HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.council.worksession.20150105
CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION
January 05, 2015
5:00 PM, City Council Chambers
MEETING AGENDA
I. Climate Resiliency Plan
II. Old Power House RFP Review
Page 1 of 6
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Ashley Perl, Climate Action Manager
THRU: CJ Oliver, Environmental Health and Sustainability Director
DATE OF MEMO: December 30, 2014
MEETING DATE: January 5, 2015
RE: Our Future Aspen – Climate Resiliency and Preparedness Planning
REQUEST OF COUNCIL: The City of Aspen has a responsibility to prepare for the future and to
empower the Aspen community to build resiliency in the face of change. Today the City of Aspen is
taking a step toward preparedness by introducing climate change science into our future planning
approaches. Staff is presenting to City Council the new Climate Change and Aspen report that was
recently published by the Aspen Global Change Institute (AGCI). Staff requests Council feedback on
the public outreach strategy and would like to hear Council’s impressions of the new report.
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION and BACKGROUND: In 2005, the city adopted the Canary
Initiative that identified Aspen and other mountain communities as the ‘canary in the coal mine’ for
climate change. The goal of the Canary Initiative has always been twofold: to reduce Aspen’s
contribution to global climate change by reducing greenhouse gases locally; and to help the Aspen
community adapt to and prepare for a changing climate. In 2006, the first Climate Change and Aspen
report was published by AGCI, identifying Aspen’s climate vulnerabilities, and this report was the
first step toward adaptation planning for Aspen, one of Canary’s two goals.
In 2007, city leaders created the Canary Action Plan. This document laid out the path for Aspen to
reduce greenhouse gases, thus limiting Aspen’s impact on global warming. Together these two goals,
climate mitigation and climate adaptation, make up Aspen’s aggressive and impactful climate
commitments.
Mitigation and Adaptation: Aspen’s commitment to reduce greenhouse gases must be ongoing and
significant. The global climate has already warmed by an average of 1.5 degrees. What Aspen and
other communities do in the coming years will determine how much more the planet will warm.
While we work hard to stop warming and keep it under 2 degrees, we must also plan for the changes
that will inevitably occur because of the temperature change that we are already experiencing. The
effort to reduce greenhouse gases is known as Climate Mitigation . While the effort that Aspen and
other cities have undertaken to prepare for a different climate future is known as Climate
Adaptation . It is critical that Aspen continue to balance these mitigation and adaptation efforts and
P1
I.
Page 2 of 6
remain committed to the goals we have set in both areas. Today’s discussion will focus solely on
Climate Adaptation for Aspen.
Climate Impacts Report:
The original climate impacts report, published in 2006 by the Aspen Global Change Institute, was
the first of its kind for mountain towns in the United States, and it detailed the projected impacts to
Aspen and the ski industry from climate change. It has always been the intention of the City of
Aspen to undertake a resiliency planning effort and it was stated on the final page of the Canary
Action Plan that Aspen “has been feeling the effects of climate change for at least a quarter
century… it is for this reason that in addition to aggressively reducing our GHG emissions, we must
also adapt to a rapidly changing environment. To do so in a sustainable fashion requires thought,
collaboration and creativity. This page is a placeholder for that plan.”
Following this direction laid out by previous City leaders, current City staff began to prepare for a
changing climate, but it was not until recently, when City Council declared resiliency planning as a
Top Ten City Council Goal that Canary truly began working on this effort. Prior to creating a
resiliency plan for the Aspen community, it was first necessary to update the original Climate
Change and Aspen report so that all future planning efforts would be grounded in the most up-to-
date and recent climate modeling science. This updated report is being presented to City Council
today by AGCI, and staff will request continued support for further efforts to plan for Our Future
Aspen.
AGCI: The Aspen Global Change Institute was founded in Aspen in 1989 with John Katzenberger
as the Director. This non-profit organization is dedicated to ‘furthering the scientific understanding
of Earth systems and global environmental change’. John Katzenberger and AGCI were part of the
original Charter that created the Canary Initiative, and both John and the organization have been
trusted partners of Aspen’s climate community since the beginning. James Arnott authored the most
recent Climate Change & Aspen report with Elise Osenga and John Katzenberger as co-authors.
Aspen is lucky to have an internationally recognized organization like AGCI available and willing to
help us solve local climate problems, by bringing global solutions and a trusted perspective that
keeps Aspen at the leading edge of climate science.
DISCUSSION: The executive summary of the newly published report is provided as Attachment
A. The complete report is available on the website OurFutureAspen.com , and staff will provide City
Council with a tour of this website and other outreach materials as part of today’s meeting. The
report is divided into five main sections:
Historical Observations ( global and local climate changes to-date)
Climate Modeling ( methodology and projections )
Sectoral Impacts ( specific impacts to each of Aspen’s six key sectors: Recreation & Tourism, Water,
Ecosystems, Public Health & Safety, Energy, and Infrastructure )
Interviews with Local Stakeholders (Eleven community members interviewed in 2014 )
Guidance and Best Practices for Resiliency Planning (Initial steps for using this report to move
forward )
There are key takeaways from the first section of the report that are important to note:
P2
I.
Page 3 of 6
Climate change continues to be an issue of global concern.
In Aspen, temperature during all seasons has increased since 1940
Model results project continued rising temperatures and changes to precipitation amounts and
timing
Climate impacts will affect critical sectors of the Aspen community
Stakeholders are concerned and have also begun to prepare
Building resiliency and adaptive capacity can reduce Aspen’s vulnerability
Significant reductions in greenhouse gases both locally and globally are still critical
Impacts to Critical Sectors: The Climate Change & Aspen report focuses on six critical sectors of
Aspen. Within each chapter, there is information on the projected changes to that sector as well as
potential strategies for responding to those changes. These chapters are meant to be a conversation
starter for professionals and the community working in these sectors. The report is not intended to
identify all the possible impacts to that sector, nor is it intended to suggest a complete plan for
preparing for those changes. The information contained in the report is just one of many factors that
the community and planners must consider when preparing for the future. These sector chapters
provide a starting point for Aspen to begin to explore vulnerabilities and possible responses.
Recreation and Tourism: In this section of the report, there is information on the projected changes
to Aspen’s winter-based tourism, changes to Aspen’s summer-based tourism, and strategies for
responding to these changes.
Some of the highlights from this section are:
Winter recreation has been the economic engine for Aspen’s restaurants, outfitters, retailers,
real estate transactions, home building, and lodges in the recent past.
Aspen can expect to see an increase in the amount of precipitation that comes as rain instead
of snow.
If the world continues releasing carbon pollution at current rates, models project an end of
skiing in Aspen, at current elevations, by 2100 due to warmer temperatures, decreased snow
amounts, and increased frost free days.
Aspen’s summer recreation includes water-based activities (such as rafting and fishing) and
activities in the forest (such as hiking and biking) which will both be impacted by a changing
climate.
In the past 30 years, there has been a 2-3 week shift in the timing of snowmelt and runoff to
earlier in the year.
Water: In this section of the report, there is information on the projected impacts to the water supply
and demand, and strategies for responding to these changes.
Some of the highlights from this section are:
Snowmelt is expected to continue shifting to earlier in the year due to warming temperatures.
In the past 30 years, there has been a 2-3 week shift in the timing of snowmelt and runoff.
Our region may become more arid as temperatures increase, snowpack decreases, runoff
takes place earlier, and soils dry out.
Groundwater supplies could decrease with an increase in the percentage of precipitation
falling as rain instead of snow.
P3
I.
Page 4 of 6
With an increase in population and drier conditions in the Front Range, more pressure will be
placed on local water availability.
Ecosystems: In this section of the report, there is information on the projected changes to plant and
animal communities and where they are distributed, disturbances to forest ecosystems, anticipated
alterations to the frequency of forest fires and their size, and strategies for responding to these
changes.
Some of the highlights from this section are:
The Roaring Fork Valley is seeing a growing number of frost-free days and climbing average
temperatures.
The Aspen area may shift to resemble the mid-valley region in temperature and ecosystems.
Plant and animal species may shift to higher elevations and encroachments by invasive
species may occur.
Conditions favorable to insect outbreaks may increase.
Increased temperatures, decreased precipitation, earlier snowmelt and increased deadwood
from insect outbreaks may lead to an increase in forest fire frequency and size.
Public Health and Safety: In this section of the report, there is information on the projected impacts
to air quality, diseases transmitted by vectors such as mosquitoes, other public health and safety
considerations, and strategies for responding to these changes.
Some of the highlights from this section include:
In the western U.S., the active wildfire season has increased by 78 days over the last century.
Allergy season may be lengthened by a longer growing season.
Rising temperatures could mean more days with high ozone levels which can irritate lung
tissue, aggravate respiratory conditions, and increase respiratory infections.
As temperatures and precipitation change, the population of carrier species such as
mosquitoes may increase leading to greater risk of diseases such as West Nile Virus.
Energy: In this section of the report, there is information on the possible impacts to our electricity
supply, our energy needs, climate risks to the national and international energy supply, and strategies
for responding to these changes.
Some of the highlights from this section are:
At Reudi Reservoir, hydroelectric energy production goes hand in hand with local snowpack.
As temperatures increase, demand for heating with natural gas will likely decrease and
demand for cooling with electricity will likely increase.
Infrastructure and Buildings : In this section of the report, there is information on the projected
changes to our heating and cooling requirements, impacts from extreme events, and strategies for
responding to these changes.
Some of the highlights from this section are:
Increasing temperatures will decrease the heating requirements of buildings and increase their
cooling requirements.
Climate change will change the probability of extreme events such as fire, flooding,
landslides and mudflows.
As extreme climate and weather trends change, we can expect impacts for
residential/commercial/public buildings as well as our transportation/utility infrastructure.
P4
I.
Page 5 of 6
Next Steps – Outreach:
The first priority for staff as we move forward is to share this report with the community. Not only
will the city make the report available and accessible on the website, but staff also hopes to share the
report with key decision makers in the Roaring Fork Valley, including the leaders of neighboring
towns. Climate change does not respect jurisdictional boundaries, nor will the effects from a
changing climate. For this reason, it is imperative that Aspen partner regionally to plan for the future.
Website: The web address OurFutureAspen.com is the new location for all information related to
resiliency planning. Here the community can access both the original Climate Change & Aspen
Report as well as take an interactive tour of the updated report. The website is arranged to allow
visitors to the site to dig deeper into specific sectors and learn more about impacts expected in these
sectors. For those who want more information, the complete report will also be available.
We hope that visitors to the site will not only take the time to learn about the impacts of climate
change on Aspen, but will also share their thoughts. Open City Hall, the city’s online forum, will
provide a location for community members to leave answers to three key questions:
What changes have you noticed that are already happening in our region?
What concerns do you have for our community with relation to a changing climate?
What thoughts or ideas do you have about how the Aspen community can best prepare for a
future that looks different than today because of climate change?
By gathering information about these three questions, the city can engage the community on those
topics that are of most interest or concern to them. In the end, neither the City of Aspen nor the
Canary Initiative will be solely responsible for building a resilient community. The majority of the
ideas and actions must come from local businesses, residents, visitors, families, neighbors, and
friends. Staff sees great value in partnering with the local community to write the resiliency plan.
Aspen has chosen to take this unique approach, different than the majority of other U.S. cities,
because we value the creativity and perspective of the local community and feel that no action or
plan can move forward or be valuable unless the local community is bought into it. For this reason,
staff will spend the upcoming months engaging with key stakeholders and the public to share the
report.
Next Steps – Creating a Resiliency Plan:
Once the Climate Change & Aspen report has been shared with the community, staff will begin a
series of community forums, meetings and conversations that will help inform the resiliency plan,
also called the plan for Our Future Aspen. The end product may look different than the city’s typical
planning documents in that some sectors will not require immediate action, but will require ongoing
monitoring instead of on the ground projects. Also, plans may already exist in certain sectors and it
will only be necessary to locate existing plans and ensure that updated climate science is a
consideration in those plans.
As the City Council Top Ten BYY Goal #10 states, staff will “ engage the community in the creation
of a resiliency plan that identifies Aspen’s climate related vulnerabilities and establishes a plan for
P5
I.
Page 6 of 6
reducing those risks and monitoring progress .” The final resiliency plan will use the new Climate
Change & Aspen report to detail the vulnerabilities in each sector and will then lay out a plan to
begin reducing those vulnerabilities. It may be that in many cases the city and the community are
already addressing and reducing those vulnerabilities, or it may be that the community was not
previously aware of a specific vulnerability and now needs to begin offering creative solutions to
build resiliency in that particular area. For example, the report draws our attention to the fact that fire
risk in Aspen could increase as could the frequency and severity of forest fires. This would be one
area where the Aspen community is already aware of our vulnerability and has ongoing programs to
reduce those risks. In this case the resiliency plan will detail the ongoing and existing efforts that are
already in place and will make recommendations on ways to strengthen those and monitor to ensure
programs are having the desired outcome.
FINANCIAL/BUDGET IMPACTS: Failure to plan for future changes will have a drastic financial
impact on the community and the City. The Canary Initiative has money set aside to fund the
creation of the resiliency plan. It may be that further research or study is required in certain areas and
funding can be used for this purpose. If new actions or infrastructure projects arise from this effort,
funding will need to be designated for specific projects, as the Canary funding is for the development
of the plan and monitoring.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: While the creation of a resiliency plan will lead to
improvements in specific Environmental Sustainability Measures, the plan itself will not directly
move the needle on environmental factors. The City will likely develop new metrics in the coming
year to measure Aspen’s adaptive capacity.
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff requests City Council support for continued work towards the
creation of a resiliency plan and assistance in engaging the community in this effort.
ALTERNATIVES: City Council could choose to discontinue this effort and not take steps to
prepare for the future.
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A: Climate Change & Aspen: An Update on Impacts to Guide Resiliency Planning and
Stakeholder Engagement – Executive Summary
Attachment B: Example Newspaper Advertisement
Attachment C: Screenshots of the website OurFutureAspen.com
P6
I.
Aspen’s climate is already changing, and additional changes are anticipated throughout the 21st
century and beyond. These local climate shifts will take place within the context of regional and
global changes, all of which may result in conditions unprecedented in human history. The
impacts of climate change are likely to affect Aspen’s residents, ecosystems, and environmental
amenities as well as the home communities of Aspen visitors.
For Aspen, climate change will likely include longer summertime warm periods, earlier onset of
spring snowmelt, more precipitation arriving as rain rather than snow, and longer dry periods
with heavier precipitation events in between. These types of changes could exacerbate already
risky wildfire conditions, place extra pressure on already stretched water providers and users,
provide additional challenges to ski area operators and other winter and summer recreation
providers, as well as result in other impacts to every sector important to the Aspen community.
Alongside the many challenges, new opportunities may also emerge, such as the possibility for
expanded summertime activities.
The following report considers observations, climate modeling projections, relevant research
from the literature, and stakeholder perspectives to explore climate change in Aspen as a basis
for resiliency planning. Based on this effort, seven key findings emerge.
1.Climate change continues to be an issue of global concern with mounting evidence of
current and future impacts to society and ecosystems. A consensus among decision-
makers, citizens, and scientists is steadily growing and calls for action on emissions
reduction and preparedness at international, regional, and local levels.
8
P7
I.
2.Temperatures in Aspen during all seasons have increased since 1940, and the
summertime frost free period has lengthened by over one month. Precipitation and snowfall
have declined slightly since 1980, although an overall increase has been observed since
1940.3
3.Climate model results for the Aspen region project rising temperatures and
alterations to precipitation over the 21st century, and a key determinant of the
magnitude of these changes will be future global greenhouse gas emission levels.
4.Impacts from observational trends and future projections will affect critical sectors of
the Aspen community, including water, energy, recreation and tourism, public health and
safety, ecosystems, and the built environment.
5.Local stakeholders are concerned about climate change and its impacts on their
environment, business, and/or personal well-being. Many of the stakeholders
interviewed for this report indicate they are already taking climate change into account for
current decision-making and will likely continue to do so during future planning.
6.Resiliency planning and implementation can help reduce vulnerability to anticipated
impacts as well as exploit beneficial opportunities. This effort is strengthened through
stakeholder engagement and involvement, ongoing monitoring and evaluation, and
processes that allow for flexible response strategies as both anticipated and unanticipated
changes emerge.
7.Significant reductions in greenhouse gases are a necessary part of ensuring
resiliency. Efforts to plan for the impacts of climate change will be more difficult, more
expensive, and less likely to succeed if near-term strategies for emissions reductions are not
enacted.
While ongoing efforts to reduce the root causes of climate change are still urgently needed,
preparedness planning for future scenarios of climate-related impacts are also an essential
component of society’s response to climate change. By pursuing resiliency planning as a
strategy for preparedness, the City of Aspen continues its legacy of leadership on climate
change issues.
The aim of this report is to serve as an update to a previous study conducted by the Aspen
Global Change Institute in 2006. The findings presented here offer an assessment of
observations, modeling, climate impacts research, and interviews intended to provide a
In 1980, the Aspen weather station underwent a change in location, moving approximately 200 3
feet higher in elevation.
9
P8
I.
groundwork of scientific and stakeholder input to inform and support the City’s resiliency
planning process. While scientific understanding has expanded and improved since the time of
the 2006 study, the results of this work largely reconfirm its main conclusions.
Globally, surface air temperatures have increased 1.5ºF (0.8ºC) since 1880. Projected future
increases range from slight to staggering and are primarily dependent upon future emissions. As
Figure 1 illustrates, average climate model projections indicate over 7ºF (3.9ºC) in additional
warming under a high emissions scenario, whereas the lowest emission scenario produces less
10
Figure 1. Observations and climate modeling results illustrate 20th and 21st century global average
temperature. For historical periods, climate models largely reproduce observed conditions. For future
projections, two greenhouse gas emissions scenarios are considered: a low emissions scenario, called
RCP2.6 (in blue) and a high emissions scenario called RCP8.5 (in red). End-of-century temperature
projections for two middle of the road scenarios, RCP4.5 and RCP6.0, are indicated to the right of
graph. Under any scenario, temperatures continue to increase beyond present day levels. Additional
end-of-century results for other emissions scenarios are provided to the right. Shading indicates the
range of results provided by the ensemble of models. Source: Melillo et al. 2014.
Figure 1. Global observations and projections of average surface temperature
P9
I.
than 2ºF (about 1.1ºC) in additional warming. However, it is important to note that achieving the
low emissions scenario would require negative emissions later this century. While both
scenarios will result in climate-related impacts, the magnitude of those impacts is likely to vary
greatly depending on the trajectory of actual emissions over the coming century. As of 2014, the
world continues to closely track the highest emissions scenario (RCP8.5).
Around the world, the impacts of climate change are already underway, affecting agriculture,
human health, ecosystems on land and in the oceans, water supplies, and the livelihoods of
more vulnerable populations. Future additional impacts along these lines are expected, and
therefore, considering options for climate preparedness is now occurring at local, regional,
national, and international levels.
Observations of Aspen’s climate since 1940 indicate rising temperatures and lengthening
summers. Minimum temperatures have increased more than maximum temperatures, while
average temperatures have increased approximately 2ºF (1.1ºC). One of the most striking
indicators of Aspen’s changing climate is the trend in frost free days, where the length of the
frost free period has increased by 23 days since 1980 (see Figure 2).
11
Figure 2. Frost free days in Aspen
Figure 2 shows a rise in the decadal average of consecutive frost free days since the 1940s. The
final darkest green bar does not represent a full decade; it represents only the decade to date:
2010-2013. The location of Aspen’s weather monitoring station changed between 1979 and 1980,
shifting upward in elevation ~200 feet. Data source: NOAA-NCDC Aspen Stations 370 and 372.
P10
I.
Trends in total precipitation as well as snowfall are mixed, both revealing an overall increase
since 1940 yet a slight decrease since 1980. Analysis of local climate trends is somewhat
confounded by the relocation of Aspen’s primary weather station in 1980 and the high variability
associated with single station records.
Future projections of the Aspen region indicate further increases to temperature. Model
projections of precipitation are more uncertain, but recent results suggest slight increases.
However, due to temperature increase a greater proportion of precipitation is likely to come as
rain rather than snow, with repercussions for water availability. A key uncertainty in estimating
the magnitude of future changes and their impacts is the quantity of future global greenhouse
gas emissions produced by the global economy.
Currently, the world continues to follow a high emissions trajectory. Under this scenario (called
RCP8.5), projections prepared for this report for the Western Slope region, including much of
the Colorado plateau, suggest a nearly 3ºF (1.7ºC) temperature increase by 2030 and a nearly
10ºF (5.6ºC) temperature increase by 2090, relative to observations during the historical period
1980-1999. These projections are consistent with a similar analysis for the entire state of
Colorado. In comparison, a switch to a middle emissions (RCP4.5) scenario could reduce
projected temperature change by the end of the century by nearly half.
While aggressive emissions reductions may forestall possible catastrophic changes to Aspen’s
climate, there are still significant changes anticipated under assumptions of lower emissions. In
other words, Aspen’s climate is projected to change even with the more optimistic emissions
scenarios. As a consequence, building resilience to the impacts of climate change (i.e.
12
Observation Trend: 1940-1979 Trend: 1980-2013
Average Temperature 1.0º F increase (.6º C) 1.4º F increase (.8º C)
Frost Free Days 11 day increase 23 day increase
Total Precipitation 2.6 inch increase 0.6 inch decrease
Snow Water Equivalent
(Independence Pass)
Data not available 1.2 inch decrease
Table 1. Summary of climate trends observed in and around Aspen
Table 1. Trends for the periods 1940-1979 and 1980-2013 are displayed based on data from Aspen’s
weather station. As explained in further detail in Chapter 2, Aspen’s weather station relocated in 1980
approximately 200 feet up in elevation, which may affect the trends observed since 1940. Sources:
NOAA-NCDC stations 370 and 372; NRCS SNOTEL Independence Pass.
P11
I.
adaptation) is now a prudent complement to existing efforts to reduce emissions (i.e. mitigation)
for all likely future pathways.
Model projections of precipitation prepared for this report suggest a slight increase in total
precipitation is likely for the Western Slope region during the 21st century. Conclusions drawn
from a survey of other modeling results for the
surrounding region published since 2006 remain
mixed. Some results lean towards greater
precipitation, others less, and all results contain
uncertainty bounds that include the possibility for
either greater or less than historical amounts of
precipitation. While projections of precipitation
remain uncertain in terms of the overall direction of change, there is high confidence that within
the given magnitude (plus or minus) of modeled precipitation projections, rising temperatures
will have a drying affect on local hydrology regardless.
From a planning standpoint, resource managers will need to take into account the uncertainties
associated with precipitation projections. Even within these uncertainties, planning efforts can
count on the relative likelihood that future precipitation will increasingly come as rain rather than
snow, increased temperatures will accelerate drying, and inter-annual variability—long a
condition of the Roaring Fork Valley and the broader U.S. West—will persist.
Climate change will impact a broad range of sectors vital to Aspen’s economic, ecological, and
cultural well-being. For this report, impacts to recreation and tourism, water, ecosystems,
energy, public health and safety, and the built environment are considered.
13
Table 2. Summary of temperature projections for western Colorado
Table 2. Projections of temperature change relative to the period 1980-1999 are provided for medium
(RCP4.5) and high (RCP8.5) emissions scenarios. More results are discussed in Chapter 3, and
additional discussion of methods and additional results are available in Appendix B. Source: C. Tebaldi.
Projection Period Medium Emissions (RCP 4.5)
Temp. Change in Deg F (Deg C)
High Emissions (RCP 8.5)
Temp. Change in Deg F (Deg C)
2030 +2.8 (1.6) +2.9 (1.6)
2060 +4.5 (2.5) +6.2 (3.5)
2090 +5.3 (3.0) +9.7 (5.4)
Aspen’s climate is projected to change
under both low and high emissions
scenarios. Resiliency planning is
relevant for either pathway.
P12
I.
14
Table 3. Summary of potential climate impacts to Aspen by sector
Climate-related changes Potential impacts
Recreation &
Tourism
• Increasing wintertime temperatures
• Shift toward more precipitation falling as
rain
• Increasing stream temperature
• Changes to timing and quantity of runoff
• Difficulty achieving targeted ski area conditions
during existing ski season schedule
• Reduction in suitable fall and early winter
conditions for snowmaking
• Alterations to timing of ideal summer and winter
recreation conditions
• Degraded aesthetic quality of environment and
increasing hazards posed to visitors (e.g. fire)
Water
• Increasing dry periods in the Western
U.S.
• Decreasing proportion of precipitation
falling as snow
• Changes to the timing and availability of
water
• Greater pressure on existing water resources
• Changes to ecological regimes
• Increased fire risk
• Changes to timing and volume of peak flows
• Reduced hydroelectric generating potential
Ecosystems
• Increasing length of frost free period
• Alterations to the timing and type of
precipitation
• Increasing annual and seasonal
temperatures
• Alterations to snowpack timing, quantity,
and areal coverage
• Plant communities shift to higher elevations
• Local specialist species diminish or disappear
• Encroachment by invasive species
• Enhanced conditions for outbreaks of insects
affecting trees
• Enhanced conditions for more frequent, more
intense, and larger wildfires
• Alterations to water quality
Public Health &
Safety
• More extreme high temperatures and
higher average temperatures
• Higher risk of extreme events (e.g., flood,
drought, fire, landslide)
• Air quality impairment such as increased
presence of ground level ozone
• Changing ranges of disease-carrying species
• Changing climate conditions correlating to
areas of food or water supply
• Environmental-stress related mental illness
• Loss of property or injury related to disaster
events
• Lengthened and growing allergy season
• Increased respiratory illness
Energy
• Increasing high temperatures during
summer
• Warming of wintertime minimum
temperatures
• Alterations to snowpack and timing and
quantity of runoff
• Uncertainty in future dependability of
hydropower resources
• Increase in cooling load and reduction in
heating load of building’s energy demand
• Climate-related risks to national and
international energy supply
Infrastructure &
the Built
Environment
• Shift in the magnitude of temperature
and precipitation extremes
• Warming of wintertime minimum
temperatures; increase in summertime
maximum temperatures
• Alterations to timing and quantity of
runoff
• Increase in hazards to structures and
infrastructure from flood, fire, landslide and
drought
• Increase in cooling load and reduction in
heating load of buildings’ energy demand
P13
I.
This report draws upon local observations and regional projections, as well as relevant scientific
literature, to discuss the types of potential impacts that may occur in the Aspen area. However,
specific responses are beyond the scope of this report and will require more detailed
investigation into location-specific risks and strategies for their reduction. One example is the
need to update studies on landslide risk based on projections of future hydrologic patterns —
such as the rate of snowmelt and frequency and intensity of heavy rain events.
Some of the impacts identified in this study may take place gradually over decades, such as
changes in energy demand patterns by people or gradual uphill shifts in plant and animal
species. Other impacts, such as a severe fire or a precipitation event that causes a flooding or
mudflow event could occur suddenly with dramatic and immediate consequences. Uncertainties
remain in both areas, including the pace at which the global economy will decarbonize and the
sensitivity of the global climate system to increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases in the
atmosphere.
Vulnerability to these global changes at a local level, in turn, will depend on how local climate is
affected by larger regional and global patterns. In addition, site-specific conditions, such as the
exposure of structures to fire or the capacity of emergency response in event of a flood, are
relevant for evaluating risk and prioritizing potential response strategies.
Ongoing consideration of all of the aforementioned components of local impacts assessment
are needed as Aspen plans, implements, evaluates, and adjusts its response to both near and
long-term impacts of climate change.
15
P14
I.
As a preliminary source of input from the Aspen community, AGCI and the City of Aspen
interviewed eleven stakeholders representing the spectrum of sectors considered in this report.
Interviews were designed to elicit stakeholders perspectives on climate change, such as
personal observations of changes, impacts identified, actions contemplated or taken in
response, and overall level of concern about climate change relative to other issues.
All stakeholders surveyed were able to identify changes in the environment they found to be
significant, although many were uncertain as to the extent the alterations were caused by
climate change. Perceived changes identified by stakeholders included:
•More common drought conditions
•Less predictable seasonal weather patterns
•Earlier onset of spring
•Decreasing winter snowpack
•Reduction in extreme cold winter temperatures
•Species shifts in plant and animal communities
In general, stakeholders interviewed for this study were already involved in efforts that in some
way, whether or not specifically focused on climate change, relate to reducing vulnerability or
enhancing resiliency. These efforts include:
•Watershed planning and riparian health management (i.e. Roaring Fork Watershed
Plan)
•Enhancing operational speed and flexibility for snowmaking
•Mitigating wildfire hazard and wildfire response capacity
•Implementing greener building codes
•Adjusting timing, size, and location of commercial rafting trips
•Expanding attractions for tourists during early winter and shoulder seasons
In addition, numerous areas of activity were identified by stakeholders for potential future
actions, whether taken independently or in collaboration with other entities. These desired future
actions include public education, enhanced flexibility in planning and action (e.g., development
of crisis plans), reconsideration of water laws, long-term monitoring, and adjustment of building
codes in relation to fire protection and energy use.
Resilience: The ability of a system and its component parts to anticipate, absorb, accommodate,
or recover from the effects of a hazardous event or gradual system change in a manner timely
enough to ensure the preservation, restoration, or improvement of its essential basic structures
and functions.- Adapted from IPCC 2012
16
P15
I.
To build resilience in the face of the complex nature of climate change requires an iterative,
community-based process of assessment, planning, implementation, and evaluation. While
elements of this cycle have occurred in the past, this phase of Aspen’s engagement with
resiliency planning represents the green circle in Figure 2. This type of process and its resulting
outcomes are strengthened by engagement with a broad base of stakeholders, including those
who may be impacted by actions taken as well as those who can inform and implement
responses strategies. A diversity of criteria and types of responses can be considered in this
process, and lessons from other communities may prove helpful in navigating the path forward.
Figure 3 presents an idealized version of the adaptive planning process as four phases. Though
in practice resiliency planning may not occur as neatly as illustrated here, the notion of planning
as a cyclical process instead of as a linear route with beginning and end points is a central
theme of effective resiliency planning in the context of climate change.
17
Figure 3. Adaptation planning cycle
Figure 3. Planning in the context of change is often best supported by an adaptive planning
process that is cyclical rather than linear and allows for learning and adjustment along the way.
Initial learning and assessment (I) informs planning and initial engagement with the community
(II). Plans are then implemented and long-term monitoring based on goals and objectives (III)
enable evaluation. As learning takes place within the sectors of our community — what worked,
what didn’t, and why — the adaptive management cycle begins anew, building from refined
goals of and approaches to resiliency and sustainability.
I. Learning &
Assessment
II. Planning &
Engagement
III.
Implementation
& Monitoring
IV. Evaluation
Adaptation
Planning
Cycle
P16
I.
As a resiliency planning process begins to contemplate actions and the goals that impel them, a
range of types of response can be considered along with multiple criteria for gauging success.
For example, responses to the impact of increasing wildfires could include reducing exposure of
assets in fire prone areas, reducing the vulnerability of structures through best practices in
wildfire mitigation, enhancing emergency response and recovery capacity, or a combination of
all these approaches as well as others. Response strategies under the category of
transformation may include a number of resiliency enhancing actions coordinated with efforts
such as greenhouse gas reduction goals that, in combination, increase the overall sustainability
of a community.
Criteria for success can be considered throughout resiliency planning and can cover a broad
range of factors, including the avoidance of economic losses and preservation of basic
municipal services. Criteria can also extend to capture important, if harder to measure, factors
such as maintaining ecological health, preserving procedural integrity, and maintaining or even
enhancing community character and culture (see Table 4).
18
Table 4. Categories of response and criteria for success
Example Categories of Response Example Criteria for Success
•Reduce exposure:(e.g., relocate assets
from high risk areas)
•Enhance response and recovery
preparedness (e.g., increase emergency
response capacity)
•Increase resilience to changing risks
(e.g., planning for multiple future scenarios)
•Reduce vulnerability (e.g., hardening
infrastructure and services to extreme
events)
• Transfer and share risks (e.g.,
collaborative planning and action with
stakeholders and neighboring governments)
• Transformation (e.g., pursing an integrated
approach to mitigate underlying causes of
risk while also enhancing resiliency and
overall sustainability)
Adapted from IPCC 2012
• Economic: Minimizing or avoiding financial
losses and/or capitalizing on opportunities
and benefits
• Institutional: Preserving the ability of
institutions, policies, and resource
management to meet obligations to
constituents as well as ecosystems
• Ecological: preserving the resilience
capacity, diversity and services made
possible by healthy ecosystems
• Social: Reducing vulnerabilities and/or
inequities within marginalized populations
while strengthening communities
• Procedural: Supporting transparent and
inclusive processes
• Cultural: Preserving and/or enhancing vital
aspects of community character and civic
culture
Adapted from Moser and Boykoff 2013
P17
I.
Communities large and small have begun considering and implementing actions to enhance
resiliency. Examples range from Keene, New Hampshire to King County, Washington — from
New York City to Moab, Utah. In many instances, exemplary plans include inclusive processes
for community input, a scientific basis for considering future impacts, specific action items that
delineate responsibilities, timelines, and measurable outcomes, as well as opportunities for
reflection and flexibility as future conditions unfold over time.
Additionally, regional and national networks and organizations have formed to provide resources
to support communities in their efforts. Chapter 6 of the report offers more details and
descriptions of these resources. Leadership as well as partnerships plays an important role in
developing and implementing resiliency strategies. Aspen is in a position to demonstrate
leadership in adaptation strategies for mountain resort communities.
The full report examines the key points and statements made throughout this summary in
greater depth. Chapter 1 outlines the rationale for the update to the 2006 report and provides a
conceptual overview of assessing climate-related risk at a local scale. Definitions pertinent to
thinking and communicating about preparedness for climate change are provided.
Chapter 2 presents observational data on recent historical patterns of climate change for the
world, the southwestern region, and for Aspen. A specific analysis of available Aspen weather
data since 1940 is reported in addition to a brief discussion of historical hydrologic data on the
Roaring Fork River. As a complement to historical observations, Chapter 3 looks forward by
using several lines of climate modeling results to portray possible future climate conditions in
the Aspen region based on various greenhouse gas emissions scenarios. One approach taken
employs a similar methodology to those utilized in the 2006 Study. Another approach
characterizes the results of modeling studies for regions surrounding or near to Aspen and
compares these new results to the results of the 2006 Study.
Chapter 4 explores the potential impacts to six sectors identified as important to the City of
Aspen while setting of the scope of this study. They include: recreation and tourism, water,
ecosystems, public health and safety, energy, and infrastructure and the built environment. The
impacts presented in this section are based on a survey of scientific literature addressing
climate-related impacts in areas comparable or related to Aspen. It is anticipated that this
overview will be a launching pad for more in-depth consideration of how anticipated trends and
changes will play out locally.
Chapter 5 summarizes the input received from a set of eleven stakeholder interviews conducted
in early 2014 by AGCI and the City of Aspen. Stakeholders were selected to represent the range
of sectors examined in Chapter 4, and the interviews were intended as a preliminary round of
19
P18
I.
engagement with the community on climate change impacts and resiliency planning.
Summaries of changes and impacts identified by stakeholders as well as actions taken or in
planning are documented and discussed.
Chapter 6 offers some preliminary guidance for the anticipated City and community effort on
building resiliency. A conceptual model for adaptive management, categories of response that
build resiliency, criteria to consider when defining goals and objectives, and a small set of
helpful examples are provided. Finally, a concluding section points the way forward and
identifies areas of future research that could support a resiliency planning process.
Many of the climate impacts and vulnerabilities discussed in the 2006 report related to climate
change impacts on the physical, socioeconomic, and ecosystems of the Aspen area have been
validated in the literature on Upper Colorado River basin and mountain resort communities in
general. This new study, however, shifts its focus towards resiliency and how to frame it in a
changing climate as a critical complement to ongoing mitigation efforts. It serves as an
introduction to areas the City and the community as a whole may consider in developing a
comprehensive resiliency plan — a living document updated as conditions change and new
information becomes available.
For complete report go to: www.ourfutureaspen.com
20
P19
I.
Attachment B: Sample Newspaper Advertisements
P20
I.
Attachment C: Screenshots from OurFutureAspen.com website
P21
I.
P22
I.
Page 1
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and Council
FROM: R. Barry Crook, Assistant City Manager
DATE: January 2, 2015
MEETING DATE: January 5, 2015
RE: Next Steps in Selecting an Operator for the Old Power
House: Issuing the RFP to Finalists and Council
Selection Process
Summary:
On August 4, 2014, City Council agreed to prepare a Request For Qualifications for outside
organizations interested in occupying the City’s Old Power House building once it is vacated by the
current tenant, the Aspen Art Museum. Separately, City Council agreed to form a committee
comprised of four citizens and three City staff members to evaluate all responses to the RFQ and
make a recommendation to City Council on their top choices. Potential future uses of the Old
Powerhouse have also been discussed in work sessions and at an Open House that gathered general
community feedback.
On November 18, 2014, and following a number of meetings and a full review of the 15
submissions to the City’s Request for Qualifications (RFQ), the Old Power House RFQ Review
Committee provided Council with a summary of its findings and final recommendation.
The Committee recommended that four organizations be invited to respond to a Request for
Proposal (RFP) for use of the OPH site: Aspen Media Powerhouse (submitted by Grassroots
Community Network), Aspen Science Center, John Denver Museum and Cultural Center, and
Powerhouse Performance and Event Center (submitted by The Red Brick). A fifth proposal, The
Power House —Aspen (the Gathering Place) was highlighted by the group as containing several
compelling ideas that should be considered in the ultimate use of the building.
P23
II.
Page 2
Previous Council Action:
On November 18, 2014, the Council received the Committee’s recommendation and determined that
the following proposals would be forwarded to the next round of review:
1. Aspen Media Powerhouse (submitted by Grassroots Community Network);
2. Aspen Science Center;
3. Powerhouse Performance and Event Center (submitted by The Red Brick);
4. The Power House —Aspen (the Gathering Place); and
5. Power Plant Brewery
Background:
The City of Aspen’s Old Power House, built in 1886, functioned as a power plant for nearly a century.
The building was remodeled and the Aspen Art Museum has occupied it since 1979. With the
completion of the new Aspen Art Museum building on Hyman Avenue, the Old Power House
building will be vacated and made available for another use.
In preliminary discussions about future occupation of the Old Power House, Council members and
the public said they would like to see widespread public usage, a center for the community and
multiple uses in that space. Council suggested that the uses have a “memory-making” quality and a
“wow factor.”
To identify an appropriate use to occupy the OPH, City Council created a multi-step evaluation
process. The first step was to have all interested organizations respond to an RFQ by October 17,
2014, containing basic questions about the organization’s vision, ideas, and financial plan for use of
the facility. Step two was to evaluate the RFQ responses and reduce the number of participants to a
smaller number of high-potential users. Step three is to invite the remaining participants to respond
to a Request for Proposal, which will have a more detailed set of questions. This will require
respondents to further develop their ideas, work with other organizations to create partnerships, create
their individual facility plans and refine their financial assumptions. Responses to the RFP will be
evaluated by City Council with the goal of selecting the best idea for use of the OPH facility.
Discussion:
Work of Review Committee
A total of 15 responses were received in response to the RFQ (see Exhibit 1 for a list of all
respondents). (See links at the following site: www.aspenpitkin.com/oldpowerhouserfq for all
proposals, council worksession memo and Review Committee scoring sheets)
On August 21, 2014, the RFQ Review Committee met to discuss and agree on the methodology to be
used to evaluate responses to the RFQ. A scoring methodology was developed by the Committee that
awards points to respondents based on their responses to individual questions in the RFQ. Separately,
the Committee agreed that scores alone would not be the only evaluation tool used, but that we would
P24
II.
Page 3
also discuss and evaluate proposals in light of the goals and concepts discussed by City Council and
the public at large.
Each Committee member read and evaluated the responses, and the Committee met to discuss the
results of the scoring on Tuesday and Wednesday, November 4 and 5, 2014. During these meetings,
Committee members openly discussed their reactions to the responses received, reviewed and
discussed the summary of scores awarded to each respondent, and challenged each other on the scores
awarded. Following these detailed evaluations, the Committee unanimously agreed on the
recommendation to be made to City Council.
Council Deliberations:
On November 18, 2014, Council declined to advance the proposal of the John Denver Museum and
Cultural Center and instead moved two proposals that had not been recommended by the OPH Review
Committee to the Finalist group – (1) The Power House —Aspen (the Gathering Place); and
(2) the Power Plant Brewery.
Next Steps:
Council will need to:
1. Review the RFP draft and determine what information from proposers is important to
know in order to evaluate their proposals (i.e. what questions do you want to ask? What
in the draft RFP do you want to change/delete/add?) How long do you wish to provide for
the finalists to respond to the RFP?
2. Determine how the proposals will be evaluated by Council:
a. Who does the review? Council as a whole or a subcommittee of the full Council?
b. Will the evaluation include presentations by the applicants? Interviews of the
applicants?
3. How will you score the responses?
a. Will the questions be weighted?
b. What scale will you use in scoring the responses?
c. What is the methodology you will use to create the scores? Individual scores?
Group consensus scoring? Other approaches?
4. How many of the finalists will you begin negotiations for an agreement with?
a. All of them?
b. A limited number of them after you have scored their responses to the RFP?
c. Who does that negotiation? All of you? A subset of you? Role of staff in the
negotiation?
5. As part of any negotiations with a final list of proposers, do you want to retain the right to
“put groups together” in a “new proposal?”
Request of Council: Determine how you wish to proceed. Finalize the language in the RFP and let
staff release it.
P25
II.
Page 4
City Manager Comments:
_______________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________
Exhibits
Exhibit 1: RFP Questions Draft
P26
II.
Page 5
Exhibit 1
Draft RFP Questions
P27
II.
Page 6
P28
II.
Page 7
Request for Proposals
for use of the Old Powerhouse Building
Submission Requirements
Offerors are to submit three (3) copies of the Proposal on or before time/date to the Purchasing
Department, 130 South Galena Street, Aspen, Colorado 81611. Proposals must be clearly marked
“RFP 2015 Use of Old Powerhouse Building”. Late Proposals cannot be accepted and will be
returned unopened to the Offeror.
All Proposals must follow the format as outlined below. Failure to do may result in
disqualification.
Section 1 Introduction of Organization, staff, and general purpose of the building you
propose
1.1 Tell us who you are.
1.2 What is your proposal?
1.3 List your project team, the role of each member listed and their experience in
the construction and development of a site for the use as described.
1.4 List your operating team for the building after it is ready for use, the role of
each member listed and their experience in the operation of a facility as you
have described.
Section 2 Proposed use of the building and grounds.
2.1 How does your proposed use of the building contribute to the vitality of
Aspen?
2.2 Have you been inside the building, looked at your needs and know the
building fits your use physically? If so, what have you done to that end?
2.3 Describe how your proposal – and what a visitor’s would see, feel, hear,
touch, learn, etc. – would produce a “memory-making” experience that
would have a visitor relating that visit to others in an enthusiastic way.
2.4 Outline specifically why this location is necessary for your plan? There are
likely many locations in Aspen to create your project, why is this
location/building/setting essential to your operation?
2.5 Describe how your proposed use of the building/grounds would provide a
unique experience – unduplicated by any other venue in Aspen or the valley.
2.6 Describe how you would activate the grounds of the property and integrate
its use with the existing trails that cross the property. How would you use the
interface with the river and the John Denver Sanctuary to enhance a visitor’s
experience to both your property and to those features?
P29
II.
Page 8
2.7 Would you be willing to partner with other organizations that have creative
ideas for the outdoor space?
2.8 Do you foresee the need for a commercial kitchen, or any sort of kitchen, in
the facility? How would you use it?
2.9 How would your proposal create a reason for people to travel by foot from
Aspen’s town core to the Old Powerhouse site?
2.10 Provide a hypothetical annual calendar of programming for your proposed
use for the first year of your existence. How many days/nights are
programmed? How many “dark days/nights” are there?
2.11 Describe the market for your proposed use. Tell us your approach to
marketing that use to those groups of potential users.
2.12 Describe the need for parking/drop off areas associated with your proposed
use and how you will meet that need.
Section 3 Community
3.1 Describe how your proposal creates a “center of community” for those who
live here, work here and visit here.
3.2 The City Council is open to single and multiple-use proposals but members
also indicated that they want to see this project exemplify “collaboration,
inclusiveness and innovation.” Please describe how your proposal would
fulfill those desires?
3.3 Does your plan allow rental of any of the interior or exterior space to other
organizations? How?
3.4 Does your plan allow for rental of the facilities for special events like
weddings or fundraisers? How?
3.5 Explain if/how your plan might partner with other organizations?
3.6 Explain if/how your plan would allow for community uses, such as a dance,
bingo night, music concerts etc.
Section 4 Financials
4.1 Describe how you propose to finance:
a) The capital expenses associated with retrofitting the building and
grounds for the purpose proposed. Provide an estimate of those
expenses.
b) The operating and maintenance expenses associated with the proposed
use of the building and grounds.
4.2 Do you propose to charge an admission fee? If so, how much? What will that
money be used for?
4.3 Provide a 5-year Projected Pro Forma of revenues and expenses by major
category for the operation you envision in the Old Powerhouse.
4.4 Provide the most current annual income statement and balance sheet for your
organization.
P30
II.
Page 9
4.5 If your organization is a non-profit and already in existence, please provide
990s for the last four years of operation.
4.6 What is your contingency plan, both monetarily and organizationally if your
project fails after three years of operation?
Section 4 Timelines and Schedules – address the following and add additional
information if necessary or pertinent.
TBD later
P31
II.