Final Report - Vulnerability Committee

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Flood Control Dam Water Resources Infrastructure Assessment -Final Report3. Climate Analysis and Projections3.1 Introduction3.1.1 ObjectivesThe objectives of the climate analysis and projections portion of this study were first, to establish a set ofclimate parameters describing climatic and meteorological phenomena relevant to the geographic areasof the Claireville and G. Ross Lord flood control dams, and second; to establish a general probability forthe occurrence of each phenomenon, both historically and in the future. For the purposes of this study,the term “historical” is defined as comprising both the existing climate as well as climate from the recentpast, while the term “future” is defined as representing the 2050s (described in more detail in Section3.1.5). The purpose of establishing general probabilities was to ascribe values to the Protocol’s Step 3screening matrix.It is noted that the overall intent of this exercise was to use readily available information to the extentpossible to satisfy the above-noted objectives. While significant effort was made to obtain climateinformation with respect to the conditions of interest for the infrastructure assessment, it is certain thatfurther research and analysis can be conducted to establish data that better relates to, and/or supportsprojections for, most of the parameters chosen. As such, this chapter should not be considered acomprehensive characterization of the historic, existing, or potential future climate of the Toronto area asthis would have required a much greater investment of time and resources than was available based onthe study scope and budget.The approach to collecting climate data for this PIEVC case study departed significantly from previousstudies in which output from a single regional climate model was relied upon almost exclusively. Whilethe current approach provides a greater level of rigour by considering historic climate data and trends,output from an ensemble of global climate models and emissions scenarios, and relevant findings inthe literature (thanks greatly to Joan Klaassen, the member of the advisory committee representingEnvironment Canada, who was most helpful in identifying useful information and references), it cannot beconsidered to reflect the entire body of climate science.Furthermore, when considering future projections, one must recognize the inherent limitations of currentclimate science with respect to the scientific community’s ability to accurately model various climateparameters into the future (e.g. precipitation processes). This is evidenced by the variance that presentlyexists between models for different parameters and scenarios and the general inability at the current timeto predict local and/or extreme climate phenomena with any confidence.Therefore, although the study team is confident that the information contained herein is more thanadequate for the purposes of this project, other potential users of this information should consider thelimitations described above.3.1.2 Climate ParametersA preliminary list of climate parameters was developed based on climate events and change factorsincluded in Appendix A of the Protocol. The list was further developed and revised into a morecomprehensive list based on climatic and meteorological phenomena deemed to be relevant to thegeographic region (southwestern Ontario) and the region’s known seasonal variability. Factors dictatingthe selection of climate parameters, and the indices used to express them, were based on dataavailability of several standard meteorologically-accepted parameters in consideration of both thehistorical/existing record as well as future projection model output. Justification for parameter selectionwas also based on the parameter’s potential to present vulnerability to the infrastructure and itscomponents as a result of either an extreme or persistent occurrence. Lastly, a meeting was conductedbetween the project team and TRCA to discuss and agree on these climate parameters. The meetingresulted in a list of climate parameters endorsed by TRCA.GENIVAR 3-1
Flood Control Dam Water Resources Infrastructure Assessment -Final ReportClimate Analysis and ProjectionsThe following climate parameters were selected for analysis in this study: High Temperature Heavy 5-Day Total Rainfall Lightning Low Temperature Winter Rain Hailstorm Heat Wave Freezing Rain Hurricane/Tropical Storm Cold Wave Ice Storm High Wind Extreme DiurnalTemperature Variability Heavy Snow Tornado Freeze Thaw Snow Accumulation Drought/Dry Period Heavy Rain Blowing Snow/Blizzard Heavy FogOther parameters initially included (e.g. Frost, Wet Days, Acid Rain and Dust Storms) were discarded andare not discussed further in this chapter due to consensus among the study team and client that theypresented very little-to-no defined vulnerability to the dams.3.1.3 DefinitionsDefinitions for the aforementioned climate parameters were established by GENIVAR’s climate team inconjunction with Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) staff and were based on threefactors: a) the usefulness of the climate parameter in determining vulnerability; b) the availability ofinformation; and c) the ability to relate this information to a probability.In most cases, the “usefulness of the parameter in determining vulnerability” meant referencing thephenomenal or extreme aspects of a climate event (i.e. in the absence of extremes, vulnerability may notexist). In some instances, the mere occurrence of an event (singular or otherwise) was useful indetermining vulnerability (e.g. tornado, hurricane), whereas for others, only an extreme occurrence of theevent was deemed useful in determining vulnerability (e.g. high temperature of greater than 35°C). Thelatter required that a threshold be established, which was reflective of an extreme event for eachapplicable parameter. Each threshold was determined collaboratively between the project team andTRCA staff. Both parties recognized that time and resource limitations necessitated a pragmatic approachto selecting thresholds that was based on readily available information.The “availability of information” meant having access to climate parameter indices with both compiledhistorical data and future projections or predictions. However, it is noted that for certain parameters,whether considering historical or future, the only indices readily available were average occurrences overa unit time period, rather than extremes.The “ability to relate information to a probability” meant selecting data that were expressed, or easilymanipulated to be expressed, as a probability, thus satisfying the first half of the “Risk” calculationequation; P (probability) x S (severity) = R (risk), required in the Protocol’s Step 3 screening matrix. Thisoften prevented the use of climate data in its original recorded form (i.e. magnitude), but rather requiredmanipulation for it to be expressed as a probability. For example, Heavy 5 Day Total Rainfall, a parameterfor representing heavy rain over an extended time period, could not be used in its original recorded form(total millimetres). Instead, it needed to be translated to a frequency by establishing a threshold (reflectiveof extreme or phenomenal conditions) and calculating the number of occurrences that would surpass thethreshold in a given year.Two tiers of parameter definitions were established:Tier one:Commonly occurring events, which are almost certain to occur in a given year and whoseeffects and impacts to infrastructure are most likely related to persistence rather than asingle occurrence. These parameters were defined as the probability of exceeding thehistorical average occurrence (i.e. Canadian Climate Normals) in a given year; andGENIVAR 3-2
Page 1 and 2: National Engineering Vulnerability
Page 3 and 4: Flood Control Dam Water Resources I
Page 23: Flood Control Dam Water Resources I
Page 30: Flood Control Dam Water Resources I
Page 75 and 76:
Flood Control Dam Water Resources I
Page 77 and 78:
Page 79 and 80:
Page 81 and 82:
Page 83 and 84:
Page 85 and 86:
Page 87 and 88:
Page 89 and 90:
Page 91 and 92:
Page 93 and 94:
Page 95 and 96:
Page 97 and 98:
Page 99 and 100:
Page 101 and 102:
Page 103 and 104:
Page 105 and 106:
Page 107 and 108:
Page 109 and 110:
Page 111 and 112:
Page 113 and 114:
Page 115 and 116:
Page 117 and 118:
Page 119 and 120:
Appendix AState of Knowledge Assess
Page 121 and 122:
National Engineering Vulnerability
Page 123 and 124:
Page 125 and 126:
Page 127 and 128:
Page 129 and 130:
Page 131 and 132:
Page 133 and 134:
Page 135 and 136:
Appendix CRisk Assessment WorkshopP
Page 137 and 138:
Introduction - TRCANational Enginee
Page 139 and 140:
Summary of PIEVC ProtocolNational E
Page 141 and 142:
Summary of PIEVC ProtocolAt each st
Page 143 and 144:
Summary of PIEVC ProtocolStep 3: Ri
Page 145 and 146:
Summary of PIEVC ProtocolStep 3: Ri
Page 147 and 148:
Summary of PIEVC ProtocolStep 4: En
Page 149 and 150:
Overview of Dams Review Current “
Page 151 and 152:
General location of the damsNG. Ros
Page 153 and 154:
G. Ross Lord damInfrastructure Comp
Page 155 and 156:
G. Ross Lord damInfrastructure Comp
Page 157 and 158:
Claireville damInfrastructure Compo
Page 159 and 160:
Claireville damInfrastructure Compo
Page 161 and 162:
Climate Analysis & Projections - Ov
Page 163 and 164:
Climate Analysis & Projections - De
Page 165 and 166:
Climate Analysis & Projections - De
Page 167 and 168:
Climate Analysis & Projections - Pr
Page 169 and 170:
Appendix EFinalized Risk Assessment
Page 171 and 172:
Appendix GComparison of Existing an
show all

Final Report - Vulnerability Committee

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?