shade
Strategies
trees policy
Implementation
Plans approvedby the City
Council

2011

Exhibit 2. Chula Vista timeline of factors that lead to community action.

2012

Chula Vista
phasing thecool roofs
ordinance andshade trees
policy intodevelopment

2013–

present

CASE STUDY: CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA

Exhibit 3. Harris Fire in San Diego County in 2007.
Source: David S. Roberts.

costs—upwards of $80 million for the 2007 wildfire (San
Diego State University Foundation, Undated). In addition
to wildfires, the region has experienced warming temperatures. In 2013, temperatures were 1.7°F above thehistorical average (San Diego Foundation, 2014).
These types of events may become more frequent andsevere in the future (San Diego Foundation, 2008).
Recent catastrophic wildfires and gradually warmer
temperatures are raising awareness about potential
climate impacts in the region, which is generating awareness of climate change. Brendan Reed indicated thatwildfires, which burned on the eastern edge of Chula
Vista, were “visual hazards” for the community (Exhibit3). Increased awareness of climate change from thesevisual hazards prompted the San Diego Foundation toincrease its focus on climate change. According to Nicola
Hedge, Director of Environment Initiatives at the San
Diego Foundation, wildfires were catalytic in increasing
the San Diego Foundation’s role in climate change anddeveloping the report, San Diego’s Changing Climate: A
Regional Wake-up Call (Focus 2050 Report; San Diego
Foundation, 2008; Hedge, 2015), described below. In
addition, by 2050, scientists expect annual averagetemperatures will be between 1.5 and 4.5°F warmer (San
Diego Foundation, 2014). Increased awareness of climate
hazards, combined with other factors, focused Chula
Vista’s climate adaptation actions on specific climate
risks, such as the cool roofs ordinance and shade trees
policy to address warming temperatures.

The Focus 2050 Report Empowers City
Staff to Take Action
The Focus 2050 Report, commissioned by the San Diego
Foundation, further spurred Chula Vista’s interest in“better understanding the potential vulnerability of its
infrastructure, economy, and public health to climatechange” (Reed, 2014, p. 47). The report presented downscaled climate change impact data for the region in a shortand digestible report that was accessible to resource practitioners and policymakers (Exhibit 4; Reed, 2015). The
report also identified adaptation as a necessary part of climate action (Reed, 2015). As Brendan Reed stated, “I can’t
say enough of the importance of this report in providing
digestible information to city staff and politicians. I’m nota climate scientist, so having digestible climate information is critical in being able to take action” (Reed, 2015).

91

92

CASE STUDY: CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIASan Diego’s
climate will behotter and drier

San Diego will not beable to meet its
energy needs

Native plant
and animal
species will belost foreverIn 2050, if current
trends continue…

Public health will
be at risk, especiallyamong San Diego’s
elderly and children

Sea levels
will be12–18 inches
higher

San Diego will
face a severe
water shortage

Wildfires will be more
frequent and intense

By 2050, San Diego’s population is expected to grow by 50% to
4.5 million people.

Exhibit 4. San Diego’s changing climate.
Source: San Diego Foundation, 2008.

The Focus 2050 Report was modeled after a similarreport in King County, Washington and was producedwith input, guidance and expertise from more than 40
local scientists, as well as community and technicalexperts (Hedge, 2015). Before developing the Focus
2050 Report, The San Diego Foundation worked withother community partners to invite Ron Sims, a former
King County Executive, to speak with Foundation staff
and other local leaders regarding how King County
and other regions can tackle the challenge of climatechange (Snover et al., 2007; Hedge, 2015). The 25-page
Focus 2050 Report was presented to city councils andnonprofits in the region, and disseminated throughlocal media (Hedge, 2015). The highlights from the
Focus 2050 Report were later incorporated into theState of California’s Climate Adaptation Strategy in2009 and have been used by several local agencies
and decision-makers to inform climate action efforts(California Natural Resources Agency, 2009; Reed,2014). Given the utility of the first report, the fastchanging landscape of climate action and new climate
science available through regional research institutions,
the Foundation recently collaborated with other organizations in a project called Climate Education Partners
to publish an updated version of the Focus 2050 Report(Hedge, 2015).

CASE STUDY: CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA

Chula Vista Develops Plans for the Cool
Roofs Ordinance and Shade Trees Policy
As described in the broader context section, the Cityof Chula Vista undertook the climate planning process
to evaluate how the city could prepare itself for climatechange impacts. The climate planning process resulted
in a recommendation for 11 climate adaptation actions,
including mandating cool roofs and shade trees for new
development projects:• For cool roofs, the CCWG suggested creating a new
ordinance that required the use of cool roofs (i.e., roofs
with colors that improve solar reflectance) on new
residential developments• For shade trees, the CCWG suggested the city adopt
a new shade tree policy that required the incorporation of shade trees into all municipal projects and all
private development parking lot projects.

design manual and planning documents, and tackled concerns about “turning parking lots into forests
instead of their functional use of parking for cars” andensuring the policy conformed with tree growth estimates for parking lots (Radley, 2015). This working
group shifted the focus of the new policy from shading
50 percent of the full parking lot to shading 50 percent
of parking spaces, which was considered achievable
and acceptable to city staff (Radley, 2015).
In developing the Climate Adaptation Strategies
Implementation Plans, city staff created mechanisms tophase in the use of cool roofs and shade trees in new
developments:• For the cool roofs adaptation action, the City Council
created an ordinance in January 2012 to require newhomes in its eastern area to use cool roofing materials; Chula Vista’s building code was amended inOnce the climate planning process was complete,city staff developed Climate Adaptation Strategies
Implementation Plans; these plans were approved by
the City Council in May 2011 (City of Chula Vista, 2011).
Although the planning process was different for each
adaptation action, these implementation plans tended toinclude information on implementation steps, economic
costs, performance metrics, and timelines (City of Chula
Vista, 2011; Reed, 2015):

March 2012 to implement the ordinance as outlined• To inform the cool roofs adaptation strategy, for example, the city conducted a cost-effectiveness study thatcompared the cost of traditional roofs versus the costof cool roofs, and the payback period for the energy
savings from the cool roofs (Reed, 2014). The study
concluded that cool roofs would be cost-effective forinland homes, where temperatures are higher, because
the energy savings would pay back the incremental
costs of the cool roof over its lifetime (Reed, 2014).
As such, new inland developments were required to
install cool roofs.

• For the shade trees adaptation action, the City Council• To inform the shade trees adaptation strategy, aworking group of city staff and landscape architect
consultants was convened to develop an achievableshade trees policy. According to Mary Radley, landscape architect for Chula Vista, this working group
looked at existing policies, such as the landscape

Shade Tree Policy and ensured that the Chula Vistain California’s green building guidelines (Reed, 2014).
However, when the State of California updated its
energy code in 2013, Chula Vista’s energy codes werevoided. As such, Chula Vista is in the process of redoing the cool roof cost-effectiveness analysis. Based on
preliminary results, the city expects to expand the coolroofs policy to new residential buildings in the entire
city (Reed, 2015).

implemented a new policy in May 2012 that required
shade trees for new parking lots that achieve 50 percent canopy cover over parking spaces within 5 to 15
years of planting (City of Chula Vista, 2012). The policy
also allows for flexibility in alternative compliancemethods such as light colored or “cool” paving or solar
carport shade structures, and provides extra credit forretaining healthy, mature trees (City of Chula Vista,2012). The shade tree working group also updated theChula Vista Landscape Manual to align it with the new
Design Manual was consistent with the new Shade
Tree Policy (Radley, 2015).
Chula Vista is currently phasing the cool roofs ordinanceand shade trees policy into development.

93

94

CASE STUDY: CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA

Accomplishments from
Implementing the Cool Roofs
Ordinance and Shade Trees Policy
By November 2013, Chula Vista completed all implementation progress steps it outlined for the cool roofs
ordinance and shade trees policy (City of Chula Vista,2013). According to Brendan Reed, these steps will
reduce Chula Vista’s vulnerability to heat over the longterm (Reed, 2015). To track the performance of each
adaptation strategy, Chula Vista developed performance
metrics. The cool roofs strategy uses the “number of newresidential units that incorporate cool roofs” to quantify
its performance and the shade trees strategy uses the“number of new projects that incorporate the new shadetrees standard” (City of Chula Vista, 2011, pp. 9 and 12).
Starting in 2012, some new homes had been constructedwith cool roofs; however, as mentioned above, the coolroofs strategy is currently under review. In addition, thecity is currently working to ensure that all new development projects comply with the new shade trees policy;
however, it has not officially tracked compliance rates(Radley, 2015). According to Mary Radley, the impact of
the shade trees policy is likely to be limited, even withfull compliance: “it will improve parking lots by providing
more shade; however, it is not a radical improvement”(Radley, 2015).

deputy mayor, pointed to fact that climate change isincreasingly being integrated into all aspects of life in
Chula Vista—education programs on climate change areintegrated into schools, residential xeriscape gardens
are becoming common, and infrastructure for electricvehicles is widespread (Bensoussan, 2015). Brendan
Reed suggested that Chula Vista has shown leadershipin creating actionable climate change plans, and the city
has taken more of a deep dive into action than mostcommunities (Reed, 2015). Nicola Hedge indicated that
the San Diego Foundation and other regional communities often point to Chula Vista as a leader in the region
in taking tangible, discrete actions, and reporting backto their City Council on their progress (Hedge, 2015).
Over the years, Chula Vista received many acknowledgements and accolades for its work on climate change. Most
recently, Chula Vista received the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency’s 2014 Climate Leadership Award forproviding climate action leadership to their peers, competitors, and partners. According to Pamela Bensoussan,“these awards are constant positive reinforcements toelected officials to continue doing [climate change]work” and these awards help to guarantee political willto act on climate change (Bensoussan, 2015).

Moving Forward“Mitigation is a 5K, while
adaptation is the marathon.
For adaptation, we are
institutionalizing climatechange and climate adaptation
into the city’s policies now—
expecting big returns later.”
BRENDAN REEDInterviewees agreed that Chula Vista was successful in integrating climate change adaptation into thecity’s planning, management, and operations. Pamela
Bensoussan, Chula Vista’s city council member andChula Vista continues to implement and improve its
adaptation actions. For the shade trees policy, the city
is working with developers to ensure compliance in all
new development projects. For the cool roofs ordinance,
the city is in the process of redoing its cost-effectivenessanalysis under the new California energy codes. City personnel hope to expand the cool roofs policy from only
inland structures to the entire city (Reed, 2015).
Moreover, the San Diego Foundation is very active in theregional climate change issues. For example, the San
Diego Foundation is investing in building the capacity of
local researchers to conduct a population vulnerability
assessment for the entire San Diego region to identify
and map those populations most vulnerable to climatechange impacts (Hedge, 2015; for more information,
see Exhibit 5). Climate change will likely have more

CASE STUDY: CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA

immediate and significant impacts on vulnerable communities; the Foundation expects that the vulnerability
mapping information will empower these vulnerable
communities to increase their capacity to prepare for theeffects of climate change (Hedge, 2015). The Foundation
expects this information will be available to communities
by the end of 2015 (Hedge, 2015).

EXHIBIT 5. IDENTIFYING AND MAPPINGIMPACTS OF CLIMATE CHANGE ON
VULNERABLE COMMUNITIES IN SAN DIEGO
Drs. Stigler-Granados and Gersberg conducted apopulation vulnerability assessment at the census
tract level for San Diego County to better understand the distributional and equity implicationsof climate change. Results from the vulnerability
assessment indicated that several communities
in the county were at high or elevated risk to
the negative impacts of climate change suchas heat stress, displacement due to sea level
rise and increased illness. The most vulnerable
populations were mostly located in inner cityneighborhoods and along the U.S.-Mexico border.
Based on these findings, the researchersconclude that:• New initiatives could be developed that integrate the priorities and needs of communities
vulnerable to the effects of climate change. For
example, public health planners could develop
early warning systems in appropriate languages.
• Increased surveillance and monitoring of identified areas can be helpful for reducing overall
population impacts.
• Leaders from these communities can assist in
appropriate adaptation strategy planning.
Source: Stigler-Granados and Gersberg, Undated.

Acknowledgements
We would like to thank the following people for participating in interviews as part of this case study:• Brendan Reed, environmental resource manager,
City of Chula Vista• Mary Radley, landscape architect, City of Chula Vista• Pamela Bensoussan, City Council member anddeputy mayor, City of Chula Vista• Nicola Hedge, director of environment initiatives,
San Diego Foundation.

Bibliography
Associated Press. 2014. Southern California Swelters in
Heat Wave. USA Today. September 15. Available: http://
www.usatoday.com/story/weather/2014/09/15/southern-california-heat-wave/15689051/. Accessed March
10, 2015.
Bensoussan, P. 2015. Interview with Pamela
Bensoussan, City Council Member and Deputy Mayor,
City of Chula Vista. March 4.
California Natural Resources Agency. 2009. 2009
California Climate Adaptation Strategy. A Report to
the Governor of the State of California in Response to
Executive Order S-13-2008. Available: http://resources.
ca.gov/docs/climate/Statewide_Adaptation_Strategy.
pdf. Accessed March 10, 2015.
City of Chula Vista. 2000. Chula Vista CO2
Reduction Plan. Adopted November 14. Available:
http://38.106.5.202/home/showdocument?id=5445.
Accessed April 14, 2015.
City of Chula Vista. 2008. Climate Change Working
Group Measures. Implementation Plans. July. Available:
http://38.106.5.202/home/showdocument?id=5433.
Accessed April 3, 2015.
City of Chula Vista. 2011. Climate Adaptation
Strategies. Implementation Plans. May. Available:
http://38.106.5.202/home/showdocument?id=5443.
Accessed March 9, 2015.

95

96

CASE STUDY: CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIACity of Chula Vista. 2012. Shade Tree Policy. Policy
Number 576-19. January 3. Available: http://www.
chulavistaca.gov/home/showdocument?id=8093.
Accessed March 9, 2015.
City of Chula Vista. 2013. Climate Action Plan.
Implementation Progress Report. November. Available:
http://38.106.5.202/home/showdocument?id=5441.
Accessed March 12, 2015.
Climate Collaborative. 2014. San Diego Regional
Climate Collaborative. Available: http://sdclimatecollaborative.org/. Accessed April 14, 2015.
Hedge, N. 2015. Interview with Nicola Hedge, Director ofEnvironment Initiatives, San Diego Foundation. March 4.
Politico. 2012. 2012 Presidential Election. Available:
http://www.politico.com/2012-election/results/map/#/
President/2012/. Accessed February 4, 2013.
Radley, M. 2015. Interview with Mary Radley,
Landscape Architect, City of Chula Vista. March 4.
Reed, B. 2014. Leveraging climate adaptation planning for heat island mitigation. Sustain, A Journal ofEnvironmental and Sustainability Issues. 29:47–49.
The Kentucky Institute for the Environment andSustainable Development. Available: http://louisville.
edu/kiesd/sustain-magazine/SUSTAIN-29rev.pdf.
Accessed March 10, 2015.
Reed, B. 2015. Interview with Brendan Reed, Environmental
Resource Manager, City of Chula Vista. March 4.
Reed, B., M. Meacham, and R. Partida-Lopez.
2005. 2005 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory.
City of Chula Vista. Available: https://sphinx.
chulavistaca.gov/clean/conservation/climate/documents/GHG_InventoryReport_Final.pdf?s=3D1B67956F94EE4C8EAC34649038918E483B5EBA.
Accessed March 10, 2015.
San Diego Foundation. 2008. San Diego’s Changing
Climate: A Regional Wake-up Call. A Summaryof the Focus 2050 Study Presented by the San
Diego Foundation. Available: http://www.sdfoundation.org/Portals/0/Newsroom/PDF/Reports/
Focus2050glossySDF-ClimateReport.pdf. Accessed
April 17, 2015.

San Diego Foundation. 2014. San Diego, 2050 Is
Calling. How Will We Answer? Available: http://www.
sandiego.edu/2050/. Accessed March 10, 2015.
San Diego State University Foundation. Undated. The
San Diego Wildfires Education Project. San Diego State
University. Available: http://interwork.sdsu.edu/fire/
purpose.htm. Accessed March 10, 2015.
Snover, A.K., L. Whitely Binder, J. Lopez, E. Willmott, J.
Kay, D. Howell, and J. Simmonds. 2007. Preparing for
Climate Change: A Guidebook for Local, Regional, andState Governments. The Climate Impacts Group andKing County Washington. In association with and published by ICLEI—Local Governments for Sustainability.
Stigler-Granados, P. and R. Gersberg. Undated.
Identifying and Mapping Impacts of Climate Change
on Vulnerable Communities in San Diego, CA. Research
Poster. San Diego State University.
U.S. Census Bureau. 2013a. B19013: Median Household
Income in the Past 12 Months (in 2013 inflation-adjusted dollars). 2009–2013 American Community
Survey. U.S. Census Bureau’s American Community
Survey Office, American FactFinder.
U.S. Census Bureau. 2013b. DP05: Demographic andHousing Estimates. 2009–2013 American Community
Survey. U.S. Census Bureau’s American Community
Survey Office, American FactFinder.
U.S. EPA. 2014. Heat Island Effect. United States
Environmental Protection Agency. Available: http://
www.epa.gov/heatisland/. Accessed March 9, 2015.
Viswanathan. S., L. Eria, N. Diunugala, J. Johnson, andC. McClean. 2006. An analysis of effects of San Diego
wildlife on ambient air quality. Journal of the Air &Waste Management Association 6:56–67.

CASE STUDY: CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA

Appendix A. Chula Vista Climate
Adaptation Planning Process
Chula Vista city staff developed adaptation matrices toquantify climate risks and categorize climate adaptation
actions. Above is the matrix for projected warming air
temperatures.
The risks were described as the product of the likelinessof an impact occurring and the consequence of that
impact on the local community. Each factor was scoredfrom one to five and overall risk was categorized as “low,”“medium,” or “high.” The CCWG, with help from city staff,
then evaluated the adaptation options for the specificrisk using the following screening criteria:• Is the action in the city’s jurisdiction? For example, thecity has an external water provider and, therefore, thecity has limited influence on actions that look at watersupply and conveyance.
• Is the action fiscally feasible? For example, theaction does not rely on General Fund support for
implementation.
• Does the action complement current measures? For
example, the city did not want the adaptation action
to contradict or duplicate current mitigation measures.
As shown in this matrix, Chula Vista ranked projectedwarming air temperatures as a high vulnerability risk(scoring 20 out of 25 points) and considered several
adaptation options as in the city’s jurisdiction, fiscallyfeasible, and complementary of current measures.

97

98

CASE STUDY: CLEVELAND, OHIO

Cleveland, Ohio

The Neighborhood Climate Action
Toolkit and Climate Action Fund
CLEVELAND, OHIOAUTHORS: Missy Stults, Jason Vogel, and Karen Carney

In this case study, you will learn about:• Strategies for engaging citizens in low income areas• Building neighborhood cohesion and stability to create the adaptive capacity neededto address climate change• How Cleveland is navigating the challenge of quantifying vulnerability reductions
when climate change is mainstreamed within discussions of broader community
concerns (e.g. economic development, human health)

CLIMATE ADAPTATION: THE STATE OF PRACTICE IN U.S. COMMUNITIESCASE STUDY: CLEVELAND, OHIO

Case Study Summary
Once a city with a strong manufacturing economy,
Cleveland has seen a stark decline in this economic base,yielding increased poverty rates and growing economic
disparity. In recent years, the city has also experienced
increases in the frequency and duration of high heat days
and heavy precipitation events, trends that are expected
to continue or worsen under future climate change.
Despite recent rebounds in some core neighborhoods,
Cleveland has the second highest rate of poverty
among major U.S. cities, with more than 35 percent of
the population residing in poverty (up to 65 percent incertain neighborhoods). As such, the city has closely
tied its climate change efforts to the revitalization of its
neighborhoods. The city believes that helping provide
residents with safe and stable neighborhoods that haveeconomic opportunities will build the enabling conditions needed to have a more adaptive citizenry that isable to incorporate climate change into their thinking
and actions.
The city’s work on this began in earnest in 2009
with the Sustainable Cleveland 2019 initiative, andwas continued through a detailed citywide climate
action plan and the development and rollout of theCleveland Neighborhood Climate Action Toolkit(Toolkit). Designed and implemented in tandem with
Community Development Corporations (CDCs), theToolkit helps neighborhoods leverage existing assets
to fight economic decline, increase adaptive capacity,
reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and prepare for a
climate-altered future. Through the Toolkit, residents
are given an opportunity to identify what assets makeWe know that a connected
community is a more resilient
community.
APARNA BOLE, MD, FAAP.
Sustainability Manager, University Hospitals (UH)
Medical Director, Community Integration, UH
Rainbow Babies & Children’s Hospitaltheir neighborhoods strong and what challenges they
currently face that need attention. After participating
in a workshop, during which they complete the Toolkit,
residents are able to apply for funding from the City’s
Climate Action Fund to implement specific projects.
While still in its infancy, the Toolkit is designed to build
social cohesion, a critical aspect of adaptive capacity in
Cleveland’s view, in pilot neighborhoods. If, and to what
degree, the Toolkit and the associated Climate Action
Fund will lead to reductions in the city’s vulnerability
to climate impacts still remains to be seen.

The Broader Context of the Cleveland
Toolkit and Climate Action Fund
When the Great Recession of 2007 hit, Cleveland was
already struggling economically and socially, having
not yet rallied from the urban decline of the 1960s and1970s that disproportionately impacted low-income
neighborhoods. According to Krumholz and Hexter(2012, p. 1), the “neighborhood crisis of the 1970s … wasa reaction to the urban renewal and highway programsof the 1960s, school desegregation and white flight, theunresponsiveness of city services, and the redlining bybanks and insurance companies.” The dearth of investment in poor urban neighborhoods during this time leftmany neighborhoods disconnected and fragmented
from one another and from city government. When the
Great Recession struck, the city, and in particular thehistorically marginalized neighborhoods and their residents had very little capacity to cope with the economic
perturbations brought on by the crisis. For example,
between early 2008 and 2014, Cleveland lost 13,000
jobs and saw the community-wide poverty rate rise to
more than 35 percent (Perkins, 2015; U.S. Census, 2015).
This rapidly deteriorating state of life for residents
spurred Cleveland Mayor Frank G. Jackson and his
staff to initiate a process to re-envision the future forthe city, which crystallized into Sustainable Cleveland2019 (Sustainable Cleveland 2019, 2015). The goal of
Sustainable Cleveland 2019 is to “develop a 10-year
initiative that engages people from all walks of life,
working together to design and develop a thriving andresilient Cleveland region that leverages its wealth of

99

100

CASE STUDY: CLEVELAND, OHIO

assets to build economic, social, and environmental
well-being for all” (Sustainable Cleveland 2019, 2015).
One of the key components of the Sustainable Cleveland2019 platform is an annual Summit in which “a diverse
group of people vested in and dedicated to Cleveland …
use their vast knowledge and imagination to create an
action plan for building a green economy for Cleveland’s
future” (Sustainable Cleveland 2019, 2015). Each Summit
is built around one of nine topics determined by citizens
to be essential to creating a more sustainable Cleveland:
energy efficiency, local foods, advanced and renewableenergy, zero waste, clean water, sustainable transportation, vibrant green space, vital neighborhoods, andpeople (Sustainable Cleveland 2019, 2015). According toJenita McGowan, Cleveland’s chief of sustainability, theSustainable Cleveland 2019 initiative focuses on “reinventing the community as a sustainable city writ large; it’sas broad as sustainability can be, ensuring everyone canparticipate and benefit from our work” (McGowan, 2015).

2012 was the warmest year
ever in Cleveland, sincerecord keeping began in 1871.
MATT GRAY

While the annual summits have been useful in pulling
together diverse stakeholders, “the city needed a moredetailed plan for how to achieve many of the componentsof economic, environmental, and social sustainability”(Gray, 2015). This led to the creation of the Cleveland
Climate Action Plan (CCAP). The CCAP took the ideas
within Sustainable Cleveland 2019 that were specificallyfocused on climate adaptation and mitigation and provided structured guidance for what needs to be done,by whom, when, and how.
To create the CCAP, the Mayor’s Office of Sustainability
convened a 50-member Climate Action Advisory
Committee composed of commercial, industrial, educational, government, and non-profit stakeholders fromaround Cleveland (Sustainable Cleveland 2019, 2015).
Together, the stakeholders created a plan that outlines

33 actions, spilt into 6 focus areas: energy efficiency
and green building, advanced and renewable energy,
sustainable mobility, waste reduction and resource conservation, land use and clean water, and community
engagement and public health.

Even if climate change
was not a factor, taking theactions laid out in this plan
would still make sense froman economic, environmental,
and equity perspective;
climate change adds urgency.
CCAP

Three of the 33 actions specifically address adaptation:(1) recognize capacity of neighborhoods and community
groups to implement climate mitigation and adaptation
initiatives; (2) conduct climate change vulnerability
assessment and integrate projected impacts into existing plans; and (3) develop and implement an urban tree
plan to increase tree canopy (CCAP, 2013). Cleveland’s
progress toward implementing the CCAP overall has
been “piecemeal, focusing on areas where we have partners ready to act, funding readily available, or internal
momentum” (McGowan, 2015). As of mid-2015, 11 of the
33 actions are underway or on track to be completed
in short order (McGowan, 2015). However, the city has
made progress on the first adaptation-related action by
developing the Cleveland Toolkit and the Climate Action
Fund, which are the focus of this case.

Why and how Cleveland Developed
the Toolkit and Climate Action Fund
The Emergence of CDCs in Cleveland
The City of Cleveland has more than 25 distinct CDCs
that provide an array of support services, information,and resources to neighborhoods throughout the city. The
specific activities and services offered by each CDC vary,CASE STUDY: CLEVELAND, OHIO

CDCs begin
emerging in
Cleveland
1970sCity of Clevelandpasses a
predatory lending
ordinance to stop
the impending
foreclosure crisis;
The State of Ohio
ruled the city did
not have that
authority

2002

The Great
Recession
occurred,leading to highunemployment
in Cleveland

2007

City launches
the Sustainable
Cleveland 2019
Initiative

2009

City creates theCleveland
City releases Neighborhood
City begins
the Cleveland Climate Action
working on
the Cleveland Climate
Toolkit in
Action Plan
Climatepartnership
Action Plan
with CDCs
2012

2013

2014

Cleveland Climate
Action Fundcreated and firstprojects financed

2015

Exhibit 1. Timeline of actions in Cleveland, OH.

“depending on the needs, opportunities, and available
assets of the particular neighborhoods” being served byeach CDC (Krumholz and Hexter, 2012, p. 7).
The origin of the community development movement inCleveland stemmed from the “neighborhood crisis of the
1970s” as described in the broader context section above(Exhibit 1). During this time, resources and investments
were being transferred out of poor urban neighborhoods
into the suburbs south and west of the city. This dearth ofinvestment, resources, and support led to the emergenceof community development organizations, principallythose focused on “rebuilding and revitalizing communities through the use of available resources including
the social, human, cultural, and economic capital ofneighborhood residents” (Krumholz and Hexter, 2012,p. 1). During this period, many of the emerging CDCs
built strong bases of support through techniques such ascommunity organizing, skills development, sweat equity,and the creation of cooperative businesses (Krumholz
and Hexter, 2012).
Early victories made by Cleveland’s CDCs to combat
redlining and market disinvestment in neighborhoods
included work on affordable housing, such as placing“controls on home heating and fuel costs for low-income households … (the enhancement of) mortgage
subsidies, tool rental programs and cleanup campaigns
to improve neighborhood appearance in the hope thatdoing so would attract new homeowners and lead tohealthier neighborhoods” (Krumholz and Hexter, 2012,p. 2). In the last two decades, the work of CDCs has been
instrumental in the creation of thousands of new andrehabilitated housing units as well as the developmentof new retail, commercial and industrial space, and economic opportunity (Krumholz and Hexter, 2012).

People power is the answer totrue and lasting climate action
in Cleveland. This means thata citizen-centered approach isneeded to align climate action
with the assets, capacities,
and priorities of Clevelandresidents.
SUSTAINABLE CLEVELAND 2019

Partnering to Develop Concrete Actions
Via the Toolkit
Recognizing the importance of neighborhood investment and neighborhood engagement, the City ofCleveland was eager to engage “neighborhood and community groups to implement climate change mitigation
and adaptation initiatives” (CCAP, 2013, p. 74). The city
jumpstarted this effort by working with the partners
engaged in the three EcoDistricts in Cleveland: Enterprise
Community Partners and neighborhood-based CDCs

101

102

CASE STUDY: CLEVELAND, OHIO

from the Kinsman, Detroit Shoreway, and Glenville neighborhoods. The partners worked to identify the types ofclimate-related activities that were already underway intheir neighborhoods and what additional types of support were needed to increase climate and sustainability
activities. In selecting partners, the city deliberately
focused on CDCs that represented Cleveland’s diverse
neighborhoods including those that primarily served
African-American and low-income neighborhoods, aswell as neighborhoods with a high population of seniors
and citizens with asthma (McGowan, 2015). The result
was the Cleveland Toolkit, a resource that includes
multiple tools and guidance materials that CDCs, neighborhood associations, or individuals can use to “identify
and scale up local action that’s good for people and theplanet” (Sustainable Cleveland 2019, 2015).

Projects that build on local
assets inspire greater
participation and ownershipand are tailored to theneighborhood, resulting
in more creative climate
action that better addresses
neighborhood aspirations.
CLEVELAND TOOLKITThe Toolkit is designed to help neighborhoods andresidents:• Learn about Cleveland’s Climate Action Plan
• Identify neighborhood assets and concerns and relatethem to climate action• Develop neighborhood climate action project ideas• Develop a neighborhood climate action project proposal that they can use to secure funding to implement
their climate action project ideas.
Included in the Cleveland Toolkit are resources and tools
to help neighborhoods achieve the aforementioned goals

and, more specifically, to “build on their strengths, orassets, to engage residents in developing creative climate
action projects that people will care about, get involved in,and lead” (Sustainable Cleveland 2019, 2015). The Toolkit
was built upon the principles of Asset-Based Community
Development and developed with the assistance of Jenny
Hirsch, a consultant from the Asset-Based Community
Development Institute (McGowan, 2015). Exhibit 2 provides a summary of the four steps in the Toolkit as well as
the resources available to help achieve each step.
One of the core elements of the Toolkit is an acknowledgement that each neighborhood already has an arrayof assets that make it strong and that can be drawn
upon to increase community-wide adaptive capacity.
Examples in the toolkit of community assets that can beenhanced to make the neighborhood stronger include
local organizations, block clubs, book clubs, people’s
skills and passions, historical buildings, popular gathering places, natural areas, family traditions (of saving/
being frugal, gardening, sharing, etc.), and a community
history of coming together to address big challenges.

The Cleveland Neighborhood
Climate Action Toolkit has
been developed to help
neighborhoods and residents
incorporate the climate actions
into their local work in waysthat advance neighborhood
visions while meeting CAP
goals at the same time.
MATT GRAY

The Toolkit is designed to address more than just climate change. The Toolkit and the climate action projects
that emerge from it are encouraged to address neighborhood-level concerns, which could include youth
development, safety, job training, passing down cultural
traditions, employment opportunities, green spacedevelopment, and more (Sustainable Cleveland 2019,

CASE STUDY: CLEVELAND, OHIOEXHIBIT 2. CLEVELAND TOOLKIT STEPS AND SUPPORTING TOOLS (STEP AND TOOLS)
1. Learn about climate change and the CCAP
• “Climate Action and Cleveland: Building a
Green City on a Blue Lake” Presentation• Climate Action Videos that demonstrate how
everyday Clevelanders are taking action in theirhomes, at work, and in their neighborhoods
2. Identify neighborhood assets and concerns,
and relate them to climate action• Climate Action Visual Collages that demonstrate Clevelanders taking climate friendly
actions across the city
• Neighborhood Climate Action Case Studies• “I am Sustainable Cleveland” poster campaign, which includes posters submitted byClevelanders of actions they are taking toadvance Cleveland’s climate goals• Neighborhood Climate and Sustainability
Action Reports that provide detailed2015). However, residents also must relate their key areasof concern to climate action and, specifically, to one of
the goals outlined in the CCAP. Through this process, thecity hopes to ensure that neighborhoods are selecting
actions that address their priorities, but also align withcitywide efforts to mitigate and adapt to climate change.
Exhibit 3 provides an example of a neighborhood asset
mapping exercise conducted in the Kinsman neighborhood. Using the example of the Bridgeport Café, thecity was able to demonstrate the utility of their assetbased community development process, which shows
how an asset builds on existing resources, addresses
current concerns, uses outside support, and connects
to climate change. The Bridgeport Café is a local business that sells healthy food, employs local residents, andserves as a community gathering place. In addition to its
brick-and-mortar location, the Café recently started a
Mobile Market and now accepts EBT cards for payment,

information about Cleveland’s two ecodistrictneighborhoods• Neighborhood Carbon Footprint Calculator
3. Develop a Neighborhood Climate Action
Project idea
• Workshop Facilitator’s Guide: Develop YourOwn Neighborhood Climate Action Project,which provides guidelines for bringing
together neighborhood stakeholders to participate in a climate action workshop• Sustainable Cleveland Website: Get Involved inYour Community• Neighborhood Carbon Reduction Calculator
4. Submit a Neighborhood Climate Action Project
Proposal• Cleveland Climate Action Fund Proposal
templateallowing it to travel to and serve areas of Cleveland thathave historically not had access to healthy food options(Bridgeport Café, 2015). By combining economic development and local food production with the distributionof healthy food options, the Bridgeport Café is contributing to improved access to local, nutritious and healthy
food, reduced vulnerability to disruptions in food supply,and enhanced economic wellbeing. Cleveland believes
that these kinds of neighborhood level projects increase
the adaptive capacity of residents to cope with climate
related impacts (e.g., natural disasters).

Implementing Strategies that Build
Neighborhood-Level Adaptive Capacity
Because of the diversity and uniqueness of Cleveland’sneighborhoods, solutions for building adaptive capacity are based in the interests, needs, and existing assets
within each neighborhood. This had led to a diversity

103

104

CASE STUDY: CLEVELAND, OHIOof strategies being identified and implemented, including the incorporation of sustainability standards into
affordable housing designs, updated zoning laws thatallow for urban farming and green energy production,
the emergence of new social ventures focused on issues
like local food production and distribution, and programs
focused on reducing neighborhood crime (Sustainable
Cleveland 2019, 2015). Together, these projects are leading
to safer and closer-knit neighborhoods, increasing homeownership rates, greater investments in neighborhood
infrastructure such as parks, and lower unemployment
rates (Sustainable Cleveland 2019, 2015). Cleveland seesbuilding these ties and increasing the quality of life of its
residents as crucial to enabling future action on climatechange, even if these actions do not directly reduce vulnerability in and of themselves. Exhibit 4 provides more
examples of neighborhood-based projects that are helping increase the adaptive capacity of Cleveland residents.

EXHIBIT 3. ASSET MAPPING FOR KINSMANNEIGHBORHOOD —EXAMPLE: BRIDGEPORT CAFÉBuild on neighborhood assets• Engaged residents• Available commercial space• Shared community vision
Address neighborhood concerns• Alternatives to fast food• Health and nutrition• Community gathering spaces• Access to fruits and vegetables
Use outside support• U.S. Department of Health and Human Services• Local funders
Take climate action• Community engagement—public health• Sustainable mobility

Creation of the Cleveland Climate
Action Fund
Unfortunately, funding to implement neighborhood-level climate initiatives has historically been
hard to find. To remedy this, the City of Cleveland’s
Office of Sustainability, in partnership with the Green
City Blue Lake Institute, The Cleveland Clinic, The Gund
Foundation, the Cleveland Foundation, and others,
has initiated the Cleveland Climate Action Fund. The
Climate Action Fund is designed to simultaneously
provide training and financing for neighborhood level
activities while also providing a means for Cleveland’s
largest employers to mitigate their carbon footprint
by investing in neighborhood-level climate action(McGowan, 2015). Neighborhoods that have demonstrably used the Toolkit are encouraged to submit theirproject ideas to the Climate Action Fund. Through acompetitive grant application process, Climate Action
Fund administrators select the top projects to finance.
To date, the Climate Action Fund has provided $46,000
to twelve projects, including one focused on hiring andtraining youth to provide zero-emissions landscaping
services, another focused on enhancing community
composting, one aimed at local food production, andtwo to support solar panel installations (Cleveland
Climate Action Fund). “In the future, the goal is tosecure additional financing so that significantly more
projects can be started” (Gray, 2015).

Building and Maintaining Community
Support
The idea for and the process to develop the Cleveland
Toolkit and the Climate Action Fund emerged fromengagement with the local community. In particular,
the city’s close partnership with many of the CDCs, andtheir collaboration in visioning, developing, testing, andimplementing the Toolkit has helped the city quickly
move from conception to implementation (McGowan,2015). According to Jane Fumich, Director of Agingand Donnald Heckelmoser, Community Development
Department, the CDCs have also been great partners
for ensuring that residents know about and have accessto other climate adaptation-related resources such as
the city’s home weatherization program and the heating
assistance program (Fumich, 2015).

CASE STUDY: CLEVELAND, OHIO

Exhibit 4. Examples of climate action at the neighborhood level as highlighted
in the Cleveland Toolkit.
In addition to the CDCs, members of the Mayor’s Climate
Action Advisory Committee were also involved in developing and providing input into the development of the
Toolkit as well as all other strategies included in the city’s
Climate Action Plan (Pietro, 2015). According to Matt
Pietro, Sustainability Specialist at UH, “the Neighborhood
Climate Action Toolkit was one of the most important
items included in the CCAP and we wanted to makesure that it was designed with language that is relatable
to community members who aren’t necessarily versedin the science behind climate change. The Toolkit was
designed to let them know how climate change could
impact their everyday lives and what they can do to beprepared” (Pietro, 2015). The Toolkit has been used tofund adaptive capacity enhancement efforts in a numberof neighborhoods throughout the city.
In terms of broad community awareness, the city uses
community events, an annual sustainability summit,
and quarterly meetings, as well social media such as
e-newsletters, Twitter, and Facebook to keep residents

appraised of sustainability and climate-related activities and accomplishments. The city also invites residents
to write blog posts about the actions they are taking
to “help build a green city on a blue lake” (Sustainable
Cleveland 2019, 2015). These posts are then shared withthe wider public. Additionally, the “I am Sustainable,
Cleveland” poster campaign affords residents, businesses, neighborhoods, students, and others a chance
to show visually how they are contributing to making
Cleveland a more sustainable community (Exhibit 5).
So far, more than 100 posters have been created by residents (McGowan, 2015). These interactive engagement
techniques appear to be helping Cleveland maintaininterest and momentum around sustainability andclimate action while also allowing the city build a repository of examples of climate activity that can be used toencourage others to join in the climate action movement.
However, no quantifiable assessment of the amount ofvulnerability reduction has yet been conducted, making
it hard for the city to know exactly what impacts theirefforts have had.

105

106

CASE STUDY: CLEVELAND, OHIO

Exhibit 5. Examples from the “I am Sustainable, Cleveland” poster campaign.

Accomplishments of Cleveland’s
Toolkit and Climate Action Fund
Assessing the accomplishments of Cleveland’s Toolkit
and the associated climate action projects is challenging
due to (1) the distributed nature of the effort, (2) the
limited funding available to support project implementation, and (3) limited staff capacity to track progress. Thatsaid, neighborhood social cohesion does appear to be on
the rise and interest in climate action remains stable, if
not growing, based on the level of inquiries received tohost Neighborhood Climate Workshops (Gray, 2015). As
noted by Dr. Aparna Bole, “a connected community is amore resilient community, and in Cleveland, we have a lotof issues with disconnected communities, especially withthose identified in our CCAP as being the most vulnerable. Issues such as high foreclosure rates or high turnovermight limit the ability of communities to be resilient. So
if there are things we can do to enhance social cohesion
and encourage people to work together, then chances
are we are helping their communities to become more
resilient” (Bole, 2015). Matt Gray agrees, “Resilience in
Cleveland is about being prepared for external shocks.
That includes weather and climate-related shocks, butalso economic shocks. In Cleveland, you can’t disconnect
these issues” (Gray, 2015).

A further sign of the city’s accomplishments to date is thefact that multiple CDCs and neighborhood leaders haveused the Toolkit to start community discussions about
existing and future climate change impacts as well as
opportunities for mitigating (Gray, 2015). “Without the
Toolkit as a catalyst, it’s unclear if these conversations
would be taking place” (McGowan, 2015). One barrier toprogress has been the need for more funding to implement
projects. A second barrier is the effective assessment andmeasurement of adaptation actions. Nevertheless, the factthat a wide range of activities have been accomplishedwith limited financing indicates that the Toolkit and its
process have been successful in engaging neighborhoods
and building the social cohesion Cleveland believes necessary to bolster adaptive capacity.
Unfortunately, the city has struggled to convince mostexternal funders that resilience in Cleveland is best
achieved by marrying social cohesion, economic development, and climate preparedness. For example, thecity has applied three times without success to major
resilience initiatives to undertake actions such as vulnerability assessment and resilience planning and to
improve the urban tree canopy. “This is frustrating,”
notes Jenita McGowan, “because this ignores the realities of where we are and what we need as a city … ourapplications for these programs demonstrates that weCASE STUDY: CLEVELAND, OHIO

are incredibly poor and that climate is the straw that willsoon break the camel’s back. This hasn’t yet resonatedwith most organizations who are funding resiliencework” (McGowan, 2015). Below is an excerpt from a
recent application from the city that explains how they
view the connection between resilience, social cohesion,and poverty reduction (McGowan, 2015):
The traditional long-term impacts of poverty
include higher instances of chronic disease, highlevels of chronic stress, living in unsafe and substandard housing, lack of educational opportunity,lack of job readiness, and lack of access to affordable healthy foods. Poverty and inequality affect
Cleveland’s children in greater proportion with
51 percent of children living in poverty. A majority of Cleveland’s poor live in housing stock built
prior to 1940, most of which is energy inefficient,
expensive to heat and cool, and located in areas
with a low tree canopy cover. We anticipate thattraditional long-term poverty impacts will be exacerbated by greater prevalence of high heat days
and urban heat island effect, greater intensityof storms and flooding, increased food and fuelprices, and disruptions to systems of particularimportance to those living at or below the poverty
level including public transit, emergency services,and social services.

Creating connectivity is notsexy in a technical way, but I
think it is critically importantand research supports this.
JENITA MCGOWAN

Moving Forward
Recently, Cleveland has partnered with Cleveland
Neighborhood Progress on a Climate Resiliency and
Urban Opportunities plan with the support of The Kresge
Foundation. The city has also partnered with local nonprofits on the creation of a Cleveland Tree Plan which notesthat restoring Cleveland’s tree canopy is one of the mostimportant climate adaptation strategies for managing
stormwater and cooling the city. The plan takes an equity
approach to trees as a climate adaptation, public health,and quality-of-life strategy for Cleveland’s neighborhoods.
Going forward, the city will continue to seek funding
to support more neighborhoods in using the Toolkit
and additional funding for the Climate Action Fund sothat neighborhood-level projects can be implemented(McGowan, 2015). In fact, the goal of the Climate Action
Fund is to hold workshops and fund projects in every
Cleveland neighborhood by 2017 (McGowan, 2015).
Another priority area for action is finding funding tosupport the development of a detailed vulnerability
assessment that identifies the specific needs and areas
for intervention within the City, the second element of
the CCAP that addresses adaptation. Once completed,the vulnerability assessment will provide the city with aroadmap for future, city-led projects (Gray, 2015).
Partnering with the county and surrounding municipalities is also a high priority. Cleveland is only one of 59
municipalities within Cuyahoga County, meaning that
regional efforts to reduce vulnerability may need to becoordinated at higher levels of governance (Gray, 2015).
The city is interested in helping foster that collaborationand coordination, but is waiting for clear signals fromsurrounding municipalities and the county that such collaboration would be welcome (McGowan, 2015).
A final area of focus for the city pertains to the use oflanguage and overall community education. According
to Aparna Bole (2015), “the language of climate change
has become very political in our country. This meansthat we sometimes have to choose our language so that
we engage the right leaders in the right away. Talking
about resilience, air quality, and extreme events in a reallydata-driven manner appears to work for us.” The city
will continue to explore various ways of framing climate
resilience and adaptation so that they reach the widest
array of stakeholders as possible. By starting with alternative language that resonates with stakeholders, the city
believes it can build trust and rapport with individuals thatcan later be leveraged to have a more open and frankcommunity discussion about climate change.

107

108

CASE STUDY: CLEVELAND, OHIO

Acknowledgments
We would like to thank the following for participating ininterviews as part of this case study:• Jenita McGowan, chief of sustainability, City ofCleveland• Matthew Gray, director of the Cleveland Mayor’s
Office of Sustainability• Dr. Aparna Bole, sustainability manager, UH; medical
director, community integration, UH Rainbow Babies& Children’s Hospital• Matthew Pietro, sustainability specialist, UH• Jane Fumich, director, Cleveland Department of Aging

Fumich, J. 2015. Interview with Jane Fumich, Directorof the Cleveland Department of Aging. February 9.
Gray, M. 2015. Interview with Matt Gray, Director of
the Mayor’s Office of Sustainability with the City ofCleveland. February 10.
Heckelmoser, D. 2015. Interview with Donnald
Heckelmoser, Program Administrator in the Cleveland
Department of Community Development. February 9.
Krumholz, N. and K.W. Hexter. 2012. Re-Thinking the
Future of Cleveland’s Neighborhood Developers:
Interim Report. Center for Community Planning andDevelopment, Maxine Goodman Levin College of
Urban Affairs, Cleveland State University. March.

• Donnald Heckelmoser, program administrator,
Cleveland Department of Community Development.

McGowan, J. 2015. Interview with Jenita McGowan,
Chief of Sustainability, City of Cleveland. February 10.

Bibliography

Perkins, O. 2015. Cleveland Area Won’t Regain Jobs
Lost during Recession until 2019, Forecast Says.
January 22. Available: http://www.cleveland.com/
business/index.ssf/2015/01/cleveland_area_wont_regain_job.html. Accessed February 12, 2015.

Bole, A. 2015. Interview with Dr. Aparna Bole,
Sustainability Manager at University Hospitals.
February 9, 2015.
Bridgeport Café. 2015. About us. Available:
http://www.bridgeportcafe.com/about-us/. Accessed
November 16, 2015.
CCAP. 2013. Cleveland Climate Action Plan: Building
Thriving and Healthy Neighborhoods. Available:
http://www.sustainablecleveland.org/wp-content/
uploads/2013/10/Cleveland-Climate-Action-PlanFinal2013-web.pdf. Accessed January 30, 2015.
Cleveland Climate Action Fund. 2015. Cleveland
Climate Action Fund. Available: http://www.clevelandclimateaction.org/. Accessed February 19, 2015.

Pietro, M. 2015. Interview with Matthew Pietro,
Sustainability Specialist at University Hospitals.
February 9.
Sustainable Cleveland 2019. 2015. FAQ. Available:
http://www.sustainablecleveland.org/about/faq/.
Accessed February 12, 2015.
U.S. Census. 2015. State and County Quick Facts.
Available: http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/
states/39/3916000.html. Accessed February 12, 2015.

CASE STUDY: EL PASO COUNTY, TEXASEl Paso County, Texas

Kay Bailey Hutchison Inland
Desalination Facility
EL PASO COUNTY, TEXASAUTHORS: Alexis St. Juliana and Jason VogelIn this case study, you will learn about:• Robust water management planning with multiple strategies• Addressing financially feasible strategies in the near term and re-evaluating next steps periodically• Engaging in dialogue with decision makers (local, state, and federal)• The role of strong leadership• Sharing information with other communities

CLIMATE ADAPTATION: THE STATE OF PRACTICE IN U.S. COMMUNITIES

109

110

CASE STUDY: EL PASO COUNTY, TEXAS

Case Study Summary
El Paso’s water utility, an independent utility from thecity and county with budgetary discretion, had beenaware for years of the combined potential impactsof the growing population and drought on El Paso’s
water resources. Since the 1960s, they have worked toreduce consumption and increase system efficiency. In
1991, they developed a comprehensive Water Resource
Management Plan, which included a variety of strategies
to conserve water and acquire backup water sources.
In line with this plan, El Paso Water Utilities (EPWU)6
finished construction of the 27.5-million-gallon-perday Kay Bailey Hutchison inland desalination facility in2007 (on the cover). The development of the facility
resulted from proactive planning efforts and a confluence of various external drivers, including freshwater
wells becoming brackish, a lower price threshold fordesalination membrane technology, a drought between
2003 and 2004, and the U.S. Department of Defense(DoD) Base Realignment and Closure process. EPWU is
now able to convert formerly unusable brackish water
into a drinking water resource for their community.
The development of the facility also helped to alleviate
DoD concerns about future water supply reliability in El
Paso —The Department changed from targeting Fort
Bliss for closure to seeing it as a valuable resource andexpanding it. The U.S. Army removed personnel restrictions at the base, growing the base population roughly
4 times to 32,000. This growth is an asset to El Paso’s
local economy and would not have taken place without

New modeling
Water
Edmundof HuecoArchuleta Resources
becomes Management Bolson begins
President Plan
and Chief
Executive
officer of
EPWU• Desalination becomes less costly• Freshwater wells turn brackish
1989

1991

1997

Collaboration
betweenEPWU and
Fort Bliss
begins2000

Minordrought

the desalination plant. Additionally, the facility helped toreduce the area’s vulnerability during a period of drought
in 2012 and in 2011 when a historic freeze impacted thecity’s reservoirs; EPWU relied on brackish water during
surface water shortages. The desalination facility and
EPWU’s other water resource management efforts areprojected to reduce El Paso’s vulnerability to climatechange for the next 50 years. Exhibit 1 presents a timeline of activities in El Paso.

The Broader Context of Adaptation
in El Paso
The City of El Paso is located in the Chihuahua desert
and is at the end of the line for surface water supplies
from the Rio Grande. As such, it has been aware of
the potential impact of drought for decades. The city
has also become more aware of flooding after a 2006
event and extreme temperatures after a freezing eventin 2011 (Baldwin; 2015, Montoya, 2015). To addressthese impacts, the city is involved in several climatechange adaptation initiatives. First, El Paso is part of
the Rockefeller Foundation’s 100 Resilient Cities initiative that intends to focus on local drought, flooding,extreme temperatures, economic opportunity, and hazards preparedness concerns (Baldwin, 2015; 100 Resilient
Cities, 2015). Second, the city’s Office of Resiliency andSustainability is working with Climate Solution University
to finalize a climate change adaptation plan in December
2015. Potential adaptation activities include green

Plant begins
Base
Realignment operations
and Closure
process

Climatechangeanalysis of
EPWU’swater
resources

Drought;
Freezeplant used at
event;
plant used full capacity
at fullcapacity
for first
time• Build broad scale support

2003–
2004

2005

2007

2008

2011

2012

Exhibit 1. Timeline of activities in El Paso.

6. EPWU is an independent entity from the City of El Paso, with its own governing board. Its revenue and expenditures are all managed internally.
EPWU serves the City of El Paso and most of El Paso County (EPWU, 2007b). Outside its service area, EPWU provides technical support tocolonias (unincorporated settlements) to write and manage grants that would fund improved water supply and waste water management
options (Reinert, 2015).

CASE STUDY: EL PASO COUNTY, TEXAS

infrastructure projects to reduce flooding, the development of an innovation district for clean energy and water,
and a tree planting campaign to minimize urban heatisland effects (Baldwin, 2015). In fact, the city is alreadyin discussions with the Texas Trees Foundation to complete a more thorough analysis of El Paso’s tree canopy.
Finally, this office also leads a number of climate change
mitigation activities related to their 2009 Sustainability
Plan. These activities include energy conservation andefforts to reduce traffic congestion by improving transportation options (Baldwin, 2015; City of El Paso, 2015).
EPWU is an important player in El Paso’s climate adaptation, particularly with regard to flooding and drought.
EPWU’s stormwater management activities began after
a flooding event in 2006 when the city council createda stormwater management utility with discrete funding,
to be managed by EPWU (Montoya, 2015). The new utility developed the city’s first Stormwater Master Plan in2009 with over 100 projects to create new and improveexisting stormwater infrastructure throughout EPWU’s
management area (EPWU, 2007d; Montoya, 2015). It
completed several multi-million dollar stormwater projects and is working on a $22-million pump station and$12-million pond system to mitigate flooding (Montoya,2015). In 2011, the region experienced a freezing event

resulting in major power outages, even shutting downsome water supply facilities. During this event, EPWU
relied on the Kay Bailey Hutchison Desalination Plant toprovide another water source. In response to the impactsof the freezing event on the overall water supply system,
EPWU began a new project to install back-up generatorsand insulate equipment to minimize disruptions fromcold or freezing weather in the future (Montoya, 2015).
To address water shortages or drought, EPWU has extensive water conservation, reclamation, and water supply
diversification programs. EPWU’s comprehensive conservation plan includes measures such as:• Universal metering• Landscaping rebate program• Education and outreach• Rebate, retrofit, and incentive programs (rebates for
WaterSense appliances, etc.)• Water reuse/reclaimed water• Measures to determine and control water loss andcontinuous leak detection program• Enforcement (EPWU, 2014a).

WATER AND WASTEWATER UTILITY FUNDPER CAPITA WATER CONSUMPTION -CALENDAR YEAR

Exhibit 2. Per capita water consumption in El Paso, TX, from 1974 to 2014,
in gallons per capita per day (gpcd).
Source: EPWU, 2014a.

2014

2012

2010

2008

2006

2004

2002

2000

1998

1996

1994

1992

1990

1988

1986

1984

1982

1980

1978

1976

1974

240
230
220
210
200
190
180
170
160
150
140
130
120

111

112

CASE STUDY: EL PASO COUNTY, TEXAS

In particular, EPWU has been using reclaimed water
since 1963 and has attained international recognition
for its innovative and extensive use of recycled water(EPWU, 2007a). EPWU now operates one of the mostextensive and advanced reclaimed water systems in
Texas for industrial use and landscape irrigation (EPWU,
2007a). As a result of all these efforts, EPWU has beenable to reduce its per capita water consumption values(Exhibit 2). In addition to water conservation the utility has worked extensively to diversify water sources
to include groundwater, surface water, and brackish
groundwater. In October 2014, EPWU earned theSustainable Water Utility Management Award from the
Association of Metropolitan Water Agencies for proactive water management strategy focused on policy,
planning, and technology (EPWU, 2014b). This casestudy focuses on the development of El Paso’s desalination facility as a piece of El Paso’s overall water supply
planning efforts.

Why and How EPWU Developed
the Kay Bailey Hutchison
Desalination Facility
EPWU Develops an Effective Water
Resources Management Plan that Phases in
Alternate Water Resources
In 1989 Edmund Archuleta began managing EPWU as
President and Chief Executive Officer. At this time, EPWU
was relying almost entirely on groundwater resources in
the Mesilla Bolson and Hueco Bolson aquifers (Exhibit 3).
Demands on these aquifers from withdrawals by El Paso
(TX), Las Cruces (NM), and Ciudad Juarez (Mexico) werebeginning to show; water levels were dropping with withdrawals exceeding natural recharge rates (Departmentof the Army, 2004; Hutchison, 2004; Archuleta, 2015).
El Paso was also in an ongoing legal battle with New
Mexico over water rights to these aquifers. Considering

Exhibit 3. Location of Hueco Bolson and Mesilla Bolson.

CASE STUDY: EL PASO COUNTY, TEXAS

all these factors, Mr. Archuleta determined that the
EPWU Public Service Board needed to develop a Water
Resource Management Plan. The plan aimed to diversify
the community’s water resources to preserve the freshwater that remained in the aquifers for future need. This
1991 plan presented several options for El Paso’s next 50
years of water management:7• Use of surface water—rely on allocations from the
Elephant Butte Reservoir and the Rio Grande• Conservation—limit water use through education,
restrictions, enforcement, incentives/rebates, andhigher rates• Additional reclamation of water—treat wastewater for
non-potable uses such as irrigation or industry• Importation of water—acquire water ranches (land andassociated water rights) outside El Paso and constructpipelines• Inland desalination (Archuleta, 2004).
The first three of these options were of immediate
interest to the utility. Over time, the utility was able tolower per-capita water consumption through conservation from about 225 to 130 gallons of water per person
per day; this work continues today even though further
reductions are becoming more difficult to attain (EPWU,
2014a). EPWU was also able to construct a new water
treatment plant, the necessary infrastructure, and rights
to use surface water from the Elephant Butte Reservoir
and the Rio Grande. In general, the utility switched strategies to preserve groundwater resources. This consistedof conserving water, reclaiming water, and relying on“renewable” surface water (as long as there were notdrought conditions). Prior to the 1991 plan, surface water
was an almost non-existent part of EPWU’s water supply.
EPWU determined it was an important untapped sourceof water. System upgrades, made over many years, were
finally completed between 2008 and 2009 (Hutchison,2015). The last two options from the 1991 plan were notimmediately feasible due to the high cost of installing
pipelines and desalination technology. However, EPWU
invested in understanding desalination options throughtours of Florida desalination facilities, developed several
small-scale desalination pilot projects, and purchased

water ranches over 100 miles away from the community
as future water resources.

Brackish Water Intruding into Freshwater
Wells Motivates El Paso to More Seriously
Consider Desalination
As early as the 1980s, EPWU knew that brackish waterand freshwater sources were migrating within its aquifers, but it had not completed a comprehensive analysis.
In 1997, with support from the U.S. Geological Survey,
EPWU engaged in new hydrologic modeling to better
analyze and understand its groundwater resources(Archuleta et al., Forthcoming). Then, in the late 1990s
and early 2000s, EPWU began to notice a significant
problem with some of its wells. The water in those wells
was becoming brackish and did not meet drinking water
quality standards. The U.S. Geological Survey’s modelingand EPWU’s drilling and sampling data showed that El
Paso’s and Ciudad Juarez’s current pumping were causing brackish water to intrude EPWU’s freshwater wells.
EPWU notified officials at Fort Bliss that they should
be aware of this issue in their own wells. EPWU began
reconsidering the option of inland desalination at thisjuncture. In addition, between 2003 and 2004, El Paso
experienced a drought that resulted in use restrictions
for surface water resources.

Technological Advances Make Desalinationa Financially Feasible Option
In the late 1990s and early 2000s, EPWU found that thecost of desalination had decreased. Since the early 1990s,
new providers created competition in the reverse osmosis
membrane market. Additionally, improvements in technology made desalination less energy intensive and lesscostly to operate (Archuleta, 2004; see the text box). The
cost of constructing and operating a desalination facility was now a more viable option, although still costly.
Based on the size of the Hueco Bolson and estimates of
future need, EPWU estimated it could construct a 20 million-gallon-per-day treatment facility. Fort Bliss officials
knew that EPWU was considering desalination and felt it
could work for Fort Bliss too. Fort Bliss and Army Corpsof Engineer officials considered a separate 7.5-milliongallon-per-day facility to help meet water needs.

7. Beginning in 1997, the Texas Water Development Board implemented a new requirement that 16 multi-county regions (comprising the entire state)develop water supply plans. EPWU now works with its regional counterparts on water supply plans in addition to its own planning activities. The mostrecent plan was completed in 2011.

113

114

CASE STUDY: EL PASO COUNTY, TEXAS

WHAT ABOUT THE ENERGY COSTSASSOCIATED WITH DESALINATION?
Desalination is a very energy-intensive process.
However, desalination of brackish water is lessenergy intensive than desalination of ocean
water. The brackish water in the Hueco Bolson
aquifer is less salty than ocean water so lesstreatment is required. Specifically, the salinityof the plant’s source wells range from 2,000 to
4,000 mg/l (milligrams per liter) while ocean
water’s is 33,000 mg/l. Additionally, the Kay
Bailey Hutchison facility does not run at full
capacity. It is primarily intended to meet El Paso’s
water needs in times of drought or otherwise
reduced surface water flows. These factors combined made the facility a cost-effective option
at the time the facility was constructed overthe next best alternative—importing water fromranches 100 miles away.

EPWU and Fort Bliss Form a Critical
Partnership
Prior to the partnership to develop the desalination plant
there had been limited collaboration between Fort Bliss
and EPWU. EPWU had treated Fort Bliss wastewaterand supplied about 20–25 percent of its drinking water(Perez, 2001; Archuleta, 2015).
EPWU officials said that they felt the development ofa joint desalination facility would be beneficial for thecommunity and Fort Bliss. Constructing a single 27.5-million-gallon-per-day facility would be less expensive
than building two individual plants. However, locating
the desalination facility on Fort Bliss property requireda great deal of negotiating. EPWU took on the task ofconvincing Fort Bliss and DoD officials. EPWU brought tothe table several bargaining pieces. EPWU would:• Drill test and source wells• Design and construct the facility• Design and construct the 22-mile desalination concentrate pipeline and deep injection wells• Operate the facility

Use of Brackish Water Presents a Unique
Water Management Opportunity
Those interviewed for this case study indicated that
freshwater pumping by both EPWU and Fort Blisscaused brackish water to migrate to freshwater supply
wells. The increased salinity was high enough that thewater was not suitable for distribution without additional
treatment. EPWU hydrology staff were concerned thattwo desalination facilities in close proximity would exacerbate the current problem of brackish water migration.
Instead, officials felt that a single desalination facility inthe right location could help to draw brackish water fortreatment, while preserving fresh groundwater in theaquifer. EPWU modeling showed that the best location
for the plant was on Fort Bliss’ property. This location
was in proximity to freshwater wells that had become
saline, existing water lines and storage tanks, and water
to dilute the desalination concentrate.8• Sell water to Fort Bliss at a negotiated price.
In exchange, EPWU asked that Fort Bliss:• Complete the Environmental Impact Statement
required under the National Environmental Policy Act• Drill test wells for concentrate disposal• Lease its land to EPWU for the plant, pipeline, andinjection wells.
In this arrangement, Fort Bliss and the DoD would takeon a smaller portion of the $91 million in capital costs
than EPWU, while increasing water supply reliability(Exhibit 4). This reliability meant both greater water
security and ongoing operations at Fort Bliss. Housing
the plant on Fort Bliss property also helped to address
U.S. Army security and terrorism concerns, as with any
water treatment facility. The U.S. Army felt that the facility would be better protected on Army land (Barrera,2015). Additionally, as a federal entity, the U.S. Army

8. Most desalination facilities dispose of their waste (or concentrate) in the ocean. Since El Paso’s desalination plant is an inland facility, it had to devise
an alternative. El Paso opted for deep well injection of the diluted concentrate, which required a lengthy regulatory approval process. For detailed
information see Archuleta et al. (Forthcoming).

CASE STUDY: EL PASO COUNTY, TEXAS

felt it made the most sense for Fort Bliss to lead theEnvironmental Impact Statement process. The arrangement gave EPWU the necessary land and easements toconstruct the operation, possibly helped the project navigate the Environmental Impact Statement with greater
ease, helped EPWU to manage groundwater hydrology
in order to preserve freshwater resources, and increased
El Paso’s water supply reliability. However, leasing theland from Fort Bliss was a challenge. An agreement wasnecessary to even conduct initial surveys on Fort Blissproperty. The final negotiated 50-year lease allowed
EPWU to preliminarily construct the facility, the desalination concentrate disposal pipeline, and concentratedisposal injection wells (Archuleta, 2015; Barrera, 2015).
The lease also allows for ongoing operations of the plant.
However, the arrangement does not grant Fort Bliss freetreated water—Fort Bliss has a negotiated wholesalewater rate with EPWU.
Exhibit 4. Capital costs to develop the Kay Bailey
Hutchison desalination facility (in millions)
Item

Cost

Production wells$32

Plant and pipeline$40

Concentrate disposal wells and pipeline

$19

Total

$91

Source: Reinert, 2014.

2005 Base Realignment and Closure
Process Builds Momentum for Desalination
The DoD scheduled a periodic Base Realignment andClosure process for 2005. In this process, the DoD determines what military facilities are no longer needed or canbe consolidated. Fort Bliss and all other facilities wereconsidered for closure. Fort Bliss was in some jeopardyof closure, despite being one of the larger facilities in the
United States (1.1-million acres; DoD, Undated). The U.S.
Army’s Director of Environmental Programs had serious
concerns about the reliability of water supplies at thefacility and had even capped the population at Fort Blissbased on this concern (Cushing, 2015; Dayoub, 2015).

El Paso was concerned about the potential loss of Fort
Bliss; Fort Bliss is a major economic driver in the community. The development of the desalination facility could
reassure the DoD of El Paso’s long-term water supply
reliability and could actually increase the number ofpeople stationed at Fort Bliss, bringing economic benefits to El Paso.

EPWU Builds Broad-Scale Support
Local Leadership
Interviewees and news articles indicated that EPWU, theGreater El Paso Chamber of Commerce, former Mayor
Carlos Ramirez, former Mayor Joe Wardy, and others
went to Washington, DC, to speak with members ofCongress and DoD officials (Perez, 2001). Early on, conversations were aimed at building DoD’s support for the
project, and sought access to Fort Bliss and financing.
Once the Base Realignment and Closure process wasannounced, local leadership made the case for keeping and strengthening Fort Bliss. A critical part of theseconversations was the planned desalination facility andlong-term water supply reliability. At this time, EPWU
had already begun designing the desalination facility,
which was vital for demonstrating the promise of the
facility. The Base Realignment and Closure process may
have expedited the development of the facility and provided local leaders a platform to advocate for the plant.
Political Allies
EPWU relied heavily on allies in Congress and the DoD
to help make the plant happen. In particular, U.S. Senator
Kay Bailey Hutchison (Texas) who sat on the appropriations Subcommittee on Military Construction, Veterans
Affairs, and Related Agencies played an integral role insecuring $26 million for the plant (Exhibit 5). All military construction projects over a certain dollar thresholdmust go through this subcommittee. Additionally, U.S.
Congressman Sylvester Reyes (Texas) advocated for thefacility and helped secure funding (Department of theArmy, 2004). Congressman Reyes pushed for EPWU and
Fort Bliss to develop the plant together as it would be
difficult to get funding for two desalination plants in
one Congressional District (Barrera, 2015). By working
together, EPWU and Fort Bliss felt they had better opportunities for state and federal funding. EPWU’s significant

115

116

CASE STUDY: EL PASO COUNTY, TEXAS

investment in the plant also had a large influence on the
congressional appropriation. If the military were to build
its own plant at Fort Bliss, it would likely cost more thanthe $26 million appropriation—the plant would address
the critical concern of water supply reliability for lessmoney than if Fort Bliss had attempted to construct theplant on its own. Additionally, Fort Bliss officials madethe case for the plant to be operated by EPWU, which
had extensive expertise in water operations. Considering
this, the plant would help to keep Fort Bliss open and the
U.S. Army could continue to use its vast training grounds.

Exhibit 5. Contributions to the development of
the Kay Bailey Hutchison desalination facility(in millions)
Funding sources

AmountEPWU bond and cash

$60.7

Congressional appropriation$26.0

U.S. Army in-kind (Environmental Impact
Statement and drilling for feasibility of
injection wells)$3.3

Texas Water Development Board
interest-free loan

$1.0

Total

$91.0

Several other elected officials expressed support for thefacility, including U.S. Senator John Cornyn (Texas), andTexas State Senators Eliot Shapleigh and Frank Madla(Department of the Army, 2004).
Community Buy-in
Those interviewed for this case study felt that the El Paso
community was supportive of EPWU’s decision to pursue
desalination. With EPWU educating the community on
water conservation for nearly 15 years, most people,
industries, and organizations recognized the need for
future water supply reliability. Additionally, since theplant and injection wells are contained on the Fort Blissproperty, few residents were directly affected by thedevelopment or operation of the facility.
Fort Bliss staff led the development of the Environmental
Impact Statement. Public meetings that were part ofthis process yielded few critical concerns over the plant,
although there were some objections. The primary
example was the proposed alternative for concentratedisposal. EPWU and Fort Bliss had always indicatedthat their preferred option for concentrate disposal wasdeep well injection. As an alternative, evaporative ponds
were also considered. Several individuals objected tothe construction of such evaporative ponds becauseof the land area they would occupy (nearly 700 acres)and the potential harmful effects on birds and otherwildlife (Department of the Army, 2004). The TransPecos Audubon Society felt that, managed properly,
such ponds could potentially benefit wildlife. However,since the cost of the deep well injection was much lower,
EPWU and Fort Bliss pursued the deep well injection
option. Other concerns included the risk of seismic activity from deep well injection and desalination concentratecontaminating privately held freshwater wells in the area
(Department of the Army, 2004). Fort Bliss responded
to all written comments as part of the Environmental
Impact Statement process. However, the comments did
not dramatically change the project plans.

Accomplishments of the
Desalination Facility
Those interviewed for this study agree that the Kay
Bailey Hutchison inland desalination facility is a success.
Not only was an unusable water resource converted into
a potable water supply, the desalination facility is thelargest inland plant worldwide. Additionally, EPWU was
the first utility to use deep well injection of desalination
concentrate. Elza Cushing who was an EPWU PublicService Board member and also worked at Fort Blissstated, “In my career I think that [the development of thedesalination facility] is the most important thing I’ve everdone.” In general, interviewees noted that the development of the desalination facility has met five importantgoals for El Paso and Fort Bliss:
1. Short-term water supply reliability—In 2011 during afreeze event and in 2012 during a period of drought
the desalination facility operated at full capacity(Crowder, 2012; Montoya, 2015). In both cases it

CASE STUDY: EL PASO COUNTY, TEXAS

Exhibit 6. El Paso’s 2009–2013 municipal water demand (millions of gallons)
2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

Peak day

152.6

158.5

163.5

163.2

161.1

Average day

101.6

102.4

106.4

104.3

99.8

Source: EPWU, 2014a.

supplemented pumping at El Paso’s groundwater
facilities. In particular, in 2012 the utility was notable to use surface water from the Elephant Butte
Reservoir. The plant allowed El Paso to avoid mandatory water restrictions, although EPWU still asked
residents to voluntarily cut down on their water use.
EPWU officials see desalination as a “drought-proof”
option due to the reserves of brackish water in the
Hueco Bolson aquifer.
El Paso uses roughly 100 million gallons of water
per day (Exhibit 6). The 27.5-million-gallon-perday desalination facility has the potential to meeta significant portion of El Paso’s water needs whensurface supplies are limited. EPWU’s current groundwater capacity is 164 million gallons of water per
day (including the desalination facility) and surface
water capacity is 100 million gallons of water per
day (EPWU, 2014a). While there are sufficient water
resources in a normal year, the 27.5-million-gallonper-day desalination facility provides much-needed
reliability when water supplies are low.
2. Long-term water supply reliability—state water planning requires planning for the drought of record.
There is no requirement to plan for future or worse
drought due to climate change. In 2007, State Senator
Eliot Shapleigh helped pass Senate Bill 1762 that
required the Far West Texas regional water planningarea to conduct a climate change analysis (The Portal
to Texas History, 2007; Texas Water Development
Board, 2008). As a result, in 2008 an EPWU employee
conducted a climate change analysis of El Paso watersupplies. This analysis found that EPWU’s current
plans are sufficient for the projected climate over the
next 50 years (Hutchison, 2008).

3. Long-term groundwater management—the plant has
seized an opportunity to ensure that fresh groundwater resources are protected and available in the
future. The plant was developed in a strategic location
to manage groundwater flows. The utility sees value
in operating the plant to help manage the flow ofwater resources in the Hueco Bolson aquifer. Strategic
pumping can help to maintain unique reserves offresh and brackish water into the future, even if there
are not immediate drought conditions that require
the use of the desalination facility (Hutchison, 2015;
Reinert, 2015). Additionally, the relative high-qualityof the concentrate being injected into the deep wells(the concentrate is less saline than the groundwaterin that location) could create a future water source,
as technology allows.
4. Economic growth—as a result of the desalination
plant, Fort Bliss has been able to grow substantially(Dayoub, 2015). Fort Bliss is about four times larger
since the plant was developed. Fort Bliss grew fromapproximately 8,000 military personnel in 2005 to
32,000 in 2015, not including family members or civilian workers (DoD, Undated; Barrera, 2015; Dayoub,
2015; Archuleta, 2015). This is a significant economic
gain for El Paso. Specifically, those stationed at Fort
Bliss bring their families and spend money in El Paso,
which boosts the local economy. Interestingly, thisgrowth also brings more water users into a droughtprone region, potentially exacerbating El Paso’s
vulnerability to drought. However, this impact is relatively modest at this point; the additional 24,000
users brought in to Fort Bliss by the plant represents
a 3 percent increase from the estimated total numberof users in 2013 (EWPU, 2014a).

117

118

CASE STUDY: EL PASO COUNTY, TEXAS

5. Leading peers in the water industry—EPWU staff
and Edmund Archuleta (now retired from EPWU)
are regularly asked to speak about their work on thedesalination facility and overall water supply management activities. According to Edmund Archuleta,
Scott Reinert of EPWU, and others, the uniquenessof the inland desalination facility draws interest from
communities worldwide to learn about desalination
potential in their communities. The plant serves as
the primary public education center for the utility
with its TecH2O visitor center. Staff at EPWU regularly
give tours and talk about the plant to officials fromother communities. Other Texas communities suchas Austin, San Antonio, the Lower Rio Grande valley,
the Lower Wilcox, and Bexar County are consideringor moving forward with desalination, learning fromEl Paso’s experience. Additionally, those interviewed
mentioned that EPWU has borne the initial burdenof getting the proper permits for deep well injectionof the desalination concentrate (see Archuleta etal., Forthcoming); future inland desalination facilities might experience fewer regulatory hurdles, andcan learn from EPWU’s experience. In particular,
San Antonio has begun construction on a desalination facility that will use deep well injection andthe permitting process has been less burdensome(Archuleta, 2015).

at the potential detriment to wildlife. In addition to thesealternatives currently or soon to be available, EPWU isplanning for the future and is working to ensure that is
has options for importing water from up to 100 miles
away. Slowly, EPWU is putting in place the necessary
easements to import water from Dell City. If, and when,
this becomes a viable option for El Paso (probably nosooner than 2040), the water would need to be desalinated since it is brackish (Archuleta, 2015; Barrera, 2015;
Mrkvicka, 2013; Crowder, 2014). However, EPWU recognizes importing is one of its highest cost water supply
options so it will continue to work to conserve water andidentify additional alternatives.
The city’s involvement in the 100 Resilient Cities initiative and adaptation planning through Climate Solutions
University have the potential to lead to actions which
will reduce El Paso’s vulnerability to drought, flooding,and extreme temperatures. Next steps include finalizing
planning efforts, a possible greenway project to mitigate
flooding, work with the Texas Trees Foundation to conduct a tree canopy assessment and eventually planting
trees to mitigate urban heat island effects, and a numberof preparedness outreach activities with both residents
and businesses. Implementation of these actions could
begin as early as January 2016 (Baldwin, 2015).

Acknowledgments
Moving Forward
While El Paso’s desalination facility and other water
management measures are expected to provide sufficient supplies for years to come, EPWU continues tore-evaluate and plan. Where groundwater and surface
water supplies have always been El Paso’s most affordable water sources, desalination, purified water, andreclaimed water present attractive alternatives, although
at a higher cost. In particular, EPWU identified purified
water as the next best step for ongoing water supply
reliability. Purified water is treated wastewater that
undergoes an advanced purification process before itis distributed. However, one interviewee suggested that
increased use of reclaimed water and the potential useof purified water present problems for El Paso’s parks
and conservation areas. These plans would divert water

We would like to thank the following people for participating in interviews as part of this case study:• Edmund Archuleta, University of Texas at El Paso
(formerly EPWU)• Lauren Baldwin, City of El Paso
• Elza Cushing, formerly with Fort Bliss and the EPWU
Public Service Board• Richard Dayoub, Greater El Paso Chamber ofCommerce• Bill Hutchison, independent groundwater consultant(formerly EPWU)• Christina Montoya, EPWU
• Scott Reinert, EPWUCASE STUDY: EL PASO COUNTY, TEXAS• John Sproul, University of Texas at El Paso, and theTrans-Pecos Audubon Society• John Barrera, Fort Bliss (written response).

Bibliography
100 Resilient Cities. 2015. El Paso’s Resilience
Challenge. Available: http://www.100resilientcities.
org/cities/entry/el-pasos-resilience-challenge#/-_/.
Accessed April 8, 2015.
American Community Survey. 2012. American
Community Survey. American FactFinder. U.S. Census
Bureau. Available: http://factfinder.census.gov/faces/
nav/jsf/pages/index.xhtml. Accessed August 19, 2013.
Archuleta, E. 2004. Desalination of brackish groundwater in El Paso, Texas. In The Future of Desalinationin Texas. Volume 2: Biennial Report on Seawater
Desalination. Texas Water Development Board, Austin,
TX. December. Available: https://www.twdb.texas.gov/
publications/reports/numbered_reports/doc/R363/
main.pdf. Accessed December 29, 2014.
Archuleta, E. 2015. Interview with Edmund Archuleta,
former EPWU. February 23.
Archuleta, E., M. Fahy, S. Reinert, H. Gonzalez, R.S.
Raucher, J. Clements, J. Oxenford, M. Mickley, W.
Dugat, M. Cappelle, T. Davis, A. Tarquin, W. Hargrove,
A. Michelsen, Z. Sheng, R. Lacewell, and A. Fernald.
Forthcoming. El Paso Water Utilities’ Kay Bailey
Hutchison Desalination Plant, Texas. In Desalination
Concentrate Management Policy Analysis for the Arid
West. WateReuse Research Foundation. Alexandria, VA.
Baldwin, L. 2015. Interview with Lauren Baldwin,
Sustainability Program Specialist. July 29.
Barrera, J. 2015. Response to Comments from John
Barrera, Fort Bliss. April 6.
City of El Paso. 2015. Programs: Office of Resilienceand Sustainability. Available: http://www.elpasotexas.
gov/sustainability/programs. Accessed April 8, 2015.
Crowder, D. 2012. Desal Plan Running Near Capacity.
El Paso Inc. May 27.

Crowder, D. 2014. EPWU Looks to Hudspeth County
for Water: Drought on Rio Grande Speeds up Plans
to Import Water. El Paso Inc. December 22. Available
http://www.elpasoinc.com/news/local_news/article_49234be8-89f4-11e4-aa04-c762d27c90a0.html.
Accessed August 13, 2015.
Cushing, E. 2015. Interview with Elza Cushing, former
Fort Bliss. February 25. Dayoub, R. 2015. Interview
with Richard Dayoub, The Greater El Paso Chamber ofCommerce. February 23.
Department of the Army. 2004. Proposed Leadingof Lands at Fort Bliss, Texas, for the Proposed Siting,Construction, and Operation by the City of El Paso
of a Brackish Water Desalination Plant and Support
Facilities. Available: https://www.bliss.army.mil/DPW/
Environmental/documents/FORT%20BLISS%20
DESAL%20FEIS.pdf. Accessed January 26, 2015.
DoD. Undated. Fort Bliss, Texas. U.S. Department of
Defense. Available
http://www.militaryinstallations.dod.mil/pls/
psgprod/f?p=132:CONTENT:0::NO::P4_INST_ID,P4_
INST_TYPE:4375%2CINSTALLATION. Accessed March
13, 2015.
EPWU. 2007a. Reclaimed Water: Water Shouldn’t
Only Be Used Once! Available: http://www.epwu.org/
reclaimed_water/. Accessed February 13, 2015.
EPWU. 2007b. Water: Past and Present Water
Supplies. Available: http://www.epwu.org/water/water_resources.html. Accessed February 13, 2015.
EPWU. 2007c. Water: Setting the State for the Future.
Available: http://www.epwu.org/water/desal_info.html.
Accessed February 13, 2015.
EPWU. 2007d. El Paso County Stormwater Master
Plan. Available http://www.epwu.org/stormwater/
master_plan.html. Accessed July 29, 2015.
EPWU. 2014a. El Paso Water Utilities 2014 Water
Conservation Plan As per Rule 363.15 Required Water
Conservation Plan Texas Water Development Board.
Available: http://www.epwu.org/conservation/pdf/
Conservation_Plan_2014.pdf. Accessed February 13, 2015.
EPWU. 2014b. Public Information: El Paso Water

119

120

CASE STUDY: EL PASO COUNTY, TEXAS

Utilities Receives National Award for Sustainable Water
Management. October 22. Available: http://www.epwu.
org/public_information/news_releases/nr_141022-01.
html. Accessed February 13, 2015.
Far West Texas Water Planning Group. 2011. 2011 Far
West Texas Water Plan. Prepared for the Texas Water
Development Board by LBG-Guyton Associates, Austin
and Houston, TX. January.
Hutchison, B. 2004. Water Desalination and Reuse
Strategies for New Mexico. New Mexico Water
Resources Research Institute. September.
Hutchison, B. 2008. Climate Change Impacts on
Municipal Water Management in El Paso, Texas.
Presented at the Far West Texas Climate Change
Conference. June 17. Available http://www.
groundwater-conference.uci.edu/files/Chapter1/2008_
conf_Hutchison,%20WR.pdf. Accessed March 2, 2015.
Hutchison, B. 2015. Interview with Bill Hutchison, independent groundwater consultant. February 16.
Hutchison, W.R. 2009. Desalination of brackish
groundwater and deep well injection of concentrate in El Paso, Texas. In Proceedings of the World
Environment and Water Resources Congress 2009.
Kansas City, MO. Sponsored by EWRI. May 17–21.
Montoya, C. 2015. Interview with Christina Montoya,
Vice President-Marketing and Communication. July 29.
Mrkvicka, M. 2013. Behind the Dell City Water Deal.
El Paso Inc. March 14–20. Available http://texaslivingwaters.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/
tlw-news-3-14-04.pdf. Accessed August 13, 2015.
Perez, D. 2001. Desalination Plant Would Be Largest in

U.S. El Paso Time. April 23.
Reinert, S. 2014. Overview of the El Paso Kay Bailey
Hutchison Desalination Plant. Presented at the MultiState Salinity Coalition. Las Vegas, Nevada. February 20.
Reinert, S. 2015. Interview with Scott Reinert, El Paso
Water Utilities. February 23 and July 29.
Stratus Consulting. 2011. El Paso Triple Bottom Line:
Desalination and Reuse Water. Stratus Consulting Inc.,
Boulder, CO. October 13.
Texas Water Development Board. 2008. Far West
Texas Climate Change Conference: Study Findings andConference Proceedings. December. Available: http://
www.twdb.texas.gov/publications/reports/special_legislative_reports/doc/climatechange.pdf. Accessed
March 13, 2015.
Texas Water Development Board. Undated. Worth Its
Salt: El Paso Water Utilities—Kay Bailey Hutchison
Desalination Plant. Available http://www.twdb.texas.
gov/innovativewater/desal/worthitssalt/doc/Worth_
Its_Salt_Jan2014_ KBH.pdf. Accessed February 13,
2015.
The Portal to Texas History. 2007. 80th Texas Legislature,
Regular Session, Senate Bill 1762, Chapter 575. June
15. Available: http://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/
metapth155764/m1/1/. Accessed March 13, 2015.

CASE STUDY: FLAGSTAFF, ARIZONA

Flagstaff, Arizona

Flagstaff WatershedProtection Project
FLAGSTAFF, ARIZONAAUTHORS: Megan O’Grady, Karen Carney, and Jason VogelIn this case study, you will learn about:• Using a bond to raise funds to reduce vulnerability• Securing public support for actions that reduce vulnerability• A successful partnership between multiple jurisdictions at different government levels

CLIMATE ADAPTATION: THE STATE OF PRACTICE IN U.S. COMMUNITIES

121

122

CASE STUDY: FLAGSTAFF, ARIZONA

Case Study Summary
Since the 1990s, northern Arizona has experienced
several catastrophic wildfires. Damage from one ofthese fires, the 2010 Schultz fire, also contributed tosevere flooding during heavy rains shortly after the fire.
Increased temperatures and more intense precipitation
due to climate change could lead to similar or even moredamaging events in the future.
In November 2012, voters in Flagstaff passed a $10 million bond measure to fund forest-thinning activities toreduce the risk of catastrophic wildfire in the watersheds
around Flagstaff, thus creating the Flagstaff WatershedProtection Project (FWPP). The FWPP involves forest-thinning treatments in critical but hard-to-treat areasof the forests around Flagstaff, including in the city’s two
main watersheds, Rio de Flag and Lake Mary/Mormon
Mountain. The majority of the project area is comprisedof National Forest (approximately 10,544 acres), but
Arizona state and city lands are also included. The U.S.
Forest Service (USFS), the City of Flagstaff, and the
Arizona State Division of Forestry have conducted treatments in pre-approved areas and the USFS is conducting
a treatment analyses on the remaining acres throughthe National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process.
Although most of the specific projects planned under
the FWPP are waiting for a NEPA review, the FWPP project has generated a lot of good will among stakeholders,has received decisive political support in the ballot box,
and has attracted additional funding to supplement the$10 million bond.

Broader Context
Flagstaff’s economy and culture are closely linked toits nearby forests. The city is located in the foothillsof the San Francisco Peaks among one of the largest
contiguous pine forests on Earth. The forest provides awide range of recreational opportunities, such as skiing,
camping, hiking, and mountain biking, which draw
nearly 5 million visitors annually. The city also depends
on nearby forests for most of its drinking water (Cityof Flagstaff, 2014b). Because forests are so importantto the city culturally and economically, Flagstaff has

invested in a wide range of activities to protect the forests’ integrity over the long-term.
One of these activities began in 1997 when individuals
from the Coconino National Forest of the USFS, the Cityof Flagstaff, Northern Arizona University, and environmental and business groups came together and formed
the Greater Flagstaff Forests Partnership (Greater
Flagstaff Forests Partnership, 2014; see Appendix A fora list of GFFP partners). The primary goals of the GFFP
are to:• “Restore natural ecosystem structures, function, andcomposition of ponderosa pine forests• Manage forest fuels to reduce the probability ofcatastrophic fire
• Research, test, develop, and demonstrate key
ecological, economic, and social dimensions ofrestoration efforts.” (Greater Flagstaff Forests
Partnership, 2014).
In the same year, the City of Flagstaff created its WildlandFire Management division with the mission to, “promote,create and maintain a sustainable healthy forest ecosystem and a FireWise community, thereby protecting
and enhancing public safety and community well-being” (City of Flagstaff, 2014c). These organizations andtheir activities helped raise awareness about the needto manage wildfire risk and they specifically identified
key areas in need of treatment. Today, treatment is conducted by multiple entities, including the GFFP, the Cityof Flagstaff, the State of Arizona, and the USFS. These
entities coordinate their work to ensure that all of theforests around Flagstaff are treated in a consistently andcomprehensively manner, regardless of who owns theforest land.
While there are many different forest management
efforts in and around Flagstaff, this case study focuses on
the FWPP and its efforts to reduce vulnerability to catastrophic wildfire. While the area affected by the FWPP
is relatively small, it targets critical areas not otherwise
designated for treatment by other efforts due to steep
slopes, challenging terrain, unique vegetation types, andthe presence of the threatened Mexican spotted owl.

CASE STUDY: FLAGSTAFF, ARIZONAOver the last decade Flagstaff has also become increasingly aware of the potential effects of climate changeon their community and the forests. In 2006, the City
Council signed on to the U.S. Mayors Climate Protection
Agreement, and in 2007 the council hired a full-time
Sustainability Director, Nicole Woodman (Smith, 2012).
Among other activities, Ms. Woodman led the development of a climate change vulnerability assessment forthe city, which identified whether and how climate might
threaten key city sectors and issues. The assessment
identified catastrophic wildfire risk in the city’s watersheds as one of Flagstaff’s main vulnerabilities (City of
Flagstaff, 2012b). However, even though Flagstaff has
engaged in climate change adaptation planning, interviewees stated that vulnerability reduction activities
implemented under FWPP were not directly informed
or motivated by Flagstaff’s adaptation efforts, although
they did state that this work will help improve the resilience of forests to changing conditions.

intense, and devastating fires (photo on cover). Other
factors, such as the bark beetle outbreak, had contributed to the declining health of the area’s forests.
Flagstaff’s economy and culture are closely linked to theforests, so local experts took action. In 1997, the same
year the GFFP was formed, the City of Flagstaff created
its Wildland Fire Management division. GFFP began toraise awareness about the importance of forest management and identify key areas in need of treatment.

Why and How Flagstaff Implemented
the FWPP
Flagstaff and the Forest
Flagstaff sits in the middle of a large contiguous ponderosa pine forest. In the 1990s, these forests faced a seriesof significant wildfires that began to increase community awareness about how past management practices
had increased the forests’ susceptibility to large-scale,

Several wildfires

Schultz fireand subsequent
flooding effects

GFFP and WildlandFire Management
division founded

1990s

February: Southwest
Fire Science
Consortium Conference
November: Question 405
on the ballot

2010

2012

“The reality of climate change,
drought, and the increasing
threat of destructive wildfires
and insect outbreaks to ourforested watersheds challenge
us to examine our approach
to forest management andtake bold action to restore
the resilience and health of
Arizona’s forests, and protect
forest values for future
generations.”
GOVERNOR’S FOREST HEALTH COUNCILS,
2007

April: Notice ofIntent (NOI) to
prepare an EIS
published2013

July: DEIS released
with four alternatives
October: Cost
avoidance study
released

2014

Exhibit 1. FWPP timeline.
DEIS: Draft Environmental Impact Statement; EIS: Environmental Impact Statement.

Finalize the EIS
Consult with
the USFS
Draft a decision

2015

123

124

CASE STUDY: FLAGSTAFF, ARIZONASchultz Fire and Subsequent Flooding
Following a series of record-breaking fires throughout
the 2000s, in 2010 an abandoned campfire started the
Schultz fire in the Coconino National Forest just northof Flagstaff. The fire burned over 15,000 acres. A monthafter the fire was contained, Flagstaff and the surrounding area experienced the fourth wettest monsoon eventon record. The Schultz fire had damaged vegetation andground cover, diminishing the forest’s capacity to absorb
much of the rain that fell. Thirty million gallons of waterran off the Schultz fire hillsides, resulting in severe flooding as far away as 10 miles from the fire site (Klassen andHoward, 2011; Youberg et al., 2011). The flooding affected
several residential areas; damaged a main water pipeline,
cutting off approximately 20 percent of the city’s watersupply; damaged 320 Native American cultural sites;
and killed a 12-year-old girl (Klassen and Howard, 2011;
Youberg et al., 2011; Brehl et al., 2014).
According to interviewees, Flagstaff residents became
more aware of their vulnerability to wildfire following theSchultz fire; residents also came to recognize a fire’s secondary effects, such as flooding, erosion, and impacts totheir water supplies. Every individual interviewed for thiscase study believed that the Schultz fire and subsequent
flooding were major factors in the formation and supportof the FWPP (Brehl et al., 2014; Elson and Phelps, 2014).

Peer Learning from Santa Fe at theSouthwest Fire Science Consortium
In late February 2012, GFFP representatives attended a
conference in Santa Fe, New Mexico, sponsored by theSouthwest Fire Science Consortium. According to theinterviewees, at this conference they heard a presentation
about an effort in Santa Fe to identify the community’s willingness-to-pay to help protect their watershedresources from catastrophic fire damage. Santa Fe had
secured a grant to conduct the Payment for Watershed
Services (PWS) approach to forest management, which
included a significant amount of community outreachand education (Brehl et al., 2014). Paul Summerfelt, thecity’s Fire Management Officer, and GFFP President at
the time, attended the conference and realized that the
GFFP and others in Flagstaff could motivate their community to help fund critical forest management as well.

Developing a Bond Measure and Building
Support among Stakeholders

WORKING WITH THE NAVAJO NATION AND
OTHER NATIVE TRIBESAs part of the FWPP, officials considered all
individuals who were impacted by the Shultz
fire and flood. This included the Navajo Nation
because several Navajo Nation cultural sites weredestroyed in the Shultz fire. The Navajo also own
a 140-acre parcel in the Dry Lake Hills FWPP
project area. As part of the FWPP, the City of
Flagstaff and representatives from the Navajo
Nation developed an agreement where some of
the bond funds will be used to conduct treatment
on tribal land. The treatment will be conductedin phases and the Navajo Nation will review andprovide a permit for each phase. Native tribes
who hold the San Francisco Peaks as Traditional
Cultural Property have also been consulted aspart of the NEPA planning process regarding
treatment on USFS lands.

When Paul Summerfelt and his colleagues returned to
Flagstaff, they organized a local workshop to pitch theidea of the PWS approach to the sustainability commissioners, city staff, department heads, and the City
Manager, Kevin Burke. Kevin Burke was supportive of
the idea but proposed that Flagstaff raise funds for its
forest management project in a different way; he knewof a city bond that was set to expire later that fall. If
the city allowed the bond to expire, it would decrease
Flagstaff residents’ taxes. However, Kevin Burke proposed that the city renew this bond and redirect thefunds to wildfire management, which would provide support for forest management without increasing taxes(Brehl et al., 2014). The bond would raise $10 million
for the management of approximately 15,000 acres offorest around Flagstaff that was not currently covered
under other projects (Nielsen and Solop, 2013); this land
included the Coconino National Forest, and Arizona stateand city lands.

CASE STUDY: FLAGSTAFF, ARIZONA

Although transferring the bond funds would legallyrequire both the City Council and a city-wide vote of
approval, it would create community ownership of thework and allow Flagstaff to access the funds quickly.
Using bond funding would avoid the need for the city to
conduct a costly and lengthy willingness-to-pay study.
This idea was presented to the City Council for vote inspring 2012. The council voted in favor of the initiative,
and bond question 405 was created for the ballot of
the next fall’s city-wide election. As soon as the City
Council approved putting the bond on the ballot, a small
team of individual Flagstaff citizens organized a Political
Action Committee (PAC) in support of the measure. They
spoke with a campaign consultant and raised $8,000–
9,000 (Brehl et al., 2014). According to interviewees, thePAC conducted a hands-on, on-the-ground campaignthat included distributing yard signs, soliciting support
door-to-door, and handing out flyers at local events andfarmers’ markets.
In November 2012, bond question 405 was presented
to the voters. The bond would provide support forforest management “[t]o prevent flood damage to theCity of Flagstaff and to protect the city water supply
from damages which occur from large-scale and/or
severe wildfire(s) in town watersheds in the city” (Cityof Flagstaff, 2012a, slide 5). Money raised through thebond would support activities on city, state, and federal
lands. Each agency would be in charge of treatment on
their land, but treatment options would be explored collaboratively through a partnership. The bond funding
would be held by the city and distributed as needed
to other agencies. For example, the USFS would retain
decision-making authority on what activities would beallowed on National Forest land, but the city would maintain decision-making authority on the bond dollar (i.e.,
what the money would fund). The initiative passed with
73 percent voter approval (Nielsen and Solop, 2013).
Exit polling conducted by Eric Nielsen and Fred Solop
at Northern Arizona revealed that the majority of voterssupporting the bond issue were primarily concerned withdecreasing the risk of post-fire flooding and protecting
city water resources. The majority of supporters also“strongly agreed” or “agreed” that the project “partnership is a model of how to accelerate needed forest

restoration” (84 percent) and that the “Forest Service
would be accountable to the City” of Flagstaff with thisproject design (70 percent) (Nielsen and Solop, 2013;
Figure 1).
The planning effort on the National Forest is now led
by the FWPP Interdisciplinary Team (IDT), which iscomprised of approximately 16 core members and 8 consulting members, including a representative from the Cityof Flagstaff. The city was granted Cooperating Agency
status early in the planning process to enable Flagstaff
to have a seat at the planning table. An executive committee is also in place to discuss overarching decisions
related to FWPP, including funding and implementation.
The executive committee is comprised of representatives
from the USFS, the city, Coconino County, and the ArizonaState Department of Forestry. The committee meets once
monthly to help facilitate overall project coordination (see“Moving Forward” below).

Accomplishments of the FWPP
Although large-scale implementation of the FWPP has
not yet begun, interviewees reported on several project successes. With 73 percent voter approval, the bondissue was remarkably successful in the election, and thathigh level of public interest and involvement has carried through to the planning process. Those involved
with the campaign and FWPP members credit its highvoter-approval rating in part with the strength of public
engagement, in addition to the still-fresh memory of the
Schultz fire (Brehl et al., 2014; Elson and Phelps, 2014).
This widespread support is even more meaningful considering that the Ecological Restoration Institute’s exit
polling found that the majority of voters incorrectlybelieved that the bond was going to increase their taxes(Nielsen and Solop, 2013).
Interviewees reported that the high voter-approval rating
has continued to be important to the project because it
demonstrated strong public support for the project andempowered the community to take ownership of it; thishigh level of public support has potentially influenced
those opposed to the FWPP; and has sent a signal tonational, state, and local leaders that the community

125

126

CASE STUDY: FLAGSTAFF, ARIZONA

is dedicated to the project’s success. This has also led
the project team to continuously inform the public andencourage public input into the project as much as possible, well beyond what is required by law (Brehl et al.,2014; Elson and Phelps, 2014). For example, the FWPP
has developed a monitoring plan to track whether andhow key goals of the project are being achieved overtime. According to interviewees, the public noted theimportance of such a plan, and key themes to address
in it, during the bond campaign. The FWPP has held 20
public workshops to refine the plan and ensure that key
voter concerns have been included (FWPP, 2014d).
In the two years following the passage of the bond, theproject raised an additional $2 million in direct and in-kindfunding. The formal partnership between Flagstaff and the
USFS, which was established soon after the bond passed,
has led to substantial USFS contributions to the project;
as of fall 2014, the USFS has contributed approximately$1.6 million to cover planning costs, wildlife surveys, handthinning, prescribed burning, archaeological surveys, noxious weed surveys and treatments, and road work (Elsonand Phelps, 2014). An additional $400,000 has come fromthe State of Arizona, Coconino County, Northern Arizona
University, volunteers, and local citizens (FWPP, 2014b;
Summerfelt, 2014).

Moving Forward
Although the project idea and public support came
together quickly, interviewees said that treatment workin the Rio de Flag and Lake Mary watersheds could takeup to 8 to 10 years to fully complete based on the complexity of the project, legal and contracting processes,
and seasonal operating limitations.
As mentioned previously, Flagstaff has decision-making
authority over the bond dollars and the USFS has decision-making authority over what occurs in the National
Forest. However, there is a wide diversity of stakeholders
involved in the FWPP. The immediate focus of the FWPP
IDT is to finalize a treatment plan through a Record ofDecision (ROD) so that large-scale treatment work can
begin on the National Forest as soon as possible. To that
end, the NEPA planning process that began in November

2012 is expected to end with the release of the Final ROD
in September 2015; this is roughly half the time it typically takes for a project of this scale (Summerfelt, 2014).
In April 2013, a Notice of Intent to prepare an EIS was
published in the Federal Register, and the FWPP IDT
released a Proposed Action to the citizens of Flagstaff
outlining different treatment options. Based on comments the FWPP team received, the USFS released a
DEIS in July 2014, which analyzed four treatment alternatives: no action, minimal treatment, proposed action
with cable logging, and proposed action without cable
logging (e.g., using helicopter logging and specialized
steep-slope equipment) (see Appendix B).
The DEIS was open for public comment for 45 days.
Simultaneously, the FWPP team also held public meetingsand outreach events to raise awareness and solicit public
feedback. Between these events, and email and hard-copy
submissions, the team received comments from 107 individuals who raised 530 separate issues. Every comment
was in support of the project as a whole, but the responses
raised various concerns about how the treatments would
be conducted. It helped the team realize that there wasa need to create a transparent and widely publicized
implementation plan to address public concerns regarding contractor oversight, mitigation measures, and area
closures. In the fall of 2014, the FWPP IDT drafted this plan
along with a decision that addressed public comments
by developing a blend of all three treatment alternatives.
The IDT also finalized the EIS and conducted a formal
consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service foractivities related to the Mexican spotted owl.
In the meantime, the USFS has been able to conduct
some work on portions of FWPP lands that were previously approved for treatment through the NEPA process.
Treatment methods already used include controlledburns, hand thinning, and piling of cut material (i.e., slash;see Exhibit 3). The state conducted a mechanical treatment operation on a parcel of state land, and the city
has been engaged doing hand thinning and controlledburning on a number of City and private land parcels.
This work has allowed the FWPP team the opportunity
to provide visual examples of treatment options to help
further inform the public.

CASE STUDY: FLAGSTAFF, ARIZONAExhibit 3. Two treatment demonstration areas in the Coconino National Forest:a controlled burn area (left) and a burn pile of cut debris (i.e., slash) (right).
Photograph source: Megan O’Grady, Stratus Consulting.

Most recently, in October 2014, the Rural Policy Instituteof Northern Arizona University released a Cost Avoidance
Study that estimated the amount of financial impact
avoided by implementing the FWPP project. The study
results estimate a range of potential losses from catastrophic wildfire and post-fire flooding to be between$573 million and $1.2 billion dollars if no treatment isdone to the forests. While the FWPP project will not eliminate these risks entirely, the estimated project treatment
costs of $10 million compare highly favorably to thesepotential losses (Arizona Rural Policy Institute, 2014).

Acknowledgments
We would like to thank the following people for participating in interviews as part of this case study:• Mike Elson, Coconino National Forest• Erin Phelps, Coconino National Forest• Mark Brehl, Wildland Fire Management,
City of Flagstaff• Nicole Woodman, Sustainability Manager,
City of Flagstaff• Anne Mottek Lucas, Mottek Consulting• Diane Vosick, Northern Arizona University• Paul Summerfelt, Wildland Fire Management,
City of Flagstaff.

Bibliography
Arizona Daily Sun. 2014a. Extreme fires deserve
more prevention tools. September 18. Available:
http://azdailysun.com/news/opinion/editorial/
extreme-fires-deserve-more-prevention-tools/article_c2a550eb-0413-53a9-abe9-85b37a1d790f.html.
Accessed October 20, 2014.
Arizona Daily Sun. 2014b. Watershed protectionmeans drastically altering forest. July 13. Available:
http://azdailysun.com/news/opinion/editorial/watershed-protection-means-drastically-altering-forest/
article_b5ded800-0a43-11e4-adb6-0019bb2963f4.
html. Accessed October 20, 2014.

127

128

CASE STUDY: FLAGSTAFF, ARIZONA

Arizona Rural Policy Institute. 2014. Flagstaff
Watershed Protection Project: Cost Avoidance
Study. October. Available: http://www.flagstaffwatershedprotection.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/
Final-FWPP-Cost-Avoidance-October-27.pdf. Accessed
October 20, 2014.
Bacon, J. 2010. Shultz fire, day 3. Arizona Daily Sun.
June 23. Available: http://azdailysun.com/news/local/
schultz-fire-day/collection_be2f256c-7ecb-11df-9e5b001cc4c03286.html#0. Accessed October 20, 2014.
Betz, E. 2011. Southwest spring dries with climatechange. Arizona Daily Sun. May 10. Available:
http://azdailysun.com/news/local/southwest-spring-dries-with-climate-change/
article_ba31463a-f4da-57ec-a528-c953d707a78b.html.
Accessed October 20, 2014.
Brehl, M., A. Mottek Lucas, P. Summerfelt, D. Vosick,and N. Woodman. 2014. Interview with Mark Brehl,
Wildland Fire Management, City of Flagstaff, AZ; Anne
Motek Lucas, Mottek Consulting; Paul Summerfelt,
Wildland Fire Management, City of Flagstaff, AZ;
Diane Vosick, Northern Arizona University; and Nicole
Woodman, Sustainability Manager, City of Flagstaff,
AZ. Flagstaff, AZ. October 21.
CAKE. 2014. Climate Adaptation Knowledge Exchange:
Flagstaff Search. Available: http://www.cakex.org/
search/apachesolr_search/Flagstaff. Accessed October
20, 2014.
Caravona, B. 2011. Memorandum to CAC re: Framing“Restoration.” City of Flagstaff. February 1. Available:
http://www.flagstaff.az.gov/documentcenter/view/13121. Accessed October 20, 2014.
City of Flagstaff. 2012a. City of Flagstaff Bond
Question. Forest Health & Water Supply Protection
Project. November. Available: http://www.flagstaff.
az.gov/documentcenter/view/40301. Accessed
October 20, 2014.
City of Flagstaff. 2012b. City of Flagstaff Resiliency andPreparedness Study. September. Available: http://www.
flagstaff.az.gov/DocumentCenter/Home/View/38841.
Accessed June 18, 2015.

City of Flagstaff. 2012c. Forest Health and Water
Supply Protection Project. Ballot Question #405.
Question & Answer Sheet #2. September 25. Available:
http://www.flagstaff.az.gov/documentcenter/view/41050. Accessed October 20, 2014.
City of Flagstaff. 2014a. Climate Adaptation andManagement. Available: http://flagstaff.az.gov/index.
aspx?nid=1732. Accessed October 20, 2014.
City of Flagstaff. 2014b. Community Profile. Available:
http://www.flagstaff.az.gov/index.aspx?NID=2.
Accessed October 20, 2014.
City of Flagstaff. 2014c. Wildland Fire Management.
Available: http://www.flagstaff.az.gov/index.aspx?SID=361. Accessed October 20, 2014.
CLIMAS. 2013. Advancing Climate Adaptationin Flagstaff: Expert Discussion Session. Climate
Assessment for the Southwest. August 20. Available:
http://www.climas.arizona.edu/event/advancing-climate-adaptation-flagstaff-expert-discussion-session.
Accessed October 20, 2014.
Elson, M. and E. Phelps. 2014. Interview with Mike Elsonand Erin Phelps, Coconino National Forest. Flagstaff,
AZ. October 21.
FWPP. 2014a. About the Flagstaff WatershedProtection Project. Timeline. Available: http://www.
flagstaffwatershedprotection.org/faqs/#timeline.
Accessed October 20, 2014.
FWPP. 2014b. Frequently Asked Questions. Flagstaff
Watershed Protection Project. Available: http://www.
flagstaffwatershedprotection.org/faqs/. Accessed
October 20, 2014.
FWPP. 2014c. FWPP DEIS Comparison Summary document. Available:
http://www.flagstaffwatershedprotection.org/
wp-content/uploads/2014/07/FWPP-DEISComparison-Summary.pdf. Assessed April 20, 2015.
FWPP. 2014d. FWPP Monitoring Plan. Available:
http://www.flagstaffwatershedprotection.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/FWPP-Monitoring-Plan.pdf.
Accessed April 20, 2015.

CASE STUDY: FLAGSTAFF, ARIZONA

Governor’s Forest Health Councils. 2007. Statewide
Strategy for Restoring Arizona’s Forests, E. Aumack,
T. Sisk, and J. Palumbo (eds.). Published by Arizona
Public Service. Phoenix, AZ. June. Available: http://
www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb5137128.pdf. Accessed October 20, 2014.

Smith, D.M. 2012. Flagstaff sustainability chief Nicole
Woodman keeps cool head as temperatures rise.
Grist. October 5. Available: http://grist.org/cities/
flagstaff-sustainability-chief-nicole-woodman-keepsa-cool-head-as-temperatures-rise/. Accessed October
20, 2014.

Greater Flagstaff Forests Partnership. 2014. Greater
Flagstaff Forests Partnership. Available: www.gffp.org.
Accessed October 20, 2014.

Summerfelt, P. 2014. Email to Megan O’Grady, Stratus
Consulting re: Study Follow-up Questions. City of
Flagstaff, Flagstaff, AZ. December 6.

Kelly, J. Undated. Flagstaff’s City Wide Resiliency
Study. Institute for Sustainable Communities. Available:
http://sustainablecommunitiesleadershipacademy.org/
resource_files/documents/flagstaffs-city-wide-resiliency-study.pdf. Accessed October 20, 2014.

U.S. Census Bureau. 2013a. B19013: Median Household
Income in the Past 12 Months (in 2013 inflation-adjusted dollars). 2009–2013 American Community
Survey. U.S. Census Bureau’s American Community
Survey Office, American FactFinder.

Klassen, K. and D. Howard. 2011. The Shultz fire &subsequent flooding. Firefighter Nation. January 1.
Available: http://www.firefighternation.com/article/
features-0/schultz-fire-subsequent-flooding. Accessed
October 20, 2014.

U.S. Census Bureau. 2013b. DP05: Demographic andHousing Estimates. 2009–2013 American Community
Survey. U.S. Census Bureau’s American Community
Survey Office, American FactFinder.

Melillo, J.M., T. Richmond, and G.W. Yohe (eds.). 2014.
Climate Change Impacts in the United States: The
Third National Climate Assessment. U.S. Global Change
Research Program. doi:10.7930/J0Z31WJ2.

USDA Forest Service. 2014. FS Seeks Public Comments
on Flagstaff Watershed Protection Project; Public
Meetings Invitation. July 3. Available:
http://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/coconino/news-events/?cid=STELPRD3807109. Accessed
October 20, 2014.

Mindock, C. 2013. Flagstaff moves forward on thewatershed protection project. Arizona Daily Sun.
April 30. Available: http://azdailysun.com/news/
local/flagstaff-moves-forward-on-the-watershed-protection-project/article_80695e24-b1c6-11e2-b3e9-001a4bcf887a.html.
Accessed October 20, 2014.

U.S. EPA. 2013. Climate Impacts in the Southwest.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Last updated
September 9. Available: http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/impacts-adaptation/southwest.html.
Accessed October 20, 2014.

Nielsen, E. and F. Solop. 2013. Forest Health and Water
Supply Protection Project Ballot Measure: Exit Poll
Results. May. Available: http://www.flagstaffwatershedprotection.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/
Prop405_ExitPoll_FactSheet_May20131.pdf. Accessed
October 20, 2014.
Politico. 2012. 2012 Presidential Election. Available:
http://www.politico.com/2012-election/results/map/#/
President/2012/. Accessed February 4, 2013.
Rasker, R. 2014. Email to Jason Vogel, Stratus
Consulting re: Flagstaff Contacts. Headwaters
Economics, Bozeman, MT. October 20.

Youberg, A., K. Koestner, and D. Neary. 2011. Wildfire,rain and floods: A case study of the June 2010 Schultz
wildfire, Flagstaff, Arizona. Arizona Geology. Available:
http://www.azgs.az.gov/arizona_geology/winter10/
article_feature.html. Accessed October 20, 2014.

129

130

CASE STUDY: FLAGSTAFF, ARIZONAAppendix A. Members of the Greater Flagstaff Forests Partnership
Voting members

Associates• Arizona Game & Fish Department• Arizona Public Service• Arizona Forest Restoration Products• National Park Service—Flagstaff Area National
Monuments• Arizona State—Forestry Division

Cooperators• City of Flagstaff—Fire Department• Coconino County—Community
Department

Development• Coconino Natural Resource Conservation District• Coconino Rural Environment Corps• Ecological Restoration Institute at Northern Arizona
University• Mottek Consulting, LLC• Northern Arizona University—School of Forestry• The Arboretum at Flagstaff• The Nature Conservancy• U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service—Region 2• Wildwood Consulting, LLC• Ponderosa Fire Advisory Council• USDA Coconino National Forest

CASE STUDY: FLAGSTAFF, ARIZONAAppendix B. Summary of Treatment Options Outlined in the DEIS

Actions
Total treatment acres

Percentage of total project
area to be treated

Acres to be hand thinned

Acres to be mechanicallythinnedAcres to be helicopter
loggedAlternative 1:
No treatment
Jack Smith
Schultz/
Eastsidea

0 percent0 acres0 acres

Alternative 2:
Proposed action
with cable logging

Alternative 3:
Proposed action
without cable logging

Alternative
4: Minimaltreatment

8,937 acres

8,937 acres

5,802 acres

5,963 acres DLH

5,963 acres DLH

3,459 acres DLH

2,975 acres MM

2,975 acres MM

2,343 acres MM

85 percent

85 percent

55 percent

79 percent DLH

79 percent DLH

46 percent DLH

100 percent MM

100 percent MM

79 percent MM

846 acres

832 acres

438 acres

699 acres DLH

652 acres DLH

438 acres DLH

147 acres MM

180 acres MM

0 acres MM

7,137 acres

5,264 acres

4,697 acres DLH

4,743 acres DLH

2,953 acres DLH

2,427 acres MM

2,394 acres MM

2,311 acres MM

0 acres973 acres

0 acres

7,124 acresb

0 acres973 acres DLH
0 acres MM

Acres to be cable logged

0 acres

1,242 acres

0 acres0 acres

8,937 acres

8,937 acres

5,802 acres

5,963 acres DLH

5,963 acres DLH

3,459 acres DLH

2,975 acres MM

2,975 acres MM

2,343 acres MM

1,169 acres DLH
73 acres MM
Acres to be prescribedburned0 acresa. Past projects with acreages within the FWPP boundary that could be implemented.
b. Includes cable logging areas that could be cut by hand.
DLH: Dry Lake Hills.
MM: Mormon Mountain.
Source: FWPP, 2014c.

131

132

CASE STUDY: FORT COLLINS, COLORADO

Fort Collins, Colorado

PHOTO: City of Fort Collins

Water Demand Management
FORT COLLINS, COLORADO
AUTHORS: Lorine Giangola and Jason VogelIn this case study, you will learn about:• Achieving water-use reductions through combined regulatory actions andvoluntary conservation programs• Taking quick action after an extreme event to advance drought management• Protecting a key economic sector• Limitations to drought management in the West• Leveraging community support for demand management actions

CLIMATE ADAPTATION: THE STATE OF PRACTICE IN U.S. COMMUNITIESCASE STUDY: FORT COLLINS, COLORADO

Case Study Summary
Like most communities in the arid intermountain west,
Fort Collins is accustomed to managing water shortages
and responding to drought. Severe drought events in thelast few decades have increased the urgency of efforts to
reduce the city’s vulnerability to future water shortages.
Furthermore, under climate change, warming temperatures and shifting precipitation patterns could lead tomore frequent or more intense drought events.
In 2012, Fort Collins updated its Water Supply and
Demand Management Policy, which requires the water
utility to maintain a water supply that can meet ademand of 150 gallons per capita per day (gpcd) during
a 1-in-50 year drought. This case focuses on two key,interactive elements of the policy: (1) The Water Supply
Shortage Response Plan, which outlines specific regulatory measures that reduce water use quickly during
a severe drought; and (2) the city’s water conservation
programs, which aim to achieve reductions in water usethat are sustained even in times of water abundance.
These strategies have allowed water managers to reducethe community’s total water use and to quickly reducedemand even further during water shortages. In fact,water managers believe that their efforts to decrease
overall water use have reduced the need to enact restrictions under the Water Supply Shortage Response Plan.
They also agree that their integrated approach to supply
and demand management has decreased their vulnerability to short-term drought. Still, the city’s decision-makers
are concerned about Fort Collins’ ability to cope withlong-term droughts, and their economic impacts, if thecity does not increase its water storage capacity. Althoughclimate change has not explicitly motivated these particular actions, city staff are well aware of climate change risks
and Fort Collins’ strategies have achieved lasting watersavings and tangible reductions in vulnerability to futureclimate change-related drought.

Broader Context
Water resource management in the West is complex
and challenging, and recent severe droughts have drawn

more attention to communities’ vulnerabilities and to theneed to prepare for increasing climate variability anduncertainty about water availability. Colorado has a long
history of drought and water shortages. While climatechange models do not project decreases in total precipitation in Colorado, drought conditions could worsen
as a result of earlier snowmelt and warmer summers;
simultaneously, water demand is expected to increaseas the population grows (Gordon et al., 2015, Lukas andGordon, 2015). Colorado faces additional challenges indealing with multiple, interrelated climate impacts. For
example, wildfire risk increases under drought conditions,and flood risk increases when heavy precipitation falls on
dry or scorched land that is less able to absorb and retain
water—as has been seen in recent years along Colorado’s
Front Range. Water resource managers face these complex dynamics as they try to prepare for potentially more
severe and prolonged droughts in the future.
Fort Collins’ leaders recognize and understand thepotential impacts of climate change on the city’s vulnerability, and the community has made significant progress
toward cutting its greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions since
it developed its first GHG reduction plan in 1999. As ofearly 2015, the city had reduced its GHG emissions tolevels that are 5 percent below 2005 emissions, despite
a population increase of 16 percent. Over the same time
period, the city has experienced a 22 percent increase ineconomic growth (City of Fort Collins, 2015). On March
3, 2015, the City Council unanimously approved the city’slatest plan to reduce GHG emissions to levels that will
make the city carbon neutral by 2050.
In recent years, the city has expanded its climate portfolio to include climate change adaptation planning, andhas engaged in adaptation initiatives at the regional level,
through the Western Adaptation Alliance, and at thenational level. In 2013, former Fort Collins Mayor Karen
Weitkunat was appointed to the President’s Climate
Preparedness and Resilience Task Force, which convened
state, local, and tribal leaders from around the UnitedStates to develop recommendations for effective federal government response to community-level impactsof climate change. Fort Collins’ involvement in climatechange adaptation discussions at the national level has
spurred action on local adaptation initiatives and has

133

134

CASE STUDY: FORT COLLINS, COLORADO

made it easier to engage city staff at upper levels ofmanagement in adaptation planning (Smith, 2015). City
staff have worked with consultants to conduct vulnerability and risk assessments for each city department andto identify potential adaptation strategies.
Fort Collins has been a national leader in climate change
mitigation, and climate change adaptation planning isunderway across multiple city departments. However, thecity’s adaptation actions are still in the planning stages, andare therefore not a specific focus of this case study. Instead,this case study focuses on the city’s water conservation
programs and the Water Supply Shortage Response Plan,
which prescribes the concrete actions that water managers
in Fort Collins take to reduce their vulnerability to drought.

Why and How Fort Collins Developed
Its Water Supply and Demand
Management Strategies
Severe Drought Motivates Fort Collins toAddress Water Supply Shortages
A series of droughts in the last few decades has motivated water utilities managers to restrict water use andintensify conservation efforts, eventually prompting thecity to formalize a regulatory action plan for reducing
water use during drought. In 1977 a serious drought left
reservoirs nearly empty, leading the Fort Collins water
utility to enact lawn watering restrictions for the firsttime, and spurring the city to create a part-time water
conservation position to develop its first water conservation initiatives (Exhibit 1). As the city’s population
continued to grow in the 1980s, Fort Collins worked toacquire more water rights and increase its water storage
capacity. Rapid water resource development and concern about future water shortages, similar to the 1977
drought, prompted a review of the city’s water policies
in 1987, and in December 1988, Fort Collins adopted its
Water Supply Policy to guide future water supply acquisition and management. In April 1992, after upgrading
the water conservation manager position to full-time,
the city developed and adopted a Water Demand
Management Policy, which outlined water-use goals andmeasures for meeting those goals.
Another severe drought in 2002 again led the utility toenact water-use restrictions late in the summer. At thetime, the city’s water management plans did not formallyoutline these restrictions, and the utility did not conduct
any extensive study in developing its 2002 restrictions
plan. Water managers looked to what other utilities in
the region, like Denver Water, were doing to restrict

Water Supply and
Demand Management
Policy combines andupdates previous supply
and demand policies

Severedrought

1977

Water Supply
Policy adopted,
requiring city
to maintain asupply thatmeets demandduring a 1-in-50
year drought

1988

Water Demand
Management
Policy adopted,
outliningconservation
goals andmeasures1992

Severedrought

2002

Water Supply Shortage
Response Planestablishes tiered water
use restrictions to
respond to severe
drought; conservation
programs expandedHigh Park Fire
City initiates
permitting
process for
expansion ofHalliganReservoir

Level 1 restrictions
implemented
2003

Drought; water
restrictions notnecessary becauseof reductions
throughconservation
programs

2006

Exhibit 1. Timeline of Drought Management Actions in Ft. Collins.

Water Supply and
DemandManagement
Policy updated
to include
consideration ofclimate change
and precipitation
uncertainty
2012

Level 1
restrictions
implemented outof uncertainty
about watersupply and water
quality after fire;
restrictions lifted
in June2013

CASE STUDY: FORT COLLINS, COLORADO

water use so that they could quickly formulate theirown restrictions, recalls Donnie Dustin, Water Resources
Manager at Fort Collins Utilities. The severity of the 2002
drought made water managers realize that they needed
to formalize these measures for future responses, andthe utility set out to design new, tiered restrictions,which it outlined in its 2003 Water Supply Shortage
Response Plan. The response plan was then embeddedin the 2003 Water Supply and Demand Management
Policy, which updated and combined the 1988 and 1992plans into one comprehensive document at the requestof the City Council. In early 2003, the utility enacted the
new Level 1 restrictions, but heavy spring snowfall eased
drought conditions, and the utility lifted the restrictionsin September.
The drought not only motivated the city’s decision-makers to formalize drought plans and actions, but it also
motivated the Fort Collins community to increase its
participation in conservation programs and to change
its water-use habits. The city’s conservation efforts
intensified and water managers developed new conservation programs after the 2002 drought; community
engagement increased when residents recognized theimportance of saving water during severe drought(D’Audney, 2015). Water managers believe that thewater-use restrictions enacted during the drought
underscored the need to take water conservation seriously, and that these regulatory measures were a factor
in motivating the increase in voluntary conservation
actions (D’Audney, 2015; Dustin, 2015; Smith, 2015).

Economic Concerns Motivate Fort Collins toAddress Water Supply Shortages
Fort Collins’ decision-makers are very concerned about
economic impacts of future droughts. The city’s 16 breweries and Avago, a large company that manufactures
computer components, all depend on a reliable andclean water supply. The city’s three largest breweries—
Anheuser-Busch, New Belgium Brewing Co., and Odell
Brewing Co.—collectively use over one billion gallons ofwater each year (Kyle, 2015). Although the Water Supply
Shortage Response Plan does not restrict water use forbrewing operations, Fort Collins’ breweries have recognized the need to increase water-use efficiency in theindustry, and they are taking voluntary actions to reduce
their total water use and the amount of water used to
produce each unit of beer (Kyle, 2015).
A severe or long-term water supply shortage that would
require the city to reduce the amount of water delivered
to its breweries would threaten the viability of the industry in Fort Collins. The city has never implemented water
restrictions for industries, but after the 2012 High Park
Fire in the foothills west of the city, “the breweries reallypaid attention” to water quantity and quality threats
from drought and subsequent wildfires, says Katy Bigner,
Environmental Planner for Fort Collins. Bruce Hendee,
former Chief Sustainability Officer for the City of Fort
Collins, who served from January 2010 to February 2015,
agrees that, “We are heavily, heavily at risk if we haveeven a five-year-in-a-row drought. Our brewing industry
is really big…If we went too long without water storage,
that’s a serious economic threat.”

Insufficient Water Storage Capacity Limits
Options for Drought Management
Storage is a major limitation to increasing the city’s
resilience to drought and a primary motivation forconserving and protecting existing supplies. Utility
managers and city administrators agree that storage isthe city’s most significant need in preparing for future
droughts, and that the city will continue to be vulnerable until storage capacity is increased. Fort Collins has
been involved in the permitting process for expanding
Halligan Reservoir, which lies in the foothills northwestof the city, since 2006 (cover image). This 100-year old
reservoir currently holds about 6,400 acre-feet, and thecity needs to acquire at least an additional 8,125 acrefeet to meet its supply requirements (Duggan, 2014).
If the city attains a permit from the U.S. Army Corps ofEngineers, and if the City Council ultimately approves
the project, construction likely will not begin until 2018or 2019 (Webb, 2015). Adding storage capacity will allow
the city to increase the amount of water it collects during
wet or average years so that more water is available
later, especially during droughts. Water managers havenot adjusted their water supply modeling specificallyfor climate change, mainly for the practical reason thatthe city has been engaged in the permitting process for

135

136

CASE STUDY: FORT COLLINS, COLORADO

the expansion of the Halligan Reservoir since 2006, andany change the utility makes to its supply calculations
or projections must be reviewed, further prolonging thepermitting process (Dustin, 2015).

impacts of drought and the need to reduce vulnerability (Dustin, 2015; Smith, 2015; Webb, 2015; Weinheimer,
2015; Weitkunat, 2015).

In addition to inadequate storage infrastructure,
reduced natural water storage capacity contributes tothe vulnerability of water supplies in Colorado’s Front
Range communities. Declining forest health (most visibly caused by pine and spruce beetle epidemics andsevere fires) and altered hydrology in forested watersheds diminish the forests’ natural capacity for water
storage. Forests play an important role in capturing andprotecting water supplies, but “our forests are not doing
well,” says Bruce Hendee. Since the High Park Fire, thewater utility has engaged with regional watershed protection initiatives that work toward making Fort Collins’
watershed more resilient to wildfire and to other supply
redundancy threats (Webb, 2015). Diminished natural
water storage capacity increases the city’s reliance on
voluntary conservation programs and regulatory strategies to meet supply requirements established in the
Water Supply and Demand Management Policy.

Accomplishments of Fort Collins’
Demand Management Strategies

City Decision-Makers Leverage Community
Support for Demand Management
Extreme events like the 2002 drought and the 2012
High Park Fire, despite the hardships they impose,create opportunities to build support for government
actions, and can motivate citizens to take an interestin water management planning. When Fort Collins was
updating its Water Supply and Demand Management
Policy in 2012, decision-makers and hired facilitators
held stakeholder meetings with environmental groups,
farmers, and other citizens interested in water management issues. The updated Water Supply and Demand
Management Policy passed quickly in 2012, after residents experienced firsthand some of the previously
identified uncertainties about water supply shortages(Bigner, 2015). The Fort Collins community generally has
responded very positively to water-use restrictions andto utility projects that enhance water storage and treatment capacities. Managers attribute the community’s
support to an educated and informed citizenry that has
experienced severe drought and that understands theFort Collins decision-makers agree that current demand
management approaches have decreased the city’svulnerability during short-term water shortages andincreased its resilience to drought. Significantly reducing demand, in anticipation of shortages and also during
drought, allows water managers to retain more waterin storage for drought years. Slowing the drawdown ofstored supplies, and having more water left at the endof a drought, helps the city recover and return to normal
water-use levels more quickly and easily.
The utility has used the Water Supply Shortage Response
Plan not only to respond to drought, but also to respondto wildfire impacts on water supply. During the drysummer of 2012, a lightning strike ignited the HighPark Fire, which devastated the mountain communities
in Larimer County west of Fort Collins and had major
impacts on the city’s watershed. The fire burned over
87,000 acres of forest and destroyed over 250 homes.
Early in 2013 the utility again enacted Level 1 restrictions
because of uncertainty about water supply and water
quality after the fire. Precipitation events in the springof 2013 eased these concerns, and the utility lifted therestrictions in June.
Enacting water-use restrictions has been an effective
drought response strategy in Colorado’s Front Range
communities, including in Fort Collins (Kenney et al.,2004), and conservation programs have produced
lasting water-use reductions in the city. Between
2003 and 2012, Fort Collins experienced a significant
drop in water use—from about 200 gpcd to about 150
gpcd—despite population growth (Dustin, 2015; Webb,
2015). Residential outdoor water use has dropped by
50 percent since the 2002 drought (D’Audney, 2015),
and businesses’ and city operations’ water use has also
declined (City of Fort Collins, 2013; Weitkunat, 2015). The
city’s decision-makers attribute the demand decrease

CASE STUDY: FORT COLLINS, COLORADO

to the combination of regulations and conservation
outreach during the 2002 drought. “My sense was thatpeople were motivated by the drought and were provided tools” for changing their water use habits, says
Lucinda Smith, the city’s Director of Environmental
Services. The region experienced another drought in
2012, though less severe than the 2002 drought, andthe utility would have needed to impose restrictions
again in 2012 if not for the conservation programs, says
Laurie D’Audney, former water conservation manager at
Fort Collins Utilities. These water-use trends suggest thatcombining regulatory measures with ongoing conservation outreach can produce longer-lasting water savings
during droughts than can short-term restrictions alone.
Still, the city’s managers have serious concerns about Fort
Collins’ vulnerability, and economic resilience, to potentiallymore severe and long-term drought. While city administrators and utility managers feel prepared to manage relatively
short-term droughts through their current policies, “Wehaven’t been tested, in my opinion, for some of thesesevere droughts, like in California and Texas,” says Katy
Bigner. Bruce Hendee agrees that, “We might get througha five-year drought, but I don’t think we’d get through aseven-year drought. When I read about super-droughts, likein the Dust Bowl era, I get really worried about our ability
to last much longer than that because I don’t think we candeliver water to our major companies.”
According to these assessments, Fort Collins water managers have been successful in managing a certain levelof vulnerability to drought, and demand management
strategies have increased the community’s resilienceduring a drought of an anticipated degree of severity.
The Water Supply Shortage Response Plan has beeneffective for responding to relatively short-term drought,
and it increases the city’s adaptive capacity for responding to more severe drought in the future. Conservation
programs have produced lasting water-use reductions,but these measures can only reduce water use to a certain point after which it becomes much more difficult
to reduce water use. Fort Collins remains vulnerable
to drought that is more severe than 1-in-50 years, andto long-term drought that would require more drastic
response measures than those outlined in the responseplan, or that would require more extreme conservation

measures. At that point, the city’s water supply will be
depleted unless the city increases it storage capacity to alevel that can meet critical demand during a very severe
and/or prolonged drought.

Moving Forward
Fort Collins’ decision makers believe that increasingwater storage will be the most effective way to enhance
the community’s resilience to drought, and the city has
been pursuing a permit for expansion of the Halligan
Reservoir for several years. But building resilience todrought, especially by building more storage, can be
expensive. “Cost will be the biggest barrier,” says Bruce
Hendee. The Halligan expansion could cost $35 million
more than what the city has spent to date; half of thesefunds are already in reserve, and the utility plans toacquire the rest through projected development in theutility’s water service area over the next few decades(Dustin, 2015). The city does, however, already own
enough water rights, so costs will be associated mainlywith infrastructure development and improvements.
While the Fort Collins community has generally been
supportive of the city’s water and drought management strategies, utility managers do hear from citizens
who oppose parts of the Water Supply and Demand
Management Policy. Some residents think that conservation program resources would be better spent on
increasing storage capacity, says Laurie D’Audney. On
the other hand, “We have people who oppose things
such as storage,” says Donnie Dustin. Despite conflicting
values among some community members, decision-makers believe that they have been successful in integrating
public input into water management planning, and inleveraging public support in order to take action after
extreme events. Due to the overall success of water
demand management programs and community outreach since the 2002 drought, the utility has set a goalof reducing water use even more—from the current 150
gpcd to 140 gpcd by 2020.
Although climate change was not an initial motivation
for Fort Collins’ drought management strategies or for
developing its Water Supply Shortage Response Plan or

137

138

CASE STUDY: FORT COLLINS, COLORADO

conservation programs—“We’re steeped in variability,
regardless of climate change,” says Donnie Dustin—there
is awareness in the Utilities Department that climatechange could make the city’s resource management
challenges more difficult. In 2012 the city’s Water Supply
and Demand Management Policy was updated to include
language about climate and precipitation uncertainty, andto highlight the need to consider climate change effects
on water supplies. The policy states that “the city willcontinue to monitor climate change information and, if
necessary, will revise its water supply planning criteria
and assumptions to ensure future water supply reliability.”
Yet, according to water managers, drought planningand climate change adaptation are one and the same.
“Climate adaptation planning is just good planning.
It’s hard to separate it…Because that’s the way we dobusiness, some of these elements have already been
integrated into our regular planning,” says Carol Webb,
the utilities’ Water Resources and Treatment Operations
Manager. “Even though we haven’t necessarily labeled it
as climate [change] adaptation planning, it resulted inthat.” Katy Bigner agrees that, “Utilities already plans to
the extremes. If anything, [climate adaptation] validates
the approaches we already have.”
Although water managers currently do not anticipate aneed for new or separate plans to prepare specificallyfor climate change, the water utility is engaged in citywide climate adaptation planning initiatives, which aim
to reduce the expense of responding to climate-related
disasters and to decrease vulnerability to future climatechange (City of Fort Collins, 2014). “The bottom line is,
responding to disaster is expensive. Planning for disaster is doable,” says former Mayor Weitkunat. The city is
working with consultants to conduct risk and vulnerability assessments for all city departments, and to outline
goals, strategies, and decision processes for adaptation
actions. In 2013, Brendle Group, in coordination with theGeos Institute, facilitated climate adaptation workshopswith city decision-makers, where they reviewed climate
science, discussed adaptation, and identified and prioritized vulnerabilities of each city department (City of Fort
Collins, 2014). “One of the main goals is to institutionalize, in each department, ways to consider climate change
in long-range plans,” says Lucinda Smith.

Acknowledgments
We would like to thank Fort Collins city staff for participating in interviews for this case study:• Katy Bigner, environmental planner, City ofFort Collins• Laurie D’Audney, former water conservation
manager, City of Fort Collins Utilities• Donnie Dustin, water resources manager, City ofFort Collins Utilities• Bruce Hendee, former chief sustainability officer,
City of Fort Collins• Lucinda Smith, director, environmental services
department, City of Fort Collins• Carol Webb, water resources and treatment
operations manager, City of Fort Collins Utilities• Dan Weinheimer, legislative policy manager,
City of Fort Collins• Karen Weitkunat, former mayor, City of Fort Collins.

Bibliography
Bigner, K. 2015. Interview with Katy Bigner,
Environmental Planner, City of Fort Collins. February
20, 2015.
City of Fort Collins. 2009. Water Conservation Plan.
Available: http://www.fcgov.com/utilities/img/site_
specific/uploads/conservation-plan.pdf.
March 26, 2015.
City of Fort Collins. 2013. Municipal Sustainability
Annual Report. Available: http://www.fcgov.com/
climateprotection/pdf/2013AR_092314_web.
pdf?1419444197. Accessed March 26, 2015.
City of Fort Collins. 2014. Summary of Current Efforts& Next Steps: Climate Change Adaptation. August
26. Available: http://www.fcgov.com/enviro/pdf/
climate-change-adaptation-final.pdf?1420049264.
Accessed March 26, 2015.

CASE STUDY: FORT COLLINS, COLORADO

City of Fort Collins. 2015. Draft 2015 Climate Action
Plan: Framework. February 25. Available: http://www.
fcgov.com/climateprotection/pdf/draft-cap-feb25.pdf.
Accessed April 6, 2015.
D’Audney, L. 2015. Interview with Laurie D’Audney,
former Water Conservation Manager, City of Fort
Collins Utilities. March 2.
Duggan, K. 2014. Fort Collins loses partner inHalligan Reservoir expansion. Coloradoan. February
13. Available: http://archive.coloradoan.com/
article/20140212/NEWS01/302120097/Fort-Collinsloses-partner-Halligan-Reservoir-expansion. Accessed
April 21, 2015.

Kyle, S.J. 2015. Fort Collins brewers bottle up excesswater use. Coloradoan. February 16. Available: http://
www.coloradoan.com/story/money/2015/02/16/fortcollins-brewers-bottle-excess-water-use/23368057/.
Accessed April 21, 2015.
Lukas, J. and E. Gordon. 2015. Colorado’s climate: Past
and future. Chapter 2 in Colorado Climate Change
Vulnerability Study, E. Gordon and D. Ojima (eds.).
University of Colorado, Boulder, CO and Colorado State
University, Fort Collins, CO.
Politico. 2012. 2012 Presidential Election. Available:
http://www.politico.com/2012-election/results/map/#/
President/2012/. Accessed February 4, 2013.

Dustin, D. 2015. Interview with Donnie Dustin, Water
Resources Manager, City of Fort Collins Utilities.
February 24.

Smith, L. 2015. Interview with Lucinda Smith, Director,
Environmental Services Department, City of Fort
Collins. March 4.

Fort Collins Utilities. 2015a. Map of Upper Cache La
Poudre River Watershed and Colorado-Big Thompson
project. Available: http://www.fcgov.com/utilities/
what-we-do/water/water-quality. Accessed March 26,
2015.

U.S. Census Bureau. 2013a. B19013: Median Household
Income in the Past 12 Months (in 2013 inflation-adjusted dollars). 2009–2013 American Community
Survey. U.S. Census Bureau’s American Community
Survey Office, American FactFinder.

Fort Collins Utilities. 2015b. Photo of Halligan Reservoir.
Available:
http://www.fcgov.com/utilities/what-we-do/water/halligan-water-supply-project. Accessed April 21, 2015.

U.S. Census Bureau. 2013b. DP05: Demographic andHousing Estimates. 2009–2013 American Community
Survey. U.S. Census Bureau’s American Community
Survey Office, American FactFinder.

Gordon, E., R. Klein, V. Deheza, and S. McNeeley. 2015.
Chapter 5—Water Sector. In Colorado Climate Change
Vulnerability Study, E. Gordon and D. Ojima (eds.).
University of Colorado, Boulder, CO and Colorado State
University, Fort Collins, CO.

Webb, C., 2015. Interview with Carol Webb, Water
Resources and Treatment Operations Manager, City ofFort Collins Utilities. February 17.

Hendee, B., 2015. Interview with Bruce Hendee,
former Chief Sustainability Officer, City of Fort Collins.
February 17.
Kenney, D.S., R.A. Klein, and M.P. Clark. 2004. Use andeffectiveness of municipal water restrictions during
drought in Colorado. Journal of the American Water
Resources Association 40(1):77–87.

Weinheimer, D. 2015. Interview with Dan Weinheimer,
Legislative Policy Manager, City of Fort Collins. March 4.
Weitkunat, K. 2015. Interview with Karen Weitkunat,
former Mayor, City of Fort Collins. March 4.

139

140

CASE STUDY: GRAND RAPIDS, MICHIGAN

Grand Rapids, Michigan

Vital Streets and Sidewalks
Spending Guidelines
GRAND RAPIDS, MICHIGANAUTHORS: Missy Stults, Jason Vogel, and Karen Carney

In this case study, you will learn about:• Leveraging existing community concerns to reduce vulnerability to
climate change• Tackling flooding through changes in street design policy and practice• Using public-private partnerships to achieve community andgovernment goals

CLIMATE ADAPTATION: THE STATE OF PRACTICE IN U.S. COMMUNITIESCASE STUDY: GRAND RAPIDS, MICHIGAN

Case Study Summary
For the last 30 years, the City of Grand Rapids has beendevising solutions to manage stormwater. However,recent flooding events, combined with aging stormwater infrastructure and growing public discontent about
the dilapidated state of roads, presented an opportunity
to rethink how stormwater was managed in the city. To
address these concerns, the city created the Vital Streets
and Sidewalk Spending Guidelines (Guidelines) mandating the use of green infrastructure when upgrading roadand stormwater infrastructure. Through extensive public
engagement combined with the deteriorating state ofroads, the Guidelines and funding to implement thempassed with 66 percent of voter support in early 2014
(LaFurgey, 2014).
As of mid-2014, all upgrades to existing road or
stormwater infrastructure, as well as any new road or
stormwater projects in Grand Rapids, are required toprioritize green infrastructure techniques or justify why
these techniques are not technically feasible. According
to stakeholders in Grand Rapids, the Guidelines and theassociated move to a greener infrastructure are helping
to change the culture of stormwater management in thecity while simultaneously enhancing local water quality,
replenishing the city’s aquifer, cleaning the local air,
reducing the urban heat island effect, and enhancing
the overall sense of community.

Broader Context
When it rains, it pours. At least, that seems to be thecase recently in Grand Rapids and across the Midwest.
According to the National Climate Assessment (Melillo
et al., 2014), between 1958 and 2012, the amount ofprecipitation falling in the Midwest during the heaviest
storms (the 1 percent storms) has increased by 37 percent. This increase in precipitation had led to serious
riverine and inland flooding events, disrupted economic
activities, endangered lives, and destroyed homes, crops,
infrastructure, and businesses. Moreover, climate change
projections for Michigan estimate that precipitation will
increase between 20 percent and 70 percent more by
the end of the century (Melillo et al., 2014) and theGrand Rapids Climate Resiliency Report estimates that“precipitation is expected to increase from a baseline
average of 7.6 cm to 7.8 cm and 8.3 cm in 2022 and 2042,
respectively” (West Michigan Environmental Action
Council, 2013, p. 9). In light of these significant changes,
municipalities throughout the Midwest are looking forstrategies to more effectively manage precipitation.
The City of Grand Rapids has a long history of taking climate change and sustainability action as demonstrated
by the fact that the city boasts the highest per capita
number of Leadership in Energy and Environmental
Design (LEED) buildings in the nation, and was the firstcity to be recognized by the United Nations University
as a Regional Centre of Expertise for Education on
Sustainable Development (West Michigan Environmental
Action Council, 2013). The city also has a nationally recognized sustainability plan, the Grand Rapids Sustainability
Plan, which aims to achieve “an economic, social, andenvironmentally sustainability future” for the city andits citizens (City of Grand Rapids Office of Energy andSustainability, 2015). Included in the Sustainability Planare 231 targets in 14 goal areas, including goals focusedon a strong economy, great neighborhoods, healthy lifestyles and healthy environments, energy and climate
protection, and environmental quality and natural systems. As of fiscal year 2014, the city has successfullycompleted 155 of their targets (66.5 percent; City ofGrand Rapids Office of Energy and Sustainability, 2015).
Recently, the City of Grand Rapids, in partnership with theWest Michigan Environmental Action Council (WMEAC)
undertook a climate change vulnerability assessment
to identify how climate change could impact the city.
The results showed that one of the most serious threatsfacing the city was flooding associated with increased
precipitation events (West Michigan Environmental
Action Council, 2013). This finding confirmed the city’s
suspicion and added fodder to efforts aimed at proactively managing water throughout Grand Rapids.
Today, the City of Grand Rapids has a number of initiatives that have recently been completed or are underway
to reduce the impact of heavy precipitation events,
including the separation of all combined sewer systems;
an urban forestry program; significant investments in

141

142

CASE STUDY: GRAND RAPIDS, MICHIGAN

green infrastructure such as bioswales, rain gardens,porous pavement, and green roofs; incentives for homeowners to install rain barrels and rain gardens; and water
conservation and reuse programs. One of the more innovative programs currently being pursued, however, is a
public-private partnership focused on simultaneously
preventing flooding and enhancing the quality of roads
throughout the city: the Grand Rapids Guidelines. Thisinitiative is the focus of this case study.

Why and How Grand Rapids
Implemented Its Guidelines
A Long History of Flooding and State Water
Quality Mandates Pushed the City toward
Grey Stormwater Infrastructure
From as early as 1883, documents show that major flooding on the Grand River, which runs through downtown
Grand Rapids (from events such as log jams, springsnowmelt, ice jams, and heavy rains), damaged homes,
businesses, and roads primarily along the city’s west side
(Olson, 2014). Following a major flood at the turn of the
century (1904), the city built its first floodwalls in 1911
with additional floodwalls built in 1927, 1934, and 1936
(Clark, 2014). In 2003 the city completed its most recent

25

21.85 feet
04/21/2013

20

19.64 feet
03/01/1985

19.54 feet
05/27/2004

19.50 feet
03/28/1904

floodwall project, which raised all existing floodwalls andembankments one foot above the 100-year flood markestablished in the 1904 flood (Clark, 2014). Despite theseinvestments in physical infrastructure, the Grand River
has continued to overflow, with a historic flooding event
occurring in April 2013 (Exhibit 1).
The legacy of inundation led the city to investigate strategies in addition to floodwalls for minimizing the threatof both riverine and inland flooding. This work gained
traction roughly 30 years ago when Grand Rapids beganefforts to remove all existing combined sewer systems andreplace them with separate sanitary sewer and stormwater systems (Alibasic, 2014). Motivation for this changecame from the State of Michigan, which was actively
working with the city to reduce the amount of sewage
being discharged into the Grand River (Lunn, 2014).
When heavy rainfall events occur, combined sewer
systems can get overwhelmed, making them unable
to effectively manage and treat sewer and stormwater
waste separately. In these cases, excess sewer combineswith stormwater and flows directly into discharge basins.
In Grand Rapids, this discharge basin is the Grand River.
In the early 1980s, the State of Michigan began citing thecity as being in violation of water-quality requirements(Lunn, 2014). In response, the city began working with19.29 feet
03/08/1976

19.25 feet
04/03/1960
09/04/1986

18.83 feet
03/03/1982

15
10
5
0
Exhibit 1. Highest Grand River crests on record for the City of Grand Rapids.
Source: Clark, 2014.

18.60 feet
06/09/1905

18.50 feet
04/18/2013

CASE STUDY: GRAND RAPIDS, MICHIGAN

the state to devise a strategy to reduce the amount of
combined sewer and stormwater entering the Grand
River. The result was the creation of a stormwater management plan in 1988 that called for the division of theGrand Rapids combined sewer systems into separate
stormwater and sewer systems. To date, over 99.2 percent of the combined sewer pipelines have been replaced(58 out of 59 in system overflow points), and plans areunderway for eliminating the one remaining combined
sewer and stormwater system by 2016 (Lunn, 2014).

Continued Flooding Ignites Support forGreen Infrastructure
To date, the city has invested hundreds of millions ofdollars in the transition to a separate sewer and sanitary system and has successfully reduced the amount of
sewage entering the Grand River (Lunn, 2014). This work,
however, has not eliminated the growing threat of localized flooding. In fact, a U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency 2008 report found that in the Great Lakes
region, “projected long-term (2060–2099) changes inprecipitation suggest that if combined sewer overflow(CSO) mitigation efforts are designed based on historical precipitation, many systems could experience
increases in the frequency of CSO events beyond theirdesign capacity resulting in increases in overflow volume
discharged to receiving waters” (U.S. EPA, 2008, p. 2).
This realization, combined with the fact that localized
flooding was occurring more frequently, led a numberof citizens, nonprofits, and city staff to seek alternative
strategies for managing stormwater.
According to Haris Alibasic, the director of the City ofGrand Rapids Office of Energy and Sustainability, themovement to rethink how stormwater was managed inGrand Rapids crystallized during a series of community
stormwater discussions held in partnership between thecity and the WMEAC (2014). Initiated in the late 2000s,
these meetings were held with businesses, nonprofits,neighborhood associations, residents, and city commissioners to explore stormwater best management
practices from around the country and devise a planfor how Grand Rapids could integrate relevant practices into its operations. Haris Alibasic indicated that inaddition to public meetings, a survey was administered
to more than 600 residents to assess whether there

was support for undertaking and financing improvements to the existing stormwater system (2014). Thiseffort, known as the Community Stormwater Master
Planning Initiative, culminated in a 2012 report entitled,
Sustainably Managing Stormwater in Grand Rapids (WestMichigan Environmental Action Council, 2012).
The Sustainably Managing Stormwater in Grand Rapids
report identified five priorities for the city, most notably, theprioritization of green infrastructure over traditional hard
physical infrastructure. Upon the report’s release, organizations such as the Chamber of Commerce requested amore detailed look at what infrastructure improvements
were needed (both grey and green), where they wereneeded, and how they would be funded (Occhipinti, 2014).
Based on this feedback, the City of Grand Rapids hired anengineering consulting firm, for approximately $450,000,
to help (1) create a Stormwater Asset Management Plan,(2) create a Stormwater Capital Improvement Plan, (3)update the city’s Stormwater Technical Reference Manual,and (4) create an asset management software tool thatallows the city to visually see where improvements tothe stormwater system are needed (Occhipinti, 2014).
The results from these deliverables confirmed that significant investments were needed to upgrade the city’s
deteriorating stormwater infrastructure and that green
infrastructure could, in many cases, provide an alternative to traditional grey infrastructure in meeting bothstormwater needs and other community-wide goals. In
addition to the work done by the engineering consulting
firm, a series of other reports, as denoted in Exhibit 2,
were instrumental in laying the foundation for community
support of green infrastructure.

Green Infrastructure Included in Road
Improvements through Creation of Grand
Rapids’ Guidelines
The next issue was how to begin implementing andfinancing key infrastructure improvements. In Grand
Rapids, and throughout Michigan, street infrastructure
has been in dwindling disrepair for years. With theintense winter of 2013 leading to even more potholes
and damaged roads, residents and businesses united indemanding the city invest in major repairs to city streets(Occhipinti, 2014).

143

144

CASE STUDY: GRAND RAPIDS, MICHIGAN

1911–2003
Floodwalls built

May 2014:
Vital Street
Guidelines andincome tax
extensionpassed in a
special election

State cites Grand
Rapids forviolation ofwater quality
requirements
Grand Rapids
begins efforts toremove all existingcombined sewer
systems

Creation of
the City’s
Sustainability
Plan

1988: Stormwater
Management Plan
1980s

2005

Community
Stormwater
MasterPlanning
Initiative
formedLate
2000s

UpdatedSustainability
Plan

2010

City ofGrand Rapids
FY11–15
Sustainability
Plan

2011

Sustainably
Managing
Stormwaterin Grand
Rapids report
released2012

Technical
studies
April:
historic
flood

2013

Stormwater
management
oversight
commission
formed2014

UpdatedSustainability
Plan

2015

Exhibit 2. Key dates and actions related to green infrastructure transition in Grand Rapids.

Nick Occhipinti, director of policy and activism at
WMEAC, said that he recognized that the “smartest time
to do stormwater upgrades is when you’re working onstreets;” he notes that WMEAC worked with the city
to leverage the political interest and will around street
repairs to also update stormwater infrastructure. One
idea for funding this work that quickly gained traction
was the extension of an income tax that was about toexpire (Occhipinti, 2014). City staff, elected officials, nonprofits such as WMEAC, and many businesses agreed
that pursuing an extension to the income tax was apolitically viable solution for financing needed repairs.
As such, the city set to work drafting specific details for
how the income tax extension, combined with other city
funds, could be used to simultaneously repair streets andupgrade key stormwater infrastructure.
The result of these efforts was the Grand Rapids
Guidelines, which specify how the income tax extension
as well as other city funding would be spent, establish stormwater performance standards, and create astormwater oversight commission to help guide theimplementation of the Guidelines. Perhaps most importantly, the Guidelines require that, whenever feasible, thecity must invest in green infrastructure as opposed to
traditional hard infrastructure. In situations where green

infrastructure is deemed technically unfeasible, the city
must justify why this is the case and identify ways thatgreen infrastructure can be used to supplement more
traditional hard infrastructure approaches.

Building and Maintaining Community
Support for Green Stormwater Management
The Guidelines and the associated income tax extension
did face some opposition. A group of citizens actively
opposed new, large-scale stormwater investments andthe movement to create the Guidelines (Occhipinti,2014). This opposition group included constituents who
supported the transition to green infrastructure but did
not think the city was investing enough in making therequisite changes.
To navigate citizen opposition, said Nick Occhipinti, thecity, WMEAC, and other partners “did our best to sit downwith opponents and explain, in detail, why this is an issue,
what the need is, and why we care about it. We also did
public advocacy and education including an intentional
citizen outreach effort in which we worked directly with
community leaders to discuss the need” (2014). In addition, public meetings, listening sessions, and dozens ofpresentations were delivered to community stakeholders to help educate people on the need for stormwater

CASE STUDY: GRAND RAPIDS, MICHIGAN

upgrades and build support for the Guidelines. In theend, stakeholders came to a general consensus that (1)stormwater management is important; (2) investments
in stormwater are going to be critical; and (3) to effectively manage stormwater, the city needed to have a solid
understanding of what infrastructure currently exists,
what state it is in, what needs to be done to properly
manage it, and what upgrades are needed (Alibasic, 2014;
Lunn, 2014). Moreover, by combining discussions aboutstormwater upgrades with road repair, the city was able
to make a more holistic case about why public investment
in critical infrastructure was essential.
To maintain support for the Guidelines and their implementation, the city uses hands-on events where citycommissioners and the public get together to plant
trees, clean bio-retention islands, and help maintainrain gardens. As Mike Lunn notes, “We try to involve thecommunity as much as we can and really highlight our
projects that exist as stormwater amenities. We try togive people ownership over these projects so they feelinvested and engaged” (2014).
While a number of individuals were supportive ofstormwater management efforts and, more specifically,
the move toward green infrastructure, a few elected
and appointed officials and staff were particularly
instrumental; these included Mayor George Heartwell;
Commissioner Ruth Kelly; Deputy Mayor Eric Delong;
Haris Alibasic, the director of the City of Grand Rapids
Office of Energy and Sustainability; Mike Lunn, thedirector of the City of Grand Rapids Department ofEnvironmental Services; Suzanne Schulz, the directorof the City of Grand Rapids Planning Department; andWMEAC members (Occhipinti, 2014).
Through these extensive engagement and outreachefforts, the City of Grand Rapids was able to successfully pass both the Guidelines and the income tax
extension needed to help finance the implementation of the Guidelines. These two efforts passed with
66 percent of voter support during a special May 2014
election (LaFurgey, 2014). While the clear and growing need for updated streets was a strong motivator
for action, public education and outreach around theneed for stormwater upgrades, including efforts such as

public service announcements and community forums,
helped to build the critical support needed to pass the
Guidelines (Lunn, 2014).

Accomplishments of Grand Rapids’
Guidelines
The City of Grand Rapids is now implementing the
Guidelines. According to Nick Occhipinti, the city’s
Environmental Services Department is “already experiencing better funding for stormwater” (2014). Haris
Alibasic said, “It makes sense to have these projects doneusing green infrastructure. Ultimately it also helps communities (residents, businesses) to better understand thevalue of green infrastructure. When you have a project
like Joe Taylor Park, where you can incorporate green
infrastructure elements, certainly the community canappreciate the value of onsite stormwater management”(see Exhibit 3; 2014). The Grand Rapids community isalso experiencing some co-benefits associated with theuse of green infrastructure. For example, better water
quality, replenishment of the city’s aquifer, cleaner air,heightened walkability, heat island reduction, improved
aesthetics, and energy savings are all co-benefits associated with green infrastructure that the city is alreadyexperiencing or believes it will face in the future (Alibasic,
2014; Occhipinti, 2014).

Stormwater isn’t sexy… but
its solutions can be.
NICK OCCHIPINTI

Has the transition to green infrastructure been a success?
“Yes and no,” says Nick Occhipinti. “We are not done yet”
(2014). Haris Alibasic shares this sentiment, noting “there
are always opportunities for progress in everything that
we do. We have to continually invest and evaluate ourprogress as opposed to saying that we have succeeded.
In this case, I couldn’t call our work a failure; I wouldn’t
call it a complete success. I would call it a positive stepin the right direction” (2014).

145

146

CASE STUDY: GRAND RAPIDS, MICHIGAN

Mike Lunn, director of Environmental Services for theCity of Grand Rapids, notes that, “Yes, I think we arevery successful around stormwater and we are starting—especially with Joe Taylor Park, Mary Waters, andTremont Parks—to have a lot of things to talk about. We
just don’t talk about them enough” (2014). Measuring
success is hard, but for Mike Lunn and his team, one
simple strategy is to see if “three years later, we still havevegetated solutions in place and they are still working,and if they are, then chances are they are going to continue working for much longer” (2014).
Even though the city does not currently have specific metrics to track the success of green infrastructure, it does
use two screens to measure the success of any project(Alibasic, 2014): Did the strategy reduce greenhouse gas
emissions and was the strategy financially sound? Whilethese metrics do not embody all of the possible waysof measuring success, they do provide a litmus test for
ensuring projects are in alignment with broader city goals.
In addition, Haris Alibasic notes that the city is currently
looking for metrics of resilience that can be incorporated into the next round of updates to the Grand Rapids
Sustainability Plan, the city’s guiding document pertaining to all aspects of social, environmental, and economic
sustainability, and these new metrics are likely to include
more specific measurement related to stormwater management (Alibasic, 2014). Perhaps more than any physicalmetric of success, the indicator that Grand Rapids is doing
something right is the fact that, despite extremely limited
staffing, green stormwater management appears to “be apart of the city’s culture” (Lunn, 2014).

Moving Forward
While climate change has not yet been explicitly integrated into stormwater management efforts in Grand
Rapids, Haris Alibasic and Mike Lunn both note that climate change was and remains an underlying theme thatdrives the city’s investment decisions (2014). As notedby Mike Lunn, the city has been incorporating future
projections into stormwater planning for years by doing
things such as “designing to a 25- or 100-year storm as
opposed to a 10-year storm” (2014). According to Haris
Alibasic, “We did not use exact projections in our work

to date. That’s why we are moving to the next phase
where we are looking at the exact science and future
projections and incorporating these into our stormwater
management planning initiatives” (2014).

The idea is to try to get
the rain to stay where it
lands. And we know thatthe climate always changes
so we prefer using green
infrastructure because it will
help us keep the water outof the river and lessen our
impact on the environment.
MIKE LUNN

According to all the interviewees, the city recognized thisneed and, in response, extended a contract with the engineering consultancy firm Tetra Tech to assess key issues
such as how climate change could affect rainfall patterns
and what areas of infrastructure are the most vulnerable
to issues such as extreme weather and increased precipitation. The final product developed by Tetra Tech ismeant to help guide the City of Grand Rapids in making
decisions on which projects to undertake, how best to
integrate green infrastructure into these projects, andwhen the projects should be undertaken to optimize theefficiency of the system.
“There is a recognition that climate change will inevitably
have an impact on stormwater infrastructure,” said Haris
Alibasic. “And the way that infrastructure is planned inGrand Rapids is about taking into consideration the longterm as opposed to the short-term view and perspective.
This goes along with climate change resilience preparedness, preparation, and planning because it affords us an
opportunity to look at projections of climate change andintegrate them into our infrastructure planning” (2014).
Even though climate change was not explicitly factored
into the city’s existing stormwater management plans,

CASE STUDY: GRAND RAPIDS, MICHIGAN

EXHIBIT 3. JOE TAYLOR PARK. THE PICTURE ON THE LEFT IS THE OLD PARK.
THE PICTURE ON THE RIGHT IS THE NEWLY REMODELED PARK.
Situated in the east side of Grand Rapids, Joe Taylor
Park was created in 2011 and is one of the city’s
newest parks. Originally noted as being “park poor”
or underserved when it came to park space, theBaxter neighborhood and surrounding area had
been flagged as in need of park space for years. In
addition, localized flooding in the area had beenraised as a concern necessitating action.

In addition to the installation of stormwater features, Harger said, “city officials asked neighbors
to help design a kid-friendly park” (Harger, 2011).
Through this process, residents requested a picnic
shelter, playground, seating areas, and a water park.
The park caters to smaller children as well as families and single residents. More recently, residents
installed a series of urban gardens.

Initially, to address flooding-related concerns, thecity looked at installing a 10-million-gallon concrete holding basin. However, through a series of
stakeholder meetings and reviews, the city decided,
instead, to install an infiltration basin composedof green infrastructure. A pervious parking lot,
light-emitting diode (LED) security lighting, anda cistern to capture rainwater from the park toirrigate the park’s trees and lawn were also installed(Harger, 2011; Lunn, 2014).

Today, Joe Taylor Park is 2.2 acres of what was once
blighted land that now creates an urban landscapemore accessible and comfortable to the residents
abutting the area. In addition, the site collects,
treats, and drains stormwater from the entire neighborhood (approximately 40 acres) and is able tomanage the first inch of water falling during a storm
directly onsite (Harger, 2011; Lunn, 2014).

Joe Taylor Park before renovation

Newly remodeled Joe Taylor Park

Grand Rapids does have a Resilience Report that has
been helping lay the foundation for integrating climatechange into other city planning efforts (West Michigan
Environmental Action Council, 2013). The Grand Rapids
Resilience Report was created by WMEAC in partnershipwith the city and was instrumental in helping the city
acquire localized climate data that have been and willcontinue to be important in driving stormwater management efforts in the city (Haris Alibasic, 2014). The
Resilience Report discusses 22 sectors or topics withinGrand Rapids likely to be affected by climate change,
one of which is stormwater. To make the findings of the
Resilience Report more applicable, Haris Alibasic andhis team in the Office of Energy and Sustainability are

147

148

CASE STUDY: GRAND RAPIDS, MICHIGAN

working to integrate key findings from the report into
the updated Grand Rapids Sustainability Plan (due tobe released before the end of 2015).

The more successful you are,the more opportunities you
get to continue doing thesethings.
MIKE LUNN

Moving forward, the city has three priorities: (1) installing a greener infrastructure while maintaining whatalready exists, (2) formally integrating climate change
and resilience into citywide plans and operations, and(3) finding additional funding to complete the needed
upgrades to the stormwater system. The city’s newly created (summer 2014) stormwater management oversightcommission will play a key role in helping to ensure thesepriorities are achieved. In addition, an opportunity exists
for more regional work, but what this opportunity looks
like and how it is seized remains to be seen (Lunn, 2014).

Acknowledgments
We would like to thank the following people for participating in interviews as part of this case study:• Haris Alibasic, director of the City of Grand Rapids
Office of Energy and Sustainability• Mike Lunn, director of the City of Grand Rapids
Department of Environmental Services• Nick Occhipinti, director of policy and activism,
WMEAC.

Bibliography
Alibasic, H. 2014. Interview with Dr. Haris Alibasic,
Director of the Grand Rapids Office of Energy andSustainability. October 27.
City of Grand Rapids Office of Energy andSustainability. 2015. Sustainability Plan: Fourth Year
Progress Report. Available: www.sustainablegr.org.
Accessed July 27, 2015.
Clark, C. 2014. 2013 Flood: Experts Describe How CloseGrand Rapids Was to Crippling Floodwall Breach.
Available: http://www.mlive.com/news/grand-rapids/
index.ssf/2014/01/2013_flood_experts_describe_
ho.html. Accessed November 3, 2014.
Ellison, G. 2013. Great Flood of 1904 Revisited: The
Grand River Has a Long History of Overflowing its
Banks. April 18. Available: http://www.mlive.com/
news/grand-rapids/index.ssf/2013/04/grand_river_flood_1904.html. Accessed November 3, 2014.
Harger, J. 2011. Grand Rapids Opens Joe Taylor Park; anOasis for Kids in a Once-Blighted Neighborhood. June
28. Available: http://www.mlive.com/news/grand-rapids/index.ssf/2011/06/grand_rapids_opens_joe_taylor.
html. Accessed November 4, 2014.
LaFurgey, J. 2014. GR Road Tax Extension Passes.
Available: http://woodtv.com/2014/05/06/turnout-lowfor-gr-road-tax-vote/. Accessed November 3, 2014.
Lunn, M. 2014. Interview with Mike Lunn, Director of
the Grand Rapids Environmental Services Department.
October 27.
Melillo, J.M., T.C. Richmond, and G.W. Yohe (eds.). 2014.
Climate Change Impacts in the United States: The
Third National Climate Assessment. U.S. Global Change
Research Program. doi:10.7930/J0Z31WJ2.
NWS. 2014. Weather Forecast Office Grand Rapids,
MI. National Weather Service. Available: http://water.
weather.gov/ahps2/hydrograph.php?wfo = grr&gage =gdrm4. Accessed November 3, 2014.

CASE STUDY: GRAND RAPIDS, MICHIGAN

Occhipinti, N. 2014. Interview with Nick Occhipinti,
Director of Policy and Activism at the West Michigan
Environmental Action Council. October 27.
Olson, G. 2014. A Short History Grand
Rapids, Michigan. Available: http://grcity.us/
administrative-services/customer-service/Pages/AShort-History-of-Grand-Rapids.aspx. Accessed
November 3, 2014.
Politico. 2012. 2012 Presidential Election. Available:
http://www.politico.com/2012-election/results/map/#/
President/2012/. Accessed February 4, 2015.
U.S. Census Bureau. 2013a. B19013: Median Household
Income in the Past 12 Months (in 2013 inflation-adjusted dollars). 2009–2013 American Community
Survey. U.S. Census Bureau’s American Community
Survey Office, American FactFinder.
U.S. Census Bureau. 2013b. DP05: Demographic andHousing Estimates. 2009–2013 American Community
Survey. U.S. Census Bureau’s American Community
Survey Office, American FactFinder.
U.S. EPA. 2008. A Screening Assessment of the
Potential Impacts of Climate Change on Combined
Sewer Overflow (CSO) Mitigation in the Great Lakes
and New England Region. National Center for
Environmental Assessment. Office of Research andDevelopment, Washington, DC.
West Michigan Environmental Action Council. 2012.
Sustainably Managing Stormwater in Grand Rapids:
A Report of the Grand Rapids Community Based
Stormwater Planning Initiative. Available: http://
grcity.us/enterprise-services/Environment-Services/
SOC%20Resources/sustainably-managing-stormwater-in-grand-rapids1.pdf. Accessed: November 3, 2014.
West Michigan Environmental Action Council. 2013.
Grand Rapids Climate Resiliency Report. West
Michigan Environmental Action Council. Grand Rapids,
Michigan.

149

150

CASE STUDY: MIAMI-DADE, FLORIDA

Miami-Dade, Florida

Integrating Climate Change
Adaptation into a Comprehensive
Development Master Plan
MIAMI-DADE, FLORIDAAUTHORS: Alexis St. Juliana, Jason Vogel, and Karen Carney

In this case study, you will learn about:• Strong and consistent leadership on climate change issues• Regional collaboration and peer learning• Integration of adaptation into comprehensive planning• The importance of reliable and defensible climate change information

CLIMATE ADAPTATION: THE STATE OF PRACTICE IN U.S. COMMUNITIESCASE STUDY: MIAMI-DADE, FLORIDA

Case Study Summary
Miami-Dade County in Florida is vulnerable to a rangeof climate change impacts including coastal storms andsea level rise. In particular, county officials consider sea
level rise a serious and pressing threat. In some locations,streets already flood during high tides. Future sea level
rise also threatens the county’s drinking water sources
and important infrastructure, like water treatment facilities. In 2006, the county created a Climate Change
Advisory Task Force to look into climate change mitigation and adaptation opportunities. Stemming from thisand the county’s long history of environmental action,
the Department of Regulatory and Economic Resources,
including the Planning Division, identified climate change
adaptation as a new issue to address in its Comprehensive
Development Master Plan (CDMP). In 2013, the Boardof County Commissioners approved integrating climate change considerations into multiple elements of
the CDMP (i.e. Land Use; Transportation; Conservation,
Aquifer Recharge and Drainage; Water, Sewer & Solid
Waste; Coastal Management; and Intergovernmental
Coordination). These changes will require county departments to take climate change into consideration during
capital improvement projects and other decision-making
processes. Although integration of climate change into
the CDMP has occurred, the county has not had sufficient
time to incorporate these climate change aspects of the
CDMP into departmental procedures. Additionally, staff
in the Planning Division feel they need to provide county
departments with more detailed projections of climatechange impacts, specifically developed for Miami-Dade,before the departments can make informed decisions on
how to effectively adapt.

The Broader Context of Climate Change
Adaptation in Miami-Dade County
Miami-Dade County has a long history of environmental action. In the 1980s and 1990s, these efforts werespurred by Harvey Ruvin, then commissioner, now Clerkof the Courts. Under Ruvin’s leadership and as a founding member of ICLEI-Local Government for Sustainability(formerly International Council for Local Environmental
Initiatives), Miami-Dade began work on a number ofenvironmental sustainability initiatives (Miami-Dade
County, 2011). For example, in 1993 the county began its
Urban CO2 Reduction Plan to mitigate climate change(Miami-Dade County, 2013b).
Around 2003, Harvey Ruvin began to push for more concrete action on climate change, including the organizationof an ad hoc committee on climate change adaptation.
In 2006, the Board of County Commissioners officiallyappointed a Climate Change Advisory Task Force led
by Ruvin and 25 community stakeholders or topic area
experts to identify the anticipated impacts of climatechange in Miami-Dade County (Miami-Dade County, 2011,2014a, 2014i, 2015b-g). In 2008, this task force recommended further study of sea level rise, expanding efforts
to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and developing
mechanisms for future consideration of climate change
adaptation (Miami-Dade County, 2008, 2010a).
A number of more recent county actions demonstrateongoing interest in these issues. In 2009, the county
joined the four-county Southeast Florida Regional Climate
Change Compact (the Compact). Planning Division staff
Nichole Hefty and Mark Woerner serve on the Compact’s
steering committee representing Miami-Dade County.
They contribute to regional strategies and partnerships
to address climate change. In 2010, county staff incorporated the Climate Change Advisory Task Force’s work into
GreenPrint, the county’s sustainability plan, which outlines
climate change emissions mitigation and environmental
sustainability activities (see the Moving Forward section for more information). In 2013, the Board of County
Commissioners created a Sea Level Rise Task Force, also
led by Harvey Ruvin, to assess the potential impacts ofsea level rise in the county (Miami-Dade County, 2014g).
In July 2014, the Task Force issued six recommendations
for action on sea level rise (see the text box).
The county continued its climate change-related work
under the leadership of then Commission Chair, Rebeca
Sosa (Miami-Dade County, 2015a). In 2014, Commissioner
Sosa sponsored an amendment to the CDMP which
requires the integration of climate change and sea level
rise into water facilities planning (Miami-Dade County,
2014a–i). In January 2015, she brought six resolutions
corresponding to the recommendations of the Sea Level

151

152

CASE STUDY: MIAMI-DADE, FLORIDASEA LEVEL RISE TASK FORCE RECOMMENDATIONSThe Sea Level Rise Task Force recommends accelerating the adaptation planning process by seeking
and formally selecting the engineering and otherrelevant expertise needed.
The Sea Level Rise Task Force recommends that
the Miami-Dade Board of County Commissioners
direct county administration to establish formal
oversight, and dedicate sufficient resources andstaffing to ensure implementation and update of
the specific Climate Change Advisory Task Forcerecommendations.
The Sea Level Rise Task Force recommends that
Miami-Dade County implement the Adaptation
Action Areas called for in the CDMP and incorporate sea level rise and storm surge risks utilizing
best available data.
While recognizing the recent efforts to address
flood protection and saltwater intrusion by theSouth Florida Water Management District andMiami-Dade County, the Sea Level Rise Task Forcerecommends that Miami-Dade County work jointlywith the District and the Southeast Florida Regional
Climate Change Compact partners to conduct a

Rise Task Force to the Commission in order to establish
these as law, as she felt this was important step to further
implementation of the recommendations (Miami-Dade
County, 2015b-g). County Commissioner Daniella
Levine Cava and Mayor Carlos A. Gimenez have also
provided recent leadership on climate change issues.
In this context, the Planning Division identified climatechange adaptation as a new issue to address in a 2013
update of the CDMP. The integration of climate change
considerations into multiple elements of the CDMP is justone of the multiple approaches that the county is using
to adapt to climate change. It is the focus of this casestudy because of the extent to which climate change

comprehensive study and develop adaptation strategies to address potential flood damage reduction
and saltwater intrusion associated with sea levelrise. This strategy should expeditiously address
rising sea levels, a time frame for implementation,
and a potential funding mechanism.
The Sea Level Rise Task Force recommends that
Miami-Dade County’s resiliency efforts must incorporate support for Everglades restoration, including
making restoration a top priority for county lobbying
efforts, and must strategically utilize and fully fundboth acquisition and management needs for thecounty’s Environmentally Endangered Lands Program.
Recognizing the need to develop insurance mechanisms that will provide real help to the victimsof climate change impacts, The Sea Level Rise
Task Force recommends that Miami-Dade County
consider initiating discussions with private insurance and reinsurance professional organizations,member local governments in the Southeast Florida
Climate Change Compact and the Florida Office of
Insurance Regulation in the Department of Financial
Services to develop long-term risk management
solutions (Miami-Dade County, 2014h).

adaptation now appears in the CDMP. Exhibit 1 shares atimeline of these actions in Miami-Dade County.

How and Why Miami-Dade County
Integrated Climate Change into Its
Comprehensive Plan
Regular CDMP Review Provides an
Opportunity to Identify Climate Change
as an Important Issue
The Florida State Statutes (Chapter 163) require thateach county update its comprehensive plan everyCASE STUDY: MIAMI-DADE, FLORIDA

2007–2015
Water and Sewer Department develops localized climate change impact model
2009–Present
Miami-Dade joins and works collaboratively with the Compact

MiamiDade
joins
ICLEI

1990

Countydevelops
Urban CO2
Reduction
Plan

1993

Ad hoccommittee
on climatechangeadaptation
forms

2003

ClimateChangeAdvisory
Task Force
forms

2006

Planning Division issues
CDMP Evaluation and
Planning
Appraisal report,
which identifies climate Division drafts
CDMP
change as an issue
amendments
Miami-Dade issues
with new
GreenPrint, the county’s climate changesustainability planconsiderations

Planning Division
begins CDMP
evaluation andappraisal
Climate Change
Advisory Task
Force issues
recommendations

2008

2010

2012

Board of County
Commissioners approves
CDMP amendments,
including new climatechange considerations

Sea Level Rise Task
Force forms

2013

Exhibit 1. Timeline of actions in Miami-Dade County.

seven years (Miami-Dade County, 2014b. Miami-Dade’s
CDMP is used by developers, individual applicants,
and all county departments in planning decisions.
Any new development or proposed zoning changemust be consistent with the CDMP. The state-required
Evaluation and Appraisal process yields a report thatis ultimately approved by both the Board of County
Commissioners and the State of Florida. The report
does not actually change the county’s CDMP, but documents major issues and the types of changes thecounty intends to make.
Beginning in 2008, the Planning Division began to prepare its Evaluation and Appraisal report, due in 2010. A
confluence of factors led the division’s staff to include
climate change as a new issue in this report. First, theClimate Change Advisory Task Force came out with
its initial recommendations in 2008, which included anumber of climate change mitigation and adaptation
measures. Second, the Planning Division had a long history of working on energy conservation. This was notalways motivated by climate change mitigation, butrather by concerns regarding water and air-quality issues.

The CDMP has served as a tool to tackle these issues bycontrolling how Miami-Dade County develops its urban
core. For example, the CDMP can help ensure access toalternative transportation (e.g., walking or bicycling) ormass transit, and encourage compact, mixed-use footprints for new developments. In this sense, the division
was already working in a way that was sensitive to theenvironment, pollution control, and water supply protection. Third, Department of Regulatory and Economic
Resources staff members that had been involved with
the Climate Change Advisory Task Force and GreenPrint
and were therefore familiar with the climate change
adaptation priorities in those efforts. Finally, in 2009,
Miami-Dade County joined the Compact. While MiamiDade was thinking about climate change adaptation
before joining the Compact, this new collaborative effort
may have further contributed to the desire to include
consideration of climate change in the CDMP.
The 2010 report includes several explicit county motivations for incorporating climate change within the CDMP
(see the text box).

153

154

CASE STUDY: MIAMI-DADE, FLORIDAEXPLICIT MOTIVATIONS FOR INCORPORATING
CLIMATE CHANGE WITHIN THE MIAMI-DADE
CDMP“Projections of future growth and the planned
locations of such growth must be assessed forvulnerability to sea level rise, storm surge andother climate change impacts. For these reasons,climate change is addressed as a major issue inthe county’s CDMP.” (p. 1.2-5)“Costs to adapt to these anticipated climate-related challenges will be much higher if
incremental investments are not made now to
prepare for the future. It is not in the county’s
interests, fiscal, social, economic, environmental,
or otherwise, to delay investment in planning andprojects that will solve existing problems, suchas drainage, that will worsen and become evenmore unmanageable, as climate change conditions intensify.” (p. 1.2-18)
Source: Miami-Dade County, 2011.

The Evaluation and Appraisal report indicates how
the county intends to change the CDMP by amending
elements of the plan. The report outlined a number ofexisting CDMP elements that already related to (but did
not necessarily mention) climate change:• Land Use• Transportation• Housing• Recreation and Open Space• Conservation, Aquifer Recharge, and Drainage• Coastal Management• Intergovernmental Coordination• Capital Improvements• Educational

Miami-Dade’s Planning Division Integrates
Climate Change into Relevant Elements of
its 2013 Amendments to the CDMP
With approval of the 2010 Evaluation and Appraisal
Report, the Planning Division began the process of amending the CDMP. This process takes one full year; it began in
the fall of 2012 and ended in the fall of 2013 (Exhibit 2).
During the year, the appointed Planning Advisory Board
held a series of meetings to discuss the changes with thePlanning Division. Additionally, the county held several
public meetings to share the changes and gather public
feedback. The Planning Advisory Board formally approved
the proposed changes to the CDMP. Following this, theBoard of County Commissioners voted to approve the
CDMP amendments in October 2013. County staff pointout that currently, several of the county commissioners
advocate for climate change mitigation and adaptation
actions; Commissioner Rebeca Sosa was noted as a particularly important supporter of climate change action. At
the same time there were few vocal opponents of climatechange mitigation and adaptation on the commission.
Changes to the CDMP are adopted as a package andaddress a wide range of issues.
Mark Woerner, the assistant director in Miami-Dade’s
Planning Division, guided the CDMP amendment process and worked with staff to integrate proposed policy
language into relevant elements of the plan (Land
Use; Transportation; Conservation, Aquifer Recharge
and Drainage; Water, Sewer & Solid Waste; Coastal
Management; and Intergovernmental Coordination).
Examples of the specific policy language included in
the CDMP updates are provided in Exhibit 3. To develop
this new language, Woerner and staff determined where
there were natural linkages to climate change within
existing elements, even though they did not have any
existing protocol or tools at the time to guide themin this process. According to Woerner, “Something asimportant as climate change and sea level rise needs topermeate throughout the whole plan. It affects so manydifferent components. If you have it all in one element,
for example, the public works director may not read thatelement. He’s only looking at his…It’s better to not callattention to it in one element, but to really integrate it
into many elements of the plan.”CASE STUDY: MIAMI-DADE, FLORIDA

Evaluation
andAppraisal
reportAugust2010

Board of County
Commissioners
and Florida
approve
Evaluation andAppraisal report

March
2011

Draft CDMP
amendments

October2012

Meetings among
Planning Advisory
Board, county
departments, andPlanning Division

March–
April
2013

Board of County
Commissioners
approves transmittalof CDMP amendments
to state agencies
for review

May
2013

Final amendments
and vote byPlanning Advisory
Board

September

2013

Board of County
Commissioners
votes to approve
CDMP amendments

October
2013

Exhibit 2. CDMP amendment process.
Source: Miami-Dade County, 2014b.

It is also likely that the county’s participation in thedevelopment of the Compact’s Regional Climate Action
Plan influenced CDMP changes. Both Mark Woerner andNichole Hefty, Chief of the Department of Regulatory andEconomic Resource’s Office of Sustainability, sit on the
Regional Climate Action Plan Staff Steering Committee
and helped amend the CDMP (Compact, 2012). However,
because the two efforts occurred simultaneously, it isdifficult to discern the impact of the Compact’s plan on
the CDMP.

To Implement CDMP Elements, MiamiDade Develops Tailored Models to Inform
Decision-Making
While Miami-Dade has included climate change considerations in its CDMP, these considerations have not yet
been fully implemented. Some of the reasons for thisinclude that the changes were recently adopted and it
can take time to implement new plans, and that staff in
the Planning Division feel that county departments needbetter information on climate change impacts in order tomake informed decisions. Two factors led Miami-Dade
County to develop a localized climate change impact
model on the interaction of groundwater and surface
water: (1) its unique hydrology, and (2) a lack of existingclimate change impact models or tools that incorporated
the county’s unique hydrology.
1. The primary factor for developing an integrated
groundwater-surface water model was the fact thatthe county faces a unique combination of climatic,

geologic, and hydrologic conditions. Miami-Dade
County and much of South Florida are vulnerable tosea level rise, storm surge, and saltwater intrusion into
freshwater aquifers. This latter vulnerability is of particular concern in the county, and there are several local
characteristics that contribute to it. First, the county
sits on a very porous calcium carbonate substrate.
Once saltwater reaches a freshwater source, there is
there is a natural tendency for them to mix. Second,
Florida’s freshwater sources are relatively close to theground surface, making them especially vulnerable toinundation and salinization. Third, Miami-Dade has anextensive gravity-driven drainage and canal system;
however, with sea level rise, saltwater will move into
these canals and impede or prevent their drainage.
This will pose an additional threat during storm surges;
impeded drainage creates a flooding hazard. In somecases, sea gates or pumps have already been installed
to help manage water flow in the canals.
2. The second major factor motivating the developmentof tailored climate change analyses was concern
over the county’s initial use of inundation information. Initially, the county relied on The Compact’s
high-level sea level rise inundation vulnerability
assessment. These maps were not able to consider
some of Southeast Florida’s unique features, failing to
identify known at-risk areas under current conditions,as shown on the county’s Stormwater Management
Masterplan and current Federal Emergency
Management Agency Digital Flood Insurance Rate
Maps. Therefore, county stormwater modelers felt

155

156

CASE STUDY: MIAMI-DADE, FLORIDAEXHIBIT 3. EXAMPLES OF CLIMATE CHANGE CONSIDERATIONS IN MIAMI-DADE COUNTY’S CDMPELEMENTS (MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, 2013a)
Land Use
By 2017, Miami-Dade County shall develop a
Development Impact Tool or criteria to assess how
proposed development and redevelopment projectfeatures including location, site design, land use
types, density and intensity of uses, landscaping,and building design, will help mitigate climate
impacts or may exacerbate climate related hazards.
The tool would also assess each development’s projected level of risk of exposure to climate change
impacts, such as inland flooding (LU-3F).
Miami-Dade County shall, by 2017, analyze andidentify public infrastructure vulnerable to sea level
rise and other climate change-related impacts. This
analysis shall include public buildings, water andwaste water treatment plants, transmission lines
and pump stations, stormwater systems, roads, rail,
bridges, transit facilities and infrastructure, airportand seaport infrastructure, libraries, fire and police
stations and facilities (LU-3G).
By 2017, Miami-Dade County shall determine thefeasibility of designating areas in the unincorporated area of the county as Adaptation Action
Areas as provided by Section 163.3177(6)(g)(10),
Florida Statute, in order to determine those areas
vulnerable to coastal storm surge and sea level rise
impacts for the purpose of developing policies foradaptation and enhance the funding potential of
infrastructure adaptation projects (LU-3K).
Transportation
The county shall avoid transportation improvements which encourage or subsidize increased
development in coastal high hazard areas, environmentally sensitive areas identified in the Coastal
Management and Conservation, Aquifer Recharge
and Drainage Elements, and areas of high risk ofsignificant inland flooding (TC-6A).

New roadways shall be designed to prevent andcontrol soil erosion, minimize clearing and grubbing
operations, minimize storm runoff, minimize exposure and risk of climate change impacts such asincreased flood conditions, and avoid unnecessarychanges in drainage patterns (TC-6D).
Conservation, Aquifer Recharge, and Drainage
When building, expanding or planning for new facilities such as water treatment plants, Miami-Dade
County shall consider areas that will be impacted
by sea level rise (CON-5I).
Water, Sewer, and Solid Waste
The Miami-Dade County Water, Wastewater, andReuse Integrated Master Plan, the primary vehicle
for planning for water, sewer, and reuse facilities,
shall continue to be updated on a regular basis.
The integrated Master Plan shall include initiatives
to address climate change and sea level rise thatwould impact the water and sewer infrastructureand drinking water supplies (WS-3F).
Miami-Dade County shall coordinate with municipalities and the State of Florida to monitor existing
septic tanks that are currently at risk of malfunctioning due to high groundwater levels or flooding
and shall develop and implement programs toabandon these systems and/or connect users to the
public sewer system. The county shall also coordinate to identify which systems will be adversely
impacted by projected sea level rise and additional
storm surge associated with climate change andshall plan to target those systems to protect publichealth, natural resources, and the region’s tourism
industry (WS-4H).

CASE STUDY: MIAMI-DADE, FLORIDAEXHIBIT 3. (CONTINUED).
EXAMPLES OF CLIMATE CHANGE CONSIDERATIONS IN MIAMI-DADE COUNTY’S CDMP ELEMENTS(MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, 2013a)
Coastal Management

Intergovernmental Coordination

Rise in sea level projected by the federal government, and refined by the Southeast Florida
Regional Climate Change Compact, shall be taken
into consideration in all future decisions regarding
the design, location, and development of infrastructure and public facilities in the county (CM-9H).

The county shall continue participation in theSoutheast Florida Regional Climate Change
Compact and shall coordinate with other agencies, local municipalities, and the private sector
to develop initiatives and goals to address climate change mitigation and adaptation. Climatechange-related goals that support regional climatechange objectives shall be integrated into the
CDMP as appropriate (ICE-5F).

the need to improve upon the Compact’s inundation maps to produce a more accurate vulnerability
assessment. An additional issue identified, related tosharing any type of sea level rise map, is their potential to affect property values in vulnerable areas andrelated investment decisions.

modeling tool will be an integral piece of the information and guidance they provide to departments. They
also feel that county departments need best-available
climate change data in order to make informed decisions. For example, Planning Division staff believe thatdepartments need to know the magnitude of potential
sea level rise in order to make informed decisions about
how best to plan and respond.

Since initial mapping tools did not consider some of
the unique features and vulnerabilities of Miami-Dade
County, the county pursued the development of morerobust and defensible tools. In 2007, the Water and Sewer
Department, including staff member Dr. Virginia Walsh,partnered with the U.S. Geological Survey to develop
a new climate change and hydrological modeling tool
unique to Miami-Dade County (U.S. Geological Survey,2014). The new integrated groundwater-surface watermodeling tool took several years to develop and went
through an extensive third-party verification process. It
generates maps using future ranges of precipitation, sealevel rise, and saltwater intrusion based on the county’s
geology, hydrology, and infrastructure.
Thus far, the modeling tool has only been used internallyby the Water and Sewer Department, but the county
intends for other departments to rely on it for land-use
planning, infrastructure, and other decisions. Planning
Division staff feel that the information produced by the

There has been some concern regarding the amount oftime it has taken to develop the model and the speed atwhich adaptation is taking place because of the county’s
reliance on location-specific data. Mark Woerner shared,“Before you act too quickly you need to take a measured approach. The tools have to be reliable and validor they’ll be more subject to challenge and doubt…You
have to make sure that the guidance you’re giving is thebest available. Decisions will be made to grant people
the right to develop or not. You better be right if you’reasking someone to adapt infrastructure and it’s going
to cost $10 billion, $20 billion, or $1 billion.” However, healso acknowledges that “climate change and sea level
rise data are not static; they are dynamic and continuously changing. Therefore, planning for climate change
and sea level rise needs to take this into account andneeds to be technically defensible.”

157

158

CASE STUDY: MIAMI-DADE, FLORIDAThe Accomplishments of Miami-Dade
County’s Integration of Climate
Change into the CDMP
Those interviewed for this study agree that Miami-Dade’s
new considerations of climate change in the CDMP are a
success, and are an example of the county’s leadershipin climate change adaptation. Additionally, stakeholder
groups generally supported the changes. For example,
there was no discussion about the integration of climatechange in the CDMP elements during the final Boardof County Commissioners hearing. County staff attribute this to previous public hearings and the Planning
Advisory Board’s endorsement.
However, county staff also feel it is too early to point todecisions or on-the-ground actions that have changed
as a result of the changes to the CDMP. There are two
reasons for this. First, the changes to the CDMP wererecently adopted and, in a large county like MiamiDade, it can take time to implement new plans. For
example, each county department has its own 5–10
year plan. It will take time for these department-levelplans to incorporate relevant climate change considerations from the CDMP. Similarly, several of the newconsiderations call for a 2017 timeline or additional
studies. Second, staff in the Planning Division feelthat county departments need more precise climatechange data in order to make informed capital infrastructure planning decisions. For example, the Transit
Department needs to know the anticipated levels ofsea level rise to inform improvements. As such, thePlanning Division staff feel that the modeling efforts
led by the Water and Sewer Department will be vitalin order to share actionable data.
There is a set amendment process to adjust the CDMP
in the future. New climate change considerations, basedon newer or more reliable information, might need to be
included. Additionally, the set Evaluation and Appraisal
process will assess if departments are implementing
CDMP provisions.

Moving Forward
There is agreement that Miami-Dade County is moving
in the right direction. However, there are also concerns
about whether the county is acting quickly enough on
climate change adaptation. While it will take time to fully
discern the impact of integrating climate change into the
CDMP on the county’s adaptation activities, there areseveral ongoing efforts in the county that will contributeto climate change vulnerability reductions. We describe
them briefly here.
GreenPrint — GreenPrint is Miami-Dade’s community-wide sustainability plan developed between 2009 and2010. It covers climate change mitigation and adaptation, as well as other initiatives (e.g., developing greenjobs). GreenPrint was influenced by the Climate Change
Advisory Task Force, the Compact, and ICLEI, incorporating relevant recommendations from these and othersources. Nichole Hefty supported the effort to develop
GreenPrint and shared that “The primary goal of bothGreenPrint and the Regional Climate Action Plan is tointegrate (climate change) into existing programs andprocesses so it’s not a separate thing. As people do their
daily job or planning, they’re thinking about them throughthe lens of sustainability and the lens of climate change.”
GreenPrint contains climate change adaptation provisions that support related analyses and monitoring.
These provisions include “(1) Track local and regional
climate change indicators and trends, (2) Develop local
and regional climate change scenarios depicting various
impacts and time frames, and (3) Integrate future climatechange impacts into community and government decision-making for capital, operational, and land-use issues”(Miami-Dade County, 2010b, p. 76). Nichole Hefty says,“At the time, we still had a lot of questions. Our climatechange goal area was focused on trying to gain more
knowledge to better inform our planning. A lot of theinitiatives in that goal area are looking at gathering moredata and developing tools to help inform the process.”
The county has made some progress in developing tools,
but it still lacks some critical information, such as moreaccurate inundation maps.

CASE STUDY: MIAMI-DADE, FLORIDA

There have been a number of challenges pursuing all
the actions contained in GreenPrint. First, the grantthat supported its development ended. Second, county
leadership turned over. The mayor was successfullyrecalled and subsequently more than 40 county departments were consolidated into 25. Both of these factors
resulted in the loss of multiple staff members who had
been involved in GreenPrint. Third, two county commissioners who championed the effort left office. Fourth,the economic recession severely contracted the county’s budget, affecting its ability to invest in some of theGreenPrint projects and processes. While county staff
feel that there is renewed momentum for GreenPrint,
there will still be challenges developing the 2016 updatewith fewer staff, for example.
Division of Environmental Resources Management(DERM) — DERM is involved in a number of efforts
that have the potential to reduce the impacts of storm
surge, improve drainage, and reduce flooding. For example, DERM is reseeding mangroves, preserving coastal
wetlands, acquiring new conservation land throughits Environmentally Endangered Lands Program, conducting erosion control and beach renourishment, andimplementing other natural resource restoration projects(Miami-Dade County, 2014e).
Water and Sewer Department — In addition to leading
Miami-Dade County’s climate impact modeling efforts,
the Water and Sewer Department is evaluating upgrades
to its three wastewater treatment facilities against climate change impacts. This evaluation was motivatedby a U.S. Environmental Protection Agency enforcement
action for sewer overflows and discharges (U.S. EPA,
2013). In a sense, the enforcement action has presented
an opportunity for the Water and Sewer Department
to consider climate change and implement adaptation
actions as it makes improvements to come into compliance with its consent decree.
The Water and Sewer Department’s consideration of climate change predated its efforts to develop a climatechange impact modeling tool. The department conducteda storm surge analysis that added the storm surge from
Hurricane Andrew, high tide plus three feet of sea levelrise. This was the equivalent to a 21-foot storm surge

and Category 5 hurricane. With this information, thedepartment assessed the elevation of plant components
to determine their vulnerability. To protect the treatment
plants, the department evaluated three options: (1)construct new facilities, (2) elevate electrical and instrumentation systems, and (3) harden facilities throughelevating and shuttering plant components (Miami-Dade
County, 2013b). The least-cost option for the county
was elevating and shuttering plant components for$30 million (Miami-Dade County, 2013c).
Dr. Doug Yoder, the deputy director of the Water andSewer Department, shared that they “don’t want tooverinvest in facilities.” The department is looking at
when climate change risks will become a real issue,
and preparing for that time. As the current wastewater
treatment facilities reach the end of their usable life, theWater and Sewer Department will re-evaluate climatechange considerations for new facilities, which will most
likely include moving new facilities further inland. The
department plans to use the more comprehensive climate change and hydrological impact modeling tool todesign and locate these new facilities.
Local Mitigation Strategy — Miami-Dade has a Local
Mitigation Strategy to address minimizing the impacts ofcoastal storms, flooding, and other hazards. This strategy
was first developed in 1998, with 1992’s Hurricane Andrew
in recent memory. The strategy is implemented by staff
in the Miami-Dade Office of Emergency Management(Miami-Dade County, 2014c). The 2014 update of thestrategy lists climate change as a hazard, and specifically calls out sea level rise, but the Office has not had
sufficient time to implement these new aspects of thestrategy (Miami-Dade County, 2014c). Cathie Perkins,
the county’s Emergency Management Planner, sharedthat “we needed to look to see what other things have
we had not incorporated or considered, and obviously
sea level rise and the impact of climate change needed
to be looked at.”Still, several ongoing actions decrease Miami-Dade
County’s vulnerability to climate change. For example,
the county has a robust program to mitigate wind andflood damage. The wind mitigation program not only targets critical facilities like hospitals, schools, and homeless

159

160

CASE STUDY: MIAMI-DADE, FLORIDA

shelters, but also works with low-income or elderly residents to install shutters, hurricane glass, or reinforce
roofs. County staff feel that Miami-Dade is well-preparedfor hurricane force winds. Funding from the Federal
Emergency Management Agency has supported mostof these efforts (Miami-Dade County, 2014d).

Acknowledgments

The county has also taken several steps to reduce its
vulnerability to floods. For example, the county participates in the National Flood Insurance Program’sCommunity Rating System. It conducts numerous
activities to prevent flooding and has one of the best
ratings in the country, resulting in significant reductionsin flood insurance premiums for residents. Roughly halfof Miami-Dade’s municipalities also participate in the
program. The county helps municipalities qualify forlower flood insurance premiums by providing multiple
types of support. Support activities include educationand outreach to help residents prepare for and prevent
flooding; environmental programs and regulation to
reduce flooding; flood mapping to identify at-risk areas
for future flood mitigation; installing, inspecting, andmaintaining flood level benchmarks which validate flood
maps; and developing topographical, boundary, andother survey information to better understand flood risk.
The county is also a Federal Emergency Management
Agency Cooperative Technical Partner, both providing
the agency with the county’s mapping needs, and sharing topographical survey and modeling information forflood zone map updates with the agency.

• Mark Woerner, Miami-Dade County, assistantdirector of the Planning Division

Other flood mitigation actions include an emergency
detention basin to divert water during storms, dredging
and shaping a canal to improve overall flow and pumping
efficacy, widening and restructuring canal banks, and theinstallation of large pumps in a couple of areas along thecounty’s canal system to move water over gates whenhigh tides preclude the gravity-designed system’s gatesfrom opening (Miami-Dade County, 2014d).

We would like to thank the following people for participating in interviews as part of this case study:• Nichole Hefty, Miami-Dade County, chief of the
Office of Sustainability• Cathie Perkins, Miami-Dade County, emergency
management planner of fire and rescue• Doug Yoder, Miami-Dade County, deputy director of
the Water and Sewer Department• Virginia Walsh, Miami-Dade County, chief of theHydrogeology Section in the Water and Sewer
Department.
We would like to thank the following people for theirguidance in developing and reviewing this case study:• Steve Adams, Institute for Sustainable Communities,
Director of Strategic Initiatives• Jim Murley, South Florida Regional Planning Council,
Executive Director.

Bibliography
Compact. 2012. A Region Responds to a Changing
Climate: Southeast Florida Regional Climate Change
Compact Counties. Regional Climate Action Plan.
October. Available: http://isc.ksepartners.info/
wp-content/uploads/2014/09/regional-climate-action-plan-final-ada-compliant.pdf. Accessed
March 30, 2015.
Miami-Dade County. 2008. Second Report and Initial
Recommendations. Miami-Dade County Climate
Change Advisory Task Force. April. Available:
http://www.miamidade.gov/environment/library/brochures/08-10-04-ccatf-recommendations.pdf.
Accessed March 30, 2015.

CASE STUDY: MIAMI-DADE, FLORIDA

Miami-Dade County. 2010a. Climate Change Advisory
Task Force Status of Recommendations. August.
Available: http://www.miamidade.gov/environment/
library/reports/climate-change-recommendations-october-10.pdf. Accessed March 30, 2015.
Miami-Dade County. 2010b. GreenPrint: Our Design
for a Sustainable Future. December. Available:
http://www.miamidade.gov/GreenPrint/pdf/plan.pdf.
Accessed April 2, 2015.
Miami-Dade County. 2011. CDMP major issues: UDB
capacity and expansion. Chapter 1 in Evaluation andAppraisal Report, 2010. Available: http://www.miamidade.gov/planning/ear2010/library/2010EARChapter1.
pdf. Accessed March 30, 2015.
Miami-Dade County. 2013a. Comprehensive
Development Master Plan (CDMP): Adopted
Components. Available: http://www.miamidade.gov/
planning/cdmp-adopted.asp. Accessed March 30, 2015.
Miami-Dade County. 2013b. Ocean Outfall Legislation.
Compliance Plan. Miami-Date Water and Sewer
Department. June 28. Available: http://www.
miamidade.gov/water/library/reports/ocean-outfall-legislation.pdf. Accessed April 3, 2015.
Miami-Dade County. 2013c. Urban CO2 Reduction Plan.
Available: http://www.miamidade.gov/environment/
co2-reduction.asp. Accessed March 30, 2015.
Miami-Dade County. 2014a. Climate Change Advisory
Task Force. Available: http://www.miamidade.gov/
environment/boards/climate-change-task-force.asp.
Accessed March 30, 2015.
Miami-Dade County. 2014b. Evaluation and Appraisal
Report (EAR) 2010. Available: http://www.miamidade.
gov/planning/cdmp-ear.asp. Accessed March 31, 2015.
Miami-Dade County. 2014c. Local Mitigation Strategy.
Whole Community Hazard Mitigation Part 1: The
Strategy. November. Available: http://www.miamidade.
gov/fire/library/OEM/part-1.pdf. Accessed April 1, 2015.
Miami-Dade County. 2014d. Local Mitigation Strategy.
Whole Community Hazard Mitigation Part 6: Completed
Projects. Available: http://www.miamidade.gov/fire/
library/OEM/part-6.pdf. Accessed April 1, 2015.

Miami-Dade County. 2014e. Miami-Dade Legislative
Item File Number: 061152. 06-113. Ordinance Creating
the Miami-Dade County Climate Change Advisory
Task Force; Providing for Membership, Organization
and Procedure, Appointment and Tenure, Function
And Responsibility; Providing Severability, Inclusionin the Code, and an Effective Date [see Agenda Item
No. 12B2]. Available: http://www.miamidade.gov/
govaction/matter.asp?matter=061152&file=true&yearFolder=Y2006. Accessed March 30, 2015.
Miami-Dade County. 2014f. Miami-Dade Legislative
Item File Number: 142497. R-1024-14. Resolution
Pertaining to May 2014 Cycle Applications Requesting
Amendments to the Comprehensive Development
Master Plan; Directing the Mayor or Designee to
Act in Accordance with the Transmittal Instructions
included in This Resolution Related to Application
No. 7, Amending the Text of the Water, Sewer andSolid Waste Element of the CDMP; Requesting
State Land Planning Agency to Review Application
No. 7; Reserving the Right to Take Final Action at a
Later Date; and Declaring Intent to Conduct One orMore Subsequent Public Hearings. Available: http://
www.miamidade.gov/govaction/matter.asp?matter=142497&file=true&yearFolder=Y2014. Accessed
July 14, 2015.
Miami-Dade County. 2014g. Miami-Dade Sea Level
Rise Task Force Report and Recommendations.
July 1. Available: http://www.miamidade.gov/planning/library/reports/sea-level-rise-final-report.pdf.
Accessed April 3, 2015.
Miami-Dade County. 2014h. Preserving our Natural
Resource Resilience. Sea Level Rise Task Force Meeting.
March 7. Available: http://www.miamidade.gov/
planning/library/presentations/2014-03-07-preserving-our-natural-resilience.pdf. Accessed April 2, 2015.
Miami-Dade County. 2014i. Sea Level Rise Task Force.
Available: http://www.miamidade.gov/planning/boards-sea-level-rise.asp. Accessed April 2, 2015.
Miami-Dade County. 2015a. About Commissioner
Rebeca Sosa. Available: http://www.miamidade.gov/
district06/about-commissioner-sosa.asp. Accessed
July 14, 2015.

161

162

CASE STUDY: MIAMI-DADE, FLORIDA

Miami-Dade County. 2015b. Miami-Dade Legislative
Item File Number: 150048. R-44-15. Resolution
Directing the Mayor or Designee to Study the
Feasibility of Designating Climate Change Adaptation
Action Areas as Recommended in the Comprehensive
Development Master Plan [See Original Item under FileNo. 142560] Available: http://www.miamidade.gov/
govaction/matter.asp?matter=150048&file=true&yearFolder=Y2015. Accessed July 14, 2015.
Miami-Dade County. 2015c. Miami-Dade Legislative Item
File Number: 150049. R-45-15. Resolution Directing
the Mayor or Mayor’s Designee to Prepare an Action
Plan and Report to Implement the Miami-Dade County
Climate Change Advisory Task Force Recommendationsof (i) Establishing Departmental Oversight for the
Implementation of the Task Force Recommendationsand (ii) Dedicating Sufficient Resources and Staffing to
Review, Update, and Implement the Miami-Dade County
Climate Change Advisory Task Force Recommendations[See Original under File No. 142561]. Available:
http://www.miamidade.gov/govaction/matter.asp?matter=150049&file=true&yearFolder=Y2015. Accessed
July 14, 2015.
Miami-Dade County. 2015d. Miami-Dade Legislative
Item File Number: 150051. R-46-15. Resolution
Directing the Mayor or Mayor’s Designee to Preparean Action Plan and Report to Accelerate the Climate
Change Adaptation Planning Process by Evaluating theEngineering and Other Relevant Expertise Needed to
Develop an Enhanced Capital Plan that Includes But
Is Not Limited to Flood Protection, Salinity Structures,
Pump Stations, and Road and Bridge Designs, and to
Determine the Costs of Retaining the Experts Needed[see Original Item under File No. 142562]. Available:
http://www.miamidade.gov/govaction/matter.asp?matter=150051&file=true&yearFolder=Y2015. Accessed
July 14, 2015.
Miami-Dade County. 2015e. Miami-Dade Legislative
Item File Number: 150052. R-47-15. Resolution
Directing the Mayor or Mayor’s Designee to Continue
Strategic Implementation of Miami-Dade County’s
Environmentally Endangered Lands (EEL) Program,
Consistent with Program Objectives as Approvedby the Voters, and to Identify Potential Additional
Long-Term Funding Sources for the Continued
Acquisition and Management of EEL Lands [SeeOriginal Item under File No. 142564]. Available: http://

www.miamidade.gov/govaction/matter.asp?matter=150052&file=true&yearFolder=Y2015. Accessed
July 14, 2015.
Miami-Dade County. 2015f. Miami-Dade Legislative
Item File Number: 150053. R-48-15. Resolution
Requesting that the South Florida Water Management
District, the United States Geological Survey, and theSoutheast Florida Regional Climate Change Compact
Partners Work with Miami-Dade County on Issues of
Climate Change and Sea Level Rise, and Directing theMayor or Mayor’s Designee in Conjunction with the
Office of Intergovernmental Affairs to Work Jointlywith these Entities to Conduct a Comprehensive
Study and Develop Adaptation Strategies to Address
Potential Flood Damage Reduction and Saltwater
Intrusion Associated with Sea Level Rise and Put
Forth a Time Frame for Implementation and Potential
Funding Mechanisms. January 21. Available: http://
www.miamidade.gov/govaction/matter.asp?matter=150053&file=true&yearFolder=Y2015. Accessed
April 3, 2015.
Miami-Dade County. 2015g. Miami-Dade Legislative
Item File Number: 150054. R-49-15. Resolution
Directing the Mayor or Designee in Conjunction
with the Office of Intergovernmental Affairs to
Initiate Discussions Related to Climate Change with
Private Insurance and Reinsurance Professional
Organizations, Member Local Governments in theSoutheast Florida Climate Change Compact, The
Florida Office of Insurance Regulation’s Departmentof Financial Services, and Other Key Stakeholders to
Develop Long-Term Risk Management Solutions [SeeOriginal Item under File No. 142567]. Available: http://
www.miamidade.gov/govaction/matter.asp?matter=150054&file=true&yearFolder=Y2015. Accessed
July 14, 2015.
U.S. EPA. 2013. Miami-Dade County Clean Water Act
Settlement. June 6. Available: http://www2.epa.gov/
enforcement/miami-dade-county-clean-water-act-settlement. Accessed April 3, 2015.
U.S. Geological Survey. 2014. Origins and Delineationof Saltwater Intrusion in the Biscayne Aquifer andChanges in the Distribution of Saltwater in Miami-Dade
County, Florida. Scientific Investigations Report 2014–
5025. Available: http://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2014/5025/
pdf/sir2014-5025.pdf. Accessed April 2, 2015.

CASE STUDY: COASTAL MOBILE COUNTY, ALABAMA

Coastal Mobile County, Alabama

Oyster Reef Restoration
COASTAL MOBILE COUNTY, ALABAMAAUTHORS: Lorine Giangola and Jason VogelIn this case study, you will learn about:• Restoring coastal ecosystems and reducing storm and human impacts throughoyster reef restoration• Cultural and economic motivations to preserve coastal ways of life
• Taking advantage of timely funding opportunities• Leveraging community support for restoration projects after an environmental disaster

CLIMATE ADAPTATION: THE STATE OF PRACTICE IN U.S. COMMUNITIES

163

164

CASE STUDY: COASTAL MOBILE COUNTY, ALABAMA

Case Study Summary

along two sections of degraded coastline in the bay (seeExhibit 2). Since then, multiple groups have partneredwith Alabama’s coastal communities to implement additional oyster reef restoration projects. Project managers
have observed wave energy attenuation at the reef sites,
and the restoration efforts have received national recognition for decreasing coastal communities’ vulnerability
to storms and human impacts.

Mobile County lies in the southwestern corner of
Alabama, between the Mississippi border and MobileBay. It is the second most populous county in the state,
and a quarter of its total area is water. Because of its
coastal location, Mobile County experiences damages
from tropical storms and hurricanes such as Katrina, andfrom coastal development. Human activities, especiallythe channelization of river systems and shipping activity,
have degraded the wetland and estuarine ecosystems
that can help protect coastal communities from storm
impacts. The decline in coastal ecosystem integrity
threatens fisheries and the livelihoods that depend onthese natural resources. Exhibit 1 provides a timeline ofactions in Mobile County.

The Broader Context of Coastal
Restoration in Coastal Alabama
Human activities have altered Gulf Coast ecosystems
dramatically over the last several decades. Althoughchanneling river systems and building flood protection infrastructure has reduced flood risks for many
inland communities, these projects have fundamentally altered hydrology, water quality, and the natural
sediment-delivery processes that build and replenish
coastal marshes and wetlands. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service estimates that over half of the Gulf’s wetlands
were lost between 1790 and 1980. From 1998–2004,
nearly 400,000 acres of the Gulf’s freshwater wetlands

The cultural and economic impacts of coastal ecosystem degradation have generated support for
restoration actions in Alabama’s Mobile Bay. In 2009,
The Nature Conservancy (TNC) in Alabama received
a grant from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA), through the American Recovery
and Reinvestment Act (ARRA), to rebuild oyster reefs

1950s–present
Since the 1950s, Alabama has lost over 50% of its wetlands

1998–2004

Human activity
and coastal
development
eliminate overhalf of Gulf of
Mexicowetlands
1790–
1980

Nearly 400,000
acres of Gulf
wetlands disappear
at a rate four times
the national average
2004
Hurricane Ivancauses severe
damage along the
Alabama coast
1998–
2004

Hurricane Dennis
causes moderate
damage in
AlabamaHurricane Katrina
causes severe
damage along the
Alabama coast andcuts a path through
Dauphin Island,
accelerating oyster
reef decline due tosaltwater intrusion
2005

Exhibit 1. Timeline of actions in Mobile County.

Hurricane
Gustav causes
moderate tosevere damage
along theAlabama coast

2008

Restore Act
allocates restoration
funding to NOAA.
The Nature
Conservancy in
Alabama receives a
two-year NOAA
grant to restore
oyster reefs along
two sections ofdegraded coastline.

2009

2010
Deepwater Horizon oil spillin the Gulf of Mexicocauses severe degradationof coastal ecosystems anddrives a new wave of
restoration projects along
Alabama’s coast
2010–present
Multiple groups are
funding and implementing
oyster reef restoration
projects in coastal Alabama.
Community participation
remains strong.

2010–
present

CASE STUDY: COASTAL MOBILE COUNTY, ALABAMA

disappeared at a rate four times the national average(MBNEP, 2015). Since the 1950s, Alabama has lost 36,468
acres (54.4 percent) of its coastal wetlands (Handley etal., 2007), and the decline of these coastal ecosystems
threatens fisheries and leaves coastal communities more
vulnerable to storm impacts.
The health of the Gulf’s oyster reefs, and the benefits
they provide for estuarine ecosystems, are also at risk.
After Hurricane Katrina cut a path through Dauphin
Island, a barrier island off the coast of Mobile County,
oyster reef decline accelerated due to saltwater intrusion. Higher salinity levels in coastal estuaries provided
favorable conditions for oyster drills, snails that prey on
and decimate oyster reefs. Reefs play an important role
in reducing wave energy and protecting estuaries andshorelines, and losses of oyster reefs lead to increased
erosion, decreased water quality, and a decline in habitat

availability for the estuarine plants and animals thatlive on reefs (NOAA, 2015b). This case study focuses
on restoring oyster reefs in Alabama’s Mobile Bay to
reduce vulnerability to storm and human impacts andto improve coastal ecosystem health.
The value of natural barriers, like wetlands and oyster
reefs, in reducing storm impacts is well understood, butdifficult to quantify. A classic study by the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers estimates that every 2.7 miles of wetland between the sea and the land reduces storm surge
by one foot (USACE, 1963). However, the protective
effects of coastal ecosystems vary considerably based onsite characteristics and the nature of the storm (Wamsley
et al., 2010). For example, Sheng et al. (2012) estimatethat coastal vegetation can reduce inland flooding by 5
to 40 percent, depending on storm and wetland characteristics. Similarly, oyster reefs attenuate wave energy
and reduce shoreline erosion, although their effectiveness also varies by site (Dame and Patten, 1981; Meyer
et al., 1997; Piazza et al., 2005; Scyphers et al., 2011).
Coastal communities experience the effects of coastal
degradation firsthand, and community investment in restoration in Alabama has been strong, especially since the
Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico in 2010.
Citizen volunteers have come out in huge numbers toparticipate in the restoration work; over 600 volunteers
joined a single restoration event in April 2013 (Lankford,2013). Some waterfront residents volunteer for the
Mobile Bay Oyster Gardening Program by growing oysters on their piers, and program organizers collect theoysters each fall and plant them on restored oyster reefs
in Mobile Bay. The volunteer oyster gardeners have produced almost 700,000 oysters since the program began
in 2001 (Mobile Bay Oyster Gardening Program, 2015).
Volunteer workers and oyster gardeners provide hugecost savings to restoration groups; without this community participation, the costs and scales of these projects
would become prohibitive for many groups.

Exhibit 2. TNC’s NOAA-funded oyster reef
restoration projects.
Source: TNC, 2015.

Climate change has not been an explicit motivation
for the surge in restoration projects on Mobile Bay; thecommunities are focused on protecting the coastline
from boat wakes, making it more resilient to storms, andhelping coastal ecosystems and wildlife recover from

165

166

CASE STUDY: COASTAL MOBILE COUNTY, ALABAMA

the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. “A discussion aroundclimate resilience or climate vulnerability is, among mostof the public, a non-starter. We focus much more on
specific hazards that we then can link to the science on
those hazards. We know that people are very aware ofstorms. A lot of the decisions they make link to their personal experiences with storms, related to the shoreline
or related to their house itself,” says Steven Scyphers,
a postdoctoral researcher at Northeastern University
who did his doctoral research on ecological and socioeconomic dynamics and community perceptions ofrestoration in Mobile Bay.

quality problems that reduce ecosystem productivity,
like water contamination from runoff, erosion, or spills.
After Hurricane Katrina alone, initial seafood production
losses in Alabama (not including infrastructure damages) were estimated around $200 million (CRS, 2005).
Residents and seafood industry workers have begun to
discuss these vulnerabilities in public meetings, and theychallenge elected officials with questions about longterm sustainability of fisheries and seafood processors,
and about the likelihood that their children will be able
to find viable jobs in the seafood industry (Haner, 2015).
These residents want greater protection for the coastal
resources that sustain their livelihoods.

Why and How Mobile County
Restored Oyster Reefs

Hurricane damages over the last decade have renewedinterest in restoring natural storm buffers like wetlands
and oyster reefs. Mobile County has experienced repeatedstorm impacts, including storm surges, flooding, andextensive infrastructure damage; the most recent severe
impacts resulted from Hurricanes Ivan (2004), Dennis(2005), Katrina (2005), and Gustav (2008).

Coastal Community Motivated to Preserve
Culture and Economy
The communities of coastal Alabama consider the degradation of coastal ecosystems, and the associatedimpacts on coastal livelihoods, to be threats to theircultural identity and economic security. Long-time residents have witnessed the decline of coastal ecosystem
health and rising sea level—about 13.5 inches in the last
150 years (Haner, 2015)—and many residents want torestore the coast to its more natural condition. “They’retalking about this change that they’ve seen. …They have
pictures literally from when cameras were invented….so
they can see the change through the generations,” says
Judy Haner, director of Marine and Freshwater Programs
at TNC’s Alabama Coastal Program. “They know what
it was like when they grew up. Their father and theirfather’s father told them about what it was like, andthey want that back. They want to catch fish off theirdocks and swim in the water….They have a picture in theirhead.” “These older residents…know they want it betterfor their grandkids,” adds Steven Scyphers.
Coastal residents and industries have experienced economic hardships from storm impacts and declining
ecosystem health. The seafood industry provides over
8,000 jobs in Alabama (Gulf Coast Seafood, 2015) andgenerates $499 million in economic activity for the stateeach year (Alabama Gulf Seafood, 2015). But the industry is vulnerable to storm damages and to environmental

Collaboration Supports Restoration
Projects
An extensive network of partnerships among nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), academic researchers,
citizens, and state and federal governments helped tosupport the TNC oyster reef project and facilitate communication among restoration practitioners in coastal
Alabama. Collaboration among these groups was crucial to the design and implementation of the TNC oyster
reef project (Haner, 2015). Before this NOAA-funded
reef restoration project began, the Dauphin Island Sea
Lab had built several reefs along the coast, and TNC
worked with the Sea Lab team on those projects. The
groups worked to identify best practices for reef restoration, and TNC built one oyster reef before winning the
NOAA grant in 2009. The Mobile Bay National Estuary
Program (MBNEP), established in 1995 under the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)-funded National
Estuary Program, serves as an umbrella group for coordinating much of the conservation work in the Mobile
Bay estuary, and MBNEP’s Comprehensive Conservation
Management Plan guides conservation work in MobileBay. While TNC did not work with local governmentson the NOAA-funded reefs, networking and information

CASE STUDY: COASTAL MOBILE COUNTY, ALABAMA

sharing among restoration practitioners and the participation of citizen volunteers were essential to the successof the project.

Recovery Act Provides New Source ofFunding for Restoration Projects
Funding is often a limitation for restoration projects,
especially for non-profit organizations and for local
governments that want to implement relatively largescale projects. TNC and other NGOs in the Gulf often
piece together funding through a combination of private donations, state and federal government grants,
and partnerships with other NGOs. Local governments
in coastal Alabama generally do not have the fundingor technical resources necessary to implement large ortechnically complex restoration projects (Haner, 2015).
ARRA presented an opportunity for TNC to secure funding for oyster reef restoration from a single source. ARRA
was a federal economic stimulus package intended tosave and create jobs and drive economic activity during
the Great Recession. The ARRA allocated $830 million
to NOAA to support projects related to the agency’s
mission; $167 million was set aside to fund coastal habitat restoration (NOAA, 2015a). NOAA issued a call for
project proposals and selected fifty high-priority projects that would create jobs in coastal communities andrestore fisheries and coastal ecosystem resilience. Eight
TNC projects were funded through NOAA’s ARRA grants,
including the coastal Alabama oyster reef project. TNC
and NOAA have partnered on coastal restoration projects since 2001 (TNC, 2015), so the ARRA-funded reef
project added to a list of nearly 100 TNC-NOAA restoration projects in coastal states.

Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill Adds
Urgency to Restoration and Motivates
Community Engagement
The Deepwater Horizon oil spill occurred in April 2010,
in the middle of the TNC oyster reef restoration project.
Although the spill was not an initial motivating factor
for the project, the severity of the ecological impacts
motivated the community to join the clean-up response
and the subsequent restoration projects in huge numbers. The visible and dramatic impacts of the spill, andthe intensity of the response, provided an opportunity
for public outreach and education about the impacts ofcoastal ecosystem degradation, and restoration groups
have leveraged community support for spill recovery
actions and have developed a new wave of restoration
initiatives that rely on citizen volunteers (Lankford, 2013;
Haner, 2015; Restore Coastal Alabama, 2015; Scyphers,
2015; TNC, 2015).

Accomplishments of Mobile County’s
Oyster Reef Restoration Projects
Restoration project leaders from TNC’s Coastal Programs
Office consider the reef restoration projects to be a success so far (see Exhibit 3 for a map of the restoration sites).
“We’re providing habitat and oysters, fish love it, there
is wave energy breaking,” says Judy Haner. But practitioners acknowledge that the effectiveness of oyster reefs
as barriers can be reduced over time as reefs settle andsink below the surface, and as sea level continues to rise
above the height of the reefs. The TNC oyster reefs havenot been in place long enough to evaluate their ability
to protect the shoreline over the long term, but observing even short-term changes in reef function has helped
practitioners learn more about effective reef design. “I
think that we, as a society and as a scientific practitioner
community, need to be very realistic in how we portraythat and not be embarrassed that we’re learning along theway. Because that’s what we do, and that’s what science isabout. We’re not going to get nature right the first time,”says Judy Haner. “That’s what I think is exciting—we’relearning this and it’s not taking us twenty years to learn
this. In the course of just a handful of years, we’ve seensome changes that we now know we can improve upon
without huge secondary investments.”
In addition to the NOAA-funded TNC reefs, other groups
have partnered to build reefs on multiple sites along
the Mobile County coast and Mobile Bay (see site map
below). About 2.2 miles of oyster reef have been constructed since 2005, with about $9.37 million frommultiple groups in the region, including TNC, MississippiAlabama SeaGrant, Dauphin Island Sea Lab, Alabama
Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, andthe MBNEP (Haner, 2015).

167

168

CASE STUDY: COASTAL MOBILE COUNTY, ALABAMA

Exhibit 3. Coastal Alabama oyster reef restoration sites.

Project managers stress the need for continuous monitoring of the sites and ongoing data analysis; the current
lack of monitoring will create a major gap in our understanding of the effectiveness of oyster reef restoration
as a long-term approach to coastal protection (Haner,2015) and will prevent a comprehensive assessment of
restoration accomplishments. TNC is currently seeking funding to support the synthesis of existing datafrom the Alabama reef sites. “If we had information thatshowed a range of times that these reefs had been in,and the range of technologies and structures that wereused, and what was monitored, and if we were able tolook at this reef at ten years [after construction] and thisreef at one month, and look at salinity regimes and differences, I think we could learn a lot about how to place[them]…By analyzing these things and synthesizing theinformation, that’s the only way to figure this out,” says
Judy Haner.

CASE STUDY: COASTAL MOBILE COUNTY, ALABAMA

TNC in Alabama has worked closely with Mobile County
coastal communities in its oyster reef restoration projects. The NOAA-funded TNC project provided 35-40
permanent jobs over the course of the two-year project,most of which were filled by Mobile County residents(Haner, 2015), and TNC has hired additional residents
for other reef-building projects since then. TNC also supports local seafood processing houses by purchasingoyster shells to build the reefs.
The Alabama oyster reefs have received national recognition for their effectiveness in addressing coastal
vulnerability. In March 2015, the American Societyof Adaptation Professionals (ASAP) announced that
TNC’s oyster reef restoration projects, under the
100-1000:Restore Coastal Alabama program, were oneof four finalists for the 2015 ASAP Prize for Progress.
The coastal Alabama oyster reef restoration projects arewidely considered to be a success story, but building
oyster reefs cannot compensate for the loss of so muchwetland and marsh area in the Gulf and the natural protection they provide. Natural, healthy coastal ecosystems
are replenished with sediment from creeks and rivers,
but most of the river systems in the Gulf have been
dredged and channelized, so sediment no longer flows
into the marshes. While living shorelines can serve an
important function in protecting coastal environments,
in addition to providing many other ecosystem services,
reducing vulnerability to climate and human impacts on
the Alabama coast will require an even more extensive
and complex approach to ecosystem restoration.

Moving Forward
TNC and other groups and agencies are currently building more reefs and working to identify new project sites.
The Deepwater Horizon oil spill brought a new sense ofurgency to protecting coastal and estuary ecosystems,
and the spill has driven a wave of major restoration initiatives. Since the spill, TNC, along with the Alabama
Coastal Foundation, Mobile Baykeeper, and The Ocean
Foundation, with support from other governmental,
NGO, and private research partners, has set a new goalof restoring 100 miles of oyster reef and protecting

1,000 acres of seagrass and marsh through the 1001000: Restore Coastal Alabama project. The success ofthese new projects will depend on continuous community participation in order to maintain the momentum of
restoration actions in coastal Alabama.
In addition to relying on volunteers, Gulf restorationgroups are currently working together to train a newgeneration of workers to sustain conservation efforts in
Gulf communities. The Corps Network (TCN), a national
youth development organization that provides job training and leadership training through community andenvironmental service projects, launched its Gulf Coast
Restoration Initiative (GCRI) and Climb Conservation
Corps programs in the fall of 2014, in partnership with
TNC and with other youth development programs. In thispilot project, TNC scientists trained young adults fromlocal communities to collect water quality and ecological
data in restoration sites in Mississippi, helping to build
local capacity to manage environmental quality and supporting community resiliency by training local workers
instead of outsourcing restoration work.
Many of TCN’s youth participants come from underserved
areas, and TCN provides on-the-job training, education
training, job placement assistance, life skills training, andaccess to post-secondary education. These experiences“empower individuals to earn a livable wage and begin acareer path that leads to economic and personal self-sufficiency” (Hosey, 2015), in addition to providing valuable
service to their communities. Post-project surveys ofparticipants reveal improved technical understanding ofenvironmental monitoring, and an understanding of how
stream health affects communities. The surveys foundthat 100 percent of participants now have an interest in “acareer, training program, or degree” in an area related totheir environmental and conservation work (Hosey, 2015).
Traditionally, conservation and environmental movements have not effectively engaged disadvantaged
populations, even though they often suffer the greatest impacts of environmental degradation and natural
disasters. TCN is working to increase engagement of
disadvantaged populations in the national environmental movement, by engaging young adults in restoration
work and providing the knowledge and training to be

169

170

CASE STUDY: COASTAL MOBILE COUNTY, ALABAMA

their own environmental stewards (Hosey, 2015). Strong
engagement and successful outcomes have encouraged
TCN to begin to expand its conservation programs forunderserved youth across all Gulf states and across additional conservation skill areas, including invasive species
management, marsh restoration, oyster reef restoration,
coastal stream monitoring, and community outreach(Hosey, 2015). This new generation of local conservation
workers can help sustain long-term restoration efforts
and can help reduce reliance on outsourced workers.
Although TNC did not work closely with municipalities orother local governments in its NOAA-funded reef restoration project, engaging local governments is a current
goal, and partnerships are starting to develop (Haner,2015). Some local governments want to build reefs, but
do not have the funding or technical expertise; TNC
helps them identify sites and potential funding sources
through grants.
Large amounts of money and staff and volunteer time
have gone into building the existing oyster reef projects in coastal Alabama, and so far these projects haveconstructed about 2.2 miles of reef, a relatively small
portion of Alabama’s coast. If restoration groups want
to increase the total amount of protected shoreline, they
will need to work with private landowners on the coast.
“In Alabama about 80 percent of our shoreline is privately
owned, so if we want to do anything—enhance community and coastal resilience—we’ve got to work with these
individuals,” says Judy Haner. Steven Scyphers and hiscolleagues have studied these residents’ perceptions ofrestoration work and the incentives necessary for waterfront residents to install green infrastructure instead of aphysical shoreline protection structure. “From the survey
data we have, there’s definitely a range of willingness to
do different restoration techniques across residents—from extremely unwilling to change, to people that are
willing but may not be aware of different alternatives,”
says Scyphers. The community surveys have helped
guide TNC’s restoration projects on private land. The

survey results “made us think about how we approachprojects and [how we] approach doing a demonstration in an area where we can get the neighbors talking.
Because word of mouth is probably going to do as muchas anything,” says Judy Haner. Haner adds that simplifying the current regulatory process for permitting living
shorelines will help sustain restoration momentum andprevent waterfront residents from “defaulting” to building a bulkhead just because it’s easier. While physicalinfrastructure protects private shorelines, it does notprovide any of the ecological and environmental quality
benefits that living shorelines provide.
The Deepwater Horizon oil spill not only increased
the urgency of coastal ecosystem restoration actions
and motivated community involvement, but it is also
reshaping the funding environment and creating newopportunities and new challenges for restoration groups
in the Gulf. Gulf coast states are starting to receive large
sums of money from spill damages, and some coastal
communities are expecting a new wave of funding forcoastal recovery projects. However, the Alabama Gulf
Coast Recovery Council has directed the first round of
payments ($56 million) to economic and infrastructure
projects, in part because of the support already dedicated to ecological recovery projects (Finch, 2014).
Some groups argue that this use of oil spill penalties
does not comply with the RESTORE Act (Lankford,
2014; Haner, 2015), which Congress passed after the
Deepwater Horizon spill in order to direct money fromcivil penalties to Gulf coast states. But TNC Alabama
does not view the decision unfavorably. “We are behindstormwater [infrastructure improvements] 100 percent.
We want you to retrofit those leaky, failing utilities. We
want you to upgrade,” says Judy Haner. Still, the sudden
influx of oil spill money has the potential to create conflict among groups who have different goals for coastal
communities. While relationships among local governments, NGOs, and Gulf coast residents have generally
been congenial, “A big pulse of the restoration money
might change that,” says Steven Scyphers.

CASE STUDY: COASTAL MOBILE COUNTY, ALABAMA

Acknowledgments
We would like to thank the following coastal restoration
experts for participating in interviews, providing additional information and materials, and for reviewing thiscase study:• Judy Haner, director of Marine and Freshwater
Programs at TNC’s Alabama Coastal Program• Steven Scyphers, postdoctoral researcher and NSF
SEES fellow at Northeastern University’s Marine
Science Center.

Handley, L., K. Spear, S. Jones, and C. Thatcher. 2007.
Statewide summary for Alabama. In Seagrass Status
and Trends in the Northern Gulf of Mexico: 1940–2002.
U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report
2006-5287 and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
855-R-04-003. Available: http://gom.usgs.gov/documents/Chapter_J_StateSummForAL.pdf. Accessed
April 16, 2015.
Haner, J. 2015. Interview with Judy Haner, Directorof Marine and Freshwater Programs at The Nature
Conservancy’s Alabama Coastal Program. March 17.

• John Hosey, Gulf Coast Restoration Corps director
of development, TCN

Hosey, J. 2015. Interview with John Hosey, Gulf Coast
Restoration Corps Director of Development. August 17.

• Mary Kate Brown, coastal conservation specialist at
TNC’s Alabama Coastal Program.

Lankford, K. 2013. Restoring Mobile Bay with
600 of our closest friends. Ocean Conservancy.
April 11. Available: http://blog.oceanconservancy.
org/2013/04/11/restoring-mobile-bay-with-600-ofour-closest-friends/. Accessed April 1, 2015.

Bibliography
Alabama Gulf Seafood. 2015. Always Ask, Never Settle:
How to Avoid Mislabeled Gulf Seafood. March 26.
Available: http://eatalabamaseafood.com/articles/
always-ask-never-settle-how-to-avoid-mislabeled-gulfseafood/. Accessed April 1, 2015.
CRS. 2015. Hurricanes Katrina and Rita: Fishing and
Aquaculture Industries—Damage and Recovery.
Congressional Research Service. October 13. Available:
http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/57873.
pdf. Accessed March 30, 2015.
Dame, R.F. and B.C. Patten. 1981. Analysis of energy
flows in an intertidal oyster reef. Marine Ecology
Progress Series 5:115–124.
Finch, M. 2014. Alabama Recovery Council Directs First$56 Million to Economic and Infrastructure Projects.
Alabama Media Group. December 17. Updated January
7, 2015. Available: http://www.al.com/business/index.
ssf/2014/12/alabama_recovery_council_direc.html.
Accessed April 8, 2015.
Gulf Coast Seafood. 2015. Member States. Available:
http://eatgulfseafood.com/about/member-states/.
Accessed April 1, 2015.

Lankford, K. 2014. Fund Projects Focusing on
Economic and Environmental Health as a Whole.
Letters to the editor. Lagniappe Weekly. December
23. Available: http://lagniappemobile.com/fund-projects-focusing-economic-environmental-health-whole/.
Accessed April 8, 2015.
MBNEP. 2015. The Coast: Wetlands. Mobile Bay
National Estuary Program. Available: http://www.
mobilebaynep.com/mobile_bay_watershed/the_alabama_coast/. Accessed April 1, 2015.
Meyer, D.L., E.C. Townsend, and G.W. Thayer. 1997.
Stabilization and erosion control value of oyster cultch
for intertidal marsh. Restoration Ecology 5:93–99.
Mobile Bay Oyster Gardening Program. 2015. Oyster
Gardening on Mobile Bay. Available: http://oystergardening.org/. Accessed April 8, 2015.
NOAA. 2015a. NOAA Information Related to theAmerican Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
Available: http://www.noaa.gov/recovery/. Accessed
April 16, 2015.

171

172

CASE STUDY: COASTAL MOBILE COUNTY, ALABAMANOAA. 2015b. Oyster Reefs. National Oceanic andAtmospheric Administration. Available: http://chesapeakebay.noaa.gov/oysters/oyster-reefs. Accessed
April 16, 2015.
Piazza, B.P., P.D. Banks, and M.K. La Peyre. 2005. The
potential for created oyster shell reefs as a sustainable
shoreline protection strategy in Louisiana. Restoration
Ecology 13:499–506.
Restore Coastal Alabama, 2015. Restoring Coastal
Alabama One Mile at a Time. Available: http://1001000.org/. Accessed April 8, 2015.
Scyphers, S. 2015. Interview with Steven Scyphers,
Postdoctoral Researcher at Northeastern University’s
Marine Science Center. April 6.
Scyphers, S., S.P. Powers, K.L. Heck, and D. Byron. 2011.
Oyster reefs as natural breakwaters mitigate shoreline
loss and facilitate fisheries. PLoS One 6(8):e22396.
Sheng, Y.P., A. Lapetina, and G. Ma. 2012. The reductionof storm surge by vegetation canopies: Threedimensional simulations. Geophysical Research Letters
39(20):L20601.
TNC. 2015. Oceans and Coasts. How We Work:
Partnering with NOAA. The Nature Conservancy.
Available: http://www.nature.org/ourinitiatives/habitats/oceanscoasts/howwework/noaa-partnership.xml.
Accessed April 16, 2015.
USACE. 1963. Interim Survey Report, Morgan City,
Louisiana and Vicinity, Serial No. 63. U.S. Army Corps ofEngineers, U.S. Army Engineer District, New Orleans, LA.
Wamsley, T.V., M.A. Cialone, J.M. Smith, J.H. Atkinson,
and J.D. Rosati. 2010. The potential of wetlands
in reducing storm surge. Ocean Engineering
37(2010):59–68.

CASE STUDY: NORFOLK, VIRGINIA

Norfolk, Virginia

Coastal Resilience Strategy
NORFOLK, VIRGINIAAUTHORS: Alexis St. Juliana and Jason VogelIn this case study, you will learn about:• Engaging in no-regrets/low risk actions• Using climate change projections to inform decision making• Sharing information and advice on activities with other communities

CLIMATE ADAPTATION: THE STATE OF PRACTICE IN U.S. COMMUNITIES

173

174

CASE STUDY: NORFOLK, VIRGINIA

Case Study Summary
The City of Norfolk is located on the coast of Virginia.
Norfolk experiences coastal flooding regularly, but
community members report that it has become more
frequent, more severe, and now occurs in areas where
flooding has not traditionally been a problem. Extreme
weather events such as nor’easters and hurricanes generate large storm surges and heavy precipitation thatexacerbate tidal flooding. As a result, the City of Norfolk
passed changes to its flood and coastal zone ordinanceto reduce the city’s vulnerability to coastal flooding.
Beginning in 2014, new structures in flood and coastal
zones must be built with their lowest level at least threefeet above the 100-year floodplain; existing structuresthat experience two floods that damage the equivalentof 25 percent or more of their value must also be elevated to meet this standard (City of Norfolk, 2013a). This
standard was selected based on examination of projections of sea level rise. Newly constructed properties arecomplying with the new standard; however, it will takemore time to know the full impact of Norfolk’s action.
City staff and appointees feel that the standards will
reduce the city’s vulnerability for several decades into
the future. However, the city is considering additional
actions to create a more robust response to projected
increases in coastal flooding.

The Broader Context of CommunityBased Adaptation in Norfolk

ADAPTATION ACTIVITIES IN NORFOLK• Brambleton Avenue, Colley Avenue, and Surrey
Crescent road elevation projects• Studies for an engineered shoreline at
Ocean View Beach• Living shoreline efforts along Haven Creek• Replacing and elevating a bulkhead• 1.5–2 feet above the existing bulkhead• Installing a mobile pump to deal with tidal
flooding at Lea View and 15th Street• Multiple localized neighborhood level drainage
improvements
Sources: Georgetown Climate Center, forthcoming;
Schechtman and Brady, 2013; Applegate, 2014;
City of Norfolk, 2014a, 2014c.

The City of Norfolk has been struggling with the impactsof both recurrent tidal flooding and inland flooding
for decades. In an effort to characterize the problem
and identify solutions to flooding, the city funded aseries of studies beginning in 2007. These included
the Preliminary City-Wide Coastal Flooding Mitigation
Concept Evaluation and Master Plan Development, aCity-Wide Drainage Master Plan, and long-term tidal andprecipitation flooding analyses (City of Norfolk, 2012;
Fugro, 2012; Timmons Group, 2012; City of Norfolk etal., 2013). These studies recommend close to $1 billion
in infrastructure improvements such as floodwalls, tide
gates, berm construction, and pump stations; drainage
improvements; and road elevation and structural elevation projects (City of Norfolk, 2014b).
The city is beginning to invest in flood mitigation efforts.
In its 2012–2016 Capital Improvement Plan, the city budgeted $4.5 million to address street flooding citywide,
and $6.5 million to fund beach stabilization and shoreline
erosion control (see the text box). In 2014, the city alsoestablished a $1 stormwater fee to fund flood mitigation
activities (Georgetown Climate Center, Forthcoming).
However, additional investment is needed for large
infrastructure projects. Potential sources of funding
for this work include the National Disaster Resilience
Competition through the U.S. Department of Housing
and Urban Development or the U.S. Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA; Morris, 2015).
The city is also addressing tidal and inland flooding
concerns through the Rockefeller Foundation’s 100
Resilient Cities and RE.invest initiatives. These efforts
aim to improve the city’s (1) strategy for managing

CASE STUDY: NORFOLK, VIRGINIA

Norfolk initiates
the first of three
engineeringstudies onflooding anddrainage

Increasing
numbers ofproperty owners
file repetitive
flood claims

2010–2011:
Department of City
Planning reviews
ordinances in
FEMA-defined floodand coastal zones
2011: Department ofCity Planning brings its
proposal to the
Planning Commission

2007

2009

2010–
2011

Congress passes
the Biggert-Waters
Flood Insurance
Reform Act, whichschedules flood
insurance rateincreases

2012

May–June: Department ofCity Planning arranges public
meetings on proposed
ordinance changes
June: Planning Commission
passes the proposed zoning
ordinance changes
November: The City Council
approves ordinance changes

2013

January: Ordinancechanges become
effective on January 1
October: In first
10 months, roughly
50 new structures
must comply withordinance changes

2014

Exhibit 1. Timeline of the development of Norfolk’s revised flood and coastal zone ordinance.

coastal resiliency issues, (2) diversity of economic development opportunities, and (3) poverty challenges. As
part of these efforts, Norfolk is reconsidering land-use
planning priorities. For instance, when Norfolk is readyto implement larger-scale flooding solutions personnel will also consider how to revitalize and re-connect
cut-off portions of the city (Morris, 2015). This strategy
also feeds into goals for neighborhood cohesion andpoverty reduction. City staff are sharing a strategy with
non-profits, churches, civic leagues, and neighborhood
associations to build connections with vulnerable community members such as the elderly, disabled, or those
without transportation. These organizations will serve as
initial points of contact during hazardous events or eventimes of personal difficulty (Morris, 2015).
Finally, flood mitigation is a component in two city
strategy documents. First, the city’s comprehensive
plan, plaNorfolk2030, encourages the integration ofsea level rise into development activities (Schechtman
and Brady, 2013). Second, this city’s Coastal Resilience
Strategy outlines a general approach for managing
coastal flooding: plan, prepare, mitigate, and communicate (City of Norfolk, 2014b). The strategy highlights
elevating new construction as one measure to prepare
for coastal flooding (City of Norfolk, 2014b). This measure and several related zoning ordinance changes are
the focus of this case study because they have advanced
past planning stages and become part of local standards.

Additionally, they apply to significant portions of the cityin flood and coastal zones. See Exhibit 1 for a timeline ofevents related to Norfolk’s work to revise its flood andcoastal zone ordinance.

Why and How Norfolk Implemented
its Flood and Coastal Zone Ordinance
Hours per year withstreets that flood in
the Hague neighborhood, Norfolk, VA

Exhibit 2. Street flooding in Norfolk causedby extreme high tides or storm surge.
Source: Atkinson et al., 2013.

175

176

CASE STUDY: NORFOLK, VIRGINIA

Increased Flooding Builds Motivation for
Action in Norfolk
Due to subsidence and sea level rise, episodes of tidal
flooding are becoming more frequent, more severe, andare occurring in areas where flooding has not traditionallybeen a problem in Norfolk. For example, certain streets
now flood regularly with high tides, including streets that
did not flood in the past (Exhibit 2). In 2014, there wereseveral heavy rain storms that shut down traffic across thecity for hours at a time due to roadway flooding. These
heavy rainfall events exacerbate flooding at high tide,
when many drainage or outflow pipes are submerged or
partially submerged and rainwater cannot properly drain.

City of Norfolk and the NFIP. The department manages
Norfolk’s overall flood mitigation strategy, floodplain, andcoastal zone mapping activities, as well as efforts to raiseawareness on Norfolk’s flooding issues, although several
other city departments and regional entities play a role.

1000
800
600
400
200

Increased Flood Insurance Claims Motivate
Norfolk’s Department of City Planning toTake Action
Beginning in 2009, Norfolk’s Department of City
Planning saw an increase in insurance claims to FEMA’s
National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP; Exhibit 3). The
Department of City Planning is the link between the

0
2005

2007

2009

2011

2012

Properties with multiple flood insurance claims

Exhibit 3. FEMA repetitive flood claim records.
Source: Adapted from City of Norfolk, 2013b

Exhibit 4. Example flood insurance premiums for a home below, at, and above base flood elevation.
Source: FEMA, 2013b.

CASE STUDY: NORFOLK, VIRGINIA

Staff in Norfolk’s Department of City Planning sharedthat the increase in flood insurance claims was a very
serious concern for several reasons. First, they wereconcerned about Norfolk’s citizens and the impact offlooding on their lives and properties. The department
wanted to find a way to minimize impacts to properties
so that owners would be protected from worsening
flooding. Second, they were concerned about Norfolk’s
rating within the NFIP Community Rating System (CRS)
and the insurance premiums available to Norfolk property owners under that program. The Department ofCity Planning wanted to ensure that flood insurance
for its residents was affordable for all residents so theywould be properly insured in the event of a serious
flood. Third, the city was aware of citizens’ concernsthat flooding was getting worse and that actionneeded to be taken. Finally, in 2012 Congress passed
the Biggert-Waters Flood Insurance Reform Act (theAct), which reformed the NFIP and included a schedule
to reduce flood insurance premium subsidies in 2014
(FEMA, 2013a). Norfolk was already exploring options
to improve its CRS rating and maintain or lower flood
insurance premiums when the Act was passed, but the
Act possibly sped up the city’s actions. Exhibit 4 shows
insurance premiums for a home below, at, and above
base flood elevation.

Norfolk’s Department of City Planning
Drafts Proposed Ordinance Changes
In 2010 and 2011, the Department of City Planning
reviewed options for changing the current ordinancesin FEMA-defined flood and coastal zones. As part ofthis review, the department also consulted sea level
rise projections from the Virginia Institute of Marine
Sciences. The department devised a series of proposed changes, which would protect citizens fromflooding and reduce flood insurance premiums byimproving Norfolk’s status on the CRS. Although there
were several proposed changes, the key changes are
outlined in Exhibit 5.

EXHIBIT 5. SELECTED PROPOSED CHANGESTO NORFOLK’S ZONING ORDINANCE BY THE
DEPARTMENT OF CITY PLANNING
Existing regulation• Require the first floor level be elevated one (1)foot above the anticipated flood level• Require existing buildings come into compliance with current regulations if damage or
improvements from a single event exceeds
50 percent of market value of the structure
Proposed regulation• Require the first floor level be elevated two (2)feet above the anticipated flood level• Require existing buildings come into compliance with current regulations once the sumof damage and/or improvements exceeds
50 percent of market value of structure over a
10-year period (Cumulative Loss/Improvement)Or• If flood damage from two events, on average,
each equals or exceeds 25 percent the market
value of the structure (Repetitive Loss)
Source: Adapted from City of Norfolk, 2013c.

To explain in further detail, increasing the city’s standard
from one foot above base flood elevation (the 100-year
floodplain) to two feet above base flood elevation meansthat the lowest level of new construction would need to
be built two feet above FEMA’s mapped base flood elevation; this structural elevation is also called “freeboard.” Thesecond provision would change regulations on existingbuildings in flood and coastal zones. Previously, a one-footfreeboard was required when a property incurred a single
damage event or implemented improvements worth
50 percent of the building’s insurance replacement value.
The new provision would look at cumulative damages
and improvements over a 10-year period to determine if

177

178

CASE STUDY: NORFOLK, VIRGINIA

a building should come into compliance with a two-footfreeboard. The Department of City Planning proposed
two catalysts: (1) damages and improvements totaling
50 percent of the building’s insurance replacement value,or (2) two flood damage events each totaling 25 percent
or more of the building’s insurance replacement value.

Planning Commission Considers Climate
Change and Revises Proposed Standards
In 2011, the Department of City Planning brought its
proposal to the appointed Planning Commission. The
department presented background information, including sea level rise projections (Exhibit 6). The Planning
Commission reviewed the department’s recommendations and recommended one change: that the two-footfreeboard standard be raised to three feet based onsea level rise projections for Virginia. In particular,Commissioner Martin Thomas, Jr. suggested that twofeet of freeboard was insufficient to protect structuresin flood and coastal zones based on the available sea
level rise projections (Thomas, 2014). He felt that raising
their current standard by just one foot would only benefit
the city for the next 15–20 years, and that by increasing the freeboard standard to three feet, there was agreater potential to protect properties for a longer time
period. The Planning Commission unanimously agreed toincrease the proposed standard to include three feet of
freeboard for structures in flood or coastal zones.

Norfolk Seeks Stakeholder Feedback andRevises the OrdinanceWith the Planning Commission’s recommendations, theDepartment of City Planning arranged a series of public
meetings in May and June 2013 to discuss the proposedchanges. Through this process, the city heard several concerns from a few attendees about the proposed changes.
For instance, the Tidewater Builders Association (TBA),
the Willoughby Civic League, the Hampton Roads Realtor
Association and others were concerned about the
10-year cumulative damage and improvement provision(City of Norfolk, 2013c; Willoughby Civic League, 2013).
There were several arguments against this. First, withan estimated average cost of $100,000 to raise a structure, most property owners could not afford to comply.

Exhibit 6. Southeast Virginia sea level rise scenarios.
Source: City of Norfolk, 2013b; Virginia Institute of Marine Sciences,
Undated.

Second, property owners making improvements unrelated to flood damage (including damage from othernatural events like high winds) would not be eligible
for federal assistance. Third, damage or improvement
values would be transferred to new property owners. For
example, if a property owner made improvements worth
35 percent of a building’s value, then when a new ownerattempts to repair damage or make improvements worth
15 percent or greater, the building would need to comeinto compliance. Disclosure of such damages or improvements are not required at the time of sale. Fourth, TBA
had concerns about the cost to developers and buyers
associated with the three-foot freeboard. The additionalheight contributes to higher building costs. There werealso concerns about the historic character of buildings
and neighborhoods with structural elevation (City of
Norfolk, 2013c). However, even with these concerns, allparties recognized that Norfolk should take action to
reduce flood damage and improve its CRS rating. The
concerned parties felt that the city could improve therating through other means.
The Department of City Planning revised the proposed
zoning ordinance based on public discourse and internal
decision-making. In particular, they removed the 10-year
cumulative loss provision in favor of a requirement that“existing buildings come into compliance with current
regulations if flood damage from two events, on average,
each equals or exceeds 25 percent the market value ofthe structure and the building is structurally damaged

CASE STUDY: NORFOLK, VIRGINIA

or altered” (City of Norfolk, 2013a, p. 1). This meant thatexisting structures that incur two flood damage eventsworth 25 percent or more of their value must be elevated.
In addition to the concerns expressed at public meetings,
the Department of City Planning realized that they did
not have an effective mechanism to track cumulative
losses and improvements to properties. From here, thePlanning Commission voted and passed the proposed
zoning ordinance changes on June 27, 2013. The City
Council formally approved the changes on November
26, 2013, which became effective on January 1, 2014
(Council, 2013). The text box summarizes the final provisions of the zoning ordinance changes.

SUMMARY OF NEW FLOOD AND COASTALZONE REGULATIONS IN NORFOLK• Three feet of freeboard• Measure the height of structures from the
Design Flood Elevation or the ground level at theentrance of the structure, whichever is greater• Require Elevation Certificates based on proposed construction with new development andadditions in the Special Flood Hazard Area
• Require all development within a 0.2 percent
annual chance of flood to have a finished floor
or be floodproofed 18 inches above grade• Require a twenty-foot setback from the landward
edge of mean high water for principal structures• Prohibit the construction of subgrade crawl
spaces within a Special Flood Hazard Area
• Prohibit the use of breakaway walls in Coastal
High Hazard and Coastal Floodplain districts• Identify Coastal Floodplain Districts and provide
regulations to match construction requirements
for Coastal High Hazard District• Require existing buildings to come into compliance with current regulations if flood damage fromtwo events, on average, each equals or exceeds
25 percent the market value of the structure andthe building is structurally damaged or alteredSource: City of Norfolk, 2013a.

Accomplishments of Norfolk’s
Freeboard Standard
Those interviewed for this study agree that the revised
zoning ordinance is a success and that Norfolk is headedin the right direction, but there is more work to do.
The revised ordinances are part of what will hopefully
become a more robust coastal and inland flooding strategy. They feel that the new standards will help to protect
structures and are evidence that the city is working toaddress a very real problem. Three feet of freeboard willtake Norfolk an estimated 60 or 65 years into the future,
giving the city time to find big-picture solutions to recurrent tidal flooding.
Norfolk’s revised flood and coastal zone ordinance went
into effect January 1, 2014. As of October 2014, over 50
new construction buildings have had to comply. The
number of existing structures with two flood damage
events worth 25 percent or more of their value is notavailable. These types of claims are reported to the city
by FEMA, but cannot be made public. Those interviewed
for this study agree that it will take some time to gauge
the new regulations’ effectiveness. One person mentionedthat it may take 30 years to know if these actions were
well-founded; the degree of sea level rise will determine
the regulations’ efficacy. Still, Department of City Planningstaff have anecdotal evidence of a new construction homeselling more quickly due to a lower flood insurance premium relative to other properties in the flood or coastal
zones, despite the additional construction cost.
Other cities in the region have looked to Norfolk as aleader on coastal flood mitigation issues. Several communities have raised their freeboard standards to three feetincluding Hampton (City of Hampton, 2014; Hampton
Roads Regional CRS Workgroup, 2014). Examples ofsimilar ordinances that are being considered or havepassed include:• City of Portsmouth (considering a three-foot freeboard; Hampton Roads Regional CRS Workgroup,2014)• City of Newport News (considering a two-foot freeboard; Hampton Roads Regional CRS Workgroup,
2014)

179

180

CASE STUDY: NORFOLK, VIRGINIA• City of Poquoson (three-foot freeboard; Hampton
Roads Regional CRS Workgroup, 2014)• Gloucester County (two-foot freeboard; Gloucester
County, 2011)• City of Chesapeake (one-and-a-half-foot freeboard;
City of Chesapeake, 2013).
Notably, Virginia Beach tried to raise its freeboard standard to three feet, but could only achieve a two-footstandard due to pressure from the building industry.
Virginia Beach has more undeveloped land and thebuilding industry sees an additional foot of freeboard
as a more significant cost than in Norfolk. Also, Virginia
Beach’s more conservative planning commission wasless willing to consider climate change.

Moving Forward
Although Norfolk is strengthening its protection measures against coastal inundation and greater losses due
to projections of sea level rise, there are concerns about
the effectiveness of the city’s revised standards when
considering Norfolk’s overall vulnerability to flooding.
Wetlands Watch, an environmental advocacy group in
the region, felt that adaptation will occur very slowly.
Since Norfolk’s flood and coastal zones are very built-up,
there is a limited amount of new construction that willneed to comply; instead, adaptation will occur in apiecemeal way as existing structures are elevated. A
second concern from Wetlands Watch is FEMA’s ability
to disperse funds in a timely manner; property owners
could wait for years for funds to elevate their structures.
Wetlands Watch estimates that if FEMA continues todisperse funding at its current rate, repetitive loss property owners already waiting for FEMA funds (for repairs
or elevation) could wait 188 years, not including newproperty owners that are added to the list (Stiles et al.,2014). In the meantime, property owners could experience additional flooding events with limited means torepair their properties. Wetlands Watch’s final concern isthat the revised standards only focus on structures andwill not address the greater flooding problems in Norfolk.
Buildings may be safe, but the city will still flood, leavingsome properties as virtual islands among flooded areas.

As well, Wetlands Watch and TBA noted that zoning ordinances are not a topic of high public interest and there
were relatively few people actively engaged or awareof the topic. They felt this might change in the future asexisting structures need to come into compliance.
The city has also considered implementing transfers ofdevelopment rights, which would equate to buyouts ofproperties in the most flood-prone neighborhoods in thecity. However, this is a difficult action to take because
despite flooding, properties adjacent to the water still
have high property values and bring in significant tax
dollars; plus, some property owners may be unwilling
to relocate.
The city has an array of possible infrastructure projects
to consider, but it needs federal support to help fundthese. Some of those interviewed are hopeful that federal funds will reach Norfolk due to the large U.S. Navalpresence in the area, and its reliance on sound infrastructure in and around Norfolk to maintain its operations. Ina similar vein, some of those interviewed felt that if the
U.S. Navy were to take concrete action on adaptation orrequest the city to take some concrete action, that would
help move the Norfolk adaptation process forward as theNaval base brings significant economic activity and influence to the region. If funding comes to Norfolk, plans arein place to thoughtfully consider viable infrastructure
solutions alongside neighborhood vitality in terms of
economic development, adaptation to future inland or
tidal flooding, and improving the lives of residents.

Acknowledgments
We would like to thank the following individuals for participating in interviews as part of this case study:• Joshua Clark, Tidewater Builders Association• Michelle Covi, Old Dominion University• Christine Morris, City of Norfolk• William (Skip) Stiles, Wetlands Watch• Robert Tajan, City of Norfolk• Martin Thomas, Jr., Norfolk Planning Commission.

CASE STUDY: NORFOLK, VIRGINIA

Bibliography
American Community Survey. 2012. American
Community Survey. American FactFinder. U.S. Census
Bureau. Available: http://factfinder.census.gov/faces/
nav/jsf/pages/index.xhtml. Accessed August 19, 2013.
Applegate, A. 2014. For City of Norfolk, park becomes
wetlands once again. The Virginian Pilot. February 20.
Available: http://hamptonroads.com/2014/02/city-norfolk-park-becomes-wetlands-once-again#. Accessed
November 4, 2014.
Atkinson, L.P., T. Ezer, and E. Smith. 2013. Sea level riseand flooding risk in Virginia. Sea Grant Law and Policy
Journal 5(2):3–14. Available: http://www.ccpo.odu.
edu/~tezer/PAPERS/2013_SGLPJ_Atkinson_SLR.pdf.
Accessed November 3, 2014.
City of Chesapeake. 2013. Memorandum to Chesapeake
Planning Commissioners re: An Ordinance amending
Chapter 26 of the Chesapeake City Code, entitled“Environment,” Article IV, Floodplain Management, by
amending Sections 26–86 through 26–105 to affirm
floodplain districts, require the issuance of permits forresidential and commercial development and redevelopment, imposing development restrictions on newand existing residential and commercial construction,
establishing enforcement and penalties for violations,and standards for considering variances. June 3.
Available: http://www.cityofchesapeake.net/Assets/
supporting_docs/actions_planning/2013/2013-06-12/
ta-z-11-10_staff_report.pdf. Accessed November 3, 2014.
City of Hampton. 2014. Ordinance to Amend and
Re-Enact Chapter 2.1 of the Zoning Ordinance of theCity of Hampton, Virginia Entitled “Definitions” By
Amending Section 2.1-2 Pertaining to the Definition of
Height, Chapter 17.3, Article V of the Zoning Ordinanceof the City of Hampton, Virginia Entitled “Flood Zone
District” by amending sections 17.3–31.2, 17.3–32, 17.3–
33.1, 17.3–33.2, 17.3–33.3, 17.3–34.1, 17.3–34.2, 17.3–34.3,
17.3–34.8 and Adding a New Section 17.3–34.9 Pertaining
to Construction Requirements for New Construction andSubstantial Improvements for Properties Located Within
Flood Zone Districts. September 10. Available: http://
council.hampton.gov/Documents/ Document.aspx?q=sEDpEXYoG8JgDF8Ziq6NZWTYsXpHhyWzt8KM0x
HafKTXFXhtVRuifwl9DiobA%2B5F. Accessed November
4, 2014.

City of Norfolk. 2012. Norfolk Flooding Strategy Update.
March 27. Available: http://va-norfolk.civicplus.com/documentcenter/view/1751. Accessed November 3, 2014.
City of Norfolk. 2013a. Flood Zone Regulation Changes.
December 6. Available: http://www.norfolk.gov/
DocumentCenter/View/12688. Accessed November 3,
2014.
City of Norfolk. 2013b. Revisions to Floodplain
Regulations. July 23. Available: http://www.norfolk.
gov/documentcenter/view/9106. Accessed November
3, 2014.
City of Norfolk. 2013c. Zoning Ordinance Text
Amendment to Chapters 2, “Definitions,” and 11–3,“Floodplain/Coastal Hazard Overlay District (FPCHO),”to Amend Terms, Simplify Language, and to Add
Requirements for Properties Located within the
Floodplain and to Revise Standards for Calculating
Building Height.
City of Norfolk. 2014a. Brambleton Avenue and Colley
Avenue Improvements. Available: http://www.norfolk.
gov/index.aspx?NID=203. Accessed November 3, 2014.
City of Norfolk. 2014b. Coastal Resilience Strategy.
Available: http://www.norfolk.gov/DocumentCenter/
View/16292. Accessed November 3, 2014.
City of Norfolk. 2014c. Ocean View Shoreline Project
Update. January 7. Available: http://www.norfolk.gov/
DocumentCenter/View/12969. Accessed November 3,
2014.
City of Norfolk, Moffat & Michol, and Fugro. 2013. Cityof Norfolk Coastal Flood Mitigation Program. March 13.
Available: http://www.norfolk.gov/DocumentCenter/
View/3774. Accessed November 3, 2014.
Council, J. 2013. Norfolk raises standards in its floodplain law. Inside Business. November 27. Available:
http://insidebiz.com/news/norfolk-raises-standardsits-floodplain-law. Accessed November 3, 2014.
FEMA. 2013a. Biggert-Waters Flood Insurance ReformAct of 2012 (BW12) Timeline. U.S. Department ofHomeland Security. April 17. Available: http://www.fema.
gov/media-library-data/20130726-1912-25045-8239/
bw_timeline_table_04172013.pdf. Accessed November
3, 2014.

181

182

CASE STUDY: NORFOLK, VIRGINIA

FEMA. 2013b. If Your Home or Business Has Been
Flooded Build Back Safer and Stronger: What You
Need to Know. January. Available: http://www.fema.
gov/media-library-data/20130726-1858-25045-7797/
build_back_stronger02_2013.pdf. Accessed December
22, 2014.
FEMA. 2014. Freeboard. U.S. Department of Homeland
Security. Available: http://www.fema.gov/floodplain-management/freeboard. Accessed November 3,
2014.
Fugro. 2012. Preliminary City-Wide Coastal Flooding
Mitigation Concept Evaluation and Master Plan
Development. City of Norfolk City-Wide Coastal
Flooding Contract No. 13062. Work Order No. 4. Fugro
Atlantic, Norfolk, VA. May. Available:
http://www.norfolk.gov/DocumentCenter/View/7614.
Accessed November 3, 2014.

Schechtman, J. and M. Brady. 2013. Cost-Efficient
Climate Change Adaptation in the North Atlantic.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Sea
Grant and North Atlantic Regional Team. Available:
http://www.regions.noaa.gov/north-atlantic/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/CEANA-Final-V11.pdf. Accessed
November 4, 2014.
Stiles, W., S.H. Jarbeau, S. Hughes, and M.-C. Stiff. 2014.
The Challenge of Mitigating Virginia’s Flooding and
Sea Level Rise Impacts. Wetlands Watch. November.
Available: http://www.wetlandswatch.org/Portals/3/
WW%20documents/sea-level-rise/ww_flood_
white-paper1-1.pdf. Accessed December 1, 2014.
Thomas Jr., M. 2014. Interview with Martin Thomas, Jr.,
Norfolk Planning Commission, October 29.

Georgetown Climate Center. Forthcoming. Elevating
Roads in Norfolk Virginia.

Timmons Group. 2012. City-Wide Drainage Master Plan.
Final Submittal. November 8. Available: http://www.
norfolk.gov/DocumentCenter/View/3641. Accessed
November 3, 2014.

Gloucester County. 2011. Disaster Preparedness Guide:
Preparedness Begins with You. Summer. Available:
http://www.gloucesterva.info/Portals/0/es/documents/hurricane2011.pdf. Accessed November 3, 2014.

Virginia Institute of Marine Sciences. Undated. SeaLevel-Rise Scenarios. Available: http://www.vims.edu/
newsandevents/topstories/slr_scenarios.php. Accessed
December 9, 2014.

Hampton Roads Regional CRS Workgroup. 2014.
Bi-Monthly Newsletter. December.

Willoughby Civic League. 2013. Minutes of the Regular
Meeting. September 12.

Morris, C. 2015. Interview with Christine Morris, City of
Norfolk, July 23.

CASE STUDY: OAKLAND, CALIFORNIA

Oakland, California

Oakland Climate Action Coalition Moves
Climate Change Adaptation Forward
OAKLAND, CALIFORNIAAUTHORS: Alexis St. Juliana, Jason Vogel, and Karen Carney

In this case study, you will learn about:• The Oakland Climate Action Coalition as a model for bringing together community groups• Community organizations as important actors in advancing local climate change adaptation• Bottom-up community climate change policy recommendations• Incorporating vulnerability analyses into policy recommendations• Barriers to adaptation• Examples of adaptation actions led by non-governmental actors

CLIMATE ADAPTATION: THE STATE OF PRACTICE IN U.S. COMMUNITIES

183

184

CASE STUDY: OAKLAND, CALIFORNIA

Case Study Summary
The prevalence and prominence of community-basedorganizations makes the city of Oakland unique compared to many other communities. A number of theseorganizations have worked directly on climate change
related topics since the 1990s, and many more approachclimate change and environmental topics through asocial justice lens. In 2009, 30 organizations—including those addressing sea level rise, environment, publichealth, and social justice topics—came together toform the Oakland Climate Action Coalition (OCAC). The
OCAC has become a community platform for supporting
climate change adaptation strategy and action; the coalition is now seen as a leading organization on climatechange adaptation in Oakland.
Initially, the OCAC came together with the goal of
influencing the Oakland Energy and Climate Action
Plan (ECAP), the city’s climate change mitigation plan.
The OCAC successfully spurred a more comprehensive
public engagement process for the plan and ultimately
guided half of the plan’s proposed actions (Garzón, 2015;
Fitzgerald, 2015).
At roughly the same time as the ECAP effort, the OCAC
partnered with the Pacific Institute as the institutedeveloped a climate change vulnerability and adaptation assessment for Oakland. With OCAC input, thePacific Institute developed a climate change vulnerability analysis, adaptation recommendations that accountfor equity concerns, and generated greater awarenessof these issues which could be applied to future adaptation efforts.
Although the ECAP and the Pacific Institute assessment
have concluded, the OCAC continues to be a key player inclimate change adaptation in Oakland. The OCAC and its
members conduct community education and outreachto address Oakland’s vulnerability to extreme heat, wildfires, coastal flooding from sea level rise, air quality, andfuture food, water, and electricity prices. Additionally, theOCAC was involved in Oakland’s successful bids to earn
grants from The Kresge Foundation’s Climate Resilienceand Urban Opportunity Initiative and the Rockefeller
Foundation’s 100 Resilient Cities initiative. While the cityof Oakland and Oakland’s community-based organizations have been working on exemplary climate change
adaptation planning efforts, implementation has been
limited to a small number of capacity building exercises.
The OCAC has been and continues to be an effective
and innovative means of bringing community-basedorganizational input to Oakland’s climate change adaptation efforts. The OCAC may also serve as a modelfor other communities that seek to involve community-based organizations in climate change adaptation
initiatives.

The Broader Context of CommunityBased Adaptation in Oakland
The Oakland community-based organizations that form
the backbone of OCAC have been working on climatechange analyses since the 1990s (Exhibit 1). The prevalence and prominence of these organizations makes
Oakland unique compared to many other communities. Some of these organizations approach adaptation
through the lens of climate change topics, such as sea
level rise, whereas some combine environmental awareness with social justice, energy use, energy cost, or
health concerns. In addition to the examples included
here, there are many other examples of environmental
action in Oakland motivated by combined environmental
awareness and concern for other community needs (seebox below).

Sea level rise
In 1990, the Pacific Institute, an Oakland-based environmental research institute, conducted an early andinfluential analysis of sea level rise for the San Francisco
Bay (Gleick and Maurer, 1990; Cooley, 2015). This initial study spurred the Pacific Institute to continue its
analyses of sea level rise, as well as conduct a 2009
evaluation for the entire State of California (Heberger
et al., 2009). As part of this 2009 effort, the Pacific
Institute conducted a demographic analysis and foundthat in the San Francisco Bay area, large numbers of
low-income residents and communities of color werevulnerable to the impacts of climate change (Cooley,

CASE STUDY: OAKLAND, CALIFORNIA

1990–present
Environmental action by OCAC members

Initial sea level
rise analysis of
the San Francisco
Bay by Pacific
Institute
1990

City announces
its intent todevelop the ECAP2008

Oakland begins
100 Resilient Cities
Initiative

Statewide and
San Francisco Bay
sea level rise
analysis byPacific InstitutePacific Institute leads
climate change
vulnerability analysis
with coalition partners

OCAC forms
2009

2010–
2011

Oakland releases
the Energy andClimate Action
Plan
2012

Oakland joins The
Kresge Foundation’s
Climate Resilience and
Urban Opportunity
Initiative
2014

Exhibit 1. Timeline of actions in Oakland, CA.

2015). Other regional entities have also been involved insea level rise analyses. These include the San Francisco
Bay Conservation and Development Commission, a State
commission dedicated to protecting the San Francisco
Bay. The Commission also leads Adapting to Rising Tides,a regional collaboration of organizations working on
adaptation to sea level rise and flooding. Additionally,
the San Francisco Estuary Institute actively studies sea
level rise in the region.

Air pollution
Air quality concerns spawned the West Oakland
Environmental indicators Project (WOEIP) to work with
the Port of Oakland to change freight trucking practices
and reduce nearby residents’ exposure to air pollution(WOEIP, 2011; Gordon, 2015).

Poverty reduction
The Ella Baker Center spearheaded a green jobs program to help create opportunities for Oakland residents
in poverty (Ella Baker Center, Undated).

Climate resiliency
In 2014, two separate opportunities pushed the Cityof Oakland and Oakland’s community-based organizations to develop resiliency plans. Both opportunities

have strong ties with OCAC. The first opportunity was
The Kresge Foundation’s Climate Resilience and Urban
Opportunity Initiative, which funded the OCAC to support the development of a climate change resiliency planwith the expertise of active community-based organizations. In particular, this effort aims to improve the climatechange resiliency of low-income residents (The Kresge
Foundation, 2014). The second opportunity was theRockefeller Foundation’s 100 Resilient Cities Initiative.
The OCAC helped the city apply for and win funding
under this initiative, which focuses on climate change
and other issues to build community resilience. Initialassessments identified earthquakes, flooding, affordable
housing, and social inequity as primary resilience challenges (100 Resilient Cities, 2015).
On the whole, climate change efforts in Oakland haveemphasized greenhouse gas mitigation or climatechange adaptation planning. While adaptation planning efforts are underway, the OCAC, many member
groups, and the city have begun to implement adaptation actions to reduce vulnerability to climate change(see the text box for examples of adaptation actions in
Oakland). Most of these actions are led by community-based organizations. This case study focuses on how
the OCAC developed, and how it has endured to moveclimate change adaptation policy and practice forward
in Oakland, CA.

185

186

CASE STUDY: OAKLAND, CALIFORNIA

Why and How the OCAC Developed
and Informed Climate Change
Adaptation in Oakland
To understand the OCAC’s contributions, it is helpful to
explore its creation, its work with the Pacific Institute on
climate change vulnerability and adaptation, the reasons
the OCAC has been effective, and how it successfully
influenced the ECAP.

Ella Baker Center Spearheaded Creation of
OCAC to Influence Oakland’s ECAP
The Ella Baker Center is an Oakland non-profit organization focused on social justice issues. In 2006, withthe help of grant funding, the center launched a green
jobs campaign to improve employment prospects for
Oakland residents and to keep them out of poverty (EllaBaker Center, Undated). In 2009, the center learned thatthe city planned to develop a climate change mitigation
plan, called the ECAP. Ella Baker Center staff felt thiswas a prime opportunity to integrate green jobs goals
within city plans (Fitzgerald, 2015). Additionally, Ella
Baker Center staff “reached out to a wide variety of community organizations focused on green, social justice,
housing, green business, and related issues—organizations either already working on or potentially interested
in local energy and climate issues. The Ella Baker Center
proposed that interested organizations form a coalition
to share ideas and give coordinated input to the city”(Fitzgerald, 2015). After initial meetings, the variousorganizations decided to develop a more formal partnership, the OCAC.
Groups joined the OCAC for various reasons. WOEIP
Co-Director Brian Beveridge shared that his group joined
the OCAC because “We join everything” (Beveridge,2015). His colleague, Margaret Gordon added that
“Anything about the community, we have to investigate… Eight years ago [we learned] climate change wascoming … and no one was talking about the justice piece,
climate justice. That’s when we started to say, ‘Okay, thisis something WOEIP needs to be engaged in.’… It wasa good thing for us to do” (Gordon, 2015). Beveridge
and Gordon felt the ECAP development process wouldintersect with several of their organization’s interests,

including the environment, economy, and urban development. Additionally, because WOEIP had worked with
the Ella Baker Center on the green jobs program, they
had already built the necessary trust to work together
and engage with the city on the ECAP (Beveridge, 2015).
Bay Localize was another organization that advocatedfor the creation of the coalition (Schwind, 2015). Kirsten
Schwind, Bay Localize co-founder and senior strategist,
said that her group joined because they were concernedthat the ECAP process wouldn’t reflect the breadth anddepth of grassroots organizing in Oakland; they had
worked with city energy staff on past projects that did
not have genuine community engagement. Schwind
said, “The OCAC had the potential to improve the ECAP;
it had the potential to bridge the climate world and social
justice work” (Schwind, 2015).

Pacific Institute and the OCAC Partnered
to Identify Community Vulnerabilities
and Climate Change Adaptation
Recommendations
In 2010, approximately a year after the OCAC had
formed, the Pacific Institute was awarded a grant fromthe California Energy Commission’s California Climate
Change Center to develop a climate change vulnerability
assessment and associated adaptation recommendations for Oakland (Garzón et al,. 2012). This effort was
separate from the city’s efforts to develop the ECAP
and the OCAC’s work to influence the ECAP, but the two
efforts coincided for a period of time and indirectly influenced each other. The Pacific Institute intended to use
a participatory research process that engaged community members in identifying community vulnerabilities
and equitable adaptation solutions. The Pacific Institutestaff felt that the OCAC, already organized, focusedon climate change, and representing an engaged setof community groups, was a natural fit for the Pacific
Institute’s participatory research process.
Pacific Institute staff approached the OCAC steeringcommittee about their study and how it related to the
OCAC’s goals. Many OCAC member groups were interested and willing to participate in the study (Garzón etal., 2012). To make it easier for OCAC members to participate in the Pacific Institute’s process, the InstituteCASE STUDY: OAKLAND, CALIFORNIAEXAMPLES OF ADAPTATION ACTIONS IN OAKLAND• The OCAC holds ongoing workshops on climate impacts such as extreme heat, flooding
and wildfire. It also developed pocket guides
with appropriate actions in those emergencies
and preparedness measures for limited water
availability, limited food access, rising electricity costs, traffic congestion, and poor air
quality (OCAC, 2014; Schwind, 2015).
• In January 2014, the OCAC held a workshop
sharing the needs of vulnerable community
members with emergency responders andeducating community members on what to
do in emergency situations (Garzón, 2015;
Schwind, 2015).
• Bay Localize is helping to organize a regional
coalition of actors around climate change
adaptation (Schwind, 2015).
• Bay Localize, with funding from the
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development, is working on a project called
Map My Future, which identifies resiliency
strongpoints across the city (Schwind, 2015).
• The OCAC and other partners are working on acommunity energy choice aggregation projectto give residents the option for clean energy

arranged six separate sessions around OCAC events.
Additionally, the OCAC invited Catalina Garzón of the
Pacific Institute to sit on the Adaptation and Resilience
sub-committee, further integrating the coalition’s workon the ECAP and on the Pacific Institute’s study.
The Pacific Institute had planned to evaluate extreme
heat, wildfires, coastal flooding from sea level rise,and particulate matter concentration (an indicator of
air quality) in their vulnerability assessment. OCAC
members indicated a strong interest in understanding
how climate change would affect future food, water,and electricity prices. The Pacific Institute integrated

supply sources. An additional goal of the effort
is to create green jobs in the county ( OCAC,
2012; Beveridge, 2015; Gordon, 2015; Schwind,2015; Fitzgerald, 2015; Hamilton, 2015).
• OCAC members on the Food Justice sub-committee have been working to develop “edibleparks” in Oakland. This efforts aim dedicate
public land food production so that food production can become more localized (Gordon,
2015; Schwind, 2015).
• The city has an Adopt-a-Drain program to mitigate flooding. Residents or business owners
volunteer to clean out storm drains prior to
precipitation events to help minimize flooding(Hamilton, 2015). The OCAC help to spread thework on this initiative and encourage individuals to volunteer (OCAC, 2015).
• The city is evaluating adaptation options at thePort of Oakland (which includes the airport) tomitigate the impacts of sea level rise. This work
is still in the planning phases (Hamilton, 2015).
• WOEIP worked with students at University ofCalifornia, Berkeley to map climate impacts inareas of Oakland that are being considered for
new development (Gordon, 2015).

these concerns into its study (Cooley, 2015; Garzón etal., 2012) using Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change greenhouse gas emissions scenarios as a basis.
To understand vulnerabilities in Oakland, the researchteam developed a vulnerability index consisting of 19
separate vulnerability factors. The specific vulnerability
factors and indictors developed by the Pacific Instituteresearch team are in Exhibit 2. The research team thenmapped climate impacts and social vulnerability toidentify priority areas for adaptation (Exhibit 3). Datafor these factors came from a variety of sources, but primarily the U.S. Census Bureau’s American Community
Survey (Garzón et al., 2012)

187

188

CASE STUDY: OAKLAND, CALIFORNIAEXHIBIT 2. FACTORS INCLUDED IN THE OAKLAND VULNERABILITY INDEXVULNERABILITY FACTOR AND INDICATOR• Households with air conditioning– Households with an air conditioning unit
• Population over 25 with a diploma– People over age 25 who have a high school
diploma• Pre-term births– Infants that were born before completing 37
weeks (about 8.5 months) of pregnancy• Renter-occupied households– Percent of households where people are renting• Born outside the U.S.
– People who were born outside the UnitedStates• Over 65 and living alone– Percent of households occupied by someone
over age 65 who lives alone• Impervious areas– Land in the area that has an impervious surface(e.g., sidewalk or roof)• Tree canopy cover– Land covered by tree canopy• Residents living in institutions– Population living in “group quarters,” including
institutions like correctional facilities, nursing
homes, mental hospitals, college dormitories,
military barracks, group homes, missions, andshelters• Households with limited English– Population 5 years old and older who
answered that they speak English less than“very well”• Households with no vehicle– Percentage of households with no vehicle
available• People of color– People identifying as any other race or
ethnicity besides white.
• Households in poverty– Households with an income that is below
200 percent of the official federal poverty level• Under age 18– Population under age 18• Unemployment– Population 16 years and over able to work who
are unemployed• Have jobs working outdoors– Percent of workers who work in agriculture,
forestry, mining, or construction• Pregnancy– Percentage of women 15 to 50 years old who
gave birth in the past 12 months• Food access– Access to full-service supermarkets according
to Low Access Area measurement tool
• Youth fitness– Fraction of children that are overweight orobese in tract (i.e., fraction over 85th percentile
for age and gender based on the CDC growth
curves)Adapted from Garzón et al., 2012.

CASE STUDY: OAKLAND, CALIFORNIA

Exhibit 3. Sea
level rise and social vulnerability map.
Projected 1.0 m Rise in Sea Levels and Social Vulnerability
Source: Garzón et al., 2012.

In addition to identifying climate impacts and social vulnerabilities, the Pacific Institute worked with the OCAC
to develop a set of nearly 50 adaptation recommendations for extreme heat, flooding, wildfires, rising utility
and food costs, and poor air quality. Each of the recommendations has an associated social equity concern andmultiple policy solutions (Exhibit 4).
The Pacific Institute faced a number of challenges incarrying out this research. First, The California Energy
Commission’s California Climate Change Center policies
were such that grant funds could not be used to compensate the OCAC or its member groups for the their timeand participation (Garzón, 2015; Cooley, 2015). This madeit more difficult for some groups to participate. Second,
the Pacific Institute’s work ended after the ECAP wascomplete. Therefore, the climate change adaptation recommendations in their study did not directly influence the
ECAP (Cooley, 2015). Even though the timing was off, thePacific Institute’s work with the OCAC on adaptation did
influence the ECAP indirectly. The city was aware of the
Pacific Institute’s work and the two efforts coincided for aperiod of time. Additionally, since the ECAP was intended
to be updated periodically, most OCAC participants were
aware that there would be an opportunity, at a later date,
to revisit climate change adaptation topics.

189

190

CASE STUDY: OAKLAND, CALIFORNIAEXHIBIT 4. SAMPLE ADAPTATION RECOMMENDATIONS (GARZÓN ET AL., 2012)
EXTREME HEAT:PLANT TREES/INCREASE GREEN SPACE
Description: Plant trees and other vegetation to
help cool urban environment by providing shade
and increasing evapotranspiration

Advantage: Cultivates local skills and knowledge,builds local economy, can save money and generate
incomeDisadvantage: Requires skill and time for ongoinglabor and maintenance

Advantage: Provides multiple benefits, e.g., aesthetic, stormwater runoff reduction, energy savingson cooling, air quality improvements, carbon
sequestration, etc.; generally has positive costs/
benefit ratios due to co-benefits

Equity concern: Local or organic food frequently
very expensive; farmers markets often do not accept
food stamps; pesticide use can be hazardous andcan cause severe health problems for neighbors withcertain respiratory and neurological conditions

Disadvantage: Requires ongoing maintenance and,in some cases, water

Policy solution:

Equity concern: Focused installation only in wealthier areas of the city; gentrification; displacement ofhomeless populations with the rejuvenation or ecological objectives of new green space; gentrification
related to neighborhood greening efforts
Policy solution:• Prioritize neighborhoods with greatest needfor tree planting programs• Promote planting of native trees and plants to
reduce water requirements• Ensure neighborhoods retain affordable or
low-income housing options• Develop mixed-use, mixed-income area withhigh levels of community input, engagement,
and involvement in the planning process• Train Oakland youth and/or young adults toplant trees as part of the Oakland summer
jobs program
RISING UTILITY AND FOOD COSTS:
DEVELOP AND SUPPORT LOCAL FOOD SYSTEMS
Description: Grow food locally to reduce impact ofdisasters by supporting local, diverse, and resilient
food systems• Partner with the city and local organizations
to refund produce vendors for food stamps inorder to double the value of produce purchased in order to encourage and enable thepurchase of locally produced health foods• Subsidize local agriculture to keep down consumer costs• Conduct community outreach and education
to expand access to food stamps and healthy
food distribution programs• Expand access to public and privately owned
land for local food production• Change permitting requirements and regulations that pose barriers to community foodsecurity strategies such as street food vending
and selling home-cooked foods• Invest in commercial food kitchens run in partnership with local community organizations tomeet community food needs• Develop healthy food distribution systems to
make available and incentivize the purchase ofhealthy foods in local stores• Support food local food systems that do not
involve the use of chemical pesticides

CASE STUDY: OAKLAND, CALIFORNIA

Coalition Structure Proved to be Effective for
Supporting Ongoing Trust and Collaboration
The structure of the OCAC has helped it endure past
its initial efforts to influence the ECAP and support the
Pacific Institute’s assessment. This structure ensures that allgroups’ ideas were heard, that it reached consensus recommendations, and that it built a foundation for future work.
The basic structure of the OCAC consists of four subcommittees on the topics of Adaptation and Resilience, Food
Justice, Transportation and Land Use, and Renewable
Energy (Gordon, 2015; OCAC, Undated). Each of theroughly 30 member organizations participates in one
or more of the subcommittees that aligns with theirorganization’s primary goals or interests. During thedevelopment of the ECAP, these subcommittees met
frequently to develop specific recommendations for theplan; all decisions are reached by consensus (Garzón,
2015; Schwind, 2015). The OCAC also has a steering committee comprised of two representatives of each of thesubcommittees (Schwind, 2015). For the ECAP efforts, thissteering committee worked to review the recommendations from each of the subgroups, identify key priorities,
and address any overlap between subcommittee recommendations. Finally, the OCAC holds quarterly general
membership meetings in which all subcommittees andmember organizations participate (Garzón, 2015).
Early on, the OCAC developed a formal set of procedures to guide what types of entities could join thecoalition, the responsibilities of member organizations,and how decisions would be made (OCAC, Undated).
For example, member organizations must be non-profits, represent faith-based congregations, or represent
neighborhood associations (Gordon, 2015).

• Attendance at city hearings• Community workshops to gather community
member feedback• Workshops to share information or expertise• Rallies• Information booths at community events
Sources: Cooley, 2015; Fitzgerald 2015; Garzón
2015; Gordon, 2015; Schwind, 2015.

OCAC members also commit to attending a certain
number of meetings and to devoting a certain amountof time to coalition activities (see the text box). During
the development of the ECAP, the OCAC hosted several
workshops to gather public recommendations for theplan (Garzón, 2015). The coalition also educates community members on climate impacts, such as extreme
heat and flooding. The OCAC holds workshops on these
topics and also offers pocket guides with appropriate
actions for specific situations. In January 2014, the coalition held a workshop to share the needs of vulnerable
community members with emergency responders andto educate vulnerable community members on what to
do in emergency situations (Garzón, 2015). The OCAC
considers many of these coalition activities to be climatechange adaptation actions, which help build community members’ ability to prepare and respond to climate
impacts. Finally, the OCAC encourages its member organizations to attend city hearings on relevant topics, suchas the public hearings that were held to develop the
ECAP (Garzón, 2015).Overall, the structure of the OCAC
and the participation of member groups have helped
the coalition build trust among members and endure
through time.

EXAMPLES OF OCAC ENGAGEMENT ACTIVITIES• Steering committee• Sub-committees: Adaptation and Resilience,
Food Justice, Transportation and Land Use,
Renewable Energy• General member meetings

One drawback to OCAC’s approach is that member organizations must balance their primary organizational goals(e.g., social justice, housing) with their involvement with
the OCAC. Because of this challenge, OCAC members
have changed over the course of the coalition’s existence, and individual partners’ engagement has waxed
and waned as their organization’s needs fluctuate.

191

192

CASE STUDY: OAKLAND, CALIFORNIAOCAC Efforts Successfully Influenced
the ECAPThe OCAC influenced the final ECAP in two ways. First,
OCAC participation changed the level of community
engagement associated with the plan. Second, the OCAC
helped guide much of the plan’s content.
Regarding the first point, initial public engagement
plans for the ECAP included an expert panel and public
hearings at City Hall (Schwind, 2015; Fitzgerald, 2015).
Garrett Fitzgerald, the city’s sustainability program
manager, who led the ECAP process, shared that “thecity had initially planned to use a pretty standard public
input process to gather input for the ECAP, primarily
involving public meetings at City Hall and an online comment period. We didn’t allocate capacity to host public
workshops or attend meetings of other organizations
throughout the city” (Fitzgerald, 2015). However, Kirsten
Schwind at Bay Localize, said “The OCAC organizedpolitically to the point where the city couldn’t ignoreit” (Schwind, 2015). Fitzgerald was willing to change
course and work more closely with the OCAC to garnerpublic input; this included attending OCAC meetingson his own time (Schwind, 2015). Fitzgerald said, “Theprocess was transformative. Initially, we had intended
to draft the ECAP, gather some input, and make someedits. City staff soon discovered that these community
organizations had a lot of good ideas for local action andthe capacity to help make the process and resulting planmuch smarter and stronger” (Fitzgerald, 2015).
The content of Oakland’s final ECAP includes many
contributions from the OCAC. Several of the people
involved estimate that nearly half of the actions in the
final document came from the OCAC (Fitzgerald, 2015;
Garzón, 2015). Daniel Hamilton, who became Oakland’s
Sustainability Program Manager in 2014, noted that the
public engagement with the OCAC helped to develop aunique plan. He said that OCAC partners “were directly
responsible for several of the focus areas, including
urban food systems and community cohesion…Many ofthe policies and actions were specific to, and in somecases written by, members of the OCAC” (Hamilton,2015). Additionally, Hamilton noted that the ECAP was
unique because many of the actions within the ECAP
were not intended to be led by the city. Hamilton said,“Many of these [actions] were crafted specifically byfolks like the OCAC with the idea that the OCAC would
maintain ownership of them. Even though this is a city
policy document, a lot of these things we institutionalize
in our greenhouse gas reduction strategy were things
led by the community, things that had nothing to dowith the city. I think that is unique. Cities are used toonly putting in policies that they are accountable for,that they’re going to report on. Essentially they’re tellingthemselves what to do and sometimes getting community input about how they should do it. In this case,
Oakland went about saying ‘no, this document is, in part,about city strategy, but this is more about a formulationof a city goal and we acknowledge that aspects of thatare rightfully led by the community, not by the city, andwe’re not going to exclude these parts simply because
we are not in charge of them.’” Being listed in the ECAP
as an implementing organization was one way in which
the OCAC and its members groups will continue to beengaged in climate change action moving forward.
The city felt that it used a transparent process to score
and identify priority climate change mitigation actions.
This process was designed to maximize positive outcomes for the community and produce measurable
results given limited resources. The city feels this prioritization helped it to make significant strides on climatechange mitigation quickly, with existing resources.
However, many of the OCAC’s recommendations do notappear in the final ECAP (Garzón, 2015; Gordon, 2015;
Beveridge, 2015). For example, the final document does
not have a robust adaptation section; but several OCAC
members would have liked a more detailed adaptation discussion. The city made a conscious decision to
focus on climate change mitigation. The city felt thatclimate change adaptation is only necessary because ofgreenhouse gas emissions. Therefore, climate change
mitigation must come before adaptation. Ultimately,
the members understood that the ECAP was a climatechange mitigation plan, and that adaptation would comelater (Garzón, 2015). Garzón stated that “Adaptation wasseen as outside the scope” (Garzón, 2015).
Additionally, some coalition members felt that the city
did not go far enough to address some of the OCAC’s

CASE STUDY: OAKLAND, CALIFORNIA

concerns with the final plan. Brian Beveridge of WOEIP
said, “the city took our recommendations and did
what they wanted. The city wrote the policy based on
their interests within our recommendations. The parts
that they didn’t find interesting like adaptation andneighborhood resilience got one paragraph and no
implementation ideas. The parts that would save thecity money, they embraced those. They also prioritizedthem in their own way. They said ‘here are the things
that are free and easy, and those we’ll work on first.
Here are the things that will take some resources, sothat’s going to be our five year plan. Here’s the stuff
that’s really innovative, but would cost money; that will
be our 20 year plan.’ It was an opportunity for the OCAC
to advocate strongly for a very innovate set of initiatives to address greenhouse gas reduction and climate,
but for some of us it fell pretty far short of a true peer
relationship in which we were treated as equals withcity staff” (Beveridge, 2015).
WOEIP felt that this disregard for some of the priorities identified through the OCAC reflect long-standing
tensions and mistrust between Oakland residents andgovernment. Margaret Gordon thought four key items
that were missing from the final ECAP (1) language
about protecting people, (2) identifying social vulnerabilities, (3) a plan for infrastructure, and 4) funding toinvest in those three items (Gordon, 2015). Additionally,
she noted that the plan did not result in a standing
structure for engagement on these issues, because ofa lack of funding and staff. Still, she said that the city
sustainability staff were more interested and sensitive
to these concerns than staff in other city departments(Gordon, 2015).
Through the OCAC’s work on the ECAP, the coalition wasable to influence a number of the plan’s priorities, include
itself and member groups within the plan, and raise theprofile of adaptation in the plan. The effectiveness of thecoalition on these fronts has helped it establish itself as avital actor in the community and will help it continue toinfluence climate change mitigation and adaption efforts
in Oakland.

Accomplishments
The creation of the OCAC and its work resulted in threemajor accomplishments:
1. Engaging community groups to implement adaptation actions and reduce vulnerability to climate change
The OCAC, member groups, and the city have all
begun to implement adaptation actions to reduce
vulnerability to extreme heat, wildfires, coastal flooding from sea level rise, and poor air quality, as well
as future food, water, and electricity prices. Many ofthese actions help to build community members’ ability to prepare and respond to climate impacts, which
coalition members believe will help reduce Oakland’svulnerability to climate impacts. However, most of theactions are in the early stages, and therefore havenot begun to substantially reduce Oakland’s vulnerability to climate change. Still, the OCAC serves asa platform to support climate change adaptation in
Oakland.
2. The OCAC endures beyond the ECAP and is an integral
part of climate change adaptation efforts in the city
Even though the ECAP was published and began
implementation in 2012, and the initial funding
through the Ella Baker Center ended, the OCAC
continues to operate and address climate change
adaptation in Oakland, with the potential to reducethe community’s vulnerability to climate change. Of
note, the OCAC helped the city apply for the 100
Resilient Cities initiative which began work in Oakland
in 2014 (Gordon, 2015). A representative from thecoalition also sat on the committee to help selectthe city’s new Chief Resiliency Officer, the local project leader for 100 Resilient Cities (Garzón, 2015).
Additionally, the OCAC itself earned a grant from The
Kresge Foundation’s Climate Resilience and Urban
Opportunity Initiative. Current funding is for climatechange adaptation planning, but the OCAC has thepotential to qualify for implementation funding as asecond phase of the project.

193

194

CASE STUDY: OAKLAND, CALIFORNIA

3. Creating a new model for community engagement inOakland on climate issues
The OCAC’s work to influence the Oakland’s ECAP
was a novel approach. It involved 30 separate community groups and developed a process to reachinternal consensus and then work with the city todevelop a plan that reflected community considerations. This approach represents a model for future
work in Oakland, and possibly in other communities. Oakland’s multitude of engaged community
groups and its defined structure helped to make thisapproach effective.

Moving Forward
Oakland has momentum to take on climate change
adaptation. The OCAC, its member groups, and the city
have already made significant progress. In addition tothat ongoing progress, Oakland has other promisingefforts underway.
The Kresge Foundation’s Climate Resilience and Urban
Opportunity Initiative and the Rockefeller Foundation’s
100 Resilient Cities Initiative offer strong opportunities to plan and implement climate change adaptation
actions. The Kresge Foundation’s Climate Resilience and
Urban Opportunity Initiative aims to improve the climatechange resiliency of low-income residents (The Kresge
Foundation, 2014). The 100 Resilient Cities Initiative
intends to build community resiliency around earthquakes, flooding, affordable housing, and social inequity(100 Resilient Cities, 2015).
Additionally, the city hired a new Sustainability Program
Manager to help guide the implementation and updateof the ECAP. This position had been vacant for roughly
two years, impeding the progress of implementing andupdating the ECAP in the city. Although the initial ECAP
identifies adaptation as a future action, updating theplan presents an opportunity to reprioritize adaptation
actions. City staff feel both climate change mitigation
and adaptation are essential components of a comprehensive climate change strategy (Hamilton, 2015).

At the same time, a number of challenges exist. With
regard to the Kresge and Rockefeller Foundation andinitiatives, members of the OCAC are struggling to build
bridges across the two efforts. These struggles stemfrom the different structures of the programs: the Kresge
Foundation work has a bottom-up structure, while the
100 Resilient Cities work is being directed by the city. The
groups are finding it difficult to align the two processes
and make in-roads on potentially parallel efforts. Withineach individual effort there are additional challenges.
For example, the Kresge Foundation project funded the
OCAC; with so many members in the coalition, the funding does not adequately cover the time and costs formembers’ participation. This closely mirrors the ongoingstruggle for coalition members to balance their staff’s
everyday work with OCAC commitments.
Some long-standing systemic problems exist between
the community and the city. The city needs sufficientfunding to develop plans, fund staff, and invest in adaptation. City staff struggle to address climate change
adaptation along with their regular responsibilities, particularly in departments that are not highly involved inclimate change discussions. In addition, the city views
climate change mitigation as a higher priority than adaptation (Hamilton, 2015), a point with which the OCAC
disagrees. Finally, a long-standing legacy of cooperation between the city and community members does
not exist. Community members often feel that the city
does not have effective feedback mechanisms to hearcommunity member input and that the city does not
put community member or community group input ona level playing field with city priorities. However, newcity council members and a new mayor are working to
improve the city’s outreach and engagement with citizens. Additionally, the city’s collaboration with the OCAC
and new initiatives such as the Oakland Sustainable
Neighborhood Initiative are laying the ground work forfurther positive collaboration.
In summary, the OCAC has been a largely successful
and innovative means of engaging community-basedorganizations to launch their own climate change adaptation planning and implantation efforts, in addition tobringing input into City of Oakland efforts to address

CASE STUDY: OAKLAND, CALIFORNIA

climate change. The OCAC may serve as a model forother communities and community-based organizations
that seek to improve grass-roots involvement in city-led
climate change initiatives.

Acknowledgments
We would like to thank the following people for participating in interviews as part of this case study:• Brian Beveridge, co-director, WOEIP• Heather Cooley, Water Program director,
Pacific Institute• Garrett Fitzgerald, strategic partnerships advisor,
Urban Sustainability Directors Network• Catalina Garzón, independent practitioner,
Community Research and Education in Action forTrue Empowerment• Margaret Gordon, co-director, WOEIP

Ella Baker Center. Undated. Green-Collar Jobs
Campaign Basics. Ella Baker Center for Human Rights,
Oakland, CA. Available: http://ellabakercenter.org/
green-collar-jobs/green-collar-jobs-campaign-basics.
Accessed July 28. 2015.
Fitzgerald, G. 2015. Interview with Garrett Fitzgerald,
Urban Sustainability Directors Network. June 10.
Garzón, C. 2015. Interview with Catalina Garzón,
Community Research and Education in Action for True
Empowerment. June 25.
Garzón, C., H. Cooley, M. Heberger, E. Moore, L. Allen,
E. Matalon, A. Doty, and the Oakland Climate Action
Coalition. 2012. Community-Based Climate Adaptation
Planning: Case Study of Oakland, California. Pacific
Institute. California Energy Commission Publication
number: CEC-500-2012-038. Available: http://pacinst.
org/wp-content/uploads/sites/21/2014/04/community-based-climate-planning-Oakland.pdf. Accessed
July 24, 2015.

• Daniel Hamilton, sustainability program manager,
City of Oakland

Gleick, P.H. and E.P. Maurer. 1990. Assessing the Costsof Adapting to Sea-Level Rise: A Case Study of San
Francisco Bay. Pacific Institute, Oakland, California.

• Kirsten Schwind, co-founder and senior strategist,
Bay Localize.

Gordon, M. 2015. Interview with Margaret Gordon,
West Oakland Environmental Indicators Project. July 23.

Bibliography
100 Resilient Cities. 2015. Oakland’s Resilience
Challenge. Available: http://www.100resilientcities.
org/cities/entry/oaklands-resilience-challenge#/-_/.
Accessed July 28. 2015.
Beveridge, B. 2015. Interview with Brian Beveridge,
West Oakland Environmental Indicators Project. July 23.
City of Oakland. 2012. Energy and Climate Action Plan.
December 4. Available: http://www2.oaklandnet.com/
oakca1/groups/pwa/documents/report/oak039056.
pdf. Accessed July 24, 2015.
Cooley, H. 2015. Interview with Heather Cooley, Pacific
Institute. July 16.

Hamilton, D. 2015. Interview with Daniel Hamilton, Cityof Oakland. July 23.
Heberger, M., H. Cooley, P. Herrera, P.H. Gleick, and E.
Moore. 2009. The Impacts of Sea-Level Rise on the
California Coast. California Energy Commission. May.
CEC-500-2009-024-F. Available: http://pacinst.org/
wp-content/uploads/sites/21/2014/04/sea-level-rise.
pdf. Accessed July 28, 2015.
OCAC. 2012. How can Oakland Improve Energy
Efficiency? Oakland Climate Action Coalition.
OCAC. 2014. Oakland Community Action Coalition
Guide. Oakland Climate Action Coalition.
OCAC. 2015. How will Illegal Dumping Impact Oakland?
Oakland Climate Action Coalition.

195

196

CASE STUDY: OAKLAND, CALIFORNIA

OCAC. Undated. Oakland Climate Action Coalition.
Available: http://oaklandclimateaction.org/. Accessed
July 29 2015.
Schwind, K. 2015. Interview with Kirsten Schwind, Bay
Localize. July 20.
The Kresge Foundation. 2014. $1.7M in Grants Support
Climate-Resilience Efforts Focused on Low-Income
Communities. November 20. Available:
http://kresge.org/news/17m-grants-support-climate-resilience-efforts-focused-low-income-communities#sthash.7xlcOg5M.dpuf. Accessed July 28. 2015.
WOEIP. 2011. Air Quality. West Oakland Environmental
Indicators Project. Available: http://www.woeip.org/
air-quality/. Accessed July 28. 2015.

CASE STUDY: SEATTLE, WASHINGTON

Seattle, Washington

Mainstreaming Climate Change into
Internal Planning and Decision-Making
SEATTLE, WASHINGTONAUTHORS: Missy Stults, Karen Carney, and Jason VogelIn this case study, you will learn about:• How SPU is integrating climate change into operational, planning, capital improvement,
and strategic decision-making• Strategies for engaging with academic institutions to build capacity and knowledge• Developing learning, adaptive information networks to ensure decisions are based on themost up-to-date information• Leveraging previous extreme events to prepare for future changes in weather and climate

CLIMATE ADAPTATION: THE STATE OF PRACTICE IN U.S. COMMUNITIES

197

198

CASE STUDY: SEATTLE, WASHINGTON

Case Study Summary
Seattle Public Utilities (SPU) serves “652,000 Seattle
residential and 64,000 business customers with drinking water, sewer, drainage, garbage, and recycling…
and suppl[ies] over 700,000 customers in other Puget
Sound area cities with drinking water” (SPU, 2014, p. 6).
The utility “has two mountain watersheds, 193 miles ofdrinking water transmission pipelines, 1,680 miles of distribution mains, and 400 million gallons of transmissions
and distribution reservoir storage…[along with] 448
miles of regular sanitary sewers and a combined sewer
system [mostly in the City of Seattle]…and two garbage
and recycling transfer stations” that process 6,100 tonsof garbage weekly (SPU, 2014, p. 6). As the region’s main
provider of drinking water, drainage, and waste disposal,
SPU is vulnerable to fluctuations in weather.
Throughout the 1990s and the 2000s, a series of extreme
rainfall events and droughts affected SPU’s operations,
including the utility’s water supply and drainage operations. These events, combined with growing scientificevidence about climate change, led SPU to begin studying how climate change could affect the organization’s
mission and daily operations. Over time, this work
evolved into the formal integration of climate considerations into the four levels of SPU’s internal planning andoperations: (1) organization-wide strategic planning, (2)planning at the water division and drainage and sewerdivision levels, (3) capital investment decision-making,and (4) day-to-day operational decision-making.
Today, SPU has developed a system where dozens ofordinary, day-to-day decision-making processes are
required to consider climate change and/or climate variability. Interviewees note that SPU’s work has helped toreduce vulnerability by integrating climate into organization and division-level planning, and by increasing
the capacity of staff to understand and respond to climate variability and change. Despite SPU’s extensive
work to modify internal planning, few projects havebeen modified based on projected changes in climate.
Paul Fleming, the lead of the Climate Resiliency Groupat SPU, points out that “some projects may not need
to be modified as changes in climate may not impact
them or alternatively, plans could be made to makechanges in the future, as the impacts of climate change
become more evident” (Fleming, 2015). Regardless of
how changes in projects manifest, more work is needed
to understand whether and how SPU’s approach will
help make its operations and the populations it serves
less vulnerable to extreme weather and climate changeover the long-term.

The Broader Context for
Mainstreaming Climate Change
throughout SPU’s Internal Planningand Decision-Making
Water management in the Pacific Northwest is a complex issue and, with a changing climate, “water resource
managers and planners will encounter new risks, vulnerabilities, and opportunities that may not be properly
managed within existing practices” (Mellilo et al., 2014).
Fortunately, a number of utilities are investing in methodologies to plan for a climate-altered future. One such
utility, SPU, has become a national leader in ensuringthat it is able to meet current and future water-related
demands of its customers.
Late in the 20th century, SPU began to realize that its
methods for managing water supply were being challenged by extreme climate variability. This was mostevident between the mid-1980s and mid-1990s when
SPU experienced a major drought (in 1987), heavy precipitation and flooding throughout the watershed (in1990, 1995, and 1996), and low snowpack (in 1992), allresulting in either too much water or too little. In lightof these extremes, SPU embarked on an effort to more
fully understand climate variability within the watershed
and plan for potential changes (Exhibit 1).
Today, SPU undertakes a variety of activities to reduce
its vulnerability to changes in climate, some of which
preceded the emergence of climate change as an issueof concern or which have non-climate factors as the primary driver. The utility invested in green infrastructure to
manage water quality, and is now exploring it as a way
to manage flooding by expanding the capacity of thepiped storm water system. SPU has an extensive water

CASE STUDY: SEATTLE, WASHINGTON

Mid 2000s

Late 2000s to present

Second,regional
climate study

Climate change integrated into Seattle
Public Utilities’ maintenance and operations

Serious floodingthat was theimpetus toconsider climatechange indrainage andwastewaterplanning
Major
Major
Low
Major
drought precipitation snowpack precipitation
event
year
events andurbanflooding

1987

1990

1992

1995 &
1996

Considerationof El Niño inwater supply
planning

1997

First
climate
study

2002

Climateprojections
integrated into
water supply
plans

Third climate
study
initiated

ClimateResiliency
Groupformed at
SeattleClimate program Public
Utilities
established

2006–
2007

2011

Climateprojections
integrated
into watersupply plans

2013

Seattle Public
Utilities’ 1st
6-year strategic
business plan
including climatechange issues
Climate change
officiallyintegrated into
Stage Gates
2014

Exhibit 1. Timeline of mainstreaming climate change into internal planning and decision-making at SPU.

conservation and reuse program, works with homeowners and private developers to manage stormwater where
it falls, executes an extensive water education program,
and works to maintain and improve land quality throughout its watershed. SPU is also a founding member of theWater Utility Climate Alliance, a consortium of some of
the nation’s largest water utilities focused on “providing
leadership and collaboration on climate change issues
affecting the country’s water agencies” (Water Utilities
Climate Alliance, 2015).
More recently, SPU has undertaken a series of initiatives to ensure that climate change is factored into alllevels of utility planning and decision-making. This work
includes innovative modeling, the creation of climate-related screening tools, and one-on-one engagement with
SPU employees about climate-related issues. This caseprofiles some of this work at SPU, highlighting strategies
and techniques being used by the utility to ensure thatclimate change is factored into all levels of organizational
operations and decision-making.

Why and How SPU Mainstreamed
Climate Change into Internal
Planning and Decision-Making
Increasing Intensity and Frequency ofExtreme Events Raises Staff Awarenessabout Climate Variability
In the later portion of the 20th century, a series ofextreme weather events began raising concern regarding
the long-term sustainability of the city’s water supply. A
major drought, potentially the worst on record according
to Joan Kersnar, drinking water planning manager for
SPU, struck the region in 1987. This led the Seattle Water
Department (which merged with the Seattle Engineering
Department in 1997 to form SPU) to “start improvingsome of our sources; we also installed a pump plant toaccess more storage and drilled more wells” (Kersnar,2015). Exacerbating the impacts of the drought, however, was the high water demand in the Seattle service
area—“around 170+ million gallons per day, which is more

199

200

CASE STUDY: SEATTLE, WASHINGTON

than what we estimate our firm yield [the maximum yieldthat could be delivered without failure during the second
worst historical drought of record] to be” (Kersnar, 2015).
This drought was followed by a major precipitation event
in November 1990, which led to significant flooding down
the watershed (Kersnar, 2015). This, in turn, led SPU to
explore additional options for managing water storage
to prevent future extreme flooding scenarios. In 1992, theregion experienced a low snowpack year, but because
the utility was “operating for flood management, meaning we were releasing water in order to keep reservoir
levels low enough to capture any extreme rainfall that
could fall in the region, we were in a situation where we
had less supply than planned” (Kersnar, 2015). When thesnowfall turned out to be low and significant rains did
not materialize, the utility was forced to mandate wateruse curtailments the following summer (Kersnar, 2015).
In both 1995 and 1996, the region was again affected by
two heavy precipitation events, leading to significant
flooding in major rivers and communities downstream.

availability during previous El Niño-like years. These
results showed that, in general, El Niño years, especiallystrong El Niño years, are likely to cause warmer temperatures in the winter, leading to more precipitation
falling in the mountain watersheds as rain as opposed tosnow (Chinn, 2015). Having this information “put staff ina position where we could understand and communicate
to our city council and other stakeholders just what it [ElNiño] could mean in terms of a risk to our water supply”(Chinn, 2015). This information also enabled staff to prepare a proactive plan with various steps outlining what
could be done during the transition from fall to winterif snowpack was expected to be low, to ensure the adequate supply of water during the following year (Kersnar,2015). The information gleaned from UW, combined withknowledge obtained through SPU’s analysis of historical
El Niño years, laid the foundation for a deeper understanding of how climate variability has historicallyaffected and could continue to affect the city’s watersupply and flood management objectives in the future.

Partnerships Form to Understand Climate
Impacts Specific to SPU“After a few major extreme
weather events, we started tolook down the road and ask
how often these events weregoing to happen in the future
and what this could mean for
our water supply.”
JAMES RUFO-HILL

In 1997, the conversation about the viability of the city’swater supply became more sophisticated due in part toprojections of a strong El Niño for the 1997–1998 time
period. Staff in the water supply division of SPU were curious to know what El Niño conditions meant for Seattle’s
water supply and began working with researchers at
the University of Washington (UW) to identify potential
impacts and strategies to mitigate them (Chinn, 2015).
One technique used to understand potential impacts wasan analysis of the city’s records to identify water supply

SPU’s first climate change study was driven by staff’s
appreciation that climate change was an issue that SPU
needed to understand. This preceded public concern or
engagement on the issue and illustrates the foresight of
SPU staff. SPU continued to engage with researchers at
UW to generate specific information about how climatechange could impact water resources in the Seattle area.
In addition, SPU began engaging with two other water
utilities in the region, Everett and Tacoma, as well as
stakeholders in King County, to determine the futureof water supply throughout the entire area (Kersnar,2015). In the mid-2000s, downscaled climatological data
were generated for water utilities in Tacoma, Seattle,
and Everett. The utilities ran this information throughtheir own models in order to generate the 2009 Outlook,which provided a long-range view of what future water
demand may be in the three-county region. “The downscaled meteorological data was also integrated into eachutility’s supply-side modeling to determine what watersupply in the future could look like. This allowed us to
identify what shortages might exist, especially under afuture altered by climate change” (Kersnar, 2015).

CASE STUDY: SEATTLE, WASHINGTON“How do you think aboutclimate change from a broad
perspective? Part of my job isto try to make climate changepart and parcel of what we doas an organization.”
PAUL FLEMING

Climate Science and Impact Reports
Illuminate Potential Risks
According to Joan Kersnar, drinking water planning manager and Alan Chinn, water resources engineer supervisor
at SPU, it did not take long for these informal conversations on climate variability to grow into more formal
discussions about long-term climate change (Chinn, 2015;
Kersnar, 2015). Part of the reason for this transition was the
emergence of an increasing body of literature about climate change, including reports like the Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change’s Assessments and the first
Pacific Northwest Assessment on Climate Change, which
identified projected changes in climate and high-level
impacts that could affect the region.
The findings from these assessments were shared in local
and regional media and led to more public awareness aboutclimate change’s potential impacts on water supply. This
led some local politicians to raise “alarms with regards toour water supply system” (Rufo-Hill, 2015). According toPaul Fleming, Lead of the Climate Resiliency Group at SPU,
“climate change became this point of pain for us… the concept had stirred up enough attention that it was creating
turbulence for the organization” (Fleming, 2015). Notably,
this “point of pain” came after SPU had initiated and largely
completed their first local climate change study.

Exhibit 2. Model of mainstreaming
climate change into all scales ofdecision-making at SPU.

SPU Creates Climate Resiliency Group to
Integrate Climate Change into Internal
Planning and Decision-Making
Through this work, it became apparent that climatechange was likely to impact SPU’s operations in modest
ways over the short-term and potentially in more significant ways in the future (Hoffman, 2015). To build
the capacity of the utility to respond, SPU management created an internal Climate Resiliency Group. This
group was formalized in the late-2000s and tasked withhelping SPU understand its exposure and sensitivity to
climate change and to build up SPU’s capacity to adapt(achieving carbon neutrality was added in 2014; Fleming,2015). Two full-time staff currently make up the Climate
Resiliency Group: Paul Fleming and James Rufo-Hill.
According to Paul Fleming, one of the main foci for the
Climate Resiliency Group is figuring out how to embedclimate change into all relevant decision-making processes and planning efforts (Fleming, 2015). This has
led to a goal of “mainstreaming climate change into
what we do at SPU” (Rufo-Hill, 2015). Initially, this work
focused on planning within the water division, since
this division had a long track record of thinking about
how climate variability and change could affect thecity’s water supply. Eventually, the Climate Resiliency
Group took the lead in working with other staff tofigure out how to integrate climate considerations into:(1) organization-wide strategic planning, (2) planning at

201

202

CASE STUDY: SEATTLE, WASHINGTON

the water division and drainage and sewer division levels,(3) capital investment decision-making, and (4) dayto-day operational decision-making. According to Paul
Fleming, SPU is trying to “embed what we are learning
about climate change in what we do, wherever it makes
sense” (Exhibit 2; Fleming, 2015).

Climate Change Integrated into SPU
Strategic Business Plan
SPU is a complex organization with responsibility forwater supply, drainage, wastewater management, andsolid waste services for the Seattle metropolitan area.
In 2014, SPU created its first six-year strategic businessplan, which is used to allocate funding and describes how
the organization will ensure the delivery of high-quality
services, while also protecting human health and theenvironment. The impetus to create the plan stemmed
from Seattle City Council members, who were impressedby Seattle City Light’s strategic planning efforts andwanted SPU to emulate the practice.

utility to focus on in the coming years. In addition, theutility held a series of internal meetings and conducteda survey that asked SPU employees to identify strengths,
weaknesses, opportunities, and threats (SWOT) for SPU
over the coming decade. The point of this SWOT analysis,
according to Ray Hoffman, was to “identify our deficiencies, gaps, and opportunities for growth. We know
we aren’t as efficient as we’d like to be, we aren’t doing
all the best practices in the field and there are strategic
opportunities to do better” (Hoffman, 2015).
During the 18-month process of creating the plan, “climatechange came up multiple times through multiple different ideas and priorities” (Hoffman, 2015), and thus it was
explicitly integrated in the plan’s first focal area: “Better
protecting your health and our environment.” Specifically,
the SPU Business Plan calls for SPU to “prepare for watersupply and utility system threats that may occur fromclimate change” by “increas[ing] reliability of drinking
water supply through system improvements” (SPU, 2014,
p. 13). The plan also aims to ensure that “utility systems…
are climate resilient and environmentally friendly.” Towardthat end, the plan specifies that SPU will manage “700
million gallons of runoff annually with green stormwater
infrastructure by 2025” (SPU, 2014, p. 23).
The fact that funding is directly tied to the priorities identified in SPU’s Strategic Business Plan means that theinclusion of issues such as climate change will continue toaffect how SPU does business. “[The plan] has real weight,
it’s a living document because our rates are tied to it and
we are being held accountable to it” (Fleming, 2015). Ray
Hoffman, Director at SPU, notes that the strategies identified in the plan “are things we, as a utility, with input fromour customers, identified as being a priority and those are
the things we are now accountable to moving forward,
including preparing for climate change” (Hoffman, 2015).

To complete the plan, SPU engaged a Mayoral and Seattle
City Council-appointed customer panel composed ofnine individuals from industry, retail, and environmentalorganizations; small and large commercial organizations; and low-income communities. The panel met for
3 hours twice monthly over 18 months, and were tasked
with conducting outreach to other customer segments
to identify what SPU customers generally wanted the

Opposition to the Strategic Business Plan and, more
specifically, the strategies included in the plan, did
exist. According to Ray Hoffman, two types of opponents emerged: those who thought SPU was doing too
little and those who thought SPU was doing too much
(Hoffman, 2015). For the former, SPU used monetaryjustifications to make the case for why certain actions
were included and others, while important, could not be

CASE STUDY: SEATTLE, WASHINGTON

prioritized at this time. “We let our stakeholders knowthat this is how much money we have to spend: period.
This has to cover both existing operations and infrastructure improvements as well as anything new” (Hoffman,2015). For opponents who thought SPU was doing too
much, the conversation centered on the importance ofensuring the long-term viability of its services, especiallywater delivery, in the face of an uncertain future. The
Strategic Business Plan was officially approved by themayor and the Seattle City Council in the summer of2014, and SPU is currently working to implement the
specific climate-related actions identified in the plan.

Climate Change Integrated into
Division-Level Planning
SPU is composed of three lines of business: (1) water, (2)drainage and wastewater, and (3) solid waste services.
Each of these divisions is responsible for both day-today operations as well as creating long-term plans ofoperation. Water Supply and Drainage and Wastewater
are the two lines of business most directly tied to SPU’s
adaptation efforts. The following sections describe howeach of these divisions is working to integrate climatechange into their long-term planning.

“As appropriate, decisions,plans, and investments are
hopefully considered in lightof exposure and sensitivity to
climate change, and adjusted,
as appropriate, given thatconsideration.”
PAUL FLEMING

Climate Change Integrated into Water
Supply Plan
The State of Washington requires water utilities to create
water supply plans every 6 years and mandates thatthese plans outline key priorities and actions for the next

20 years (Kersnar, 2015). The intent of these plans is
to devise a strategy for how best to meet future watersupply needs. While the inclusion of climate projectionsin these plans is not required, SPU integrated projections
to understand future water supply in both its 2007 and2013 plans (Kersnar, 2015). This move largely stemmed
from the growing quantity of climate-related information
emerging from UW and other research hubs as well as
growing public concern about climate change impacts tothe city’s water supply (see previous sections).
One way that climate change is embedded into SPU’s
water supply plan is through the use of climate ensembles. Rather than depend on a single climate model orgreenhouse gas emissions scenario, ensembles integrate
information across a range of models and scenarios,
which better brackets the range of potential climate
impacts. More specifically, the water division has beenusing climate ensembles to analyze potential futureclimatic conditions and model how those climate conditions could impact the utility’s water supply. The 2007
and 2013 water system plans each used three to four scenarios that were developed through a partnership withUW (Hoffman, 2015). Today, the Climate Resiliency Group
worked with the water division and climate scientists at
the Climate Impacts Research Consortium [a climate
research center for the Pacific Northwest supported by
the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration(NOAA)] to create a broader set of 40 scenarios thathave been downscaled to several point locations in
SPU’s watersheds. The results from the downscaled
models have been and are being fed into SPU’s internal models (e.g., its hydrology model and utility systemmodel), so that the utility can assess how supply could
be affected under the different scenarios. According toPaul Fleming, “this enables us to test our system under
different plausible futures” (Fleming, 2015). This workis happening under the auspices of a project known as
the Pilot Utility Modeling Application (PUMA) project.9
PUMA focuses on getting the “next generation of climate
data which can then be fed into our internal processes
to update our understanding of climate-related impacts
on supply” (Fleming, 2015). The results from PUMA will
be integrated into the next update to SPU’s water supply
plan and used to update SPU’s adaptation options.

9. More information about the PUMA project can be found at http://www.watersupplyforum.org/home/outlook/.

203

204

CASE STUDY: SEATTLE, WASHINGTON

Two key stakeholders involved in the historical and current integration of climate change into water supply
planning are Joan Kersnar and Alan Chinn (Fleming, 2015;
Rufo-Hill, 2015). According to Paul Fleming, these two
individuals have long been driving an organization-wide
transition to become a learning, adaptive utility that is
capable of integrating the best emerging science intoplanning and decision-making (Fleming, 2015). While no
specific individuals were identified as opponents to theintegration of climate change into water supply planning,
Joan Kersnar and Alan Chinn commented that it is aconstant battle to get people comfortable with the inherent uncertainty associated with climate modeling and
not using that uncertainty as a justification for inaction(Chinn, 2015; Kersnar, 2015). As discussed in the Moving
Forward section later in this document, dealing withuncertainty remains a common challenge across SPU.

Climate Change Integrated into Drainage
and Sewer Division’s Long-Term Control Plan
The integration of climate change into drainage andwastewater planning is more nascent than it is for watersupply planning. According to Dave Jacobs, System
Operations Planning & Analysis Manager at SPU, “We
only recently really got involved in the climate change
conversation in order to understand the impact of climate change on urban flooding. This really stemmed
from some serious flooding events we had in 2006 and2007. Prior to that, we didn’t fully understand the extent
of the urban flooding issues” (Jacobs, 2015). Dave Jacobs
noted that several factors contributed to this transition:(1) increased data availability regarding current and historical operations, (2) more frequent extreme weather
events, and (3) increased awareness concerns from residents about localized flooding (Jacobs, 2015).
Today, the drainage and wastewater line of business isworking to integrate climate concerns into their updated
Long-Term Control Plan, which examines how best to
maintain and upgrade SPU’s infrastructure and operations, specifically as it pertains to combined sewer
overflows. Climate change is being integrated into theplan through a number of venues, most notably the decision to apply “a scaling factor on our historical rainfall
estimates to account for future climate change” (Jacobs,

2015). Part of the challenge for SPU is that it is not clear
how the region’s precipitation will change. Overall,annual precipitation is likely to remain the same, but how
and when the rain falls is less certain (Fleming, 2015).
The region may experience more intense, shorter-duration storms or storms of longer duration may be morecommon (Melillo et al., 2014). Dave Jacobs notes, “Oneof the things we try to do is look at both options [intense
short-duration events and long-duration storms] to see
how our system would respond. We add a 6 percent
increase to our historical rainfall records when we do our
long-term model simulations of our system. The rainfall
scaling allows us to see how this increase could impact
the system in both high-volume scenarios as well as peakintensity scenarios” (Jacobs, 2015).

“The projects identified in
the Long-Term Control Plan
that we are preparing to
implement have actuallychanged because of ourincreased knowledge of
projected climate impacts.”
DAVE JACOBS

The results from the climate change modeling havebeen incorporated into the Long-Term Control Plan andshow two key areas of concern for SPU: (1) that high-volume, longer duration storms tend to be at the end of
the wastewater conveyance line and thus more green
infrastructure may be needed to cope with water-quality
issues in these areas; and (2) short-duration storms tend
to hit neighborhoods in the urban core where there aresmaller pipes for conveyance, suggesting that onsite natural drainage may need to be increased. These findings
have directly affected the types of strategies that SPU
is recommending for implementation in its Long-Term
Control Plan (Jacobs, 2015).
Dave Jacobs notes that SPU’s efforts to embed climatechange into Capital Improvement Projects have been a

CASE STUDY: SEATTLE, WASHINGTON

long time in the works and it still remains unclear how
this work will materialize into changes in on-the-groundprojects. Clear opposition to this work has not emerged,
but internal hurdles and the legacy of doing things a “certain way” present challenges to SPU’s work in this area
(Jacobs, 2015). In particular, the uncertainty associatedwith climate change presents a challenge to figuring out
how to design systems. This uncertainty, combined with“pressure to get projects through, can lead to a common
situation where teams want singular direction on what
they are required to account for in planning and designphases of projects” (Jacobs, 2015). To help staff overcome
this hurdle, Dave Jacobs and his colleagues in the Climate
Resiliency Group are helping staff in the drainage andwastewater divisions (as well as staff in the water division) navigate future uncertainty by identifying projects
that are economically viable over their full lifespan. The
techniques used to engage with and educate staff are
informal: face-to-face conversations and personal or small
group trainings (Fleming, 2015).

Climate Change Integrated into Capital
Improvement Programs and Investments
SPU spends nearly a billion dollars a year on operations
and maintenance and in investments to improve its
system. The majority of these investments are designed
to provide a certain level of service for decades into
the future. Given the long lifespan and large expenseof infrastructure projects, the Climate Resiliency Group
proposed to SPU management that the capital funding
process be changed to mandate that all project proposers seeking funding demonstrate that they haveconsidered how climate change could affect their proposed projects over their lifetimes (Fleming, 2015). Thishas been done through SPU’s capital improvement program review process: Stage Gates.
Stage Gates is a five-step system that projects seeking funding must undergo in order to ensure they aredesigned appropriately and in alignment with SPU’s
core values, such as race and social justice and efficiency(Serwold, 2015). In 2014, SPU officially integrated climatechange considerations into the first two gates, or review
phases, of the process. Staff in the Climate Resiliency
Group designed the questions with the assistance ofconsultants and with input from other utilities. All projects seeking funding through the Capital Improvements
Program are required to answer the questions pertaining to climate change. According to Kim Serwold in the
Office of Utility Services at SPU, what this means is that
“Whenever a project is being proposed to address anissue of concern, project managers need to identify
how climate change could affect the project: this is thefirst gate. Once a project concept clears the first gate,
the second gate requires the evaluation of alternative
options that could meet an identified need. Here, project managers are also required to identify how changes
in future climate could affect the identified options”(Serwold, 2015).
Once project managers complete the requisite Stage
Gate form, the responses are reviewed by a series ofstaff, including senior-level management, to ensure thatprojects are appropriately integrating climate considerations into their project designs. If a project were to be
proposed and fail to integrate climate considerations
that were of relevance, the project proposer would be
asked to reevaluate the project proposal, factoring inclimate change (Hoffman, 2015). If needed, staff in
the Climate Resiliency Group are available to help the
project proposer complete the Stage Gates questions(Rufo-Hill, 2015).
One project currently going through the Stage Gates
process is a new pump station in the South Park
neighborhood, a traditionally underserved, historicallyindustrial, low-income area of the city adjacent to the
Duwamish River and in proximity to Elliot Bay. The project was originally designed a few years ago, but recent
analysis shows that the area around the pump station
is subject to flooding. The reason for this is that thestreets around this particular pump station do not havepipes, meaning that when significant rain falls or a King
Tide (an extremely high tide) event occurs, the streetsflood, leaving standing water for hours. Without pipes,
this floodwater cannot be transported to the pumpstation or other facilities for treatment and discharge.
Looking at the system as a whole, the project proposers
realized that to address the localized flooding issue andsafely remove water, pipes would need to be installed
and the pump station and treatment facility would need

205

206

CASE STUDY: SEATTLE, WASHINGTON

to be built (Harrison, 2015). Today the plan is to build
the pump station two-feet higher to deal with sea level
rise and include shutoff valves in case sea levels rise further. Then, a separate project will be submitted for theactive conveyance and treatment of floodwater when
it impacts the region.

“The main change has beenthat we’re more rigorous inthinking about climate change
and really integrating it into
projects like our conveyancesystem. The inclusion ofclimate considerations into
Stages Gates is focusing a
deeper conversation around
preparing for things like sea
level rise.”
SHEILA HARRISON

Opposition to integrating climate change into the Stage
Gates process emerged around two issues: (1) the additional demand being placed on project managers, and(2) uncertainty about exactly what data and climate
projections to use to complete the Stage Gates forms.
In regards to the first point, staff already felt that theStage Gates review process was cumbersome so adding
a new requirement around climate change presented
yet another hurdle to getting a project rapidly approved(Harrison, 2015). The second point of opposition focusedon the lack of clarity around which climate change projections or future scenarios for precipitation and sea
level rise to use in planning. According to Dave Jacobs,
staff going through the Stage Gates process would often
comment that, “If science doesn’t know what’s going tohappen in the future, how do we know what we should
be designing for?” (Jacobs, 2015). To date there is noplan to provide specific climate change projections for
project managers to use. Instead, staff in the Climate
Resiliency Group are trying to educate staff aboutrobust decision-making so that project proposers are
comfortable making educated decisions about whichclimate scenarios to use in their designs. Paul Flemingcomments that, “much work in this area still needs tobe done to ensure that staff across SPU are comfortable with making decisions in the face of uncertainty”(Fleming, 2015).

Climate Change Integrated into
SPU’s Operations
SPU is responsible for the operations and maintenanceof 193 miles of drinking water transmission pipelines,
1,680 miles of distribution mains, 400 million gallons oftransmission and distribution reservoir storage, and 448
miles of regular sanitary sewers and combined sewer
systems (SPU, 2014). All day, every day, SPU must ensurethat these systems are operating as designed in orderto ensure that Seattle residents, as well as residents ofthe greater Puget Sound area, are receiving water andsewer services (Hoffman, 2015).
At the operations and maintenance level, weather andclimate variability are major issues of concern. As such,
the Climate Resiliency Group is tasked with translatingclimate and weather information into formats that canbe integrated into day-to-day and week-by-week decision-making (Fleming, 2015). One way this happens isby “constantly scanning the forecasts to identify problems that might arise due to things such as flooding,both in urban areas and in the watersheds, or looking
for high tides that could be problematic for our tidally
influenced assets” (Rufo-Hill, 2015). In addition to thisforward-looking component, the Climate Resiliency
Group is also responsible for a forensic investigation ofhistorical storms and impacts to help SPU understandwhat happened, why infrastructure failed, why a flood
occurred, or more generally, what went wrong. This
information is then fed back to operations staff so thatlessons learned about thresholds and system sensitivity
can be addressed immediately. In addition, this information is shared with staff working on long-term planningto ensure that systems which are already vulnerable are
getting the attention they need and that solutions for
systems likely to be vulnerable in the future are being
identified in division-level planning.

CASE STUDY: SEATTLE, WASHINGTON“We try to keep people on
track with what is happening
today and get them to think
about how they are going to
respond in the future.”
JAMES RUFO-HILL

Integrating climate change concerns into SPU’s daily
operations and maintenance is perhaps “the largest
challenge we face in our efforts to mainstream climatechange,” notes James Rufo-Hill (Rufo-Hill, 2015). At thesame time, SPU has focused on operational adjustments
as the starting point when thinking about adaptation,with SPU’s dynamic operational rule curve for its reservoirs as one example of how changing operations canserve as an adaptation strategy. The reason for this isthat the timeframe for operations and maintenance is
not “synced up with the time frame of climate change.
Operations is the here and now, climate change is the
future” (Fleming, 2015). To bridge this divide, James
Rufo-Hill and Paul Fleming use weather and climate
variability, particularly the extremes in both situations,to demonstrate what future operations for SPU mightlook like in a climate-altered world. As an example,
James Rufo-Hill notes that “there was a period of time
where there wasn’t a water resources meeting where I
wasn’t talking about the ‘blob’—an anomalous regionof warm water in the Pacific that was fueling storms
and keeping us warm…I talked about it both because
it could impact our daily operational decisions but it
also presented a way for me to couch climate change
into our conversations…this blob could be a normalpart of our future, meaning the way you are adjusting
your operations now might be our new normal modeof operations in the future” (Rufo-Hill, 2015). Finding
examples of changes in weather that could be demonstrative of a future altered by climate change is one waythat SPU staff are trying to integrate climate change
into the utility’s operations and maintenance culture.
However, Paul Fleming indicated that more work in thisarea is needed (Fleming, 2015).

Accomplishments of SPU’s Efforts
to Mainstream Climate Change
into Internal Planning and
Decision-Making
SPU is hoping that its efforts at integrating climate
into multiple levels of planning and decision-making
will make the utility’s infrastructure, service delivery,
and programs less vulnerable to climate variability andchange. However, other than the work of the water division, SPU’s efforts in this area are still nascent. As such,there are few projects that SPU can point to that havefundamentally changed because of the requirement toconsider climate in its design or operations.
When asked if work to date has helped to reduce thevulnerability of SPU to climate change, James Rufo-Hill
stated, “We are making progress in building the capacityof staff to respond to climate variability and change andI think that is a sign of vulnerability reduction” (RufoHill, 2015). Paul Fleming comments, “I think our work on
assessment and adaptive capacity enhancement is really
essential. My hope is that when we have to make toughadaptation decisions, we’ve put in place the knowledge
to help make sure those decisions are right” (Fleming,2015). Ray Hoffman further commented that you “cansee [SPU’s] progress by looking at how successful
we’ve been in integrating climate considerations into
our organization-level and division-level planning. These
efforts, if not yet, will very soon translate to projects on
the ground that reduce SPU’s vulnerability to climatechange” (Hoffman, 2015).

“When I look at where we areat in relation to the industry,I’m really happy. That said,
when I look at where weare in relation to where we
could be, we have room
for improvement, room
to do more.”
RAY HOFFMAN

207

208

CASE STUDY: SEATTLE, WASHINGTONIn addition, multiple interviewees noted one of thegreatest accomplishments of SPU’s work to date is
its transformation to being a data-driven, transparent
organization (Chinn, 2015; Hoffman, 2015; Rufo-Hill,
2015). This is perhaps best displayed in SPU’s desire tobase its decisions on ever-improving scientific information, much of which is commissioned. This scientificfoundation was noted as constantly evolving, flexible,
and adaptive, meaning that as new information on
climate change becomes available, it can readily be
integrated into organizational tools and resources fordaily and long-term decision-making. This readinessto integrate new information into planning and operational decision-making is due to SPU’s larger efforts
to integrate climate change into all levels of the organization. As Paul Fleming notes, SPU “has built, or is in
the process of building, a culture where mainstreaming
climate change into all levels of what we do is becoming
the norm” (Fleming, 2015).

“We’ve become a learningorganization—constantly
taking new data, learningfrom it, from weather eventsor extreme events and trying
to constantly prepare.”
ALAN CHINN

A number of tangible activities demonstrate how SPU’s
work to mainstream consideration of climate change into
operations has made a notable difference. For example,
the Water Resources and Watershed Divisions at SPU
have made significant investments in additional watershed snow, weather, and streamflow monitoring anddata collection systems to ensure they understand, in
real-time, how their water supply is changing. The utility
has also made investments towards UW’s high resolution
weather forecasting system and other tools that are specific to SPU’s operational needs while also using NOAA’s
family of services to understand how short-term changes
in weather could affect daily operations. Additionally,
SPU made investments to allow 3 more feet of reliable

reservoir water storage behind Masonry Dam and has
made significant investments in the Morse Lake Pump
Plant project to ensure water supply reliability into the
future (Chinn, 2015).
Despite these successes, James Rufo-Hill notes: “it’sbeen hard to build up appropriate documentation to
make sure we know how often projects are discussing
climate change, which projects are effective once implemented, and how effective they are. It’s been good on
one hand to know the process is working as designed,
but I have no sense for how well it’s working or how seriously people are taking it” (Rufo-Hill, 2015). Paul Fleming
shares this sentiment, noting that SPU’s effort is conceptually strong, but it is “unclear if we are definitively
protecting our investments” (Fleming, 2015). To remedy
this, SPU is currently exploring options to evaluate theimpact that embedding climate change considerations
has had on projects and daily operations and maintenance (Rufo-Hill, 2015).

“Utilities are making decision
on infrastructure that has
a long life. The question
on hand is are we reallyokay with the decisions weare making under various
scenarios of what our future
could hold? Are our decisions
robust enough for multiple
different futures?”
JOAN KERSNAR

Moving Forward
Going forward, SPU will focus on continuing to build
momentum at all levels of the organization aroundclimate preparedness (Fleming, 2015). This includes
supporting and educating top-level executives and field
staff about the need to make decisions that are robust

CASE STUDY: SEATTLE, WASHINGTON

under current and future climates. To do this, staff in
the Climate Resiliency Group will: (1) continue to holdweather and climate trainings, (2) continue to publish
blog posts about weather and climate issues of relevanceto the utility, and (3) conduct personal outreach to key
stakeholders throughout SPU to build “more climate
champions” (Fleming, 2015).
Another area of continued focus for SPU is helping staff
effectively address the uncertainty associated withclimate change projections. According to Alan Chinn,“there is real pressure to take the median or to take oneof the scenarios we are using and base all decisions onthat scenario” (Chinn, 2015). More specifically, many
interviewees noted a tendency for people to want toknow exactly what they should be planning for. In thecase of Stage Gates (capital improvement funding),
project managers want to know exactly what range oftemperature, precipitation, or sea level rise you wantthem to plan for (Harrison, 2015). Since SPU is not currently planning on providing this level of specificity, staff
in the Climate Resiliency Group are working on techniques to help other staff become more comfortablewith uncertainly and be able to make their own informed
decisions about which future climate projections to use
in their planning. According to Paul Fleming, “the goal is
to understand and embrace uncertainty so that you canmake informed decisions that are robust under multiple
potential futures” (Fleming, 2015).
An additional area of future emphasis for SPU is the creation of metrics to evaluate how successful the utility
is in increasing resilience or reducing its vulnerability.
According to James Rufo-Hill, SPU needs to improve its
efforts to document and monitor the effectiveness of
its operations, decision-making, and planning processes(Rufo-Hill, 2015). Without these metrics, SPU is unable toprovide robust analyses that demonstrate whether andhow its efforts have reduced the utility’s vulnerability to
climate change. Having clear benchmarks and metrics
could provide important insights regarding how effective different approaches have been, as well as specifics
regarding areas for future growth.

“Ultimately, we are trying toprotect the community fromfuture risks we are aware of.”
DAVE JACOBS

Finally, when asked about challenges for SPU, Paul
Fleming commented, “One of our challenges is that wetend to focus on a single project at a time. Of course,with issues such as sea level rise, you ultimately need
to be thinking about a suite of projects in a given area.
So if you are going to add a pump station in one areaand you think about sea level rise and its impacts just tothat station but fail to think about sea level rises’ impact
to the surrounding infrastructure, you are creating an
isolated solution that won’t be sustained” (Fleming,2015). Transitioning from project-level planning to more
holistic, system-level planning for climate change is achallenge, particularly when investment decisions aredone on a project-by-project basis. This, however, iswhere comprehensive, system-wide planning comes in.
For SPU, the work of the water division to integrate climate considerations into its system-wide water supply
plan is one signal that SPU is transitioning to thinking
more holistically about its systems and how climatechange could affect their operations.

Acknowledgments
We would like to thank the following people for participating in interviews as part of this case study:• Alan Chinn, water resources engineer supervisor, SPU• Paul Faulds, water resources manager, SPU• Paul Fleming, lead, Climate Resiliency Group, SPU• Sheila Harrison, project manager, SPU• Ray Hoffman, director, SPU• Dave Jacobs, system operations planning &analysis manager, SPU

209

210

CASE STUDY: SEATTLE, WASHINGTON• Joan Kersnar, drinking water planning manager, SPU• James Rufo-Hill, climate adaptation specialist andoperational meteorologist, SPU

Hoffman, R. 2015. Interview with Ray Hoffman,
Director, Seattle Public Utilities. February 6.

• Kim Serwold, office of utility services, SPU.

Jacobs, D. 2015. Interview with Dave Jacobs, System
Operations Planning & Analysis Manager, Seattle Public
Utilities. February 5.

Bibliography

Kersnar, J. 2015. Interview with Joan Kersnar, Drinking
Water Planning Manager at Seattle Public Utilities.
February 5.

Bierbaum, R.M., J.B. Smith, A. Lee, M. Blair, L. Carter, S.
Chapin III, P. Fleming, S. Ruffo, M. Stults, S. McNeeley,
E. Wasley, and L. Verduzco. 2013. A comprehensive
review of climate adaptation in the United States:
More than before, but less than needed. Journalof Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global
Change 18(3):361–406. doi: 10.1007/s11027-012-9423-1.
Chinn, A. 2015. Interview with Alan Chinn, Water
Resources Engineer Supervisor at Seattle Public
Utilities. February 5.

Melillo, J.M., T.C. Richmond, and G.W. Yohe (eds.). 2014.
Climate Change Impacts in the United States: The
Third National Climate Assessment. U.S. Global Change
Research Program. doi: 10.7930/J0Z31WJ2.
Rufo-Hill, J. 2015. Interview with James Rufo-Hill,
Climate Adaptation Specialist and Operational
Meteorologist, Seattle Public Utilities. February 5.
Serwold, K. 2015. Interview with Kim Serwold, Office ofUtility Services, Seattle Public Utilities. February 5.

Dictionary.com. 2015. Mainstream. Dictionary.com, LLC.
Available: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/
mainstream. Accessed February 28, 2015.

SPU. 2014. Seattle Public Utilities Strategic Business
Plan: 2015–2020. Seattle Public Utilities, Seattle, WA.

Faulds, P. 2015. Interview with Paul Faulds, Water
Resources Manager, Seattle Public Utilities. February 5.

SPU. 2015. Seattle Public Utilities: About Us. Available:
http://www.seattle.gov/util/AboutUs/index.htm.
Accessed on February 28, 2015.

Fleming, P. 2015. Interview with Paul Fleming, Lead,
Climate Resiliency Group, Seattle Public Utilities.
February 5.
Harrison, S. 2015. Interview with Sheila Harrison,
Project Manager, Seattle Public Utilities. February 6.

Water Utilities Climate Alliance. 2015. About Us.
Available: http://www.wucaonline.org/html/about_us.html. Accessed on August 4, 2015.

CASE STUDY: SOUTHWESTERN CROWN, MONTANASouthwestern Crown, Montana

Forest Restoration
SOUTHWESTERN CROWN, MONTANAAUTHORS: Heather Hosterman, Jason Vogel, and Karen Carney

In this case study, you will learn about:• A public-private partnership aimed at increasing the ecological integrity of a landscapeand providing economic and social community benefits• An adaptive management approach to restoration that uses monitoring results to informfuture management practices• The value of taking incremental steps where there is agreement, and building on theunderstanding gained through those small actions to implement larger projects.

CLIMATE ADAPTATION: THE STATE OF PRACTICE IN U.S. COMMUNITIES

211

212

CASE STUDY: SOUTHWESTERN CROWN, MONTANA

Case Study Summary
The Southwestern Crown region covers approximately
1.5 million acres of “working ranches, private timberlands, craggy mountain peaks, abundant wildlife, andpristine lakes and streams” in northwest Montana(SWCC, 2015a). The landscape is home to several small,rural communities—Condon, Seeley Lake, Greenough,Ovando, Helmville, Potomac, and Lincoln (Exhibit 1)—andprovides prime habitat for various species, including grizzly bears, gray wolves, wolverines, lynx, and bull trout.
Although the ecological integrity of the Southwestern
Crown is high compared to many other landscapes, land
management practices and climate change are widelybelieved to have affected the region’s forest and stream
ecosystems (SWCC, 2010a). In particular, fire suppression
and other past management practices have increased
the landscapes’ susceptibility to large-scale, intense
wildfires. The Southwestern Crown is experiencing

more severe and longer wildfire seasons, as describedin more detail below (Westerling et al., 2006), and thecommunity expects these wildlife dynamics to be further
exacerbated under future climate change (SWCC, 2010b).
As such, the Southwestern Crown community acquired
federal funding to conduct forest and watershed restoration, including forest thinning and prescribed fires, theaim of which is to reestablish natural wildfire dynamics inthe area’s ecosystems and reduce the risk of catastrophic
wildfire. Reductions in wildfire frequency and intensity
will help protect: (1) local timber resources, (2) overallwatershed health, and (3) terrestrial and aquatic habitats(SWCC, 2010b). From 2010 to 2014, 13,113 acres of forest
have been treated using forest thinning and prescribedfires in the wildland-urban interface (WUI), and 8,534
acres of forest have been treated in the non-WUI. By
2019, the community aims to reduce fire risk on 27,000
acres of high-risk WUI lands and 46,000 acres on nonWUI lands (SWCC, 2015b).

Exhibit 1. Location of the Southwestern Crown.
Source: Mehl et al., 2012.

CASE STUDY: SOUTHWESTERN CROWN, MONTANAThe Broader Context of Vulnerability
Reduction in the Southwestern
Crown, MT
Starting in the 1980s, controversy and litigation led tosignificant reductions in timber harvests and slowed
the implementation of forest restoration projects in theSouthwestern Crown region (Austin, 2015; Parker, 2015).
Environmental groups were concerned about environmental degradation and the responsiveness of the U.S.
Forest Service (USFS) to public input on public forest
management, while local communities and loggers wereconcerned about forest-related employment opportunities. By the 1990s, the decline in timber harvests
was reducing employment in the region and leading
to increased hostilities among environmentalists, theUSFS, and loggers (Red Lodge Clearinghouse, 2010).
To promote civil discourse, Rod Ash, a conservationist
and member of the Condon community, began a collaborative process, the Southwestern Crown Collaborative(SWCC), in the early 1990s to bring together the community members to find positive solutions (Red Lodge
Clearinghouse, 2010). As part of this effort, community
members established local committees in the Swan,Blackfoot, and Clearwater valleys to help encourage
discourse and collaboration during forest restoration
planning and project implementation (Parker, 2015).

• Consider social constraints and seek public support for reintroducing fire on the landscape• Engage community and interested parties in therestoration process• Improve terrestrial and aquatic habitats andconnectivity• Emphasize ecosystem goods and services andsustainable land management practices• Integrate restoration with socioeconomic
wellbeing• Enhance education and recreation activities tobuild support for restoration• Protect and improve overall watershed health,including stream health, soil quality and function,and riparian function• Establish and maintain a safe road and trail
system that is ecologically sustainable.
a. These 13 principles now include an appendix
on restoring forests for the future, which
includes climate change considerations andadaptation strategies for forest restoration
projects. For more information, see http://
www.montanarestoration.org/climate.
Source: MFRC, 2007.

EXHIBIT 2. MFRC’S 13 PRINCIPLES a
MFRC believes that these principles should beapplied to planning and implementation of forest
restoration work on national forest lands in
Montana:• Restore functioning ecosystems by enhancing
ecological processes• Apply an adaptive management approach• Use the appropriate scale of integrated analysis
to prioritize and design restoration activities• Monitor restoration outcomes• Reestablish fire as a natural process on thelandscapeIn parallel with these efforts, the Montana Forest
Restoration Committee (MFRC) was formed in 2007.
The MFRC is a volunteer, consensus-based collaborative
entity that helps guide restoration activities in Montana’s
National Forests. A central component of the MFRC isa suite of 13 principles that help ensure that key stakeholder concerns are addressed and all interested parties
are appropriately engaged throughout the design andimplementation of forest restoration activities (Exhibit
2; MFRC, 2007).
These community dynamics and collaborative efforts
provided a solid foundation for establishing a community collaborative to provide ecosystem, economic,

213

214

CASE STUDY: SOUTHWESTERN CROWN, MONTANA

and social benefits to its rural community. The SWCC—
described in more detail below—is working to creating
a landscape approach to implement forest restorationand fuel management activities, restore fish and wildlife
habitat, remove unnecessary roads, improve recreational
activities, and support the local economy by creatinga sustainable forest products industry. This case study
focuses on its forest restoration efforts to reduce vulnerability to catastrophic wildfires.
The Southwest Crown’s ecological resilience is largely
threatened by the absence of natural fire regimes andthe effects of climate change may exacerbate wildfire
risk. Reestablishing natural wildfire dynamics in thearea’s ecosystems and reducing the risk of catastrophic
wildfire can reduce wildfire frequency and intensity andprovide economic, ecological, and social benefits.

Why and How the Southwestern
Crown Reduced Catastrophic
Wildfire Risk
As we describe below, several factors led to theSouthwestern Crown’s implementation of wildfire restoration projects to reduce the landscape’s vulnerability
to wildfire risk. Exhibit 3 shows the timeline of factors
leading to community action.

Controversy
and litigation
slows
implementationof forest
restoration
projects
1980s

Emergence ofcollaborationin region to
reducecontroversy

1990s

Significant wildfire seasons

2000

2001

2003

2007

More Intense and Frequent Wildfires
Motivate Citizens to Take Action
The Southwestern Crown is experiencing more frequent and intense wildfire than in the past (SWCC,
2010a; Maradeo et al., 2013; Austin, 2015). Over the past
century, fire suppression allowed the growth of dense
understories that provide large amounts of fuel for wildfires (SWCC, 2010b). In addition, Southwestern Crownis experiencing higher air temperatures, earlier springsnowmelts, and declining stream flows, all of which canlead to drier forests that are more likely to burn (Fagre,
2007; Pederson et al., 2010). Years of drought and the
spread of mountain pine beetle are also contributing
to tree mortality, further exacerbating the problem ofhigher-fuel loads (Pederson et al., 2010). According to
the SWCC, hotter summer temperatures and reduced
moisture “have led to larger, more frequent, and more
severe wildfires since the mid-1980s,” and fire seasons
now last “11 weeks longer each year compared with the1970s” (Westerling et al., 2006). These dynamics arelikely to be further exacerbated under future climatechange (SWCC, 2010b).
The fire seasons of 2000, 2001, 2003, and 2007 hadparticularly significant impacts on the communities ofSeeley Lake, Condon, and Lincoln. Wildfire response
costs were substantial, and tourism- and recreational-supported businesses suffered (Maradeo et al., 2013).

Forest Landscape
Restoration Act
introduced toCongress

2008

Southwestern Crown
Collaborative
implements several
forest restoration
projects to re-establish
natural wildfire dynamics
and reduce the risk ofcatastrophic wildfire

Formation of theSouthwestern
Crown
Collaborative
Congress
established theCollaborative
Forest Landscape
Restoration
Program

2009

Exhibit 3. Southwestern Crown timeline of factors leading to community action.

Southwestern Crown
Collaborative promotes
adaptive management
framework to guideforest restoration

2010–
present

CASE STUDY: SOUTHWESTERN CROWN, MONTANAIn addition, travel was restricted along the main highway,
air quality declined, and local citizens became concerned
about their safety (SWCC, 2010a; Maradeo et al., 2013).
During the 2007 Jocko Lakes Fire, community residents
and businesses were evacuated for up to two weeks(Maradeo et al., 2013). The increasing frequency andseverity of wildfires, along with their potential economic
and safety impacts, created a desire in the community
to act to reduce its wildfire-related risks (Austin, 2015).

The Southwestern Crown Community Formsa Collaborative to Access Federal Funding
The Forest Landscape Restoration Act was introduced toCongress as a way to support integrated, collaborative
forest restoration at large scales. The Act, which established the Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration
Program (CFLRP), received bipartisan support. In 2009,
Congress passed Title IV of the Omnibus Public Land
Management Act, which provided funding for the CFLRP
to “encourage the collaborative, science-based ecosystem
restoration of priority forest landscapes” (Section 4001).
The CFLRP was shaped by the increasing emphasis acrossthe nation on community engagement in forest policy andmanagement, and a key focus of the program is addressing escalating costs of fighting more frequent and intense
wildfires (Schultz et al., 2012).The program addresses thisissue by supporting projects that help reduce fuel loads
and reestablishing natural fire regimes (SWCC, 2010a).

“As wildfire activity andsuppression costs have grown
dramatically, and as theeffects of global warming areposing an ever-greater threat
to forest and watershedhealth, and as the economy
struggles, the time is right forthis approach [the CFLRP].”SENATOR BINGAMAN (D-NM);
US Senate Committee on Energy and Natural
Resources 2008, p. 1 (as quoted in Schultz et al., 2012)

According to Debbie Austin, former Lolo National Forest
supervisor, the Southwestern Crown recognized the
CFLRP as a resource that could help reduce the risk of
wildfire in its community (Austin, 2015). Southwestern
Crown’s previous efforts at collaborative forest management were harnessed to take advantage of this new
funding opportunity. Local and regional nonprofit organizations organized a “sharing meeting,” which aimed tobring all the Southwestern Crown small, rural communities and national forests (i.e., the Lolo National Forest,
the Flathead National Forest, and Lincoln National
Forest) together. The meeting successfully establishedthe SWCC, which then submitted a proposal for funding from the CFLRP. The SWCC bid was successful andsecured funding in the first round of the program in 2010.
In its bid, the SWCC identified 10 years of restoration
projects to complete on 199,140 acres of USFS land withgoals “to restore forest and aquatic ecosystem function,
to improve landscape-level biodiversity, resiliency, andadaptability, to enhance recreational experiences, and to
reduce risks for those living in the WUI” (SWCC, 2010a,
p. 2). The SWCC’s forest work explicitly aims to reducerisks of wildfire under climate change (SWCC, 2010a).
The CFLRP will provide the Southwestern Crown region
up to $4 million annually for forest restoration activities
for 10 years (2010 through 2019). The CFLRP provides
authority to fund 50 percent of the cost of implementing and monitoring ecological restoration treatments;
however, the community must leverage these resources
with local and private resources to match the funding(Title IV, 2009).
There was little opposition to forming the SWCC andapplying to the CFLRP for restoration funding; however,the SWCC faces several challenges in implementing
fuel-reduction projects under the CFLRP, as describedin Exhibit 4.
The SWCC Prioritizes Monitoring and Adaptive
Management to Reduce Catastrophic Wildfire Risks
The CFLRP promotes an adaptive management framework, which uses monitoring results to inform future
management practices. The SWCC decided early on thatmonitoring the effects of forest treatments was a highpriority (SWCC, 2012). The SWCC spends 10 percent of

215

216

CASE STUDY: SOUTHWESTERN CROWN, MONTANAEXHIBIT 4. PROJECT RESISTANCEThe SWCC adopted MFRC’s 13 principles toplan and implement forest restoration projects(Exhibit 2), and it thus expected its collaborative
approach would reduce controversy and litigation.
The Colt Summit restoration project—a projectfocused on fuels reduction, vegetation and watershed restoration, and management for wildlife
habitat—was a test case for SWCC’s ability to move
forward without legal challenges. Early on, several nonprofit organizationsa raised concerns that
the USFS failed to perform a full environmental
impact statement to evaluate the effects of the
project on wildlife and, therefore, did not meetthe requirements of the National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA). WildWest Institute, a nonprofit
organization who filed an amicus brief on behalfof the Plaintiffs, expressed concerns that that Colt
Summit, which was planned before the SWCC wasformed, was not adequately vetted by the SWCC
or properly reviewed by the public as requiredby NEPA (WildWest Institute, 2012). These concerns resulted in the litigation of the project and,ultimately, delayed implementation. Several otherregional environmental groupsb felt that the project
was adequately vetted with both the SWCC andthe general public and appropriately underwent theits budget on monitoring (SWCC, 2012); more than any
other CFLRP program (Parker, 2015). In addition, the
SWCC holds annual adaptation management workshops,
described below, to revise project goals and objectives
to ensure that restoration is reducing the risk of catastrophic wildfires.
The adaptive management framework adopted by the
SWCC includes four types of monitoring: surveillance,
implementation, effectiveness, and ecological effects
monitoring (SWCC, 2012; Hutto and Belote, 2013).
As shown in Exhibit 5, the model starts by indicating
the current condition of the resources and, through

NEPA processes; these groups filed an amicus brief
on behalf of the USFS to support this project overthe course of the litigation (The Wilderness Society
et al., 2012).
Although the SWCC is awaiting a final decision by
the courts on the Colt Summit project, the SWCC
has been able to move the project forward byselecting a contractor for the work (Chaney, 2014).
For some, however, the slow implementation ofrestoration projects, such as the halting of Colt
Summit for four years, calls into question whether
the SWCC is effectively reducing wildfire risk on the
ground (Koehler, 2015).
a. These nonprofit organizations include Friends of theWild Swan, Alliance for the Wild Rockies, Montana
Ecosystem Defense Council, and Native Ecosystems
Council.
b. These environmental groups include The Wilderness
Society, Montana Wilderness Association, Montana
Wood Products Association, Dale Bosworth, Abagail
Kimbell, National Wildlife Federation, Seeley Lake Rural
Fire District, Swan Ecosystem Center, American Forests,
Pyramid Mountain Lumber, Clearwater Resource
Council, Orville Daniels, and 15 other individuals andorganizations.

surveillance monitoring, the SWCC determines if there
have been changes in conditions of the resources (Hutto
and Belote, 2013). The three other monitoring types arelinked with management activities and answer specificquestions about the effects of the treatment. The box in
Exhibit 5 lists the SWCC annual adaptive management
meeting topics, and the questions answered at the meeting, as well as the actions taken based on the meeting(see arrows; Hutto and Belote, 2013).
Melanie Parker, former Executive Director of Northwest
Connections, indicated that the annual adaptive management workshops are critical to the success of theCASE STUDY: SOUTHWESTERN CROWN, MONTANA

Surveillance Monitoring

Existing condition OK
or unknown

Annual Adaptive Management Meeting Topics

Re
sto
ra
tio

ni

sc
om

pl

Existing condition
problematic or inneed of changeete

New issue to address

ue
tin
n
Co

ith
w

ts
en
m
at
tre

Management activity

Surveillance—do surveillance monitoring data
reveal some kind of change in conditions that
we need to address?
Implementation—were treatments implemented
as prescribed?
Effectiveness—were treatments effective inmeeting stated objectives?
Ecological effects—were there any unintended
ecological consequences?

Implementation
Monitoring
Effectiveness Monitoring
Ecological Effects Monitoring

Exhibit 5. Types of monitoring within an adaptive management framework.
Source: Hutto and Belote, 2013.

SWCC (Parker, 2015). These workshops bring together
the community and decision-makers for two days to ask
the “so what” questions: Are the monitoring data revealing a change in conditions that needs to be addressed?;
Were treatments effective in meeting objectives?; Were
there any unintended consequences from the treatments? (Hutto and Belote, 2013; Parker, 2015). The
workshops also provide an opportunity to discuss restoration trends—to look backward as well as forward—inorder to “revise goals and objectives, adjust conceptualmodels and predictions about the systems in which management actions occur, or even to reassess the way inwhich a problem is framed” (SWCC, 2012, p. 13).

Accomplishments of Implementing
Forest Restoration Projects in theSouthwestern Crown
From 2010 to 2013, the SWCC supported forest-restoration efforts focused on reducing wildfire risk on 9,782
acres, with a goal of reducing wildfire risk on 27,000
acres of high-risk lands by 2019 (SWCC, 2013a). One
of SWCC’s fuel-reduction projects, the Meadow Smith
restoration project, was highlighted as particularly successful in the CFLRP’s annual report, (SWCC, 2013b).
This restoration project, which included timber harvests
in 2010 and 2011 and fuel treatments in 2012, allowed fire

217

218

CASE STUDY: SOUTHWESTERN CROWN, MONTANA

managers to successfully contain and treat the July 2012
lightning-induced Condon Mountain fire (SWCC, 2013b).
Fire Manager Brent Olson said, “The treatment was very
effective as we had burning embers land into the [treatment area]. We didn’t have any real spotting in that area
because of the fuel treatment” (SWCC, 2013b, p. 7). The
2013 report concludes that without the Meadow Smith
restoration project, the area “would have had a very different fate—high [tree] mortality” (SWCC, 2013b, p. 7).10
During interviews, Debbie Austin, Chelsea McIver,and Gary Burnett, the Executive Director of BlackfootChallenge and Cochair of the SWCC, indicated that
implementing the CFLRP in the Southwestern Crown isa “step in the right direction” because the community
is better at collaboration and has met restoration andjob targets; however, these interviewees also stress that“there is still more to do” (Austin, 2015; Burnett, 2015;
McIver, 2015[a, b]). For example, Debbie Austin suggested that a streamlined approach for moving projects
from conception to implementation should be developed
for projects where the USFS and the public are working together. Chelsea McIver, focusing on the SWCC’s
goal of supporting rural, local economies indicated that
SWCC restoration funding is creating benefits for local
contractors and subcontractors, but further work isneeded to make sure the opportunities are reaching thecommunities located closest to the resource and thosethat are most vulnerable—economically and socially (seeExhibit 6). Gary Burnett indicated that he will consider
the Southwestern Crown CFLRP a success if the SWCC
continues to exist and implement restoration projects
after the CFLRP funding ends (Burnett, 2015).
Matthew Koehler indicated that although the SWCC ismaking progress towards its 10-year forest restoration
goals, the SWCC is behind on its road decommissioning
and some other watershed restoration goals (Koehler,2015). For example, between 2010 and 2014, the SWCC

completed 58 miles of road decommissioning work (or15 percent of its 10-year goal; SWCC, 2015b). Currently,
the SWCC expects that it will meet its goals by 2019
(SWCC, 2015b).
Anne Carlson emphasized the importance of the collaborative, holistic, integrated nature of the CFLRP and the
SWCC’s restoration projects as opposed to a singularfocus on altering wildfire dynamics. The purpose of the
CFLRP “is to encourage the collaborative, science-based
ecosystem restoration of priority forest landscapes…”(Title IV, 2009). According to Dr. Carlson, this structureis “a critically important component to effective climate
adaptation efforts” (Carlson, 2015).

Moving Forward
The Southwestern Crown CFLRP is a 10-year program(2010–2019) with 5 years of post-CFLRP monitoring(Title IV, 2009). Over the next two years (2015–2016), the
SWCC is focused on conducting a Restoration Initiative
for the Blackfoot and Swan (RIBS). The RIBS will identify specific acres across the Southwestern Crown where
they can implement future restoration efforts that will“reduce the risks of uncharacteristic wildfire and conserve terrestrial and aquatic biodiversity across the
SWCC landscape, taking into account potential influenceof climate change” (USFS, 2014, p. 1). The RIBS projectwill then be used to determine future restoration efforts
for the Southwestern Crown CFLRP (2017–2019). At theend of the CFLRP funding, the SWCC expects to continue its restoration work in the Southwestern Crown,
although specific-funding sources have not been identified. According to Debbie Austin, SWCC partners arecommitted to continuing: “There’s already a lot of talkabout continuing. The group is committed to the place”
and several projects are through the planning phase andare now ready to implement (Austin, 2015).

10. For additional information on the SWCC fuels reduction projects, see the SWCC projects webpage — http://www.swcrown.org/projects/ — andinteractive map — http://www.swcrown.org/interactivemap/index.html.

CASE STUDY: SOUTHWESTERN CROWN, MONTANAEXHIBIT 6. SUPPORTING THE LOCAL ECONOMY THROUGH RESTORATION WORKThe federal government is a major land owner inthe western part of Montana and the Southwestern
Crown. Restoration and maintenance projects
designed to reestablish natural fire dynamics andreduce vulnerability to catastrophic wildfires canprovide economic benefits to local and regional
communities; the SWCC works to support rural, local
economies and engage community members in its
restoration work. To date, however, results are mixed.
A 2013 local contractor participation assessment
found that restoration funding provides some benefits to local communities through the utilizationof local contractors and subcontractors; however,
the extent of the benefits depends on a number offactors: the capacity of contractors in an area, thesetting aside of contracts for economically- andsocially-disadvantaged businesses, the value of thecontract, and the type of work being conducted.
Businesses located in the rural communities in theSouthwestern Crown generally receive less than
3 percent of USFS restoration investments in theregion (McIver, 2013; 2015a). However, businesses
located in the surrounding five counties, whichcontain the Southwestern Crown boundary, receiveroughly 60 percent of total restoration investments(McIver, 2013; 2015a). There are success stories of
local contractors benefiting from SWCC restoration
funding. For example, the long-term nature of therestoration funding (10-years) convinced some local
contractors to make investments in training andequipment that can ensure long-term government
contracts, creating a more sustainable businessmodel. One former logger, whose business had
suffered with the fall in timber prices, decided toreceive training for stream restoration; he is now

a successful stream restoration contractor for thefederal government (Parker, 2015).
Lower income and isolated communities have been
identified as particularly vulnerable to the impactsof climate change. Therefore, efforts to create more
ecologically resilient forests as well as economicallyand socially resilient communities are an important strategy for many local forest communities.
Federal policies require that small, disadvantaged
businesses receive a fair share of federal procurement opportunities. However, the majority of thecontracts set aside for minority-owned or othersmall, socially- or economically-disadvantaged
businesses have gone to out-of-state or out-of-region businesses, which represents a significant lost
opportunity for building wealth in lower income
rural and tribal communities (McIver, 2015b). Thatsaid, two tribally-owned enterprises associated with
the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes areactively involved in conducting restoration work in
the Southwestern Crown (McIver, 2015b). In addition, two workshops have been held to inform local
contractors about the opportunities being createdthrough the CFLRP and resources available to help
them navigate the process of bidding on federal
projects (McIver, 2015b).
In the Southwestern Crown, maintaining or increasing local businesses capacity and skills is vital to
the success of the SWCC forest restoration projects.
This investment in human, social and natural capitalwill help create more resilient forests and communities better able to deal with the effects of climatechange (McIver, 2015b).

219

220

CASE STUDY: SOUTHWESTERN CROWN, MONTANA

Acknowledgements 11

Bibliography

We would like to thank the following people for participating in interviews as part of this case study:

Austin, D. 2015. Interview with Debbie Austin, previous District Ranger, Lolo National Forest, Seeley Lake
Ranger District, United States Forest Service (nowretired). January 28.

• Ms. Debbie Austin, USFS (now retired)• Mr. Gary Burnett, Blackfoot Challenge and co-chairof the SWCC
• Dr. Anne Carlson, The Wilderness Society• Mr. Matthew Koehler, WildWest Institute• Ms. Chelsea McIver, Bureau of Business andEconomic Research, University of Montana• Ms. Melanie Parker, Northwest Connections.
In addition, we would like to thank the SWCC for allowing us to participate in the quarterly meeting held on
January 13, 2015, at the Seeley Lake Community Center.
The partner organizations in the SWCC include:• USFS (Northern Region); Helena, Lolo, and Flathead
National Forests• Montana Department of Natural Resource Conservation

Burnett, G. 2015. Interview with Gary Burnett,
Executive Director, Blackfoot Challenge. January 12.
Carlson, A. 2015. Interview with Anne Carlson, Climate
Associate, The Wilderness Society. January 23, 2015.
Chaney, R. 2014. Court ruling let 1 Seeley-Swan
logging project go forward, halt 1 other. Missoulian.
September 27. Available: http://missoulian.com/
news/state-and-regional/court-rulings-let-seeley-swan-logging-project-go-forward-halt/
article_ed4f551e-45e7-11e4-ac61-73024e14dbe1.html.
Accessed March 27, 2015.
Fagre, D. 2007. Ecosystem responses to global climatechange. In Sustaining Rocky Mountain Landscapes:
Science, Policy, and Management for the Crown of
the Continent Ecosystem, T. Prato and D. Fagre (eds.).
Resources for the Future Press, Washington, DC.

• Blackfoot Challenge• Clearwater Resource Council• Pyramid Mountain Lumber• University of Montana• Missoula Country Rural Initiatives• Northwest Connections• The Nature Conservancy• National Wildlife Federation

Gorte, R. 2013. The Rising Cost of Wildfire Protection.
A Research Paper by Headwaters Economics. June.
Available: http://headwaterseconomics.org/wphw/
wp-content/uploads/fire-costs-background-report.pdf.
Accessed February 6, 2015.
Hutto, R.L. and R.T. Belote. 2013. Distinguishing fourtypes of monitoring based on the questions they
address. Forest Ecology and Management 289:183–189.
Koehler, M. 2015. Interview with Matthew Koehler,
Executive Director, WildWest Institute. January 12.

• Swan Ecosystem Center• Trust for Public Lands• Forest Business Network• The Wilderness Society.

Larson, A.J., R.T Belote, M.A. Williamson, and G.H.
Aplet. 2013. Making monitoring count: Project design
for active adaptive management. Journal of Forestry
111(5):1–9.

11. Please note that the primary case study researcher is related to an interviewee; the project team does not feel that there is a conflict of interest.

CASE STUDY: SOUTHWESTERN CROWN, MONTANA

Maradeo, F., T. Quadros, R. Marshall, M. Arno, N.
Fortunate, A. Branine, C. Calnan, C. Super, D. Poukish,
D. Roberson, T. Love. P. Shelmerdine, R. White, R.
Kehr, B. Gillespie, J. Ingebretson, A. Huntsberger, J.
Haufler, C. Mehl, S. Yeats, C. Moon, and J. Normark.
2013. Seeley-Swan Fire Plan: 2013 Revision. A
Component of the Missoula County Wildfire Protection
Plan. Available: https://www.crcmt.org/uploads/
Fire_2013SSFP.pdf. Accessed February 3, 2015.
McIver, C. 2013. An Assessment of Local Contractor
Participation in the Southwestern Crown of theContinent CFLRP Project. Bureau of Business andEconomic Research, University of Montana. June.
McIver, C. 2015a. Capturing the Benefits of Restoration:
Local Business Utilization and Opportunities for
Growth in Northwestern Montana. Forestry Thesis.
McIver, C. 2015b. Interview with Chelsea McIver,
Research Associate, Bureau of Business and Economic
Research, University of Montana. January 29.
Mehl, C., J. Haufler, S. Yeats, and B. Rieman. 2012.
Southwestern Crown of the Continent Landscape
Assessment. Ecosystem Management ResearchInstitute. Available: http://www.emri.org/PDF%20Docs/
Adobe%20files/SW%20Crown%20Landscape%20
Assessment.pdf. Accessed February 3, 2015.
MFRC. 2007. Restoration Principles. Montana Forest
Restoration Committee. Available: http://www.
montanarestoration.org/principles-menu. Accessed
January 31, 2015.
Parker, M. 2015. Interview with Melanie Parker,
Executive Director, Northwest Connections. January 12.
Pederson, G.T., L.J. Graumlich, D.B. Fagre, T. Kipfer, andC.M. Muhlfeld. 2010. A century of climate and ecosystem change in Western Montana: What do temperature
trends portend? Climatic Change 98:133–154.
Politico. 2012. 2012 Presidential Election. Available:
http://www.politico.com/2012-election/results/map/#/
President/2012/. Accessed February 4, 2013.

Red Lodge Clearinghouse. 2010. Swan Citizens Ad
Hoc Committee and Swan Ecosystem Center. Posted
January 24. Available: http://www.rlch.org/stories/
swan-citizens-ad-hoc-committee-and-swan-ecosystem-center. Accessed January 31, 2015.
Schultz, C.A., T. Jedd, and R.D. Beam. 2012. The
Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration Program:
A history and overview of the first projects. Journal ofForestry 110(7):381–391.
SWCC. 2010a. Southwestern Crown of the Continent
Collaborative CFLRP Proposal. Southwestern Crown
Collaborative. Available: http://www.fs.fed.us/restoration/documents/cflrp/2010Proposals/Region1/
SWCrown/Southern_Crown_2010_CFLRP_Proposal_
FINAL.pdf. Accessed January 23, 2015.
SWCC. 2010b. Southwestern Crown of the Continent
Landscape Restoration Strategy. Southwestern Crown
Collaborative. May 12. Available: http://www.fs.fed.us/
restoration/documents/cflrp/2010Proposals/Region1/
SWCrown/May_SW_Crown_Landscape_Strategy_
FINAL.pdf. Accessed January 23, 2015.
SWCC. 2012. Long-Term Monitoring Plan: US National
Forest Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration
Program. Southwestern Crown Collaborative.
Available: http://www.swcrown.org/wp-content/
uploads/2011/08/SWCC-Long-term-MonitoringPlan-121720141.pdf. Accessed January 23, 2015.
SWCC. 2013a. 2013 Annual Update. Southwestern
Crown Collaborative. December. Available:
http://www.swcrown.org/wp-content/
uploads/2012/02/2013-SWCC-Annual-Update.pdf.
Accessed February 7, 2015.
SWCC. 2013b. CFLRP Annual Report: 2013.
Southwestern Crown Collaborative. Available: http://
www.swcrown.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/
FY2013_CFLRP_AnnualReport_SWCC.pdf. Accessed
February 7, 2015.
SWCC. 2015a. Southwestern Crown Collaborative.
Available: http://www.swcrown.org/the-southwestern-crown/. Accessed January 31, 2015.

221

222

CASE STUDY: SOUTHWESTERN CROWN, MONTANA

SWCC. 2015b. 2014 SWCC CFLRP Annual Report.
Available: http://www.swcrown.org/wp-content/
uploads/2012/02/CORRECTED-SWCC-CFLR_Annual_
Report_V.2015-3-12.pdf. Accessed August 26, 2015.

Title IV. 2009. Omnibus Public Land Management
Act of 2009. Title IV—Forest Landscape Restoration.
Available: http://www.fs.fed.us/restoration/documents/
cflrp/titleIV.pdf. Accessed January 31, 2015.

Tabor, G. 2014. Interview with Gary Tabor, Executive
Director, The Center For Large Landscape Restoration.
February 21.

U.S. Census Bureau. 2013a. B19013: Median Household
Income in the Past 12 Months (in 2013 inflation-adjusted dollars). 2009–2013 American Community
Survey. U.S. Census Bureau’s American Community
Survey Office, American FactFinder.

Tabor, G, A. Carlson, and T. Belote. 2014. Challenges
and Opportunities for Large Landscape-Scale
Management in a Shifting Climate: The Importanceof Nested Adaptation Responses Across Geospatial
and Temporal Scales. In Forest Conservation andManagement in the Anthropocene: Adaptation of
Science, Policy, and Practices. USDA Forest Service
RMRS: 205–227. July.
The Wilderness Society, Montana Wilderness
Association, Montana Wood Products Association,
Dale Bosworth, Abagail Kimbell, National Wildlife
Federation, Seeley Lake Rural Fire District, Swan
Ecosystem Center, American Forests, Pyramid
Mountain Lumber, Clearwater Resource Council, Orville
Daniels, and 15 other individuals and organizations.
2012. Amicus Brief In Support of Defendants. In the
United States District Court for the District of Montana
Missoula Division. Matthew O. Clifford, Oakland, CA.
February 27.

U.S. Census Bureau. 2013b. DP05: Demographic andHousing Estimates. 2009–2013 American Community
Survey. U.S. Census Bureau’s American Community
Survey Office, American FactFinder.
USFS. 2014. Restoration Initiative for the Blackfootand Swan—Project Initiation Letter. October 7.
Available: http://www.swcrown.org/wp-content/
uploads/2015/02/Signed-PIL-for-RIBS.pdf. Accessed
April 2, 2015.
Westerling, A.L., H.G. Hidalgo, D.R. Cayan, andT.W. Swetnam. 2006. Warming and earlier spring
increase Western U.S. Forest wildfire activity. Science
313:940–943.
WildWest Institute. 2012. Amicus Brief In Support of
Plaintiffs. In the United States District Court for theDistrict of Montana Missoula Division. Karr Law Firm,
PLLC, Missoula, MT. February 27.

CASE STUDY: SPARTANBURG, SOUTH CAROLINA

Spartanburg, South Carolina

Mainstreaming Climate Change into
Programs, Management Actions, and Culture
SPARTANBURG, SOUTH CAROLINAAUTHORS: Heather Hosterman, Karen Carney, and Jason VogelIn this case study, you will learn about:• How Spartanburg Water is mainstreaming climate change into utility
existing programs and activities• Leveraging extreme events to motivate action• The important role of staff in catalyzing action on climate change andintegrating climate change into programs and activities

CLIMATE ADAPTATION: THE STATE OF PRACTICE IN U.S. COMMUNITIES

223

224

CASE STUDY: SPARTANBURG, SOUTH CAROLINA

Case Study Summary
Spartanburg Water is a public water and wastewater
utility that is composed of two entities—Spartanburg
Water System and Spartanburg Sanitary Sewer
District Commission—under one name (Spartanburg
Water, 2015a). The public water and wastewater utility is located in northeastern South Carolina and serves
approximately 180,000 residents in communities across
Spartanburg County, as well as parts of Greenville, Union,
and Cherokee counties (Spartanburg Water, 2015b).
A history of droughts and extreme rainfall conditions
affected Spartanburg Water’s operations, including
water supply and water quality. These impacts, combined with increased recognition about climate change,
led Spartanburg Water to begin to integrate climatechange into the utility’s operations and culture.
Spartanburg Water is undertaking a broad suite ofactions to incorporate climate change planning into
its programs, management actions, and culture. In thiscase study, we describe the key factors that shaped
Spartanburg Water’s thinking on climate change andprovide examples of actions they are taking to reduce
vulnerability to droughts and flooding. Interviewees feelthat Spartanburg Water’s work will reduce vulnerability
by integrating climate change into programs and actions,and by increasing the capacity of staff to understandand respond to climate variability and impacts fromclimate change. However, Spartanburg Water is in theearly stages of climate change integration, and it willtake more time to know the full impact of Spartanburg
Water’s actions.

The Broader Context of Incorporating
Climate Change into Programs,
Management Actions, and Culture
Spartanburg Water has been engaged in water andsewer management for decades. Over the years, theutility developed several systems for dealing with awide range of climate variability and natural hazards,

such as gauging sites to monitor and manage water
releases from reservoirs and ongoing watershed testing
and monitoring. In addition, the utility has adapted toa shift in the community’s economy from a focus on
textiles to manufacturing. Spartanburg Water works
with manufacturing businesses to develop innovative
water and waste water solutions for companies, suchas water recycling, which can save the company money
by reducing water use and encourage them to relocate
to or remain in Spartanburg.
Over the last five years, Spartanburg Water began torecognize the need to adapt its water and waste water
management systems to take climate variability andimpacts from climate change into consideration. The
utility recognizes that in order to maintain its mission—
to provide quality water and wastewater services toour region in a reliable manner (Spartanburg Water,
2015b)—it is critical to increase its resiliency to various
changing circumstances, including changing climate
and economic conditions (West, 2015). To ensure
Spartanburg Water can meet its mission, the utility is
integrating climate change planning into their businesspractices. Recently, Spartanburg Water incorporated
climate considerations into its 2014 Strategic Plan.
Under its goal of pursuing excellence in its products
and services, Spartanburg Water laid out a strategy
to reduce its carbon and water footprint by reducing
paper consumption, and finalizing a discharge project and evaluating pumping strategies that can reduceenergy consumption (Spartanburg Water, 2014). The
utility is working to reduce greenhouse gas emissions
from its fleet and is emphasizing carbon reductions infacility upgrades, including a recent upgrade to a water
treatment plant.
Today, Spartanburg Water is undertaking a series of initiatives to ensure that climate change is factored into its
programs, management actions, and culture. This casestudy profiles some of this work at Spartanburg Water,
highlighting techniques used by the utility to ensure thatclimate change is integrated into its operations and decision-making processes.

CASE STUDY: SPARTANBURG, SOUTH CAROLINA

2000 – 2011
Spartanburg experiences at least “abnormally dry” weather conditions each year
2002 – present
Spartanburg Water aggressively pursues water leak detection and resolution
2008 – present
Spartanburg Water launches a wastewater collection system rehabilitation program and, insome locations, decides to leave the old piping in place to increase flow capacity during highflow events and minimize SSOs
2010 – present
Spartanburg Water implements a screening process for
all new Spartanburg Water capital improvement projects
that includes factors for climate change

2007: Spartanburg Water experiences
flooding in portions of its wastewater
treatment facilities
2007–2009: Spartanburg experiences“exceptional drought” conditions

Spartanburg Water
experiences a highlevel of geosmin in its
source water supply
2000

2003–
2005

Spartanburg Water begins
integrating climate change
considerations into its programs
and activities

2008–2009: Rebecca West serves as
President of the Water Environment
Federation
2009: Spartanburg Water partners with
the EPA on the EPA WaterSense Program

2007–
2009

Spartanburg Water incorporates
climate considerations into its
Strategic Plan

2010

Spartanburg
Water is a pilot
community for
EPA’s CREAT tool
2015

Exhibit 1. Spartanburg Water timeline of factors leading to utility action.

Why and How Spartanburg Water
Incorporates Climate Change into its
Programs and Activities
As we describe below, several factors led Spartanburg
Water to advance its thinking on climate change andincorporate climate change into its existing programs
and activities. Exhibit 1 shows the timeline of factors andactions undertaken by the utility.

Drought and Inland Flooding Motivates
Spartanburg Water to Reduce Its
Vulnerability to These Key Natural Hazards
Spartanburg Water is vulnerable to a wide range of natural and human-caused hazards (City of Spartanburg,
2011); however, the utility is primarily affected bydroughts and inland flooding. This section describes theutility’s experience with droughts and floods and theactions taken to date to reduce vulnerability to thesenatural hazards.

Droughts
Drought is identified as the highest natural hazard
risk in Spartanburg County’s Hazard Mitigation Plan
(City of Spartanburg, 2011). From 2000 through 2011,
Spartanburg County experienced at least “abnormallydry” conditions each year. From October 2007 throughDecember 2009, the county experienced “exceptional
drought,” its most severe drought condition ranking(City of Spartanburg, 2011).12 In 2008 alone, Spartanburg
County had 39 weeks of “exceptional drought” conditions (City of Spartanburg, 2011), and reservoirs
dropped to historic low levels during this time (Tuck,2015). Spartanburg believes it is probable they will be
exposed to long-lasting future drought events (City of
Spartanburg, 2011), and Spartanburg Water expects
future regional droughts to increase in frequency andseverity, with greater variability in precipitation (U.S.
EPA, 2011).
Future droughts that increase in frequency and severity can affect wastewater system operations, including

12. Dry; D1 is Moderate Drought; D2 is Severe Drought; D3 is Extreme Drought; and D4 is Exceptional Drought.

225

226

CASE STUDY: SPARTANBURG, SOUTH CAROLINA

18.5%
15.8%

15.3%

14.2%

Naonalaverage

13.2%
11.0%

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

11.3%
1 3%

10.8%

2008

2009

10.0%

2007

Exhibit 2. Spartanburg Water’s conservation efforts reduced its unaccounted-forwater to below the national average.
Source: Spartanburg Water, Undated.

changes in water quality in outflow streams. Spartanburg
Water discharges wastewater effluent from treatment
plants into relatively small streams, and the wastewater
discharges can be the majority of the streamflow during
drought conditions (U.S. EPA, 2011; West, 2015). In general, water quality in these small streams can decline
under drought conditions because pollutants become
more concentrated as less water is available to assimilate
the pollutants. These conditions can restrict the amountof wastewater the utility can discharge, as its permit
requires that in-stream water quality be maintained at
specified levels to ensure the protection of human healthand local fish populations (U.S. EPA, 2011). As future predictions of longer-lasting and intense droughts are apart of Spartanburg’s climate reality, Spartanburg Water
has analyzed scenarios where lower stream flows andpoorer water quality may impact the discharge permitsof its most strategic wastewater facility (West, 2015).
Spartanburg Water is fortunate that its largest wastewater facility discharges to the Pacolet River, which is
influenced by required water releases from Spartanburg
Water’s reservoirs upstream of this wastewater discharge(West, 2015). As a result, Spartanburg Water can plan for

future extreme drought conditions because it understands how controlled releases from its reservoir will
support the wastewater discharges from its treatment
plants to help dilute pollutants and ameliorate water
quality issues (U.S. EPA, 2011; West, 2015).
Spartanburg Water is also focused on saving water inits day-to-day operations, because drought can limit
water quantity available to the utility. For example, theutility is aggressively pursuing the detection and resolution of water leaks in its system. The utility surveys
its system for every five years using an electronic leakdetection system. It also uses automated paging systems
and other technologies to alert the utility about needed
repairs. This helps ensure that small leaks do not escalate
into expensive and wasteful breaks. Spartanburg Water
also helps customers identify leaks in their homes andbusinesses through the installation of automatic meterreading (AMR) technology on meters in areas with oldinfrastructure. As a result of these actions, Spartanburg
Water reduced unaccounted-for water from 18 percent
in 2001 to approximately 11 percent in 2009 (Exhibit 2;
Spartanburg Water, Undated).

CASE STUDY: SPARTANBURG, SOUTH CAROLINA

Inland Flooding
According to Spartanburg County’s Hazard Mitigation
Plan, flooding events represent a moderate risk to thecounty (City of Spartanburg, 2011). Between 1950 and2011, Spartanburg County experienced 65 flooding
events, with property damage exceeding $24 million(2011 dollars; City of Spartanburg, 2011). During high rain
events, Spartanburg can experience four times normal
flows in some parts of its wastewater collection system(West, 2015), which can lead to higher flood risks to thecommunity and damage key components of Spartanburg
Water’s facilities. Specifically, during intense rain andflooding events, wastewater pump stations can become
flooded and portions of wastewater treatment facilities,
because they are often located close to streams and inlower elevations, can also become flooded. In May 2007,
Spartanburg Water experienced flooding in portions of
its wastewater treatment facilities (West, 2015). In addition, during flooding events, erosion can expose water
and wastewater lines that then fail or break because
they are no longer structurally supported or because
fast floating debris collides with them. Spartanburg
Water regularly experiences breaks in its water andwastewater lines (West, 2015). To better manage impacts
from infiltration and inflow during future flood events,
Spartanburg Water is upgrading pipes in its wastewatercollection system and, in some areas, leaving the oldpiping in place rather than closing it off (West, 2015).
During high periods of infiltration and inflow, overflow
can travel from the newer pipes to the old pipes, providing additional flow capacity. This gives the utility greater
flexibility in managing wastewater during storms, andreduces the risks of sanitary sewer overflows (SSOs) andflooding for the utility and its customers. This increased
flexibility is also highly relevant under future climatechange, where intense precipitation events may become
more frequent and intense (U.S. EPA, 2011; West, 2015).
Droughts and Flooding Combined
While droughts and floods can pose independent problems for Spartanburg Water, their combination canalso exacerbate water taste and odor problems (West,2015). High water temperatures, turbidity, and nutrient
enrichment can increase levels of geosmin, a naturally
occurring compound produced by soil bacteria andblue-green algae, which affects water taste and odor
(Journey and Arrington, 2009). Spartanburg Water
experienced a high level of geosmin from 2003 to 2005,
when the region experienced tropical storms followed bydrought (U.S. EPA, 2011). Because droughts and flooding are expected to increase in frequency and severity,
the utility also expects that climate change will exacerbate geosmin water quality problems. Geosmin events
have important financial implications: Rebecca Westestimated that it can cost around $10,000–$20,000
per week to treat water and maintain customer service
levels during a geosmin event (West, 2015). Spartanburg
Water has established a monitoring system to predict
when geosmin events might occur; however, additional
management interventions may be required as climatechange affects geosmin events.

Climate Change Awareness Raised among
Spartanburg Water’s Staff
Spartanburg Water encourages staff to participate inlearning events, such as conferences, committees, andpilot programs. These learning events helped raise staff’s
awareness of climate change, as well as other related
subjects. In particular, the utility’s engineering and technical group—led by Rebecca West, Spartanburg Water’sChief Operating Officer—engaged in these learning
events. This experience became the catalyst for the utility to recognize climate change as an issue and begin toincorporate climate change considerations into its programs and activities (West, 2015).
Participation in Conferences and Committees
Spartanburg Water encourages staff engagement inwater conferences and committees, utility councils, andprofessional delegations. Through these experiences,utility staff members learn about the current research
on climate change projections and how these projections might affect water utilities. These experiences
also provide staff with an opportunity to network withother utilities “impacted by extreme events and learn
about how they deal with the impacts” (West, 2015).
For example, after Hurricane Katrina, Ms. West talked
with affected water utilities to learn about the challenges
they faced during and after the hurricane and how they

227

228

CASE STUDY: SPARTANBURG, SOUTH CAROLINA

overcame these challenges or what lessons they learned
from these challenges. Through this process, she learned
that several utilities were struggling to repay loans on
facilities that were completely destroyed by the hurricane. Based on this knowledge, she implemented ascreening process for all new Spartanburg Water capital
improvement projects that forced the utility to consider
if “Spartanburg Water can pay for the project in 15 to
20 years, instead of the typical 30 year timeframe for
utility investment projects” (West, 2015).13 According toWest (2015), this small action begins to prepare the utility financially for future extreme events and supports its
resiliency to future climate change impacts.

Participation in committees
and conferences is “one of
the things that helps thelight bulb go off.”
REBECCA WEST

Spartanburg Water staff members who attend water
conferences or networking events are asked to reportback on information and lessons learned to share findings with other staff; this disseminates the information,
including climate change information, to a broader rangeof staff (West, 2015).
CREAT Vulnerability Pilot Tool
Spartanburg Water began working with the EPA on its
Climate Resilience Evaluation & Awareness Tool (CREAT)in 2010 and was a pilot community in 2015 (West, 2015).
The CREAT tool allows utilities to evaluate the potential
impacts of climate change on its water and wastewater
services and to evaluate adaptation options to addressthese impacts using both traditional risk assessment
and scenario-based decision making. Spartanburg
Water decided that it was important to engage with
CREAT because it witnessed how other utilities acrossthe United States and “close to home” were severely
impacted by climate vulnerability such as the effect ofHurricane Katrina on New Orleans, the effect of severe

flooding on Nashville; and the effect of the extended
droughts of 2002 and 2007–2009 on the Southeastern
U.S. As Spartanburg Water better understood its potential “climate future,” as identified by the scenarios in
CREAT, it began to plan for the potential impacts fromfuture climate change (West, 2015). This planning was
holistic in nature and was incorporated in Spartanburg
Water’s Strategic Plan, Capital Plan, Financial Plan, anddesign aspects for its facilities and collection and distribution system (West, 2015). As climate change became
incorporated in the key planning programs for the utility, it influenced how staff began to engage in planningand now it is another lens through which future projects
are evaluated and developed (West, 2015). For example, in 2013, Spartanburg Water developed a Watershed
Model of two of its most strategic watershed basins. The
Watershed Model allows the utility to collect and analyze
water flow and water quality information to determine
what future potential impacts may be realized for its
wastewater facility discharge permits (West, 2015). Thismodel was developed as a planning tool for future wastewater facility upgrades and to help predict what impacts
to water quality are being realized in these watersheds
due to climate change and development (West, 2015).

Spartanburg Water Ensures Public
Support through Outreach and Tailored
Communication
Spartanburg Water invests time and effort into public
education and outreach events. General information
about watershed management and the urban water
cycle is shared through Spartanburg Water recreationaland community events. These include Paddlefest, anannual July event that incorporates water resource education with water games, and school educational classes,
such as pontoon classrooms where students help withreservoir water sampling on pontoon boats (West, 2015).
During droughts, public outreach is an essential component of the utility’s water conservation program.
Spartanburg Water partnered with EPA WaterSense,a program that provides information on products andservices to consumers to make smart water choices thatsave money and reduce water use without compromising performance, to customize WaterSense publications

13. This screening process that ensures all new capital improvement projects under consideration meet the utility’s mission and integrate climatechange also considers: if the project currently meets defined service levels and if the project will help Spartanburg Water be more resilient toclimate impacts (West, 2015).

CASE STUDY: SPARTANBURG, SOUTH CAROLINA

for utility customers. Publications include basic information on household water usage, the best time of
day to undertake water-intensive activities, and how
to improve water efficiency by replacing bathroom sinkfaucets and toilets and by implementing advanced irrigation technologies. In addition, Spartanburg Water’s
education and outreach program also targets different
economic sectors in the community, particularly the
emerging manufacturing industry.

Spartanburg Water now understands the capabilities of
its water and wastewater treatment facilities and has aprocess for assessing the performance of these facilities
and adapting to changing circumstances as necessary(West, 2015). She added that “the Spartanburg region
experienced several storms in recent years and during
these events, Spartanburg Water was never out of service.” Ken Tuck indicated that “Spartanburg Water is amodel for other utilities.”“When I’m speaking to the… public, I talk about storm
events and droughts. If I call it‘climate change,’ ears turn off.
It’s still very visceral, so we’ve
learned to talk around it.”
REBECCA WEST

According to Rebecca West, Spartanburg Water makes
a conscious effort to tailor its communication to its audience. When communicating with the public, Spartanburg
Water does not use climate change language. Rebecca
West found that talking about immediate and future
impacts from droughts and flooding is a more effective
way of discussing climate change with the public rather
than using the term “climate change” which can alienate
some individuals.

Accomplishments of Incorporating
Climate Change into Programs
and Activities
Spartanburg Water’s efforts to integrate climate variability and change into its existing programs and activities
are nascent. As these efforts are expanded, Spartanburg
Water hopes to further reduce vulnerability to drought
and inland flooding events. When asked if the work todate has helped Spartanburg Water reduce its vulnerability to climate change, Rebecca West indicated that

Spartanburg Water uses key performance indicators(KPIs) to quantify the performance of its work (Tuck,
2015; West, 2015). These include indicators that addresscomponents of vulnerability, including indicators for
asset management (e.g., the performance of facilities
and interruption of service), indicators for financials(e.g., debt ratio), and indictors for significant events (e.g.,
the number of contamination and rainfall events; West,2015). The utility has considered bundling several KPIs todevelop and track a “vulnerability” indicator, but has not
yet developed such an indicator (West, 2015).

Moving Forward
Spartanburg Water will continue to integrate climate
variability and change into its programs and activities aswell as its culture. For example, the utility will continue
to upgrade pipes in its wastewater collection system,
increasing resiliency and redundancy by interconnecting
the old piping with new pipes for extreme rain events.
Spartanburg Water will also begin this process for its
water and wastewater treatment system. In addition to
engaging in innovative approaches and continuing its

229

230

CASE STUDY: SPARTANBURG, SOUTH CAROLINA

use of advanced technology, Spartanburg Water is also
committed to building a culture of resilience throughdeveloping policies that prepare for the future andmaking wise investments that increase resilience.

Bibliography

Acknowledgements

Journey, C.A. and J.M. Arrington. 2009. Taste andOdor Occurrence in Lake William C. Bowen andMunicipal Reservoir #1, Spartanburg County, South
Carolina. United States Geological Survey, UnitedStates Department of the Interior. Prepared in
Cooperation with Spartanburg Water. Fact Sheet
2009-3043. June 2009.

We would like to thank the following people for participating in interviews as part of this case study:• Ms. Rebecca West, Spartanburg Water• Mr. Ken Tuck, Spartanburg Water.

City of Spartanburg. 2011. Spartanburg County Hazard
Mitigation Plan Update. Prepared by Atkins North
America, Inc.

Spartanburg Water. 2014. Strategic Plan 2014.
Spartanburg Water. 2015a. History of Spartanburg
Water, Spartanburg Water. Accessed May 27, 2015.
Available at http://www.spartanburgwater.org/
history-of-spartanburg-water.
Spartanburg Water. 2015b. About Spartanburg
Water, Spartanburg Water. Accessed May 27, 2015.
Available at http://www.spartanburgwater.org/
about-spartanburg-water.
Spartanburg Water. Undated. Spartanburg Water
Works to Save Water! Brochure.
Tuck, K. 2015. Interview with Ken Tuck, Director of
Water Treatment, Spartanburg Water. April 8, 2015.
U.S. EPA. 2011. Climate change vulnerability
assessments: four case studies of water utility practices. Global Change Research Program, National
Center for Environmental Assessment, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC;
EPA/600/R-10/077F.
West, R. 2015. Interview with Rebecca West, Chief
Operating Officer, Spartanburg Water. April 8, 2015.

CASE STUDY: TULSA, OKLAHOMA

Tulsa, Oklahoma

Acquisition and Relocation
TULSA, OKLAHOMAAUTHORS: Heather Hosterman and Jason VogelIn this case study, you will learn about:• Reducing vulnerability through an acquisition and relocation program• Leveraging of extreme events to build motivation for action• Importance of building partnerships and identifying champions to generate buy-in• Value of pre-planning efforts to develop public information and strategies

CLIMATE ADAPTATION: THE STATE OF PRACTICE IN U.S. COMMUNITIES

231

232

CASE STUDY: TULSA, OKLAHOMA

Case Study Summary
The City of Tulsa is located along the Arkansas Riverin northeastern Oklahoma. After years of experiencing
losses from flooding, the City of Tulsa began to advance
comprehensive floodplain management along tributary
streams.14 One of the city’s floodplain management
programs is its acquisition and relocation program.
This program consists of acquiring repeatedly flooded
properties, removing or relocating buildings on those
properties, and converting properties for public use, likeparks. Since the 1970s, the City of Tulsa has acquired
over 1,000 repeatedly flooded properties (Patton, 2009).
Since the program’s inception, the city has experienced
several flooding events without any major flooding inprogram areas.15 Although the City of Tulsa historicallydid not consider climate change, the community is now
considering more frequent and severe future hazard
events as it moves forward.

The Broader Context of Vulnerability
Reduction from Inland Floodingin Tulsa, OK
Historically, the City of Tulsa experienced frequentand often devastating flooding events. Major flooding
disasters produced some management changes. For
example, after the 1923 flood, Tulsa preserved 2,800
acres of open-space in the Bird Creek floodplain; after
the 1943 flood, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps)
developed the Arkansas River levee system to protect
Tulsa’s oil refineries; and after the 1957 and 1959 floods,
the Corps built the Keystone Dam upstream of Tulsa on
the Arkansas River (Patton, 2009). Flooding events in
the 1970s and 1980s motivated community members
to begin to think holistically about flood management
instead of implementing intermittent actions. A community group, described in greater detail below, advocatedfor a comprehensive flood management system that
included extensive flood maps, acquisition and removalof repetitively flooded property, ending new development in flood-prone areas, installing remedial works
that hold and convey stormwater, and establishing astormwater utility fee on water bills to create a funding

stream for the maintenance and management of theflood control regulations. This case study focuses on
the City of Tulsa’s acquisition and relocation programfor repeatedly flooded properties. However, the successof the acquisition and relocation program is contingent
on the full suite of flood control regulations. As such, thiscase study touches on several aspects of Tulsa’s comprehensive floodplain management system. In addition,
we provide additional information about the history offlooding in Tulsa and the critical role of the community
in implementing the suite of flood control regulations.

Why and How the City of Tulsa
Acquired and Removed Repeatedly
Flooded Properties
Several factors led to the City of Tulsa’s acquisition program, including a history of flooding that built motivation
for action, the community mobilizing to take action, thecreation of regulatory flood maps to target acquisition,and marketing the acquisition program. These factors
are described below individually, however the timing ofthese factors often overlapped. This case study focuseson key events from the 1970s through the 1980s. Exhibit
1 shows the timeline of these factors and the acquisition
and removal of repeatedly flooded properties.

History of Flooding Builds Motivation for
Action in Tulsa
Situated along the Arkansas River, the City of Tulsa
was regularly flooded by catastrophic rainfall events(Exhibit 1). As the city urbanized in the 1950s and 1960s,
buildings were constructed on flood-prone land. In particular, the Mingo Creek watershed underwent rapid
development during this time (City of Tulsa, Undated).
Flooding events of the 1970s and 1980s caused significant damage in the City of Tulsa, and motivated thecommunity to begin to think holistically about flood
control measures (Patton, 1993). Much of the flood
damage during this time occurred in the Mingo Creekwatershed, which “drains about one-third of the city
but has accounted for about two-thirds of the city’s
flood damages” (Patton, 1993, p. 2).

14. This case study focuses on the City of Tulsa’s comprehensive flood management program along tributary streams. This program has not yet focusedon improving the local management program for the Arkansas River.
15. The City of Tulsa has not had a 100-year or 1 percent flooding rainfall event since 1984. The Tulsa metro area has experienced 1 percent rainfall
intensities several times; however, due to the short duration of these rainfall events, they have not been classified as a 1 percent flooding event.

CASE STUDY: TULSA, OKLAHOMA

1984
Memorial Day Flood
Reorganization of
Tulsans for a Better
Community
Implementation ofcomprehensive flood
management program

1976
Memorial Day
Flood

Early major
flooding
events

1908–
1968

Mother’s
Day Flood1970

1984–1985
Acquisition of 300 homes
and 228 mobile homepads with FEMA funding

Year of floods

1976–1979

Formation of
Tulsans fora BetterCommunity

Creation andadoption of the
new Regulatory
Flood Maps

1974–1976

1979–1982

Arkansas River
Flood

Acquisitionof 33 homes

Acquisitionof 30 homes

Acquisition of
13 homes

1974

1976–
1982

1985
Implementation of astormwater utility fee
1984–
1985

1986

Acquisition
continues…
City of Tulsa
acquires a few
properties ayear

1990s–
present

Exhibit 1. Tulsa timeline of flooding and actions taken.

The 1974 Year of Floods and the 1976 Memorial Day Floodwere instrumental in mobilizing the community to action
and beginning to motivate the City of Tulsa to movebeyond redevelopment of affected areas to enact flood
regulations (Patton, 2014). Through the course of theseflooding events, 3 people were killed, 120 people were
injured, and significant damage to homes and buildings
occurred (City of Tulsa, Undated; Patton, 1993, 2009).
The 1984 Memorial Day Flood was the city’s worst flooding event: 14 people were killed, 288 people were injured,and 6,800 homes were damaged (Flanagan & Associates,
2009; Patton, 2009). This flood became a catalytic event inadvancing a comprehensive flood management program
along the tributary streams that included the acquisitionof repeatedly flooded properties (Patton, 2014). Without
Tulsa’s history of flooding, implementing comprehensive
flood regulations along the tributary streams, including

the acquisition program, would have been very difficult if
not impossible (Flanagan, 2014).

Community Mobilizes to Take Action
After the June 1974 flood, Carol Williams, a Mingo Creek
flood victim, convened a neighborhood meeting in her
flooded living room with other Mingo Creek citizens
who suffered from repeated flooding (Patton, 2009).
This neighborhood group, called Tulsans for a Better
Community, quickly became an effective advocacy
group for flood control (Patton, 2009). The group promoted four key messages (Patton, 2009):• Stop building in the floodplain• Clear out flood-prone buildings• Install channels and detention ponds• Involve citizens at every point.

233

234

CASE STUDY: TULSA, OKLAHOMA“I don’t think you canoveremphasize…the impactof [the 1984 Memorial Day]
flood. …everyone remembersthat flood.”
GRAHAM BRANNIN, CITY OF TULSA

Tulsans for a Better Community drew support fromacross the city, including from Ann Patton, who wasat the time a reporter for the Tulsa World newspaper;
Ron Flanagan, a planning consultant; and J.D. Metcalfe,a respected businessman in Tulsa and later a city commissioner.16 These community members, in addition toseveral other key players, became the champions of
the comprehensive flood management program along
tributary streams. Following the 1974 and 1976 flooding
events, Tulsans for a Better Community advanced several flood control measures: the City of Tulsa acquired
63 repeatedly flooded properties, including 33 properties following the 1974 Year of Floods and 30 properties
following the 1976 Memorial Day Flood (City of Tulsa,
Undated; Patton, 1993, 2009).
According to Ron Flanagan and Ann Patton, Tulsans
for a Better Community faced significant opposition from pro-development interests, particularly theHome Builders Association, who viewed flood-control
measures as anti-development (Patton, 2009, 2014;
Flanagan, 2014). In 1978, pro-development interests weresuccessful in electing a pro-development commission,
including Senator Inhofe as mayor of the City of Tulsa(Flanagan, 2014). This commission relaxed regulations in
the late 1970s and early 1980s (Patton, 2009). However,a change in political power in 1984 which brought innewly elected officials sympathetic to flood victims, andthe occurrence of the 1984 Memorial Day Flood, which
was Tulsa’s worst flooding event to date, suppressed the
opposition (Patton, 2014).
After the 1984 Memorial Day Flood, Tulsans for a Better
Community quickly re-organized and began to takeaction (Patton, 2009). The community was successful

in using the 1984 Memorial Day Flood to advance a comprehensive flood management program along tributary
streams because of: (1) the established partnerships
among grassroots citizens, technical experts, and public
sector officials; and (2) the community’s previous work indeveloping and advocating for sophisticated solutions toflood mitigation (Patton, 2014). Once the flood occurred,
the community was able to “seize [the] moment andexecute bold plans” (Patton, 2009, p. 89).

City of Tulsa Creates Regulatory Flood Maps
to Target Acquisition
After the 1974 and 1976 flooding events, the City of Tulsa
recognized that the National Flood Insurance Program’s(NFIP’s) minimum floodplain standard was insufficient(City of Tulsa, Undated), and instead developed more
extensive maps that: (1) consider forecasts of fully urbanized watershed development conditions; (2) extend theregulations watershed-wide, which widens and lengthens the regulatory flood maps along tributary streams;and (3) use stormwater detention ponds to detain stormwater and slowly release it downstream (Patton et al.,2010). The City of Tulsa Regulatory Floodplain Maps
exceed U.S. Federal Emergency Management Agency(FEMA) minimum regulations. These maps provide
public information about flood hazard areas, help thecity to regulate development permits and freeboard
requirements, and have been used by the city to identify and target properties for acquisition and clearance.
The city targeted acquisition of areas that were most
exposed to flood damages and incurred repetitive losses
and flood insurance claims.

City of Tulsa Markets the Acquisition Program
To move the acquisition program from conception to
implementation, the City of Tulsa needed to ensure
homeowner participation and persuade FEMA to fundthe program.
City of Tulsa Structures the Program to Incentivize
Participation and Ensure Sustainability
According to Tim Lovell, Ron Flanagan, and Bill Robison,
the acquisition program is voluntary. The City of Tulsa
made the program attractive by paying homeowners the

16. Many people were pivotal in championing this program. We call out only three project champions in this case study because several interviewees
mentioned them by name.

CASE STUDY: TULSA, OKLAHOMA

pre-flood market value of homes, allowing residents tolive 30 days rent-free in their homes, paying relocation
costs, and providing a $1,000 stipend if the homeowner
moved outside of a floodplain. According to interviewees, most homeowners supported the program becauseof the city’s sincerity in the purchase of repeatedly
flooded properties.
The city recognized the need to make acquired properties multi-use so that public and private interests would
remain committed to maintaining acquired properties
and to not developing these properties in the future(Flanagan, 2014). Acquired properties throughout theCity of Tulsa include walking and bicycling trails, picnicking facilities, and parks and greenways. It is worth notingthat some of this acquired land now faces considerable
development pressure and the land can technically be
developed by the city or by others if sold by the city.

between 33 percent and 50 percent of the project costs.
(Patton, 1993). The City and FEMA worked together toensure that project benefits exceed the cost of acquisition, demolition, and restoration of a structure.

Accomplishments of the Acquisition
ProgramA stable, long-term funding source was essential toensure the sustainability of the City of Tulsa’s comprehensive flood management program along tributary
streams, including the acquisition program (Patton, 2014;
Robison, 2014). Within two years of the 1984 Memorial
Day Flood, the City of Tulsa instituted a stormwater
utility fee on water bills. This fund currently charges residents $5.92 per month and commercial, multi-family,
or industrial facilities $5.92 per month per Equivalency
Service Unit17 (Robison, 2014). These funds provide
approximately $24 million annually to the City of Tulsa;
this funding is used for planning processes, acquisition of
repeatedly flooded properties, maintenance of existing
facilities, small drainage projects, and as a match forfederal grants (Flanagan, 2014; Robison, 2014).

Since the 1970s, the City of Tulsa has acquired over
1,000 repeatedly flooded properties (Patton, 2009).
This program, in combination with other flood management regulations, has effectively reduced flood damage
during high precipitation events. Since the program’s
inception, the city has experienced several 10- to 20-year
flooding events without any major flooding in program
areas; the city has not experienced a 100-year (i.e., aflood with a 1 percent probability of occurrence in any
given year, also known as a “1 percent flooding event”)
in the Tulsa metro area since the 1984 Memorial Day
Flood (see footnote 15), which would fully test thehazard mitigation program. Although the City of Tulsa
has not experienced a 1 percent flooding event in thelast 30 years, the city expects that its comprehensive
flood management program, along tributary streams,
would reduce the extent of damages caused by a 1 percent flooding event and likely reduce damages caused
by a 500-year (i.e., a 0.2 percent flooding event; Robison,2014). During the May 2015 flooding events, surrounding
communities who have not adopted Tulsa’s stringent
flooding standards experienced significant flooding
damages, whereas Tulsa experienced minor flooding(Flanagan, 2014). Interviewees generally feel that thecity has successfully mitigated flooding.

City of Tulsa and FEMA Develop a Unique andInnovative Method to Fund the Program

The individuals we interviewed discussed several otherindicators of the program’s success:

The City of Tulsa worked closely with The Federal
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to develop aunique funding approach to an acquisition program. To
help convince FEMA of the value of this program, thecommunity used a benefit-cost analysis—on some occasions, FEMA paid out over $100,000 to repair a repetitive
loss property valued at approximately $30,000 (Robison,2014). The City and FEMA shared the cost of the acquisitions such that the City ended up paying somewhere• FEMA’s NFIP Community Rating System (CRS) rates theCity of Tulsa as a Class 2 Community, which provides
Tulsans with some of the lowest flood insurance rates
in the United States (Flanagan & Associates, 2009).
• In 1998, FEMA selected the City of Tulsa for a threeyear Project Impact grant, which aimed to create
public-private community partnerships for multi-hazard mitigation. The grant program included flooding,

17. An Equivalency Service Unit is the projected annual cost of maintaining 2,650 square feet of impervious property area (City of Tulsa, Undated).

235

236

CASE STUDY: TULSA, OKLAHOMA

as well as other extreme hazard events, such as
extreme temperatures, tornadoes, and terrorism. The
Project Impact grant resulted in the creation of Tulsa
Partners, Inc., a nonprofit that fosters public/private
partnerships to continue to advance multi-hazard
mitigation and build a disaster-resistant, sustainablecommunity (Lovell, 2014).
• The City of Tulsa is one of the 10 charter cities in the
Natural Hazard Mitigation Association’s Resilient
Neighborhood Network (RNN). The RNN “link[s]together and build[s] cooperative grassroots communities learning and working to become safer,disaster-resilient, and sustainable” (Natural Hazard
Mitigation Association, 2012, p. 1).
• The City of Tulsa was recently selected to join the
Rockefeller Foundation’s 100 Resilient Cities initiative, which is an outgrowth of the work described inthis case study and will involve building off of existingand new partnerships to make the City of Tulsa more
resilient (100 Resilient Cities, 2014).

control regulations. Interviewees indicated that the lackof major flooding in the City of Tulsa confirmed someelected officials’ feelings that Tulsa solved their flooding
problems; as such, elected officials are now focused onother priorities, including streets, water, sewer, policeand fire protection.
Interviewees believe that public information and education is now the key to ensuring that the public andprivate sectors are prepared for future extreme weather
events, especially as the frequency and severity of future
hazard events increases with climate change. As Ann
Patton indicates, “the work is never done, the battle
for wise floodplain management is never over, we must
continue…” (Patton, 2014). Tulsa Partners is involved inseveral public information and education efforts; three ofthese efforts are described in more detail below.

City of Tulsa Program for Public Information

Moving Forward

To increase public education on multi-hazard preparedness, Tulsa Partners, Inc. is working with the Cityof Tulsa’s stormwater experts to create an outreachstrategy that ensures that members of the public havethe information and tools they need to reduce vulnerability to future extreme events. The outreach strategy
is documented in the City of Tulsa Program for PublicInformation (PPI), which was adopted by the City Council
and Mayor in December 2014, and is updated annually.
The PPI stresses the importance of making sure Tulsans
are not “lulled into a false sense of security that could
make them vulnerable to unexpected tragedy” (City of
Tulsa, 2014, p. 3). Having a PPI also allows the City of
Tulsa to receive bonus points for outreach projects andpublic information activities eligible for credit under the
FEMA NFIP/CRS (NFIP/CRS, 2014).

As indicated above, the City of Tulsa has not experienced a large flooding event since the 1984 Memorial
Day Flood. Interviewees indicated that because of this,many people are beginning to disregard flooding as apotential hazard. In addition, there is renewed interestin redeveloping open spaces and parks that have been
dedicated to flood mitigation (Flanagan, 2014). In May
2015, flooding in Oklahoma resulted in only minor street
flooding in Tulsa and significant flooding for neighboring
communities who have not implemented stringent flood

According to the PPI, the City of Tulsa is vulnerable toflooding and dam or levee failure events (City of Tulsa,
2014). The PPI requires that the City of Tulsa identify andtrack outreach projects on key messages such as, “Knowyour risk of flooding,” and “What are your options if youlive in a repetitive loss property?” (City of Tulsa, 2014, p.
13). Under this program, the city must track the numberof times these key messages are disseminated, as wellas which target areas or audiences are using various

According to interviewees, the City of Tulsa is a modelfor other communities trying to reduce vulnerability toinland flooding. Since the 1970s, many communities haveused acquisition and removal or relocation of repeatedly flooded properties and the stormwater utility fee
program as tools to reduce vulnerability to inland flooding. For example, following the Great Flood of 1993, thetowns of Valmeyer (Illinois), Pattonsburg (Missouri), andRhineland (Missouri) relocated their towns out of thefloodplain (Stafford, 1998).

CASE STUDY: TULSA, OKLAHOMA

outreach projects. It also requires outcome-based measurements that are to be tracked over time to show theeffectiveness of the messaging. Target areas and audiences tracked include: areas subject to flooding by levee
failure, areas subject to repetitive loss properties, areas
within City Regulatory and Special Flood Hazard Areas,
and vulnerable populations. For the PPI, the definition forvulnerable populations is consistent with the 2014 Cityof Tulsa Multihazard Mitigation Plan, and includes theelderly; people in poverty; people who speak a language
other than English; people with mobility, hearing, visualor other physical disabilities; people with developmental or other cognitive disabilities; people with no accessto private transportation; people with medical needs
or medical/life support devices; and people with pets
(City of Tulsa, 2014, p. 5). Exhibit 2 describes one project associated with the PPI that focuses on vulnerable
populations. The PPI is overseen by a committee under
the auspices of the City of Tulsa Stormwater Drainageand Hazard Mitigation Advisory Board.

EXHIBIT 2. REDUCING VULNERABILITYUNDER THE CITY OF TULSA PROGRAM FOR
PUBLIC INFORMATION
Tulsa Partners is working on a project in conjunction with the Oklahoma Silver Jackets, the Cityof Tulsa, and Tulsa County to better understandhow perceptions of flood risk affect personal
preparedness efforts, as well as general understanding of flood risk, in two separate vulnerable
areas located behind local levees. The residentsof these areas are vulnerable both because of
their high-risk of flood events as well as the highrates of poverty and residential turnover. With
more extreme weather patterns occurring more
frequently, these areas could be particularly
hard-hit. This project, which is a part of a larger
citywide PPI, is the first in a series of public information and education efforts that will serve to
mitigate the larger danger of a flood event.

According to Tim Lovell, the eventual goal is to expand
the PPI to include other hazards identified in the City of
Tulsa Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan, such as such a windand hail, because they may increase with climate change(Lovell, 2014). This is consistent with FEMA requirements
to “…include a summary of the probabilities of future
hazard events as well as changing future conditions” infuture Multihazard Mitigation Plans (FEMA, 2015).

Tulsa Partners’ Language & Culture Bank
The Language & Culture Bank is a communications andoutreach effort that provides a vehicle for people withcross-cultural communication skills to assist community
agencies in providing information to vulnerable populations that may not be able to obtain the information
because of language or cultural barriers.18

Tulsa Partners’ A Day Without BusinessTulsa Partners works with businesses to develop business continuity plans that ensure continued operationsof a business when affected by adverse events, such as
flooding. As part of this effort, Tulsa Partners holds therecurring “A Day Without Business” symposium after
high-profile events, such as following Hurricane Katrina,
to increase business preparedness for extreme events.
These symposia and other workshops are overseen by
Tulsa Partners’ Disaster Resistant Business Council.

Acknowledgements
We would like to thank the following people for participating in interviews as part of this case study:• Mr. Tim Lovell, Tulsa Partners, Inc.
• Ms. Ann Patton, Professional writer and consultant• Mr. Ron Flanagan, Flanagan & Associates, LLC• Mr. Bill Robison, City of Tulsa• Mr. Graham Brannin, City of Tulsa.

Source: Tulsa Partners.

18. For more information about Tulsa Partners Language & Culture Bank, see http://tulsapartners.org/tpi/tulsa-language-culture-bank/.

237

238

CASE STUDY: TULSA, OKLAHOMA

Bibliography
100 Resilient Cities. 2014. Tulsa’s Resilience Challenge.
Rockefeller Foundation. Available: http://www.100resilientcities.org/cities/entry/tulsa. Accessed December
29, 2014.
ACS. 2012. American Community Survey. American
FactFinder. Available: http://factfinder.census.gov/faces/
nav/jsf/pages/index.xhtml. Accessed August 19, 2013.
Brannin, G. 2014. Interview with Graham Brannin,
Planning and Intergovernmental Administrator, City of
Tulsa. October 15.
City of Tulsa. 2014. City of Tulsa Program for PublicInformation. R.D. Flanagan & Associates and Tulsa
Partners. December 2014.
City of Tulsa. Undated. Flood Control and Drainage.
Available: https://www.cityoftulsa.org/city-services/flood-control/flooding-history.aspx. Accessed
November 5, 2014.
FEMA. 2015. Hazard Mitigation Planning Frequently
Asked Questions. Federal Emergency Management
Agency. Available at https://www.fema.gov/hazard-mitigation-planning-frequently-asked-questions.
Accessed August 21, 2015.
Flanagan & Associates. 2009. Multi-Hazard Mitigation
Plan—2009 Update. City of Tulsa.
Flanagan, R. 2014. Interview with Ron Flanagan,
Principal at Flanagan & Associates, LLC. October 15.
Flesher, J. 2014. City Planners avoid politics of ‘climatechange’ label, saying they just want to ‘get ready.’
Associated Press. September 10.
Liu L., Y. Hong, J. Hocker, M. Shafer, L. Carter, J.
Gourley, C. Bednarczyk, B. Yong, and P. Adhikari. 2012.
Analyzing projected changes and trends of temperature and precipitation in the southern USA from 16
downscaled global climate models. Theoretical andApplied Climatology 109(3–4):345–360.

Lovell, T. 2014. Interview with Tim Lovell, Executive
Director at Tulsa Partners, Inc. October 15.
Natural Hazard Mitigation Association. 2012. Resilient
Neighbors Network, Framework Plan. Plan prepared by
Resilient Neighbors Network Steering Committee andNatural Hazard Mitigation Association. Plan supportedby Emergency Management Agency, the Federal
Insurance and Mitigation Administration, and Natural
Hazard Mitigation Association’s Blue Ribbon Advisory
Team. December 31.
NFIP/CRS. 2014. Developing a Program for PublicInformation for Credit under the Community Rating
System of the National Flood Insurance Program.
National Flood Insurance Program/Community Rating
System. Available at http://crsresources.org/files/300/
developing_a_ppi_for_credit_under_the_crs_2014.
pdf. Accessed September 10, 2015.
NOAA. 2015. Tulsa, Oklahoma Total Monthly andYearly Rainfall. National Weather Service Weather
Forecast Office, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration. Updated: July 15, 2015. Available at
http://www.srh.noaa.gov/tsa/?n=climo_tulyearrain.
Accessed July 21, 2015.
Patton, A. 1993. From Harm’s Way. Flood Hazard
Mitigation in Tulsa, Oklahoma. December.
Patton, A. 2009. A Tulsa story: Learning to live inharmony with nature. In Global Warming, Natural
Hazards, and Emergency Management, J.A. Bullock,
G.D. Haddow, and K.S. Haddow (eds.). CRC Press, Boca
Raton, FL.
Patton, A. 2014. Interview with Ann Patton,
Professional Writer and Consultant. November 14.
Patton, A., J.K. Meshek, R. Flanagan, S. Hillman,
M.L. Buchert, J. Page, D. Reynolds, and C. Williams.
2010. From Rooftop to River: Tulsa’s Approach to
Floodplain and Stormwater Management. City of
Tulsa Stormwater Drainage Advisory Board and Public
Works Department. Financial assistance provided
by the Federal Emergency Management Agency,
Oklahoma Department of Emergency Preparedness.

CASE STUDY: TULSA, OKLAHOMA

Qiao, L., Y. Hong, R. McPherson, M. Shafer, D. Gade,
D. Williams, S. Chen, and D. Lilly. 2014. Climate
Change and Hydrological Response in the Trans-State
Oologah Lake Watershed—Evaluating DynamicallyDownscaled NARCCAP and Statistically Downscaled
CMIP3 Simulations with VIC Model. Water Resources
Management 28(10):3291–3305.
Robison, B. 2014. Interview with Bill Robison, Lead
Engineer, Stormwater Project Coordination, City of
Tulsa. October 15.
Stafford, M. 1998. Uprooted town moves to higher
ground after Midwest deluge of ‘93. Disaster:
Government offered Pattonsburg, Mo., and othercommunities millions to move out of harm’s way
rather than remain in flood plain. Los Angeles Times.
Associated Press. July 12. Available: http://articles.
latimes.com/1998/jul/12/news/mn-2946. Accessed
December 11, 2014.

239

240

APPENDIX A: CLIMATE ADAPTATION

Appendix A.
Key Definitions
Definitions for key terms we use in this report include:
Adaptation action — a policy, project, or program
designed to reduce sensitivity or exposure to a climate
vulnerability or to enhance adaptive capacity.
Adaptation professionals — the community of professionals from a variety of disciplines that focus on theissue of adapting to climate change
Adaptive capacity — “[t]he ability of a system to adjust
to climate change (including climate variability andextremes), to moderate potential damages, to take advantage of opportunities, or to cope with the consequences”(IPCC, 2007, p. 869). While this definition of adaptive
capacity is widely accepted, the literature is replete withadditional perspectives about adaptive capacity that add
value to any discussion of the concept. For example, the“assets”-based approach to adaptive capacity describes
adaptive capacity as the availability of economic, technological, informational, natural, built, and social capitalto adjust to or take advantage of climate impacts; this ishighly relevant to many adaptation actions profiled in thisreport. However, it is also helpful to distinguish the needfor developing “generic adaptive capacity” to address
basic community development needs versus “specificadaptive capacity” to address clearly identified and delimited climate vulnerabilities (Eakin et al., 2014).
Climate adaptation — responses to climate variability,
extreme events, and climate change.
Climate change — changes in climate variables and patterns of weather over time because of a warming of the
Earth’s atmosphere.
Climate impact — the effect experienced by a human or
natural system as a result of climate variability, extreme
events, or climate change, such as droughts, flooding,or sea level rise.

Community — a group of people living together in acommon geographic area, typically under a municipal jurisdiction such as a city or county, but sometimes
defined by a watershed or other geographic characteristic.
Community-based adaptation — the enterprise of reducing
vulnerability to climate impacts at the community level.
Community-based champion — A person who catalyzes
action to address current and future climate vulnerabilities. Typically a grass-roots organizer or a sustainability
officer, city planner, emergency manager, elected official,or other public official involved in the day-to-day management of municipal affairs.
Exposure — people or assets in places that could be
adversely affected by climate impacts.
Resilience — For this project, we avoid the term “resilience” even though it is broadly used in the climate
adaptation field. This is because we view resilience narrowly as an element of adaptive capacity, or the ability
to adjust to climate change. In other words, we subsume
resilience under vulnerability for purposes of this project.
Sensitivity — “the degree to which a system is affected,
either adversely or beneficially, by climate variability orchange” (IPCC, 2007, p. 881). Sensitivity concerns what
happens to a system once it is exposed to a climate
impact.
Vulnerability — “the degree to which a system is susceptible to, and unable to cope with, adverse effects
of climate change, including climate variability andextremes. Vulnerability is a function of the character,magnitude, and rate of climate change and variation towhich a system is exposed, its sensitivity, and its adaptive capacity” (IPCC, 2007, p. 883).

APPENDIX A: CLIMATE ADAPTATION

References
Eakin, H.C., M.C. Lemos, and D.R. Nelson. 2014.
Differentiating capacities as a means to sustainableclimate change adaptation. Global Environmental
Change 27:1–8.
IPCC. 2007. Climate Change 2007: Impacts,
Adaptation and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working
Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of theIntergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, M.L.
Parry, O.F. Canziani, J.P. Palutikof, P.J. van der Linden,
and C.E. Hanson (eds.). Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge, UK.

241

242

APPENDIX B: CLIMATE ADAPTATION

Appendix B.
MethodsT

his project was a two-year research effort conducted by Abt Associates19 and funded by The
Kresge Foundation. The goal was to conduct anempirical assessment of community-based adaptation
through a project with methodological breadth anddepth. To achieve this goal, we surveyed the field of
climate adaptation through a review of selected technical and professional literature that aimed to evaluate
the state of the practice. We supplemented this effort
with interviews of 50 thought leaders from a variety
of fields relevant to climate adaptation. This allowed
us to understand where adaptation professionals felt
the state of the practice was at. We then engaged inprimary research: we conducted case studies of specificadaptation actions implemented in 17 United Statescommunities. Our case study research incorporated site
visits, archival reviews, and interviews in all 17 communities. A nine-person project team at Abt Associates
conducted the research; three technical advisors and a
16-member project advisory committee provided critical input for this report.
Below, we discuss the six basic streams of research
and analytical activity that we conducted to develop
this report. Some of these activities took place in parallel, and all research activities were part of a reflexive,
process-based approach to allow insights from any one
analytical activity to inform and refine other analyticalactivities. For more detail on the assumptions and normative perspectives that framed this project, please see
Chapter 1: Introduction. The activity streams discussed
below sometimes occurred concurrently or iteratively.
Their order is not meant to imply linearity or chronology
in our research process.

Activity Stream 1:
Understand Community-Based
Adaptation State-of-the-Practice
To ensure that our work built on the ongoing progressin the field of community-based adaptation, we beganby compiling a baseline of important community-based
adaptation activities and issues. This was based primarily
on a targeted literature review and a series of thoughtleader interviews.
Our literature review focused on several notable efforts
undertaken recently to assess the state-of-the-practice ofclimate adaptation, including National Research Council,
2010; Bierbaum et al., 2012; Carmin et al., 2012; Hansen etal., 2013; Thayer et al., 2013; and Melillo et al., 2014.
We also conducted 50 hour-long thought-leader interviews in early 2014 (see Appendix C for a list). Theinterviews were semi-structured and relied heavily on
open-ended questions (see Appendix D), which typicallyelicited lengthy responses and in many cases resulted inhighly productive conversations. After completing theinterviews, we synthesized the responses related to: (1)community-based adaptation motivation, planning, andaction; (2) barriers to adaptation; and (3) community
engagement. See Appendix E for a summary of insightsfrom thought leader interviews.

Activity Stream 2:
Develop an Analytical Framework
Under this stream of activity, we constructed an overarching analytical framework to guide observations and tointegrate insights and other findings from our compilation of research inputs. This aspect of our research andanalytical approach was designed to be reflexive; thatis, we recognized and intended that it would evolve overthe course of the project.

19. The Kresge Foundation provided a grant for this project to Stratus Consulting Inc., which merged with Abt Associates during the project.

APPENDIX B: CLIMATE ADAPTATION

We developed an initial project framework to help theresearch team share a common conceptual orientationand to provide structure to initial research steps. This
framework consisted of a set of key categories, including motivations for pursuing adaptation interventions,planning processes that support those interventions,and implementation activities. We used the framework
to develop a semi-structured interview protocol for thethought-leader interviews in Activity Stream 1 and todevelop the research protocol for case study development in Activity Stream 4.
The analytical framework evolved over the course of the
project, in keeping with our reflexive research approach.
Each manifestation of a framework for the project was
informed by the evidence gathered up to that point; wemade modifications to facilitate progress on the research
project. For example, based on insights from the thought
leader interviews, we revised the framework for casestudy selection; based on insights from case study selection, we revised the framework for case study research;and based on insights from the first pilot case studies,
we revised the framework for later case studies.

Activity Stream 3:
Obtain External Expert Guidance
To ensure that project outputs would be useful forcommunity-based champions, salient for adaptation
professionals, and grounded in the latest knowledge inthe field, we sought a team of external experts in climate
adaptation and related fields to provide input throughout the project and to critique each activity stream. We
did this by engaging a project advisory committee (PAC)and using specialized technical advisors.
The PAC included nationally recognized experts fromvarious fields related to community-based adaptation,
including climate adaptation, natural hazards mitigation,planning, environmental justice, natural resource management, insurance, and community engagement andcommunications. The PAC was asked to contribute toand critique the project research approach, to provide
guidance and feedback on case study selection, to review
and critique project inputs and findings, and to assist in
engaging audiences and communicating project outcomes. We met in person with the PAC three times overthe course of the project to elicit and gather feedback,and held several webinar briefings to gather additional
feedback. Our technical advisors provided review andtechnical advice on all project components and activity
streams, including the project framework, the case study
community selection process, our research methodology, early-stage case study outlines, draft case studies,project findings, our communications strategy, and theanalysis and final report. Although the PAC and technicaladvisors provided ongoing advice throughout the project, including project design, conduct, and completion,
the final responsibility for this project report, its conclusions, and its recommendations rest solely with the Abt
Associates project team.

Activity Stream 4:
Conduct Case Studies
To further ensure that project observations and findings were relevant and applicable to community-based
champions, we developed case studies of vulnerability-reducing actions across a range of communities in
the United States. We considered more than 110 potential community-based adaptation actions for full casestudy development, virtually all of which were identified
through the thought-leader interviews. We used a rangeof criteria to winnow this list down to the 17 case studies included in this report (beginning on page 48). We
sought to include a diversity of actions and approaches
for reducing vulnerability to different types of climate
impacts in communities that varied in geography, size,

243

244

APPENDIX B: CLIMATE ADAPTATION

Appendix B. (continued)
Methodssocioeconomics, and political orientation. We aimed to
explore the greatest number of cases studies possible
in the greatest possible depth we could achieve, given
available time and resources.
To ensure consistency in the collection of our case-based
information, we developed a research protocol to help
researchers systematically examine common enabling
and limiting factors that can shape adaptation action.
For each case study, a member of the research teamconducted background research, project site visits,
in-person interviews, and follow-up interviews via email
or telephone. In this activity stream, we minimized
researcher judgment as much as possible and attempted
to reduce researcher bias through multiple rounds ofinternal research team, TA, and PAC reviews. The casestudies were developed to capture the interviewees’
perception of essential factors that shaped the development, implementation, and evaluation of the action.

Activity Stream 5:
Compare Case Studies
We used information and observations gleaned from thefirst four activity streams to assess what was achievedat the community level, both in specific communities, aswell as in aggregate across our portfolio of case studies.
We also assessed how communities accomplished thoseachievements. We then engaged in multiple independent analytical activities to build on this record to assist

and enable community-based champions, engage inan empirical assessment, and provide conclusions andtactical recommendations to assist adaptation professionals and community-based champions of climate
adaptation. These activities included developing andtesting qualitative cross-case narratives, surveying casestudy researchers for cross-case insights, and extensive
analysis and review by the project team, our technicaladvisors, and the PAC. Ultimately, we developed Chapter
2: Case Studies and Cross-Case Findings based on thiscross-case analysis. Our conclusions and recommendations emerge from this cross-case analysis as well as ourselected literature review and thought leader interviews.

Activity Stream 6:
Share Project Findings
We aimed to develop and communicate useful project
outputs to community-based champions who could benefit from learning about good practices; we also wished
to help advance the state-of-the-practice of climate
adaptation. To support widespread dissemination offindings from this project, we are undertaking complementary communication efforts to reach our intended
audiences. The key project outputs are this final report,
the 17 case studies, and a companion project website.
Additionally, we are focused on developing numerous
webinars, professional conference presentations, andpublications.

APPENDIX B: CLIMATE ADAPTATION

References
Bierbaum, R., J.B. Smith, A. Lee, M. Blair, L. Carter.
F.S. Chapin III, P. Flemming, S. Ruffo, M. Stults,
S. McNeely, E. Wasley, and L. Verduzco. 2012. A
Comprehensive Review of Climate Adaptation in
the United States: More than Before, but Less thanis Needed. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for
Global Change. Available: http://link.springer.com/
article/10.1007%2Fs11027-012-9423-1#page-2.
Carmin, J., N. Nadkarni, and C. Rhie. 2012. Progress
and Challenges in Urban Climate Adaptation Planning:
Results of a Global Survey. Massachusetts Institute ofTechnology, Cambridge.
Hansen, L., R.M. Gregg, V. Arroyo, S. Ellsworth, L.
Jackson, and A. Snover. 2013. The State of Adaptationin the United States: An Overview. A Report for theJohn D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation.
EcoAdapt.
Melillo, J.M., T.C. Richmond, and G.W. Yohe (eds.).
2014. Climate Change Impacts in the United States: The
Third National Climate Assessment. U.S. Global Change
Research Program. doi:10.7930/J0Z31WJ2.
National Research Council. 2010. Adapting to the
Impacts of Climate Change. The National Academies
Press, Washington, DC.
Thayer, J., M. Rider, and D. Lerch. 2013. Resilient
Against What?: How Leading U.S. Municipalities are
Understanding and Acting on Resilience. Post Carbon
Institute. October 16. Available: http://www.postcarbon.org/publications/resilient-against-what/.
Accessed August 27, 2015.

245

246

APPENDIX C: CLIMATE ADAPTATION

Appendix C.
List of Thought-Leader Interviews
Exhibit C.1. List of interviewees, in alphabetical orderName

If applicable, includes
names of other participants

Organization

Expert area

Adams, Steve

Institute for Sustainable Communities

Adaptation

Aggarwala, Rohit

Bloomberg and Columbia University; formerly Headof the New York City Office of Long Term Planningand Sustainability

Sustainability

Arroyo, Vicki andJessica Grannis

Georgetown Climate Center

Law, adaptation

Becker, Bill

Soldier’s Grove, DOE; formally worked with FEMA
during Clinton Admin on Project Impact

Natural hazards mitigation

Berginnis, Chad

Association of State Floodplain Managers

Natural hazard mitigation, particularly
flooding

Brunner, Ron

Department of Political Science, University ofColorado Boulder

Political science, adaptation

Chapin, Terry

University of Alaska

Native villages

Dillingham, Tim

American Littoral Society

Coastal restoration

Fitzgerald, Garret

Urban Sustainability Directors Network

Community networking

Fleming, Paul

Seattle Public Utilities

Water, community government,
adaptation

Hector, Galbraith

National Wildlife Federation

Natural systems

Gillian, Nancy andGwen Griffith

Model Forest Policy Program

Adaptation planning in rural/small
localities

Graham, Tonya andMarni Koopman

GEOS InstituteCommunity-based adaptation

Grimm, Kristin

Spitfire Strategies

Communication

Haddow, George

Bullock & Haddow, LLC; formerly White House Liaisonand Deputy Chief of Staff to FEMA under Clinton

Natural hazard mitigation

Hansen, Lara

EcoAdapt

Adaptation

Horton, RadleyNortheast Climate Science Center, Columbia University

Climate modelingJohnson, Zoe

State of Maryland

Adaptation, state and local

Klima, Kelly

Carnegie Mellon University

Hazards mitigation

Kovacs, Paul

Property and Casualty Insurance Compensation
Corporation

Adaptation, Canada

Laska, Shirley

University of New Orleans

Environmental justiceAPPENDIX C: CLIMATE ADAPTATION

Exhibit C.1. List of interviewees, in alphabetical orderName

If applicable, includes
names of other participants

Organization

Expert area

Lovell, Tim

Tulsa Partners

Natural hazard mitigation

McKenzie-Mohr, Doug

McKensie-Mohr & Associates, Inc.

Community-based social marketing

Meis, Kate

Local Government Commission

Mitigation and adaptation

Morello-Frosh, Rachel

University of California, Berkeley, Department ofEnvironmental Science, Policy & Management

Environmental justice, public healthMoser, Susanne

Susanne Moser Research & Consulting

Adaptation

Murley, Jim

South Florida Regional Planning Council

Adaptation

Orr, David

Oberlin College, The Oberlin Project

Sustainability

Pastor, Manual

University of Southern California

Environmental justicePatterson, Jacqui

NAACP

Environmental justicePeterson, Sascha

ASAP; Adaptation International

Adaptation

Pike, Cara

Climate AccessCommunication

Reeve, Kara

National Wildlife Federation

Community adaptation, natural
systems

Rochman, Julie

Institute of Business and Home Safety

Insurance, natural hazard mitigation

Schwab, Jim

Manager of Hazards Planning Research Center at
American Planning Association

Planning; natural hazard planning

Shepard, Peggy

WeAct

Environmental JusticeSimmons, Jill

City of Seattle

Sustainability

Steelman, Toddi

University of Saskatchewan

Community-based planning

Stein, Bruce

National Wildlife Federation

Community adaptation, natural
systems

Stults, Missy

University of Michigan

Adaptation

Tabor, Gary

Center for Large Landscape Conservation

Natural systems

Thomas, Edward

President of the Natural Hazards Mitigation Association

Natural hazards mitigation

Venkataraman, Bina

Senior Advisor for Climate Change Innovation,
Executive Office of the President

Adaptation

Winkelman, Steve

Center for Clean Air Policy

Adaptation

ASAP: American Society of Adaptation Professionals; DOE: U.S. Department of Energy; FEMA: Federal Emergency
Management Agency; NAACP: National Association for the Advancement of Colored People.

247

248

APPENDIX D: CLIMATE ADAPTATION

Appendix D.
Thought-Leader Questionnaire
Introduction
Thank you for taking some time to talk with me today. I
want this be more of a conversation, so please feel free
to interrupt me at any time with questions or thoughts.
I am part of a team at Stratus Consulting (Abt Associates);in partnership with The Kresge Foundation, we are conducting an assessment of community-based adaptationin the United States. The primary goal of this project isto understand how communities are adapting to climate
variability and change. In particular, we hope to understand how communities take action to reduce theirvulnerabilities.
1.

One of our first steps is to reach out to leaders in theadaptation field and in other project-related fields toensure that we develop a solid empirical foundation forthe project. You are one of these leaders and we appreciate you taking the time to contribute to this project.
Finally, I will be taking notes during the interview, so
please bear with me if I have to pause after you finish
speaking to get everything written down.

To begin, can you please briefly describe your experience with adaptation at a community level?
[Try to limit answer to 5 minutes. If prompting is needed, experience can include observing or assessing communities taking action, and could include community-based action not specifically considered“adaptation.”]

EffectivenessMany communities in the United States are beginning to adapt to climate impacts. The next few questions are about
the effectiveness of such community efforts.
2. In your experience, what gets communities motivated to adapt to climate impacts or reduce vulnerability?
[Internal list only—Do not read list. If necessary, use as a prompt.]nInitiated mitigation/sustainability plannAgency leadnChampionnExperienced extreme event(s)nFollowing lead of other communitiesn Other:n Other:
3. Do you think there is a difference between communities that get started by responding to an extreme
weather event (or events) compared to those that proactively plan for climate adaptation?

APPENDIX D: CLIMATE ADAPTATION

4. What has been useful in moving communities towards implementing adaptation actions?
[Prompts, if needed: How did you get started? Think of it in the context of a specific community.][Transition to ACTION]:
Now I’d like to move on from understanding what motivated communities and focus our attention on how
communities take action.
5. How have communities identified and selected adaptation actions that will reduce theirvulnerability to climate?
6. How have communities engaged constituencies to gain support for actions to reduce vulnerability?
a.

Who are the primary community audiences being engaged?

b.

What are the primary communication or engagement methods or tools that are used?

Barriers
Many communities in the United States have run into challenges or barriers to reducing their vulnerabilities. The next
few questions focus on these barriers.
7. What do you see as the main barriers for communities in adapting to climate impacts?
[Internal list only—Do not read list. If necessary, use as a prompt.]nLack of fundingn

Politics and/or political environmentnLack of support from higher levels of governmentnLack of community supportnLack of a championnLack of knowledge/information [can either be climate data or how to adapt]nSense that planning is enoughn

Negative reactions to the concept of climate changen Other:n Other:n Other:[Potential follow-up question]:
I’d like to get your feedback on community challenges that have been identified by others. How important do yousee [insert barrier—ask about politics in particular if not mentioned earlier] as a barrier to community adaptation?
[Opportunity to pull from above list if you judge it appropriate for this specific interviewee.]

249

250

APPENDIX D: CLIMATE ADAPTATION

Appendix D. (continued)
Thought-Leader Questionnaire
8. Do you think communities can begin the adaptation process without explicitly talking
about climate change?
9. Do you know of communities that have overcome these barriers in the path to adaptation? If so, how?

nLack of fundingn

Politics and/or political environmentnLack of support from higher levels of governmentnLack of community supportnLack of a championnLack of knowledge/information [can either be climate data or how to adapt]nSense that planning is enoughn

Negative reactions to the concept of climate changen Other:n Other:n Other:Conclusion
I have a few concluding questions.
10. A key goal of our study is to share our findings with community adaptation leaders and organizations.
a.

Can you recommend effective approaches for disseminating this information to the right people?

b.

Are there any ways that you could help us with the information dissemination process [if prompting
is needed, networks that they belong to, courses they teach, conferences or workshops they present at]?

11. Do you know of others who have experience that would benefit this project and who we should contact?
12. Are there specific communities that we should investigate more closely?
13. Finally, is there anything that you would like to add? Anything that I should have asked you but didn’t?
I appreciate your time today — thank you!

APPENDIX E: CLIMATE ADAPTATION

Appendix E.
Summary of Insights from Thought-Leader Interviews

T

he Abt Associates Project Team20 conducted 50
interviews with thought leaders from diverse disciplines —adaptation, community-based decision making,natural hazards mitigation, environmental justice, law,
insurance, and sustainability (see Appendix A for a complete list of interviewees, their affiliations, and expertiseareas). Interviews took place from February 13, 2014, toApril 28, 2014. Each interview lasted approximately one
hour. The semi-structured interviews posed open-ended
questions, which typically elicited lengthy responses andproductive conversations between the interviewer andthe interviewee. Each interviewer worked from a standard series of questions in a semi-structured interview
template (see Appendix B for our list of questions).
This appendix provides a brief summary of interviewees’
insights about community-based adaptation, which weorganized into three major categories:
1. Community-based adaptation processes, specifically issues of motivation, planning, and action
2. Barriers to adaptation
3. Thoughts regarding community engagement.
At least one thought leader mentioned each point below,
and many of these insights emerged from several of theinterviews. We report insights into adaptation at thecommunity level, as well as thought leaders’ recommendations for future action. Although some thought
leaders’ perspectives align on several adaptation issues,
some of the views expressed below may not be consensus views among the thought leaders.

Community-Based Adaptation
Processes
This section summarizes key interview themes on community-based adaptation within three major areas:
motivation, planning, and action.

Motivation
The interviews revealed more than 30 factors that
prompted communities to begin an adaptation process
or reduce their vulnerabilities. The following motivating
categories emerged from four or more interviews, andare in order of frequency of mention:• Extreme events. Recent large events or recurring
events were the most frequently cited motivating
factor for communities to begin adaptation.
• Strong leadership. Leadership from a champion, suchas an elected official, an agency staff member, or otheractively engaged community member, can be critical to raising awareness and motivating a community
towards adaptation planning and action.
• Peer action. Seeing what other communities are
doing can help start the adaptation process. It canalso build healthy competition among communities
to be a leader in climate adaptation.
• Insurance. Communities may undertake adaptation
activities to regain insurance for homes and businesses after an extreme event or to benefit from amore favorable insurance rate.
• Regulatory drivers. Government requirements,
mandates, or enforcement actions can help raiseawareness about climate change and motivate communities to adapt.
• Funding. Communities may begin the adaptation process because funding is available from local, state,
or federal governments; foundations; or nonprofit
organizations.
• Mitigation or sustainability efforts. A number ofthought leaders indicated that there is a shift in focus
from greenhouse gas mitigation to adaptation. In
addition, some said that sustainability and mitigationplans are increasingly incorporating adaptation andclimate risks.

20. Members of the project team who conducted interviews included Jason Vogel, Megan O’Grady, Alexis St. Juliana, Heather Hosterman, and Joel Smith.

251

252

APPENDIX E: CLIMATE ADAPTATION

Appendix E. (continued)
Summary of Insights from Thought-Leader Interviews
Planning
Although we did not explicitly ask about adaptation
planning, several thought leaders indicated that theiradaptation activity is concentrated on analysis and planning. Some interviewees suggested that an adaptation
plan, alone, can help decrease community vulnerability. Others suggested that the pathway from planningto taking action is a significant obstacle for many
communities.

ActionWe asked thought leaders how communities identify,
select, and implement adaptation actions to reduceclimate vulnerability. A few themes emerged from this
discussion, including:• Using existing processes, regulations, and mechanisms to implement adaptation actions. Communities
can integrate adaptation actions into existing processes, regulations, and mechanisms. For instance,
hazard plans can include elements of climate adaptation by planning for future events and hazards.
• Focusing on actions that have multiple benefits.
Communities are more willing to undertake actions
that have multiple benefits. For example, emergency
or hazard mitigation planning can include planning fora wide range of hazards over a specific time horizon.
• Small actions. Engage community members “where
they are” on the issues that matter to them and in a
way that resonates with their priorities. For example,
communities could be engaged on a small action that
reduces impacts they are currently experiencing, suchas a small action to develop an erosion control project.

• Allowing for a necessary time lag between planningand implementation. Communities do not go straightfrom planning to implementation; there is a time lag.
They may need to wait for an update to another plan,for example.
• Lack of action. Several thought leaders indicatedthat few examples of adaptation action exist in the
United States.

Barriers
We asked thought leaders about the barriers that communities face in reducing their vulnerabilities and how
communities have overcome these barriers on the path
to adaptation. Thought leaders mentioned the following
barriers, in order of frequency of mention:• Lack of funding. Many interviewees said that communities lack the funding to develop adaptation plans
or implement adaptation actions. In particular, highprice tags for adaptation or adaptation planning canscare people away, especially when the community
has limited funds for meeting many important community purposes.
• Lack of knowledge and information. Uncertainty,
including lack of general and localized climate data
and uncertainty about climate projections or climate
impacts, can inhibit communities or community leaders from taking action.

• Tools. Tools can help communities move beyond
planning.

• Politics or the political environment. These can bea barrier to adaptation. For example, a short election
cycle can limit the political will to tackle long-term
adaptation issues. The idea of climate change canitself be a hot-button issue that detracts from the goalof reducing vulnerability.

• Engaging dedicated technical staff. Dedicated technical staff can help to usher adaptation through to its
completion.

• Lack of resources, staff, and capacity. In some cases,
communities may not have staff with the necessary
knowledge to conduct vulnerability assessments,

APPENDIX E: CLIMATE ADAPTATION

develop adaptation plans, or implement adaptationplans. Lack of other resources can also pose problems.
• Lack of authority. Governments must have sufficientauthority to implement adaptations. Coordinating
multiple communities without such authority can bea challenge.
• Legal barriers. Adaptation policies must be in compliance with federal and state law and regulations.
• More pressing day-to-day needs. Communities haveshort-term priorities that often take precedence overadaptation.
• Lost property tax revenue. Limiting development,such as along valuable coastal areas, can result in lost
property tax revenue.
• Unrealistic optimism, amnesia about past events,
or denial. In some cases, communities feel a senseof optimism that they will face few challenges fromclimate change. In other cases, communities may feelthat they will not experience extreme events again.
• Sentimentality. Communities may resist change
because they feel they might lose their history or
unique characteristics.
• Lack of understanding of adaptation options. Many
communities do not know what the adaptation options
are; they need help understanding the options andselecting the right one.
• Organizational, cultural, or institutional inertia. Oneof the challenges for adaptation, in particular, is forgovernment entities to work across agencies. Some
communities lack a history of collaboration among
departments or agencies.
• Misunderstanding of data. Many communities feelthey need site-specific data to make decisions or move
forward. However, climate models are not yet sophisticated enough to provide the information communities
think they need.

• Fear. If not communicated properly, adaptation canlead to perceptions that things are being “taken away”
from individuals or the community.
• Lack of urgency. Climate change might feel like aproblem that is far in the future. This can make adaptation planning and implementation a low priority insome communities.

Community Engagement
Several of the interview questions focused on issues
surrounding community engagement, including whomto engage, how to engage them, and what messages
to use. Below, we outline some of the key community
engagement themes that emerged.

Whom to Engage
Interviewees focused on two dominant messages about
whom to engage: that the messenger matters, and thatthe engagement process should target the community’s needs. Information about climate change adaptationneeds to come from a trusted source. Several thought
leaders said that community engagement should bebroad and inclusive, engaging all interested community members and stakeholder groups early on andthroughout the adaptation process. Others felt it wasmore important to focus on engaging key constituencies,
such as government agencies or key community groups.

How to Engage
Several thought leaders shared thoughts and experienceon how to engage a community, including:• Leading with a “climate change” message is notnecessary. You can often address the issue of climatechange adaptation from a starting point that the community feels is more relevant.

253

254

APPENDIX E: CLIMATE ADAPTATION

Appendix E. (continued)
Summary of Insights from Thought-Leader Interviews• Work incrementally. In some communities, it makes
sense to start small and gain support along the way.
• Community engagement is complex. Community
engagement can be more complex and time consuming
than communities realize. Communities should be sureto have an effective communications strategy in place.
• Take advantage of opportunities. Promoting an adaptation action immediately after a severe event is an
example of taking advantage of a community engagement opportunity.
• Take a whole-community approach. Adaptation
should be not be considered in a vacuum. Develop
a comprehensive approach that addresses current
issues in addition to climate change.
• Peer action. Seeing what other communities are
doing, with good results, can be an important motivator to start or continue the adaptation process.

• Use positive messages. A message about climatechange vulnerabilities may not effectively motivate
adaptation.
• Emphasize economic resilience. Framing adaptationin terms of avoided financial costs in the future, or
conducting a cost-benefit analysis can be an effective
communication tool.
• Understand what information is currently being
used. Information and data can be tailored to meetthe needs of local engineers or managers. Local planners and engineers are already using climate data to
make decisions.
• Use existing information. Sometimes adaptation professionals complain that communities do not havesufficient climate data. In reality, sufficient data exist,
but we need to do a better job targeting climate information to community information needs.

• Prepare advanced messaging. Communities need tohave their messaging prepared in advance of extreme
events. There is a narrow window to act following
an event.

• Improve knowledge of available resources. Someinterviewees said that existing tools and resources
are sufficient, but communities need to know where
to look.

• Understand “where the community is” and meetthem there. This may mean focusing on an issue
seemingly distant from climate adaptation—suchas building a robust economy or preserving local
environmental resources—and then shifting toward
adaptation and vulnerability reduction.

• Focus on strategies that have multiple benefits.
Communities are more likely to support strategies that
produce multiple community benefits.

What Message to Use

Other key thoughts and feedback we heard from theinterviewees included:

Finally, thought leaders emphasized that the message isimportant: make climate change adaptation relevant at
the community level. Appeal to what matters to people
and what affects them every day. If the community
believes that climate change impacts will occur 50 or
100 years from now, it will be difficult to move the adaptation process forward.

Miscellaneous• Communities may not actually use the tools developed by governments and academics• Citizens tend not to read reports and may be more
responsive to other media for communication

APPENDIX F: CLIMATE ADAPTATION

Appendix F.
References
Executive Summary
Melillo, J.M., T.C. Richmond, and G.W. Yohe (eds.).
2014. Climate Change Impacts in the United States: The
Third National Climate Assessment. U.S. Global Change
Research Program. doi:10.7930/J0Z31WJ2.

Chapter 1: Introduction
Adger, W.N., N.W. Arnell, and E.L. Tompkins. 2005.
Successful adaptation to climate change across scales.
Global Environmental Change-Human and Policy
Dimensions 15:77–86.
Bierbaum, R., J.B. Smith, A. Lee, M. Blair, L. Carter.
F.S. Chapin III, P. Flemming, S. Ruffo, M. Stults,
S. McNeely, E. Wasley, and L. Verduzco. 2013. A
Comprehensive Review of Climate Adaptation in
the United States: More than Before, but Less thanis Needed. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for
Global Change. Available: http://link.springer.com/
article/10.1007%2Fs11027-012-9423-1#page-2.
Brunner R.D. and A.H. Lynch. 2010. Adaptive
Governance and Climate Change. American
Meteorological Society, Boston.
Carmin, J., N. Nadkarni, and C. Rhie. 2012. Progress
and Challenges in Urban Climate Adaptation Planning:
Results of a Global Survey. Massachusetts Institute ofTechnology, Cambridge.
Dow, K., Haywood, B. K., Kettle, N. P., & Lackstrom,
K. (2013). The role of ad hoc networks in supporting climate change adaptation: A case study
from the Southeastern United States. Regional
Environmental Change, 13(6), 1235–1244. doi:10.1007/
s10113-013-0440-8

Ekstrom, J. A., & Moser, S. C. (2014). Identifying andovercoming barriers in urban climate adaptation:
Case study findings from the San Francisco Bay Area,
California, USA. Urban Climate, 9, 54–74. doi:10.1016/j.
uclim.2014.06.002
Finzi Hart, J.A., P.M. Grifman, S.C. Moser, A. Abeles,
M.R. Meyers, S.C. Schlosser, and J.A. Ekstrom.
2012. Rising to the Challenge: Results of the 2011
California Coastal Adaptation Needs Assessment.
USCSG-TR-01-2012. USC Sea Grant, Los Angeles, CA.
Available: https://woods.stanford.edu/sites/default/
files/files/CACoastalAssessmentResults.pdf. Accessed
August 27, 2015.
Hansen, L., R.M. Gregg, V. Arroyo, S. Ellsworth, L.
Jackson, and A. Snover. 2013. The State of Adaptation in
the United States: An Overview. A Report for the John
D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation. EcoAdapt.
Higbee, M. 2014. Integrating Hazard Mitigation andClimate Adaptation Planning: Case Studies andLessons Learned. For the 2015 San Diego County
Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Updated.
ICLEI-Local Governments for Sustainability USA.
February. Available: http://icleiusa.org/wp-content/
uploads/2015/08/Integrating-Hazard-Mitigationand-Climate-Adaptation-Planning.pdf. Accessed
August 27, 2015.
Hughes, S. (2015). A meta-analysis of urban climatechange adaptation planning in the US. Urban Climate,14, 17–29. doi:10.1016/j.uclim.2015.06.003
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change,
2013: Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science
Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth
Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panelon Climate Change [Stocker, T.F., D. Qin, G.-K.
Plattner, M. Tignor, S.K. Allen, J. Boschung, A. Nauels,
Y. Xia, V. Bex and P.M. Midgley (eds.)]. Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and
New York, NY, USA, 1535 pp.

255

256

APPENDIX F: CLIMATE ADAPTATION

Appendix F. (continued)
References
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2014:
Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, andVulnerability. Part A:Global and Sectoral Aspects.
Contribution of Working Group II to the Fifth
Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change [Field, C.B., V.R. Barros, D.J. Dokken,
K.J. Mach, M.D. Mastrandrea, T.E. Bilir, M. Chatterjee,
K.L. Ebi, Y.O. Estrada, R.C. Genova, B. Girma, E.S. Kissel,
A.N. Levy, S. MacCracken, P.R. Mastrandrea, and L.L.
White (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge,
United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, 1132 pp.
Kauneckis, D. and O. Cuffe. 2011. State and Local
Government Perspectives on Climate Change Priorities:
Results from a Survey in the State of Nevada. Departmentof Political Science, University of Nevada, Reno.
MDB. 2012. Joint MDB Report on Adaptation Finance2011. A Report by a Group of Multilateral Development
Banks comprising the African Development Bank,
the Asian Development Bank, the European Bankfor Reconstruction and Development, the European
Investment Bank, the Inter-American Development
Bank, the World Bank, and the International FinanceCorporation. December.

National Research Council. 2010. Adapting to the
Impacts of Climate Change. America’s Climate
Choices: Panel on Adapting to the Impacts of
Climate Change. National Research Council. The
National Academies Press, Washington, DC.
Available: http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12783/
adapting-to-the-impacts-of-climate-change.
Rapson, R. 2013. The ‘Fierce Urgency of Now’:
Getting the Climate Question Right. April 9
address at the University of Michigan Law School’s
Environmental Law and Policy Program Lecture
Series. April 9. Available: http://kresge.org/about-us/
presidents-corner/fierce-urgency-now-getting-climatequestion-right. Accessed August 27, 2015.
Ray, A. and J. Grannis. 2015. From Planning to Action:
Implementation of State Climate Change Adaptation
Plans. Michigan Journal of Sustainability Volume
3, Spring. Available: http://dx.doi.org/10.3998/
mjs.12333712.0003.001. Accessed August 27, 2015.
Rosenzweig, C., Solecki, W., Hammer, S. a, & Mehrotra,
S. (2010). Cities lead the way in climate-change action.
Nature, 467(7318), 909–911. doi:10.1038/467909a

Meerow, S., Newell, J. P., & Stults, M. (2016).
Defining urban resilience: A review. Landscapeand Urban Planning, 147, 38–49. doi:10.1016/j.
landurbplan.2015.11.011

Shi, L., E. Chu, and J. Debats. 2015. Explaining progressin climate adaptation planning across 156 U.S. municipalities. Journal of the American Planning Association.
doi:10.1080/01944363.2015.1074526

Melillo, J.M., T.C. Richmond, and G.W. Yohe (eds.).
2014. Climate Change Impacts in the United States: The
Third National Climate Assessment. U.S. Global Change
Research Program. doi:10.7930/J0Z31WJ2.

Smit, B., I. Burton, R.J.T. Klein, and J. Wandel. 2000. An
anatomy of adaptation to climate change and variability. Climatic Change 45:223–251.

Moser, S.C. and M.T. Boykoff (eds.). 2013. Successful
Adaptation to Climate Change: Linking Science and Policy
in a Rapidly Changing World. Routledge, New York.

Srivastava, R., & Laurian, L. (2006). Natural hazard
mitigation in local comprehensive plans: The caseof flood, wildfire and drought planning in Arizona.
Disaster Prevention and Management, 15(3), 461–483.
doi:10.1108/09653560610669936

APPENDIX F: CLIMATE ADAPTATION

Thayer, J., M. Rider, and D. Lerch. 2013. Resilient
Against What?: How Leading U.S. Municipalities are
Understanding and Acting on Resilience. Post Carbon
Institute. October 16. Available: http://www.postcarbon.
org/publications/resilient-against-what/. Accessed
August 27, 2015.
UNFCCC. 2014. Adaptation. United Nations Framework
Convention on Climate Change. Available:
http://unfccc.int/adaptation/items/4159.php.
Accessed August 27, 2015.

Chapter 2: Case Studies andCross-Case Findings
Eakin, H.C., M.C. Lemos, and D.R. Nelson. 2014.
Differentiating capacities as a means to sustainableclimate change adaptation. Global Environmental
Change 27:1–8.
Patton, A. 2009. A Tulsa story: Learning to live in harmony
with nature. In Global Warming, Natural Hazards, andEmergency Management, J.A. Bullock, G.D. Haddow,
and K.S. Haddow (eds.). CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL.

Barnett, J., & O’Neill, S. 2010. Maladaptation. Global
Environmental Change, 20(2), 211–213. doi:10.1016/j.
gloenvcha.2009.11.004
Berrang-Ford, L., Ford, J. D., & Paterson, J. 2011.
Are we adapting to climate change? Global
Environmental Change, 21(1), 25–33. doi:10.1016/j.
gloenvcha.2010.09.012
Bierbaum, R., J.B. Smith, A. Lee, M. Blair, L. Carter.
F.S. Chapin III, P. Flemming, S. Ruffo, M. Stults,
S. McNeely, E. Wasley, and L. Verduzco. 2013. A
Comprehensive Review of Climate Adaptation in
the United States: More than Before, but Less thanis Needed. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for
Global Change. Available: http://link.springer.com/
article/10.1007%2Fs11027-012-9423-1#page-2.
Bours, D., Mcginn, C., & Pringle, P. 2014. Monitoring& evaluation for climate change adaptation andresilience : A synthesis of tools , frameworks andapproaches, (May).
Brody, S, Himanshu, G, Lindquist E, and Vedlitz, A.
2010. Examining climate change mitigation and adaptation behaviors among public sector organizations in
the United States. Local Environment 15(6): 591-603.

Chapter 3: Conclusions andRecommendations

Carlson, K., & McCormick, S. 2015. American adaptation: Social factors affecting new developments toaddress climate change. Global Environmental Change,
35, 360–367. doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2015.09.015

Adger, W. N., Brown, K., Nelson, D. R., Berkes, F., Eakin,
H., Folke, C., Galvin, K., Gunderson, L., Goulden, M., O’Brien,K., Ruitenbeek, J., Thompkins, E.L. 2011. Resilience
implications of policy responses to climate change.
Climatic Change, 2, 757–766. doi:10.1002/wcc.133

Carmin, J., Anguelovski, I., & Roberts, D. 2012.
Urban Climate Adaptation in the Global South:
Planning in an Emerging Policy Domain. Journalof Planning Education and Research, 32(1), 18–32.
doi:10.1177/0739456X11430951

Adger, W.N., Dessai, S., Marisa, G., Hulme, M.,
Lorenzoni, I., Nelson, D.R., et al., 2009. Are theresocial limits to adaptation to climate change? Climatic
Change 93, 335–354.

Ekstrom, J. A., & Moser, S. C. 2014. Identifying andovercoming barriers in urban climate adaptation:
Case study findings from the San Francisco Bay Area,
California, USA. Urban Climate, 9, 54–74. doi:10.1016/j.
uclim.2014.06.002

257

258

APPENDIX F: CLIMATE ADAPTATION

Appendix F. (continued)
References
Eisenack, K., Moser, S. C., Hoffmann, E., Klein, R. J. T.,
Oberlack, C., Pechan, A., Rotter, M., Termeer, C. J. A. M.
2014. Explaining and overcoming barriers to climatechange adaptation. Nature Climate Change, 4(10),867–872. doi:10.1038/nclimate2350
Few, R, Brown K, and Tompkins E. 2006. Public
Participation and Climate Change Adaptation. Working
Paper 95. Norwich, UK: Tyndall Center for Climate
Change Research.
Government Accountability Office. 2009. Climate
Change Adaptation: Strategic Federal Planning Could
Help Government Officials Make More Informed
Decisions. GAO-10-113. Government Printing Office:Washington, D.C. October 7. Available: http://www.gao.
gov/products/GAO-10-113.
Hallegatte, S. 2009. Strategies to adapt to an uncertain
climate change. Global Environmental Change, 19(2),240–247. doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2008.12.003
Haywood, B. K., Brennan, A., Dow, K., Kettle, N. P.,& Lackstrom, K. 2014. Negotiating a Mainstreaming
Spectrum: Climate Change Response andCommunication in the Carolinas. Journal ofEnvironmental Policy & Planning, 16(1), 75–94. doi:10.10
80/1523908X.2013.817948
Hughes, S. 2015. A meta-analysis of urban climatechange adaptation planning in the US. Urban Climate,14, 17–29. doi:10.1016/j.uclim.2015.06.003
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 2012.
Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters to
Advance Climate Change Adaptation: Special Reportof the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. (C.
B. Field, V. Barros, T. F. Stocker, Q. Dahe, D. J. Dokken,
K. L. Ebi, … P. . Midgley, Eds.). Cambridge, UK and New
York, NY, USA: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/
CBO9781139177245

Kates, R. W., Travis, W. R., & Wilbanks, T. J. (2012).
Transformational adaptation when incremental adaptations to climate change are insufficient. Proceedingsof the National Academy of Sciences of the UnitedStates of America, 109(19), 7156–61. doi:10.1073/
pnas.1115521109
Kingdon, J.W. 1995. Agendas, Alternatives, and Public
Policies. New York: Addison-Wesley Educational
Publishers Inc.
Melillo, J.M., T.C. Richmond, and G.W. Yohe (eds.).
2014. Climate Change Impacts in the United States: The
Third National Climate Assessment. U.S. Global Change
Research Program. doi:10.7930/J0Z31WJ2.
Morello-Frosch, Rachel, Manuel Pastor, James Sadd,
and Seth B. Shonkoff. 2009. The Climate Gap:
Inequalities in How Climate Change Hurts Americans& How to Close the Gap. Los Angeles: Program forEnvironmental and Regional Equity, University ofSouthern California.
Moser, S.C. and M.T. Boykoff (eds.). 2013. Successful
Adaptation to Climate Change: Linking Science andPolicy in a Rapidly Changing World. Routledge, NewYork.
Moser, S. C. and J. A. Ekstrom. 2010. A framework to
diagnose barriers to climate change adaptation, PNAS,
107 (51): 22026-22031, DOI:10.1073/pnas.1007887107
National Research Council. 2010. Adapting to the
Impacts of Climate Change. America’s Climate
Choices: Panel on Adapting to the Impacts of
Climate Change. National Research Council. The
National Academies Press, Washington, DC.
Available: http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12783/
adapting-to-the-impacts-of-climate-change.

APPENDIX F: CLIMATE ADAPTATION

Park, Angela. 2009. Everybody’s Movement:
Environmental Justice and Climate Change.
Washington, DC: Environmental Support Center. http://
envsc.onenw.org/esc-publications/ copy_of_ESC%20
everybody%20s%20movement.pdf

Tompkins, E. L., Adger, W. N., Boyd, E., Nicholson-cole,S., Weatherhead, K., & Arnell, N. 2010. Observed adaptation to climate change: UK evidence of transition toa well-adapting society. Global Environmental Change,
20(4), 627–635. doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2010.05.001

Quay, R. 2010. Anticipatory Governance. Journal of theAmerican Planning Association, 76(4), 496–511. doi:10.1
080/01944363.2010.508428

Viguié, V. and S. Hallegatte. 2012. Trade-offs and synergies in urban climate policies. Nat. Clim. Change 2 (5),334–337. doi:10.1038/nclimate1434

Schrock, G., Bassett, E. M., & Green, J. 2015. Pursuing
Equity and Justice in a Changing Climate: Assessing
Equity in Local Climate and Sustainability Plans in U.S.
Cities. Journal of Planning Education and Research,(October 2014). doi:10.1177/0739456X15580022
Smit, B. and Wandel, J. 2006. Adaptation,
adaptive capacity and vulnerability. Global
Environmental Change. 16(3), 282-292. Doi:10.1016/j.
gloenvcha.2006.03.008
Smith, J.B., Schneider, S.H., Oppenheimer, M., Yohe,
G.W., Hare, W., Mastrandrea, M.D., Patwardhan, A.,
Burton, I., Corfee-Morlot, J., Magadza, C.H.D., Füssel,
H., Pittock, A.B., Rahman, A., Suarez, A., van Ypersele,
J. 2009. Assessing dangerous climate change throughan update of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change (IPCC) ‘‘reasons for concern’’. Proc. Natl. Acad.
Sci. U.S.A. 106, 4133–4137
Solecki, W., Leichenko, R., & O’Brien, K. 2011. Climatechange adaptation strategies and disaster risk reduction in cities: connections, contentions, and synergies.
Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 3(3),135–141. doi:10.1016/j.cosust.2011.03.001

259

260

CLIMATE ADAPTATION

kresge.org
abtassociates.com
This report is available electronically at
kresge.org/climate-adaptation