Climate Change Adaptation
Tool Development:
Community Consultations
Compiled by Kathleen Parewick,
Robert Keenan, Dr. Kelly Vodden &
Dr. Norm Catto
1
Table of Contents
Introduction .......................................................................................................................................................3
Background ........................................................................................................................................................4
Summary of Workshop Findings .................................................................................................................7
Identified Local Water-related Issues ................................................................................................................... 8
Participant-cited Tool/Practice Examples .......................................................................................................... 9
User-Appropriate content ......................................................................................................................................... 9
Adoption of Technology........................................................................................................................................... 10
Staff versus Consulting Expertise and Support ............................................................................................... 11
Tool Research and Development ......................................................................................................................... 12
Conclusions ...................................................................................................................................................... 12
Appendices ...................................................................................................................................................... 14
A - Detailed Workshop Presentation Records..................................................................................... 15
Dr. Norm Catto’s Presentation .................................................................................................................. 15
Kathleen Parewick’s Presentation .......................................................................................................... 18
B - Detailed Workshop Participation Record ...................................................................................... 20
C - Workshop materials ............................................................................................................................... 35

Executive Summary of Community Vulnerability and Risk Assessment Literature ....... 35

CRVA Framework & Workshop Break-out Questions ................................................................ 35

Feedback Form ........................................................................................................................................ 35
Feedback Form Summary – Corner Brook ........................................................................................... 39
Feedback Form Summary – St. John’s..................................................................................................... 40
Feedback Form Summary - Gander......................................................................................................... 41
2
Introduction
Climate change adaptation is a global issue that can only
be addressed locally. Given that an incorporated
municipality locally governs the vast majority of
population centres in Newfoundland and Labrador, it is
essential that efforts be made to empower municipalities
to address climate change and provide them with the
necessary tools to enhance their capacity. That is why the
efforts of the federal and provincial governments to fund
and develop a comprehensive toolkit to assist
municipalities are so important. It is at the municipal level
that climate change adaptation will take place, though
how and to what extent this can occur remain
unanswerable questions.
Strong winds and waves batter a house
and docks along the coast, as seen in Portaux-Basques. Photo credit Don Pittman
Informing municipal leaders and administrators as to the
need and importance of climate change adaptation is still very much a work in progress. To many involved in
the municipal sector, climate change adaptation remains very much a complex and higher order issue that is
outside the capacity of most municipalities. Related to this point is a basic lack of capacity at the local level.
Most municipalities have perhaps one or two staff that is already overworked.
As a result, it is imperative that a climate change adaptation toolkit be developed that builds municipal
capacity without being an additional burden. And because the toolkit must negotiate this delicate balance, it
must be created and presented in a careful and cautious manner.
To facilitate the creation of a climate change adaptation toolkit, the Government of Newfoundland and
Labrador, through the Department of Energy and Conservation, generously provided funding to Municipalities
Newfoundland and Labrador to conduct preliminary consultations with municipal leaders and administrators
as to what type and form of toolkit would best suit their needs. These consultations were a mixed success.
Attendance was poor, but the feedback was strong.
The consultations most important finding, however, is that it will require a significant amount of work to
create a toolkit that is both accepted and used by municipalities. This point was made clear by the message
sent by those who did not attend our consultations. Climate change adaptation is on the radar of few
municipalities.
But there is hope. The enthusiasm displayed by those in attendance was evident and is reflected in the
summary that follows. The feedback we received was not unexpected, but should inform every step in the
development of the climate change adaptation toolkit for municipalities.
3
Background
In recent decades, it has become common for
collections of practical and solution-oriented, themed
resource materials to be referred to as ‘toolkits’. The
popular “...For Dummies” series of manuals are one
example of this type of “do-it-yourself” resource, but
toolkits can be found for an ever-growing number of
topics. Crafted to guide readers through demanding
or unfamiliar tasks and subject matter, typical ‘tools’
include checklists, questionnaires, web-based
resources, and other similarly condensed and selfadministered content.
In 2009, having identified climate change adaptation
Erosion along the slopes in front of the beach at
as a priority, the Government of Newfoundland and
Middle Cove that damages the fence at the top
Labrador commenced the development of a toolkit to
of the hill. Photo Credit Dr. Norm Catto
assist municipalities in assessing their risk to waterrelated climate change events (i.e. flooding, potential
damage to municipal water supply, wastewater and/or related infrastructure). The toolkit was also to enhance
the capacity of municipalities to factor in climate change in their community and emergency response
planning. To begin the process of creating this toolkit, Memorial University geographers, provincial
government staff, and municipal government representatives embarked on the collaborative development of a
practical toolkit to:
 Support municipal decision making
 raise awareness of existing and emerging climate change related hazards; and,
 identify opportunities and constraints in responding to water-related challenges.
Given the existing wealth of toolkit examples, the growing body of community assessment-specific materials,
and ongoing research respecting climate changes in every corner of the province, the development of a waterrelated climate change toolkit for Newfoundland and Labrador need not proceed from scratch. In fact, though
differences exist, the methods employed by existing climate change toolkits are relatively standard, and a
handful appear suited for conditions in this province.
The major hurdle facing the designers developing the toolkit for this province, however, relates to addressing
the needs of the many, various and, most significantly, under-resourced communities across Newfoundland
and Labrador. To this end, Municipalities Newfoundland and Labrador (MNL) was contracted to lead
consultations with municipal leaders and administrators to explore the range of water-related challenges
facing their communities and to obtain their input regarding the form and content of the proposed toolkit. The
intention of the consultations was to solicit information regarding how a toolkit would best suit to the
particular circumstances of municipalities in this province.
This report comprises the major deliverable from that consultation project. It contains a thematic summary of
the feedback obtained from the workshops; conclusions drawn regarding the development of a climate change
4
adaptation tool for Newfoundland and Labrador; detailed session records and participant lists; and other
materials prepared for the workshops.
Consultation Workshop Structure
As defined in the original MNL community consultation proposal,
“…an “adaptation tool” is a method that guides non-climate change experts through a series of
analytical steps to examine the implications of climate change on their policies, plans, and operations,
and determine appropriate response options.”
This consultation process sought to identify what kinds of tools and information would be most appropriate for
community decision-makers in Newfoundland and Labrador, as a first step towards developing a toolkit
tailored to their needs.
This project was premised on the following:




Acknowledged and ongoing change in climate patterns around the province;
The need for decision-making based on sound science;
A lack of climate change adaptation-related tools specific to Newfoundland and Labrador; and
A lack of awareness of existing adaptation practice at the municipal level.
It was determined that three workshops should be held in Newfoundland and one in Labrador as an attempt to
record regional examples of and feedback on assessment and adaptation tools. From the outset, the effort was
focused on water-related issues, as water was the original focus for adaptation efforts among the partners in
the Atlantic Regional Adaptation Collaborative (now referred to as ACAS – Atlantic Climate Adaptation
Solutions ), which includes the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. The workshops were intended to be
full-day events facilitated by a representative of MNL. MNL worked with Department of Environment and
Conservation staff and researchers from Memorial University on the design and delivery of the workshops,
which were structured to:
(a) Introduce and discuss the range of water-related challenges facing communities within the region,
particularly those related to climate change; and
(b) To present the fundamentals of a climate change community vulnerability and risk assessment with
reference to specific examples. This would facilitate feedback from participants that could be used by
the developers of the climate change adaptation toolkit for communities in Newfoundland and
Labrador.
The facilitator and guest speakers provided examples of existing tools and techniques for feedback from
participants. The facilitators and guest speaker also addressed what modifications might be necessary to make
existing tools applicable to each participating community. One particular tool, the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration’s Community Vulnerability Assessment Tool: North Hanover County, North
Carolina, was highlighted as an example of a toolkit that may, with modification, suit municipalities in
Newfoundland and Labrador.
5
The sessions also solicited information on adaptation tools and techniques that participants had seen or used
in the past. In addition to the experiences of participants with flooding and other related water issues,
discussions covered related topics of municipal infrastructure, planning and local knowledge of adaptation.
The three island workshops rolled out over a two-week period in November 2009, including events in Corner
Brook, St. John’s and Gander, with a final session being held in Labrador City in February 2010 at the Combined
Councils of Labrador (CCL) Annual General Meeting.
MNL promoted the workshops at its annual municipal convention and in its quarterly Municipal News and
weekly InfoNote. MNL believed that this form of promotion would encourage representatives from
communities of varying size, geography, and capacity to participate and provide feedback. Given the limited
financial resources available for the workshops, there was no capacity for MNL, MUN, or the Provincial
Government to pay for the attendance of participants. This fact may account for why just thirteen individuals
in total, primarily from municipalities, participated in the three island workshops. The breakdown for the three
island sessions was six municipal council members; four municipal staff (all from larger municipalities); two
Rural Secretariat representatives; and one private sector consultant.
Participation at the Labrador event was greater, as the workshop benefitted from partnering with a larger
event. Participants at the Combined Councils of Labrador were also subsidized to travel to the event.
Nevertheless, participation at this year’s CCL AGM was not very strong, and only 20 municipal leaders were
present at the workshop, representing six municipalities. The Labrador workshop, however, did also benefit
from the presence of MNL’s Board of Directors, which is comprised of municipal leaders from an additional 11
different municipalities throughout the province. Even with greater
attendance, conducting the workshop at the CCL was a challenge with
only one and a half hours for presentations and feedback.
In Ferryland, a temporary
wooden barrier placed on the
shoreline to protect it from
coastal erosion was damaged
during a subsequent storm.
Photo credit Norm Catto.
Low attendance at the workshops may be indicative of a general lack of
interest in climate change adaptation at the municipal level. As Dr.
Trevor Bell mentioned in his Labrador presentation, there are few towns
that have a folder called “Climate Change” in the town office. For many
municipalities, particularly small economically-challenged municipalities,
climate change is not considered a concern. This is not because of
ignorance, but more the result of most municipalities thinking that
climate change is an issue that is too big for the small municipality,
combined with the many other issues municipal leaders have on their
agenda. Climate change is perceived as being too complicated for many
municipalities in the province. Further the focus of climate change
discussion is often on mitigation (i.e. reducing greenhouse gas
emissions) rather than the impacts of a changing climate and how to
adapt. There is a common perception that climate change is dominated
by scientists, engineers, and academics and that the small municipality
cannot meaningfully make a difference or be engaged on the issue.
6
Summary of Workshop Findings
Detailed records for each workshop are provided in Appendix B, including the ‘raw’ text recorded by
facilitators on the respective session flipcharts. To avoid potentially misrepresenting and overstating
statements from a small number of individual participants, the key feedback from all three session has been
summarized below according to key themes.
The discussions occurring in the workshops was much less directed than might have been required had there
been larger numbers of participants. The consequent flow of ideas was thereby not limited to the three pre-set
break-out questions, which were:
1. List the three most important water-related issues or problems currently facing your community.
2. How have you solved or coped with these problems to date?
3. What tools do you need to help you adapt in the future?
The facilitators did prompt discussions on these subjects but participants ultimately determined whether each
of these questions was treated in any depth.
Despite this flexible approach, the workshops yielded relatively consistent feedback on the key consultation
questions. The following summary of participant comments is organized into six major themes.
1. Identified local water-related
issues
2. Participant-cited tool/practice
examples
3. User-appropriate content
4. Adoption of technology
5. Staff versus consulting expertise
and support
6. Tool Research and Development.
Strong winds caused this house in Francois to blow down the hill
during Tropical Storm Florence. Photo Credit Vickie Thorne
7
Identified Local Water-related Issues
Participants were asked to report three significant water-related issues faced by their communities. Few
communities responded to this question directly but the following table summarizes issues that were either
stated or could be interpreted based on the workshop record (see Table 1).
Table 1: Cited Water-related Issues by Community
Community
Corner Brook
Issues cited


Multiple water systems to manage
Addressing development pressures on one of their
water supply areas
Not knowing what to consider the ‘most important’
issue(s)
Urban municipality
Recent (August 2009) flooding episodes affecting older
parts of town: older pipe sizes in sanitary sewer
unable to cope with increased storm flows generated
from recent commercial and residential developments
that were improperly connected to the older system.
Ongoing water-quality challenges associated with
Benton, a Local Service District within the Gander
Water Supply Area
Urban municipality

Development-generated flooding issues
Small municipality bordering
a major municipal centre (St.
John’s)

Planning capacity for water supply changes to improve
water quality
Concerns for water system access in event of
emergency (e.g. bridge system failure)
Small municipality close to a
major urban region (Corner
Brook)
Storm events impacts on shoreline infrastructure (i.e.
breakwater, road, major archaeological and tourism
resources)
Small rural coastal
community

Gander


Logy BayMiddle CoveOuter Cove
IrishtownSummerside
Ferryland
Category


In general, participants asked that the toolkit not be about ‘just climate change’. It was seen that the sorts of
challenges communities were facing might be exacerbated by a changing climate, but were generally not
entirely the result of it. Many communities drew attention to the need for collaborative solutions and
expressed a desire for the province to provide more information and support services for climate change
adaptation. Several community representatives expressed the wish that floodplain-mapping activities be
resurrected at the provincial level.
8
Participant-cited Tool/Practice Examples
Few examples of tools or toolkits deemed useful or relevant were offered by workshop participants. This may
be partly the result of having few municipal staff and administrators present at the workshops. These
individuals are often the most familiar with various toolkit resources since information at the municipal level is
usually filtered through the administrator.
The following are specific examples of resources and effective practices provided by staff of larger
municipalities:





Land Use Assessment Report: An example from St. John’s cited in the Corner Brook workshop.
Leak monitoring and water metering: Potential Gander case study
Advantages of GIS adoption: Gander case study
Snow removal technology: Mt. Pearl case study
Staff exit interviewing: Mt. Pearl interview template
These examples, however, while displaying effective methods of operation also highlight the disparities in
capacity that exist among municipalities. Though small-town representation at the workshops was not very
strong, none of the municipal leaders from smaller municipalities expressed any capacity to perform any of the
above noted practices that are used by larger municipalities.
As well, participants also noted that the emphasis should not only be on identifying ‘positive’ examples, but
also on explaining ‘bad practice’ examples (e.g. Clarenville area house built in Shoal Harbour River floodplain;
wetlands being infilled). To the extent that these kinds of case studies illustrate commonly recognized
circumstances that lead to problems (i.e. breakdown in political will; issues with enforcement; inability to
correctly interpret available information), it suggests that the toolkit should find ways to also address these
themes.
User-appropriate content
It is easy to say that all toolkit resources will need to be developed to suit municipalities, but given the
diversity of municipalities in Newfoundland and Labrador, the attention paid to this aspect of the toolkit design
must not be underestimated. The differences in the capacity of municipalities must be addressed. It will need
to offer sufficient content to satisfy the needs of larger, better-resourced municipalities. For instance,
representatives from the City of Corner Brook highlighted their interest in the province supplying compatible
and accurate GIS data layers for a variety of key environmental features to augment their municipal
information and to support more comprehensive analyses. On the other end of the scale, the toolkit would
also need to be designed so as not to overwhelm potential users in smaller communities, including Local
Service Districts, who can be expected to need encouragement to experiment and develop new competencies.
The following general content design recommendations were recorded:


Ensure plain language content
Provide easy to understand and relevant case studies, ideally from Newfoundland and Labrador but
otherwise from other comparable jurisdictions.
9




Anticipate all the questions that logically follow the identification of an issue (i.e. not just identifying
useful links for further information but also avenues for funding or other categories of assistance)
Take care to ensure a fairly comprehensive toolkit, which contains accurate content (i.e. to avoid any
potential liability arising from following the ‘advice’ it may contain)
Include simple inventory tools (checklists, Yes/No questions)
Provide contact information of relevant government department and non-governmental organizations
that can provide assistance and financial support to communities who encounter climate change
issues.
It is expected that the toolkit will have a variety of
designated ‘best practices’. It was suggested that
attention be paid to the reasons behind these best
practices so that staff and decision-makers alike can
explain and justify the pursuit of new methods. In
effect, the toolkit would have to make a case for
itself by including content geared towards raising
awareness of the issues and their implications
alongside the solution-oriented materials. Similarly,
content would need to be developed to explain
specific policy responses to address the findings of
the toolkit.
A culvert destroyed by high water flows, Burin
The discussion of ‘best practices’ will need to be
seen in broad terms. Less than a quarter of
Peninsula. Photo credit Heather Hickman
communities in Newfoundland and Labrador report
having a preventative maintenance schedule in place for their most important infrastructure for example,
therefore, toolkit content will need to emphasize themes of sound municipal management practices as part of
any climate change adaptation planning. Nonetheless, the focus needs to extend beyond concentrating on
issues that highlight the already low capacity level of many municipalities. ‘Best practices’ should also show
practical adaptation methods that require few resources.
Finally, as was highlighted by participants in the western region workshop, “sustainability” means different
things to different communities, especially in the context of recent ICSP assessments. What may be
interpreted as a low priority or taken for granted by some communities (e.g. sewage system development),
can be given heightened attention by others, particularly if it represents a prerequisite for gaining access to
other resources. The toolkit design must anticipate the variability in development priorities that will influence
a given community’s adaptation response and timing. This suggests that toolkit content should be able to
address ways to ‘buy time’ or incrementally address issues, in addition to presenting top-of-the-line, best
practice solutions.
Adoption of Technology
The NOAA toolkit profiled during the consultation sessions illustrated the trend towards the adoption of
computer-aided assessment methods. In particular, geographic information systems (GIS) are participant-cited
10
tool/practice examples featured as a useful technology that can help communities in their existing
infrastructure and service-provision roles. It is a well-established component of municipal management
practice to identify objects, conditions and activities in relation to their physical location (a.k.a. mapping them)
within geographically-defined jurisdictions such as a municipal boundary or a municipal planning area.
Participant feedback and available municipal statistics, however, clearly indicate that there is a general lack of
municipal planning in the province. Only fifty percent of all municipalities have municipal plans, and half of
those are more than twenty years old. Therefore, not only has the shift from working with paper maps to
electronic ones not proceeding quickly, the mere lack of any plan whatsoever poses an obstacle to establishing
a toolkit that is reliant on GIS. Consulting engineers and planners, however, have made the shift to electronic
mapping, so municipalities with more recent municipal plans should have some electronically mapped
information available, though they may not be in a position to access it directly or manipulate it in-house.
Of the participating communities, those with existing, in-house GIS capacity were limited to Corner Brook,
Gander and Mount Pearl. As there is presently no readily accessed GIS system at the provincial level in-house
GIS capacity is therefore limited to a small number of larger municipalities in the Newfoundland and Labrador.
Staff versus Consulting Expertise and Support
In every workshop, the limits of existing staff relative to the demands of establishing a community climate
change adaptation assessment was discussed. The minimal staffing levels of many communities were
described as a major obstacle to adopting ‘anything new’ that would add to existing workloads that are already
difficult to cope with. There had been a great deal of downloading of functions to municipalities over the last
decade. Most communities suggested that gaps in existing staff expertise would be filled using consultants.
The alternative of an umbrella organization such as MNL developing the capacity to ‘loan out’ professional
staff as a member service was also discussed.
Significantly, it was also pointed out that even those communities with existing professional planning and/or
engineering staff will not necessarily have any more capacity than smaller communities to effectively address
new community risk and vulnerability functions. These municipalities may have the advantage of starting from
a different ‘baseline’ capacity but they may also be ‘maxxed out’ in terms of their existing workload, and be
contending with significantly higher stakes in respect of the scale and scope of their management challenges.
The example was given of Corner Brook’s recent experience with the ICSP: they had opted to address the
environmental emphasis framed by their ICSP by integrating it with their legally-binding municipal plan
provisions, consequently complicating future amendment processes with a new layer of compliance
requirements. Noting that, ‘it’s going to take more than a toolkit”, participants pointed to the need for ongoing
professional development (i.e. management training in ‘continuous improvement’ approaches; emergency
plan development) and incentive-based measures to encourage the adoption of alternative practices.
In addition, there was some concern expressed respecting the potential liability that might arise in relation to
decisions made based on the guidance provided by the toolkit. The ends of building capacity through
supporting a greater degree of do-it-yourself activity would have limitations so the toolkit design would need
11
to identify some criteria in order to be explicit about the circumstances that called for specialized and/or
professional support.
Finally, it was emphasized that small town solutions should not be equated with scaled-down urban fixes. The
central region workshop in particular highlighted the management challenges facing smaller communities with
aging infrastructure: every infrastructure upgrade or replacement represents an opportunity to meet higher
standards but, at the same time, creates a choice between going with what is ‘tried and true’ and the inherent
risk of experimenting with newer technologies. Communities need to be supported in those attempts to adapt
that entail overhauls of former systems. The question was posed of whether government was moving too fast
in installing infrastructure through programs such as the Gas Tax and Municipal Capital Works. Communities
cannot be expected to obtain optimal longer-term outcomes where time isn’t allowed for them to explore
alternatives about which they otherwise lack the knowledge necessary to make informed decisions.
Tool Research and Development
The tools should include references to other existing resources and support services specific to communities in
Newfoundland and Labrador (e.g. Community Accounts system data). It was also suggested that additional
organizational partners should be engaged in toolkit development, including the Public Works Association; the
Rural Secretariat (especially in relation to their regional governance initiatives); and the provincial Professional
Municipal Administrators (PMA) organization.
Conclusions
While the small number of participants did limit the extent to which some of the outcomes of the workshops
may be generalized, the regional workshops did inspire significant interest among participants in having their
communities involved in the forthcoming pilot phase of the toolkit development process.
The workshop team has a high degree of confidence in the feedback received respecting the design
considerations for individual tools and toolkit as a whole. The team solicited input in relation to three elements
used to describe a given tool: the subject matter it examines; the assessment methods to be favoured in the
toolkit; and the vehicles best employed to suit the users’ needs. The general recommendations derived from
the consultations are as follows:
Subject Matter
The original ‘water-related’ issue and adaptation content emphasis needs to be expanded to more directly
consider the full array of municipal management preoccupations currently existing in Newfoundland and
Labrador. It will be important to select case studies and examples that specifically relate to the Newfoundland
and Labrador experience, be they from the province or elsewhere. See also content and water-related issues
above.
12
Method
The feedback obtained reinforced the importance of recognizing the wide range of capacities existing between
communities across the province and the importance of not relying on technology-intensive tools such as GIS.
The structure of the toolkit will need to provide users with both a variety of options and a series of criteria that
will assist them in identifying the option(s) best or better suited to their circumstances. This degree of explicit
guidance is lacking in the NOAA toolkit reviewed as a model but such guidance was clearly desired by
municipal leaders and administrators in this province.
Vehicles
Once again, the great variety in end users across Newfoundland and Labrador indicates that there will need to
be a variety of vehicles employed to deliver the toolkit. In particular though, workshop feedback emphasized
the existing limited capacity of many community administrations and underlined the need for hard-copy print
materials alongside of any on-line or computer-supported tools developed. They also specified basic inventory
and self-assessment tools should be available throughout the toolkit to optimize the existing capacity of any
user community.
13
Appendices
14
A - Detailed Workshop Presentation Records
Dr. Norm Catto’s Presentation
Water: Impacts & Adaptations in Newfoundland
(Please note that Dr. Catto prepared three separate presentations, for meetings in Corner Brook , Gander,
and St. John’s. The content of the presentations is similar, with the most significant difference being the
examples he cited. Included in this report is the presentation given in St. John’s.)
Dr. Norm Catto commenced his presentation regarding the Eastern Newfoundland context for thinking about
local water-related issues by noting that he has had numerous students conducting community adaptationrelated research in the region. Heather Hickman, for example, conducted extensive fieldwork in Torbay and
throughout the Burin Peninsula region assessing community flood hazards from 2004-06. Norm reemphasized
that the focus of this consultation effort and the toolkit project more generally is not mitigation, but rather the
problems and issues in communities respecting one or another aspect of water. He noted that there are
significant differences between and within regions in the kinds of climate-related changes being experienced.
St. John’s experienced a water shortage again this summer, while some other parts of the Province have been
experiencing net increases in precipitation.
Many Eastern Region communities are experiencing issues with water quality. There are roughly 200 boil
orders currently in the Province, many of them in areas that have had particularly dry summers. Changes in
snowfall have also been significant for communities; there are some places we want it and others we don’t
from an operational perspective.
Norm highlighted the specific ways that the terms ‘change’ and ‘variation’ are used in a climate change
context:

‘Change’ in climatic trends refers to long-term and averaged data (i.e. 30 years worth of information
tends to be what Environment Canada would need to support a declared “change”). This is the scale of
climatic change that computer modeling also reflects.

‘Variation’ refers to shorter term observations and experiences – the scale of change that is of more
immediate concern to municipal decision-makers. Variations will include the extreme highs and lows
which will be much more dramatic than the averaged “change” values, and in combination with those
generalized trends can produce serious ‘surprises’. A month of periodic showers can deliver the same
‘average’ monthly volume of precipitation as a single storm day in an otherwise dry and sunny month,
but the experience and influences of one compared to the other can be very different. They could also
be seen differently by different stakeholders (i.e. tourism operators likely being happier with a longer
dry spell than local landscaping contractors).
15
What does a community do with this sort of information? Norm laid out the range of responses, including the
“do nothing” approach – which is very seldom used as we all tend to make minor adjustments on a continuous
basis – to the practical means of coping that we term “adaptation”. Municipalities and individuals are
‘tweaking’ all the time but more conscious adaptation may be required in years to come. Norm noted the
significant progress made in St. John’s and Mount Pearl following the flooding caused by tropical storm
Gabrielle.
Why adapt when you can mitigate? Isn’t mitigation our first priority? Norm pointed out that mitigation and
adaptation are not mutually exclusive. Canada contributes less than 2% of the world’s CO2 and Newfoundland
is responsible for a very small portion of that so no big changes can be expected to occur solely on the basis of
even a best-case-mitigation scenario here through cuts to provincial greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Changes
evidently are already in motion and are expected to continue for 200-300 years regardless of GHG reductions
in years to come: we must still make GHG cuts but we have to also prepare to make other adjustments.
Adaptation has results in the near term; mitigation will bear fruit in the long term.
Norm introduced the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO) as a significant contributor to the variation observed in
some parts of this Province. He explained that it was similar to the El Nino/El Nina influences acting on other
parts of the North American continent in that it has two faces: positive (NAO+) years causing colder, windier
winters than negative (NAO-) years. Positive NAO winds produce the most trouble for NE-facing coasts, so they
are a significant influence for many communities in the Eastern Region.
Regardless of cause, Norm pointed out that the episodes communities here will need to contend with in years
to come won’t be altogether different than the past so much as faster and/or stronger due to the extra energy
that will be driving weather systems. This will translate into more frequent occurrences of wash-outs and other
cases of older infrastructure specifications being outstripped by changing conditions. Low-lying communities
such as Placentia will also face significant challenges thanks to rising sea levels (in the order of 3 mm/year).
Placentia has already instituted a number of formal adaptations (e.g. sea wall around much of older portion of
community, special contingency and evacuation plans). Their circumstances were profiled in a recent Public
Infrastructure Engineering Vulnerability Committee (PIEVC) assessment and suggest some of the municipal
finance and management implications of forthcoming changes.
With reference to climatologist Gary Lines’ work, Norm highlighted the return periods for extreme
precipitation events in St. John’s. Noting that Gabrielle produced 122 mm of rain in total, Norm illustrated the
very significant increases in precipitation predicted by 2050 in 10-year, 50-year and 100-year storm events –
the latter having nearly double Gabrielle’s volume of rain associated with it. Wind push will also have a
localized influence on flooding: Gabrielle’s southwest winds produced far fewer problems along the Rennies
Mill corridor, for example, than were experienced on the Waterford. In St. John’s, the rainfall amounts that will
begin to produce problems have likely been significantly reduced by recent stormwater system upgrades but in
a community like Marystown, just 40 mm represents a threshold of concern. It is important to examine how
well these events are being handled now and whether improvements are possible. Everything boils down to
the local circumstances: what a given community has to deal with and work with will be unique so even
neighbouring communities’ experiences can’t be assumed to be the same.
Norm reviewed some of the variation in precipitation observed between 1950 and 2004 in Torbay. The
community has experienced a slight decrease in precipitation overall, but with an increase in rainfall alongside
16
decreased amounts of snow. He also highlighted the sorts of seasonal changes occurring with reference to
Burin Peninsula data where there was little change from former year conditions for much of the year, but big
decreases in June through August resulting in much drier summers. Another example is the record snowfalls
on Prince Edward Island in 2001, which were followed by a drought in the summer. Norm noted that the
changes in timing and forms of precipitation received can result in significant changes in the kinds of issues
communities may experience. For instance, most flood events in Corner Brook arise due to rain-on-snow
events, but this is not the case in Torbay.
Norm briefly discussed the importance of snowfall in relation to water system recharging; retention more
generally; insulation (for overwintering of plants and animals); and the albedo effect. There have been net
decreases in snowfalls in Eastern and Western Canada, but Norm once again highlighted regional variability.
While Clarenville has experienced these snowfall decreases, Torbay has been receiving more.
The consequences of drier conditions include forest fires. Norm noted that 92% of forest fires on the island of
Newfoundland are believed to arise from human influences, leaving just 8% attributable to lightning strikes.
Western Canadian statistics however suggest that there is a direct relationship between fire incidence and
increased backwoods access so there remains cause for concern. Giardia outbreaks have been directly related
to increased snowmobile traffic, representing another concern. Where surface supplies aren’t available,
drilling for water can present other issues. Arsenic was raised as a possible water quality issue for this part of
the Province, associated with the gold-bearing deposits found in volcanic and granite substrate types in the
Eastern region.
Water demand should also be considered along with supply. Little detailed data is available regarding
Newfoundlanders’ per capita water consumption but it can be expected to vary from community to
community. National figures for 2001 published by Environment Canada (in 2005) illustrate the relative
volumes of water consumed by various domestic activities. A certain amount of water loss due to older water
system leakage can also be expected by all communities.
In conclusion, Norm indicated that communities could not be expected to dwell on climate changes when
clearly there are any number of other matters they must contend with. Rather than asking themselves “How
are we dealing with climate changes?”, he reinforced that the key question was more like, “How do we do
things here?” Everything is connected so it was important that they take a wide view of their circumstances,
particularly in relation to critical resources like water.
17
Kathleen Parewick’s Presentation
Toolkits: Municipal Planning and Response to Water-related Issues in Newfoundland
(Please note that Ms. Parewick made three individual presentations, one at each of the Newfoundland
workshops. They are all similar in content. Below is an account of the presentation given at the St. John’s
workshop, held at the Fluvarium on November 19, 2009.)
Kathleen Parewick reintroduced the toolkit concept as an initiative the Province to support communities facing
water-related challenges. She listed some common traits of toolkits. They are practical collections of materials
with a specific, problem-solving nature and do-it-yourself orientation. Toolkits can be thought of a means to
build capacity, generate better ways of doing things and generally raise awareness of a given topic area. In the
particular circumstances of municipalities, even if a problem remains one requiring outside expertise, the
toolkit could put the community in a position to better manage these consulting resources.
Kathleen highlighted the tremendous diversity of communities in the Province as an obvious challenge facing
the developers of any municipally-oriented toolkit. Some commonality can be expected in the kinds of impacts
that communities in the region would be experiencing, but there would also be a great deal of variability both
due to the general nature of anticipated climate changes themselves and the many interacting factors within
communities that mean these changes will not necessarily affect even neighbouring communities the same
way. Once the unique combination of geography, human activity, capacity and infrastructure are added to the
mix, it becomes readily apparent that there is no one-size-fits-all ‘fix’ for most local problems.
There can be some ‘tricks to the trade’, however, when it comes to problem-solving – the kinds of ‘tools’ that
outside technical support staff employ in assessing the risks and hazards facing a given community.
Municipalities can also have tremendous untapped human resources, particularly when they look not simply to
their Council and staff, but to local organizations, residents and the experiences of other communities. The
toolkit approach can help communities make better use of that existing capacity by making the assessment
process more accessible and transparent to all parties. The process could be expected to yield results that can
be applied to a range of policies, plans, programs and practices, including solutions entailing capital works
investments.
The general steps entailed in a Community Vulnerability Assessment were listed. Each step in the assessment
process can be expected to have an array of possible tools that may be incorporated in the design of a toolkit
for Newfoundland and Labrador municipalities. These tools can in turn be thought of in terms of their: 1)
subject matter, 2) method, and 3) the means or vehicle used to collect and or analyze the conditions at hand.
Focusing on the subject of Kathleen reviewed the topical scope of the potential ‘water-related’ assessment and
a range of potential infrastructure and climate change linkages. Assessment methods will be needed that
relate both to the purpose and stage of the assessment, as well as to the type of information and participants
involved in the task. Finally, the question of the ‘best’ vehicle for any given tool and the toolkit overall is one
that requires some careful thought to ensure that the resources provided meet the needs of their end-users.
Some might like the interactivity and reach of an on-line resource, for example while others may have less
18
comfort with computers or poor local internet service might prefer a workbook with a variety of worksheets to
flip through and photocopy as required.
Kathleen introduced a model toolkit that had been produced by the Coastal Services Centre of the U.S.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) as one example. It is available both as a CD-ROM
and on-line ( http://www.csc.noaa.gov/products/nchaz/startup.htm ). While taking a consultative and
capacity-building orientation, the NOAA toolkit also capitalizes on the growing use of technologies such as
geographic information systems (GIS) and data collection by remote sensing. It also reflects a holistic view of
the community, assessing not only physical vulnerabilities, but the social, economic and environmental aspects
of anticipated changes.
Given the small group size, discussion occurred respecting the three proposed break-out questions throughout
this period and is summarized below. Significant interest was expressed by all present in getting involved as
possible pilot communities in forthcoming phases of the toolkit development process.
19
B - Detailed Workshop Participation Record
Western Region
17 November 2009
Record of Proceedings
Compiled by K. Parewick
04 Dec 2009
20
CLIMATE CHANGE ADAPTATION FORUM
November 17, 2009 – Corner Brook
Agenda
9:00 – 9:15
Welcome and Introductions
9:15 – 10:15 Presentation and Discussion of Local Water-related Issues
- Dr. Norm Catto (Memorial University)
10:15 – 10:30 Coffee Break
10:30 – 12:00 Site Visit
12:00 – 1:00 Lunch
1:00 – 2:00
Presentation on Toolkits and Assessing Community Capacity
- Kathleen Parewick (Memorial University)
2:00 – 3:30
Breakout Session/Feedback
3:30 – 3:45
Concluding Remarks/Next Steps
3:45 – 4:00
Evaluation
21
Climate Change Adaptation Forum
Greenwood Inn – Corner Brook, NL
17 November 2009
Community representatives in attendance:
Lloyd Burton, Irishtown-Summerside
Kevin Strickland, Irishtown-Summerside
Colleen Humphries, Corner Brook
Justin Preece, Corner Brook
Rhea Hutchings, Corner Brook
Forum Presenters/Facilitators:
Robert Keenan, MNL
Dr. Norm Catto, Memorial University (Geography)
Kathleen Parewick, Memorial University (Geography)
Tammy Keats, Dept. of Environment & Conservation
Kim Bitterman, Dept. of Environment & Conservation
(Left) Dr. Catto discussing recent storm overwash issues and recently dug drainage ditch.
(Right) Colleen Humphries atop culvert over Majestic Brook. Note extent of accumulated rock
infilling existing culvert.
22
Western Region Feedback - Forum Flipchart Notes (including additional notes from Tammy)
Mapping suited to community use/interpretation
 scaled
 digested
 departmental product listings/directory
Case study synopses (prefer well-digested content)
Help constructing arguments in support of best
practices
Toolkit Issues
 Once issue identified, it leads to what?
Toolkit should provide more than just next
contact. Need “this also relates to...” and
“here’s where $$ are available to help”.
 Language – must be plain language
content...basic terms and definitions where
necessary
 Liability issues?
o Accuracy?
o Respondent error?
o Misrepresentation?
o Needing a consultant after all...
Food security
Water supply – recent episode in Corner Brook
caused water system failure; water service to hospital
lost
Halifax – White Juan (storm) – what if you lose
power for 2-3 weeks?
Repeated call for updated, printable maps of
communities that can be over laid with
 flood risk maps,
 geological composition,
 road system,
 waterways,
 hazard maps,
 forest maps,
 wildlife maps,
 deficit maps and
 asset maps
Tools and toolkit should
 Use basic language; no or minimal technical
language and provide dictionary page where
technical language is needed.
 Provide an updated list of contact people
 Need to show how community will benefit
from process (ie. ICSP = gas tax $$)
 Show links to funding resources to help
address identified problems
 Comprehensive mapping with layers (see
above)
 Case studies - that outline similar problems
and outline adaptation options reviewed and
used.
 Land use zoning tool
 Must provide information suitable for local
service districts as well as municipalities
 Small communities require assistance but not
always a consultant
 Tabletop exercises with communities
(practice emergency response/mock
scenarios)
Three big water-related issues...
Corner Brook
Irishtown-Summerside
Several water systems to manage – what are all
Two ponds for area water supply and opportunity to
their levels of flood risk
move to larger of them (upper) to improve water
quality
 From rivers?
 Plan?
 From sea level rise?
 Potential access issues?
 From storm surges in the futute?
Future development plans for one of existing water
supply areas
 Management Plan?
 Contingency Plan?
Three bridges in the vicinity...should there be a
system breakdown, dependencies in maintenance,
supply (heritage of amalgamation)
ISSUE: Not knowing what their most important
issues are...
23
Western Region Feedback - Forum Flipchart Notes cont’d
Tools under development to better map areas of concern (slopes, flood risk areas...)
Develop policy to address outcomes
Irishtown-Summerside has Clerk and Foreman/Garbage Collector (P/T) – uncertain how much more they can
do.
ICSP challenges vis-à-vis existing staff, consultancy qualifications
Ex : Do we have an issue with landslides ?
 Criteria? Standards? What thresholds to commit to? Some legislated means...
 Other work still very early in development
 Need to be explicit about where specialized/professional support required
Souldn’t assume that communities with planning staff will necessarily have any more capacity to effectively
address community risk and vulnerability. Different baseline but potentially higher stakes
Ex: Corner Brook and ICSP template development
Staffing needs? Assessment of this alongside of CRVA? PMA link?
Options to “loan out” professional staff? (i.e. through MNL? Planner?)
Corner Brook - big environmental emphasis in plan (ICSP) and integrated with legally binding Municipal Plan
(presenting new complexity in amendment processes)
“Sustainability” may be sewage system development for one community (baseline requirement and prerequisite
for other resources)
Land Use Assessment Report (St. John’s example) as recommended tool/practice
Irishtown-Summerside may be at point of adding to existing staff complement to gain “management” capacity
(i.e. human resources/staffing implications for this)
24
CLIMATE CHANGE ADAPTATION FORUM
Eastern Region
19 November 2009
Record of Proceedings
Compiled by K. Parewick
04 Dec 2009
25
CLIMATE CHANGE ADAPTATION FORUM
November 19, 2009 – St. John’s
Agenda
9:00 – 9:15
Welcome and Introductions
9:15 – 10:15 Presentation and Discussion of Local Water-related Issues
- Dr. Norm Catto (Memorial University)
10:15 – 10:30 Coffee Break
10:30 – 12:30 Presentation and Discussion on Toolkits and Assessing Community Capacity
- Kathleen Parewick (Memorial University)
12:30 – 12:45 Concluding Remarks/Next Steps
12:45 – 1:30 Lunch and Evaluation
26
Climate Change Adaptation Forum
Fluvarium – St. John’s, NL
19 November 2009
Community representatives in attendance:
Leo Moriarty, Town of Ferryland
Gerard Lewis, City of Mount Pearl
Jim Rose, Town of Logy Bay-Middle Cove-Outer Cove
Ken Mercer, Town of Logy Bay-Middle CoveOuter Cove
Lee Shinkle, StanTec
Colin Holloway, Rural Secretariat
Forum Presenters/Facilitators:
Robert Keenan, MNL
Dr. Norm Catto, Memorial University (Geography)
Kathleen Parewick, Memorial University (Geography)
Placentia, Newfoundland
Photo: N. Catto
Eastern Region Feedback - Flip Chart Notes
Torbay and flooding?
What about development?
Was certainly a factor taken into account in analysis of impacts
Ex: Basements? New sorts of damage today to furnished rec rooms
Culvert sizes have become an issue
27
Education and Awareness
 Of 281 communities, 261 are operating with very limited resources/capacity. Just coping with basics...
 Toolkit has to help make the case, raise awareness. Why should they care?
 Significant support, info and awareness to ensure it contributes to more effective plans and planning
In 2-1/2 years, plans will be mandatory.
If it hasn’t happened to them yet, many won’t care.
Must make clear that it’s not ‘just climate change’
 Everything connects to everything else
 Development considerations more generally
Ex: Influx of seasonal residents leading to development which may be occurring in areas with the potential
to create new problems
When hazards/risks identified (and most communities know what they are), what then?
 Often too much to manage with existing resources
 Will need to connect issues identified with additional resources
 Creating a demand/mechanisms which in turn will require higher levels of government to reply with
better forms of assistance
Need the support network – the municipal administrators’ organization (PMA) and other bodies in a position to
help spread the message and champion it.
Fifteen (15) minutes away from one another – two dramatically different experiences of the same rainfall event.
Small towns, small populations, aging infrastructure...
Ferryland’s last storm took the last of the breakwater and nearly took out the road.
 Have floodplain mapped
 Have a handle on coastline issues
Need to resurrect Provincial floodplain mapping efforts – applications for this sort of work have been submitted
by forum participants in last year or two...still waiting.
Snow clearing and storage – evaluating salt use and alternatives
Need to have a regional approach
 So many common questions with respect to operational responses
 Snow dragging experiments in Mount Pearl – experiences that can be shared
Middle Cove- Outer Cove considers floodplains a key concern/issue
 BUT solutions lie outside the town boundary (i.e. Stavanger Drive related)
 Detention/Retention questions...
 Need mapping done
 Need to have mechanism to address with developers in a constructive fashion
 Bridge requiring $1/2M in repairs for two families (Mount Pearl has a similar situation)
May not have the means to drill down to the level of every property’s issues but should have some basis for
viewing in a broader way
Bonavista area/Trinity Bay North
28
 Most operating with very limited staffing, little existing information
 Issues of institutional memory and understanding
 Resources to support inter-community collaboration not there either...
Ex: Clarenville area house built in Shoal Harbour River floodplain. Not only a breakdown in political will –
often issues in enforcement and the ability to correctly interpret available information
Ferryland’s dinner theatre expansion – fence initially allowed in floodplain but were called on it.
High degree of speculation – climbing property/real estate values
 Wetlands being turned into subdivisions here, there, everywhere...
 Similar issues in Gander, Harbour Grace...
 Need backbone in Environment & Conservation too...
o Watershed protection/security and sustainable supplies
o Tourism and recreation values
Consumption! Need the data to use as evidence – need a tool to evaluate existing usage
 Basic metring to quantify?
 Aging infrastructure and leaky pipes and joints – system leakage a significant factor
Human resource considerations:
 Staff exit interviews to capture knowledge and lessons of experience
 So little documentation – the capacity to manage or collect data is lacking at the local level
 So little broadband in rural NL still...
 In rural communities, the lines between Council and staff blur
 50% ‘new councilors”attending MNL convention this year – burn-out, aging community leaders
Pets? Animal-related strategies?
Longer-term losses occasioned by potential impacts on existing businesses/economic infrastructure
Ex: Ferryland tourism infrastructure
MOU with CONA
 training for municipal administrators
 core curriculum
 PMA being courted – 96% of administrators want training
29
CLIMATE CHANGE ADAPTATION FORUM
Central Region
24 November 2009
Record of Proceedings
Compiled by K. Parewick
04 Dec 2009
30
CLIMATE CHANGE ADAPTATION FORUM
November 24, 2009 – Gander
Agenda
9:00 – 9:15
Welcome and Introductions
9:15 – 10:15 Presentation and Discussion of Local Water-related Issues
- Kathleen Parewick on behalf of Dr. Norm Catto (Memorial University)
10:15 – 10:30 Coffee Break
10:30 – 11:15 Presentation on Toolkits and Assessing Community Capacity
- Kathleen Parewick (Memorial University)
11:15 – 12:15 Breakout Session/Feedback
12:15 – 12:30 Concluding Remarks/Next Steps
12:30 – 1:30 Lunch and Evaluation
31
Climate Change Adaptation Forum
Albatross Hotel – Gander, NL
24 November 2009
Community representatives in attendance:
Gary Regular, Supervisor of Technical Services
Town of Gander
Tanya Noble, Rural Secretariat
Forum Presenters/Facilitators:
Robert Keenan, MNL
Kathleen Parewick, Memorial University (Geography)
Kim Bitterman, Dept. of Environment & Conservation
Bonavista
Photo: Environment Canada
32
Central Region Feedback - Flip Chart Notes
Metering in Gander
 4-5 premises over a 4-6 month period
 introduced low-flow devices (i.e. shower heads, toilets) resulting in 15-20% decreases
 data lost (mid-1990s project)
Gander has had leak monitoring for many years too – have own system now and have eliminated a lot
of prior leakage
Small town solutions?
 Looking at the particular challenges that can’t be resolved by simply scaling down urban
technologies/fixes
 How do the aging infrastructure in so many small communities get ‘fixed’ under current
economic circumstances and in a fashion that can be maintained?
Ongoing opportunities associated with replacement – are we missing a big chance to change things?
Is government moving too fast? Sometimes there is no time allowed for looking around at alternatives.
Ex: Gas Tax $$ - not necessarily giving communities the best longer term outcomes.
Data on systems?
 Good info in Community Accounts/ICSP
 0nly 23% have preventative maintenance schedules
Upcoming opportunities to spread the word?
 Workshop on Regional Governance (tentatively Mar-Apr) to examine longterm regional
sustainability (Lead: Rural Secretariat)
 Public Works Association Annual meeting (early May) – a major opportunity to network and
present the message (Contact: David Molton, President & Gander’s Superintendent of Public
Works)
GIS Capacity? Very few communities have now... Gander does, Lewisporte perhaps...
 Gander launched their system in the mid-90s with electronic mapping and is going to be
launching an on-line resource very soon for general use
 Has there been any follow-up on earlier efforts to promote GIS use (ref to ESRI sessions in
1990s) and to see if any progress has been made?
 Infrastructure mapping has multiple applications
The Benton-Gander Saga
Tilting perhaps an interesting case study community given their other experience with planning
activities (heritage-related initiatives)
Costing
33
Central Region Feedback - Flip Chart Notes cont’d
Staff turn-over and institutional memory – Gander’s human resources and good retention rates have
made a big difference
Gander’s August flooding episodes (2)
 Affected older parts of town where older system/pipe sizes in sanitary sewer unable to cope
with additional storm flows from recent developments (improperly connected)
 ‘spotty’ flooding – heavy rains that don’t seem to affect all parts of the community the same
way
 have costed upgrade to trunk main
 looking at complete sewerage system redevelopment since existing one is at 95% capacity now
(call for consultant not tendered yet but forthcoming soon)
 residents with 20-30 problem-free years suddenly experiencing issues for first time
Mandated emergency plans
Addressing arising issues of a cross-jurisdictional nature (involving 2-plus municipalities)
PWDUs as alternative technology currently forwarded only as a temporary fix – but if paired with
truck delivery and honey-bucket sewage systems?
 Adjusting expectations
Continuous improvement mechanisms
 need to avoid the ‘doing-and-putting-on-the-shelf’ tendency with research and review efforts
 incentives? Carrot rather than stick in order to encourage adoption of alternatives
 is going to take more than a toolkit....
Re: Toolkit approach
 definitely include simple inventory tools (checklists, Yes/No questions)
Regional issues for small communities
 quality
 quantity
 sewage treatment
versus...
Community like Gander which has completely different circumstances
Qs – relative benefits?
34
C - Workshop materials
 Executive Summary of Community Vulnerability and Risk
Assessment Literature
 CRVA Framework & Workshop Break-out Questions

Feedback Form
Note:
Two other hand-outs were distributed at each workshop but are not reproduced here. They are the
presentation slide record and the following publication:
Vasseur, L. and Catto, N. (2008): Atlantic Canada; in From Impacts to Adaptation: Canada in a Changing
Climate 2007, edited by D.S. Lemmen, F.J.Warren, J. Lacroix and E. Bush; Government of Canada, Ottawa,
ON, p. 119-170.
35
Community Vulnerability and Risk Assessment Literature Review
Executive Summary
Toolkits regularly straddle the theory and practice of many domains. The Province of Newfoundland
and Labrador has identified climate change adaptation as a strategic priority and is currently exploring
the development of a toolkit to facilitate community risk and vulnerability assessments (CRVA)
focused on water-related risks (i.e. flooding, potential damage to municipal water supply, wastewater
and/or related infrastructure). In 2009, geographers, provincial government staff, and municipal
government representatives began their collaboration on the development of a practical reference and
assessment package to:
 support municipal decision-making;
 raise awareness of existing and emerging climate change related hazards; and,
 identify opportunities and constraints in responding to water-related challenges.
A review of risk, hazards and development literatures reveals that contemporary terminology
respecting assessment practice varies with theoretical and disciplinary approach. Nonetheless, a
relatively standard array of methods may be distinguished among the many CRVA frameworks
examined, and of these, there are a handful which appear best-suited to community-scale assessment
tool applications. This is not to suggest a one-size-fits-all process, but rather the opportunity to
assemble a menu of proven approaches from which a user community might select the most
appropriate methods in order to compose and implement a productive local assessment process. For
example, a large inland community with piped services will seek to address different challenges than a
small coastal community with well and septic systems, and even the relative locations of various
elements of relatively standard infrastructure will lead to unique scenarios in every case.
A variety of assessment methods and tools could be incorporated into risk and vulnerability analysis
toolkits for communities in Newfoundland and Labrador. Depending on the human and technical
resources available to the user community, the complexity of the tools used may vary from
questionnaires or checklists suited to general knowledge, through more detailed data, computations or
evaluations requiring more specialized knowledge, skills and experience (i.e. suited to completion by
residents of a particular part of the town, or a specified staff person like a Public Works foreman or
town engineer).
Given the wealth of toolkit examples generally, the growing body of CRVA-specific materials, and
ongoing research respecting climate changes in every corner of the province, the development of a
water-related CRVA for Newfoundland and Labrador need not proceed from scratch. Instead, the key
questions facing the designers at the outset of the subject toolkit development will relate to the needs
of their designated user group – the many, various and, most significantly, variably-resourced
communities across the Province. To this end, a consultative process is required to present the subject
matter – the range of water-related challenges facing communities - to prospective end-users of the
assessment toolkit for comment and to then obtain their input regarding the assessment methods (i.e.
checklists, process guidelines, ranking matrices…) and vehicles (i.e. hardcopy manual, interactive CD,
webinar series…) best suited to their particular circumstances.
36
A Community Risk and Vulnerability Assessment Process
Step 1 – Hazard Identification
Step 2 – Hazard Analysis
Key Questions:
Key Questions:

What hazards concern you?
Floods? Water shortage? Contaminated wells?

Where are the identified hazards?
On the shoreline? Throughout the municipal area?

How do you prioritize them?
Frequency? Area affected? Probability?

How are these areas prioritized?
By extent and type(s) of use? By risk frequency?

Where do you get this information?
Information may come from a variety of sources such as local
history (i.e. Council records, newspaper...); staff experience
(interviews, incident logs...); and reports (infrastructure,
engineering, planning...).
Step 3 – Critical Facilities Analysis
Step 4 – Societal Analysis
Key Questions:
Key Questions:



What/Where are your critical facilities ? Emergency
equipment? Fire Hall? Hospital? Communications?
How vulnerable are they?
To physical damage? To operational disruption?
Prior hazard incident experience (i.e. staff and first responder
records and memory, interviews, incident logs...) is one source
of information.

Who/Where are your most at-risk residents? Elders?
Persons with disabilities? Those in high-needs care
settings?
How vulnerable are they?
To particular sorts of hazards? In what ways?
This sort of information may be obtained from at-risk
individuals themselves (interviews, surveys, representative
agencies); prior hazard incident experience (i.e. staff and first
responder records and memory, interviews, incident logs...);
and disaster and hazard case studies
Step 5 – Economic Analysis
Step 6 – Environmental Analysis
Key Questions:
Key Questions:

What/Where are your primary economic assets? Major
enterprise sectors? Major employer? Industrial facilities?


How vulnerable are they?
To particular sorts of hazards? In what ways?
Some sources for this information include local
businesspeople, managers and employees; organizations such
as the local Chamber of Commerce, industry organizations...
What hazardous material/waste is there in the area and
where?
Fuel tanks? Dump? Port or marina? Waste treatment
facility?What sensitive natural or cultural features are
there and where?
Protected areas? Endangered species? Historic sites?
Cemeteries?

How vulnerable are they?
To particular sorts of hazards? In what ways?
Step 7 – Adaptation Options Analysis
Key Questions:

What are your best bets for reducing and/or avoiding future risks and hazards?
Preventing use of high risk areas? Relocating? Replacing? Upgrading?

How can resilience to hazard impacts be increased?
Building awareness? Building response capacity? Preserving options?
37
Toolkit Break-out Exercise
1. List the three most important water-related issues or problems currently facing your community.
2. How have you solved or coped with these problems to date?
3. What tools do you need to help you adapt in the future?
38
Feedback Form Summary – Corner Brook
Event Information
Location,
Date &
#s
Session
topic
Greenwood Inn
Tuesday, 17 Nov 2009
Five respondents
Municipal Planning and Response to
Water-related Issues in NL
(Toolkit consultations)
Evaluation
Please check the appropriate response:
1 – strongly agree
1. The pre-meeting
administration was
appropriate and informative.
2. The session was scheduled at
a suitable time.
3. The facilities and location
chosen were appropriate and
satisfactory.
4. Food and refreshments were
satisfactory.
5. Information provided during
the session was presented in
a clear, organized manner.
6. The field visit was wellorganized and informative.
7. The presenters responded to
questions in an informative,
appropriate and satisfactory
manner.
8. There was sufficient time
allowed for group discussion.
9. Handouts provided were clear
and useful.
10. Overall, the session was
informative and valuable.
2 – agree
1
4
2
3 – neutral
4 –disagree
3
5
4
5 – strongly disagree
Comments
‘First time councilor – very informative’
4
3
1
2
2
4
3
1
4
3
1
3
1
4
Other Feedback
.
Would you recommend this session to a
colleague?
In what ways could this workshop have been
improved to better suit your needs?
Yes (4)
‘Satisfactory’
‘None’
‘Can’t think of any’
Please suggest other workshop topics that
would be useful to municipal managers and
decision-makers.
Any final thoughts?
‘Very good!’
‘Very informative’
‘Good session – thought-provoking and informative. Lot’s
of discussion’
39
Feedback Form Summary – St. John’s
Event Information
Location,
Date &
#s
Session
topic
The Fluvarium
Thursday, 19 Nov 2009
Four respondents
Municipal Planning and Response to
Water-related Issues in NL
(Toolkit consultations)
Evaluation
Please check the appropriate response:
1 – strongly agree
1. The pre-meeting
administration was
appropriate and informative.
2. The session was scheduled at
a suitable time.
3. The facilities and location
chosen were appropriate and
satisfactory.
4. Food and refreshments were
satisfactory.
5. Information provided during
the session was presented in
a clear, organized manner.
2 – agree
1
2
2
1
3 – neutral
4 –disagree
3
5
4
5 – strongly disagree
Comments
‘Few attendees/other avenues to create
more interest’
4
3
1
‘Little cold’
2
2
‘Great food/variety’
‘Excellent! Good information’
4
6. The field visit was wellorganized and informative.
3
7. The presenters responded to
questions in an informative,
appropriate and satisfactory
manner.
8. There was sufficient time
allowed for group discussion.
9. Handouts provided were clear
and useful.
10. Overall, the session was
informative and valuable.
4
N/A (no field walk – shortened session
due to small turn-out)
1
3
1
3
1
‘Great discussion’
4
Other Feedback
.
Would you recommend this session to a
colleague?
In what ways could this workshop have been
improved to better suit your needs?
Please suggest other workshop topics that
would be useful to municipal managers and
decision-makers.
Any final thoughts?
Yes (4)
‘Very informative’ ‘Definitely’
‘It would be most useful’
‘More community participation/interaction’
‘Increase attendance’
‘Workshop was comfortable’
‘Link climate change to Emergency Preparedness Planning
which is now mandatory – may help to create the necessary
awareness and education that is required’
‘Land use planning’
‘Community Leadership’
‘Good atmosphere created in this workshop’
‘Very informative’ ‘Excellent job by all’
‘Good workshop’ ‘Thanks!’
40
Feedback Form Summary - Gander
Event Information
Location,
Date &
#s
Session
topic
Albatross Hotel
Tuesday, 24 Nov 2009
Two respondents
Municipal Planning and Response to
Water-related Issues in NL
(Toolkit consultations)
Evaluation
Please check the appropriate response:
1 – strongly agree
2 – agree
1
1. The pre-meeting
administration was
appropriate and informative.
2. The session was scheduled at
a suitable time.
3. The facilities and location
chosen were appropriate and
satisfactory.
4. Food and refreshments were
satisfactory.
5. Information provided during
the session was presented in
a clear, organized manner.
2
3 – neutral
4 –disagree
3
2
5
4
Comments
‘Did not receive the documents, just the
reminder’
2
2
2
2
N/A (no field walk – shortened session
due to small turn-out)
6. The field visit was wellorganized and informative.
7. The presenters responded to
questions in an informative,
appropriate and satisfactory
manner.
8. There was sufficient time
allowed for group discussion.
9. Handouts provided were clear
and useful.
10. Overall, the session was
informative and valuable.
5 – strongly disagree
1
1
2
2
2
Other Feedback
.
Would you recommend this session to a
colleague?
Yes (2)
In what ways could this workshop have been
improved to better suit your needs?
‘More people to hear opinions’
Please suggest other workshop topics that
would be useful to municipal managers and
decision-makers.
Any final thoughts?
‘Good job!’
‘More participation req’d from smaller communities’
41