State of Climate Adaptation Regional District of Kootenay Boundary Area A March 2020 (Revised June 2020) CONTENTS Acknowledgements ......................................................................................................................... 1 Acroynms ........................................................................................................................................ 2 Disclaimer ....................................................................................................................................... 2 Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 3 Purpose ........................................................................................................................................ 3 Report Highlights ........................................................................................................................ 4 Methods ....................................................................................................................................... 5 Notes to the Reader ..................................................................................................................... 6 About the Climate Data ............................................................................................................... 7 Technical Information ................................................................................................................. 7 Climate ............................................................................................................................................ 8 The Overall Picture ..................................................................................................................... 8 Extreme Weather and Emergency Preparedness .......................................................................... 14 The Overall Picture ................................................................................................................... 14 Climate Changes ....................................................................................................................... 14 Adaptation Actions and Capacity Building............................................................................... 16 Community Impacts and Adaptation Outcomes ....................................................................... 19 Water Supply ................................................................................................................................ 21 The Overall Picture ................................................................................................................... 21 Climate Changes ....................................................................................................................... 21 Environmental Impacts ............................................................................................................. 22 Adaptation Actions and Capacity Building............................................................................... 24 Community Impacts and Adaptation Outcomes ....................................................................... 26 Flooding ........................................................................................................................................ 28 Climate Changes ....................................................................................................................... 28 Environmental Impacts ............................................................................................................. 29 Adaptation Actions and Capacity Building............................................................................... 31 Community Impacts and Adaptation Outcomes ....................................................................... 31 Agriculture .................................................................................................................................... 32 The Overall Picture ................................................................................................................... 32 Climate Changes ....................................................................................................................... 32 Environmental Impacts ............................................................................................................. 32 Adaptation Actions and Capacity Building............................................................................... 35 Wildfire ......................................................................................................................................... 37 The Overall Picture ................................................................................................................... 37 Climate Changes ....................................................................................................................... 38 Environmental Impacts ............................................................................................................. 38 Adaptation Actions and Capacity Building............................................................................... 41 Community Impacts and Adaptation Outcomes ....................................................................... 42 Next Steps ..................................................................................................................................... 44 Action Areas .............................................................................................................................. 44 Future Assessments ................................................................................................................... 45 References ..................................................................................................................................... 46 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The preparation of this report was carried out with assistance from the Government of Canada and the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, with additional funding from Columbia Basin Trust and participating local governments. The project was led by the Columbia Basin Rural Development Institute with contributions from external experts and local governments. We acknowledge the following individuals for their contributions to this report: Columbia Basin Rural Development Institute  Jayme Jones  Ingrid Liepa  Kim Green  Lauren Rethoret  Jay Maloney  Jamiee Remond  Nerissa Abbott  Raymond Neto  Leeza Perehudoff Climatic Resources Consulting  Mel Reasoner  Charles Cuell Regional District of Kootenay Boundary  Goran Denkovski  Mark Stephens  Frances Maika  Bart Fyffe  Elizabeth Moore  Donna Dean And many thanks to the others who helped us secure the needed data to prepare this report, including, FortisBC, Interior Health, and the Province’s Southeast Fire Centre. 1 ACROYNMS AHCCD ALR BWN CL CMIP5 GDD GIS EMBC EOC GCM IHA NTU OCP PM2.5 RCP RDKB RDI SoCARB SWE UBCM WQA WUI Adjusted and Homogenized Canadian Climate Data Agricultural Land Reserve Boil Water Notice Confidence Level Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 5 Growing Degree Days Geographic Information Systems Emergency Management British Columbia Emergency Operations Centre Global Climate Model Interior Health Authority Nephelometric Turbidity Units Official Community Plan Fine Particulate Matter Representative Concentration Pathways Regional District of Kootenay Boundary Columbia Basin Rural Development Institute State of Climate Adaptation and Resilience in the Basin Snow Water Equivalent Union of British Columbia Municipalities Water Quality Advisory Wildland Urban Interface DISCLAIMER The data for State of Climate Adaptation indicators has been collected and analyzed by a team of qualified researchers. A variety of municipal, regional and provincial data sets informed the indicator findings. In some cases, community-specific data is not available. State of Climate Adaptation indicator reporting should not be considered to be a complete analysis, and we make no warranty as to the quality, accuracy or completeness of the data. The Columbia Basin Rural Development Institute and Selkirk College will not be liable for any direct or indirect loss resulting from the use of or reliance on this data. The preparation of this report was carried out with assistance from the Government of Canada and the Federation of Canadian Municipalities. Notwithstanding this support, the views expressed are the personal views of the authors and the Federation of Canadian Municipalities and the Government of Canada accept no responsibility for them. 2 INTRODUCTION Purpose Welcome to the Regional District of Kootenay Boundary (RDKB) Area A 2020 baseline report for the State of Climate Adaptation and Resilience in the Basin (SoCARB) indicator suite. SoCARB indicators were designed to provide data and insights relating to climate change, including local environmental impacts and community impacts (e.g., economic impacts), as well as information to help build adaptive capacity and track local actions. Originally developed in 2015, the SoCARB indicator suite measures community progress on climate adaptation across five climate impact pathways: extreme weather and emergency preparedness, water supply, flooding, agriculture, and wildfire. Figure 1 – RDKB Electoral Area A Climate-related impacts like flooding, drought and high temperatures can be critical events for communities and are examples of events that are projected to occur with greater frequency and/or intensity as the climate gets warmer. Flooding poses a risk to water infrastructure and public safety, and contributes to turbidity in surface sources. Drought has implications for water supply, local food production and increasing wildfire risk. Higher temperatures can impact vulnerable populations, including the elderly, socially isolated, chronically ill and infants. The information presented in this report is intended to highlight trends and impacts related to the local climate and surrounding environment, and to inform local planning and decision-making. This report includes changes in indicators outside of the RDKB Area A jurisdiction, such as wildfire starts, recognizing that a better understanding of trends associated with these indicators can help the community prepare for current and future changes. The data for some indicators, such as per capita water consumption, come directly from local governments, as they are best positioned to identify and track where their actions could increase community climate resilience. 3 The full SoCARB suite includes 58 climate adaptation indicators. This report, however, excludes indicators that the RDKB has not identified as a priority or where sufficient data was not available, as well as all indicators from SoCARB’s Community Resilience Index. In addition, the evolution of adaptation practice since 2015 and learnings from pilot implementation in 20162017 with four communities within the Columbia Basin resulted in minor updates to the suite in spring 2019. Report Highlights     RDKB Area A’s climate is changing, with data showing trends toward higher average annual and seasonal temperatures. This upward trend is expected to continue with an increasing overall rate of warming. There is also a trend toward more extreme heat days, a longer growing season and more growing degree days. Historical trends on precipitation do not present a clear signal, but future projections indicate increases in both annual precipitation and heavy precipitation. Climate change is becoming evident through changes in environmental conditions. For example, the frequency of heavy snowfalls is declining, air quality issues are increasing, and the amount of heat energy available for crop growth is on the rise. Several environmental impact indicators lack sufficient data to infer trends and could be focal points for efforts to enhance climate adaptation monitoring, planning and action. RDKB is actively taking steps to adapt to changes that have already happened and to prepare for future changes. These actions include having an emergency preparedness plan with most key elements in place, having a water source protection plan for one of their main water sources in Area A, showing success in reducing per capita water consumption, and preparing to implement a FireSmart program. Opportunities exist to further RDKB’s readiness to adapt, which include updating floodplain mapping, making additional actions on water conservation, especially around water loss, and promoting community-based efforts to adapt (e.g., through programs aimed at enhancing personal and household emergency preparedness). While some datasets are not lengthy or complete enough to evaluate trends in RDKB Area A’s adaptation, the analyses conducted for this project provide a valuable baseline assessment against which future progress can be compared. 4 Methods The State of Climate Adaptation and Resilience in the Basin indicator suite was released in 2015 by a team of climate change professionals. The full suite separates indicators into two instruments: 1) a set of five thematic pathways (wildfire, water supply, agriculture, flooding, and extreme weather) that, through 50+ indicators, measure climate change, climate change impacts, and climate change adaptation; and 2) a Community Resilience Index that uses an additional 20 indicators to provide insights on socio-economic conditions in the community that contribute to its capacity to adapt. The Water Supply pathway (Figure 2) illustrates how SoCARB conceptualizes the relationships between categories of indicators. Climate changes have direct and indirect impacts on communities. Indirect impacts are experienced through both environmental and community impacts. Impacts can be addressed through adaptation actions and capacity building, and the results of such efforts improve adaptation outcomes. For this report, RDKB personnel identified indicators reflecting local priorities. Community Resilience Index indicators were not assessed as part of this report; however, many of these indicators can be found in the Columbia Basin Rural Development Institute’s (RDI) State of the Basin reports and Community Profiles. The Community Resilience Index presents an opportunity for further applied research to inform local climate adaptation and resilience efforts. This report includes an introductory climate section, which presents climate change indicators common to all five pathways, followed by pathway-specific sections following the same structure as Figure 2. Figure 2 - Water supply pathway from the SoCARB indicator suite 5 Notes to the Reader The indicators and their related data sets range from simple to complex. Additional detail on any of the datasets or analytical methods is available from the RDI. Understanding the data and its limitations is important for many reasons. The points below should be considered while reviewing the report.      Climate trends are complex. It is difficult to look at climate trends over the short or medium term because there are other factors beyond climate change that can influence trends. Climate science experts were consulted when analysing and interpreting data for this report. Use of proxy data. For some indicators, there is no local data source. Where feasible and appropriate, proxy (or stand-in) data sources were used. Confounding factors. An indicator can be influenced by several factors, making it difficult to distinguish the cause of a change. For example, trends in water consumption may be influenced by water conservation initiatives, but other factors (e.g., anomalous weather) must also be considered. No obvious trend. Some data may show no obvious trend. However, this data still has value as a trend may eventually emerge, and the information can still help inform decision making. Trend that is not statistically significant. Due to high variability in the data and / or short time periods, some data trends fall below 95 per cent confidence levels (i.e. not statistically significant). This does not nullify the presence of a trend; it highlights that there is less than 95 per cent confidence that the trend captures the true average. 6 About the Climate Data Climate data for RDKB Area A locations were provided by Climatic Resources Consulting, Inc. and come from two main modeling sources. Technical information is presented below. Climate projections for the 2050s in this report include two scenarios: low carbon and high carbon. Climate projections for the 2050s indicate the average for the 2041-2070 period. The low carbon scenario (RCP4.5) is considered to be optimistic and, although insufficient to maintain global temperatures to below 2°C warming above pre-industrial temperatures, would require significant international cooperation that exceeds current commitments of signatories to the Paris climate agreement.1 The high carbon scenario (RCP8.5) is also referred to as ‘business as usual’. Global emissions are still moving along a trajectory that could lead to 3 to 5°C of global warming by the end of the century.2 Consequently, it is important to also consider the high global emissions scenario (RCP8.5) in planning for climate change in the Columbia Basin and Boundary regions. Climate trends, i.e. rates of change, are expressed in units per century, meaning the change per 100 years. Technical Information Historical climate data was prepared using climate reanalysis ERA5.3,4 Climate reanalyses combine past observations with models to generate consistent time series of multiple climate variables.5 They provide a comprehensive description of the observed climate as it has evolved during recent decades, on 3D grids at sub-daily intervals. The estimates are produced for all locations on earth, and they span a long time period that can extend back several decades or more. Adjusted and Homogenized Canadian Climate Data (AHCCD) from Environment Canada provides long-term (since the early 1900s) observed data. For total annual precipitation, data from climate stations in Creston, Kaslo, Castlegar, Fauquier, Warfield and Grand Forks was referenced in addition to ERA5 data. Climate projections are based on outputs from an ensemble of 12 statistically downscaled Global Climate Model (GCM) projections6 from the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 5 (CMIP5),7 and downscaled using Bias Correction/Constructed Analogues with Quantile mapping recording8 to a resolution of 10 km by 10 km. Representative Concentration Pathways (RCPs) are numbered (e.g. RCP8.5 or RCP4.5) according to the radiative forcing in W/m2 that will result from additional greenhouse gas emissions by the end of the century. Modellers use RCPs to generate scenarios of future climate. 7 CLIMATE Four climate change indicators are common to most pathways: climate averages and extremes for both temperature and precipitation. They are presented first since changes in temperature and precipitation are key drivers of both environmental and community impacts. These four indicators encompass both historical trends and future projections for the RDKB Area A. The Overall Picture Both annual and seasonal average temperatures are rising in the RDKB Area A and are projected to continue rising through the 2050s. Annual average temperature has been rising 4.2 to 4.4°C per century depending on location within Area A. By the 2050s, this rate of change is projected to shift to 3.7°C per century under a low global emissions scenario and 7°C per century in a business as usual scenario. Hot days have increased over the last century and are projected to continue increasing. Total annual precipitation has also increased over the last century, but the upward trend is not consistent across seasons. Total annual precipitation is also projected to increase over the coming decades, with proportionately more precipitation falling in winter and spring. More heavy rain days are projected in Area A in all seasons except summer. Average annual and seasonal temperatures Analysis of average annual temperature for three locations in Area A show the 1961-1990 baseline temperatures ranging from 3.2°C at 1500 m in the Kelly Creek watershed to 8.2°C in Fruitvale and 10.1°C in Columbia Gardens (Table 1, Figure 3). Both annual and seasonal temperatures show an increasing trend in the 1979-2018 period. All locations have experienced statistically significant warming trends in mean annual temperature of +2.4 to +5.3°C per century, based on location and season (Table 2). Summer temperatures have been increasing at the highest rate, with trends calculated at +5.2 to +5.3°C per century during the 1979-2018 period. Projections for the 2050s indicate that summers will warm faster than other seasons in both low and high carbon scenarios. Average annual temperatures at all three locations are projected to increase by 2.6°C to 3.2°C from the 1961-1990 baseline under low and high carbon scenarios, respectively. 8 Table 1: Baseline and projected average annual and seasonal temperature for Area A locations in degrees Celsius. 1961-1990 baseline Annual 10.1°C Winter -0.2 Spring 10.0 Summer 20.3 Fall 9.8 Fruitvale (685m) 8.2 -1.8 7.9 18.4 8.0 Kelly Creek (1500m) 3.2 -6.3 2.5 13.1 3.2 Columbia Gardens (435m) +2.6 +2.7 +2.5 +2.9 +2.3 Fruitvale (685m) +2.6 +2.7 +2.5 +2.9 +2.3 Kelly Creek (1500m) +2.6 +2.7 +2.5 +2.9 +2.3 Columbia Gardens (435m) +3.2 +3.2 +2.9 +4.0 +3.1 Fruitvale (685m) +3.2 +3.2 +3.0 +4.0 +3.1 Kelly Creek (1500m) +3.2 +3.1 +3.0 +4.0 +3.1 Columbia Gardens (435m) 2050s – projected change in temperature – low carbon scenario 2050s - projected change in temperature – high carbon scenario Table 2: Average annual and seasonal average temperature trends for Area A locations in degrees Celsius per century. Results that are not statistically significant (<95% confidence level) are in italics. Historical (19792018) Annual Winter Spring Summer +4.4°C +3.9 +3.2 +5.2 per century +4.2 +3.9 +2.4 +5.3 Columbia Gardens Fruitvale 2050s – low carbon scenario 2050s – high carbon scenario Fall +3.8 +3.6 Kelly Creek – high elevation Columbia Gardens +4.2 +3.7 +3.9 +2.0 +2.4 +3.1 +5.3 +4.0 +3.6 +3.2 Fruitvale +3.7 +1.7 +3.1 +4.0 +3.1 Kelly Creek – high elevation +3.7 +1.8 +3.2 +4.1 +2.9 Columbia Gardens +7.0 +7.6 +4.9 +10.8 +6.7 Fruitvale +7.0 +7.6 +4.9 +10.8 +6.7 Kelly Creek – high elevation +7.1 +7.5 +5.0 +10.9 +6.8 18 High Carbon 16 Temperature (oC) +3.2oC 14 by the 2050s Low Carbon 12 +2.6oC 10 by the 2050s 8 Baseline 1961-1990 10.1oC Low Carbon Scenario High Carbon Scenario 20 90 20 80 20 70 20 60 20 50 20 40 20 30 20 20 20 10 20 00 19 90 19 80 19 70 19 60 19 50 6 Historical Figure 3: Historical and projected average annual temperature for Columbia Gardens 9 Total annual precipitation is increasing while summer precipitation is decreasing Analysis of average annual precipitation for Area A locations shows the 1961-1990 baseline ranging from 682.8 mm in Columbia Gardens to 833.8 mm in the Kelly Creek watershed at 1500m (Table 3, Figure 4). Average annual precipitation trends (Table 4) are not as clear-cut as those for average temperature, showing considerably more variability than temperature. As a result, confidence levels for a number of historical trends and projected trends fall below 95 per cent, as noted by italics in Table 4. However, while some trends and projections may fall below the 95 per cent statistical confidence level, they remain useful in showing the overall direction of precipitation trends. The dataset shows a decreasing trend in historical mean average annual precipitation (19792018); however, it is not statistically significant (Table 4). Actual historical precipitation data from six climate stations in the southwest Columbia Basini show that precipitation has been increasing by an average of 152 mm per century (1968-2018) in this region. Notably, all three Area A locations show a statistically significant decreasing trend in historical mean summer precipitation of -198.7 to -266.9 mm per century, whereas precipitation trends have been increasing in other seasons, but the confidence levels in these other seasonal trends fall below 95 percent. Table 3: Average annual and seasonal total precipitation for Area A locations in millimetres 1961-1990 baseline 2050s – projected change in precipitation – low carbon scenario 2050s - projected change in precipitation – high carbon scenario i Annual 682.8 mm Winter 226.9 Spring Summer 158.8 130.1 Fall 163.3 Fruitvale (685m) 742.5 247.7 171.5 140.4 179.7 Kelly Creek (1500m) 833.8 282.6 197.4 154.5 199.3 Columbia Gardens (435m) +41.0 +19.7 +22.0 -22.8 +11.4 Fruitvale (685m) +39.1 +18.9 +23.9 -23.7 +10.5 Kelly Creek (1500m) +35.7 +18.6 +23.7 -25.5 +9.2 Columbia Gardens (435m) +50.6 +20.8 +27.9 -21.7 +12.9 Fruitvale (685m) +48.2 +19.7 +28.4 -23.0 +11.3 Kelly Creek (1500m) +44.6 +19.1 +26.0 -26.3 +8.5 Columbia Gardens (435m) Creston, Warfield, Grand Forks, Castlegar, Kaslo and Fauquier 10 Table 4: Annual and seasonal total precipitation trends for Area A locations, in millimetres per century. Results that are not statistically significant (< 95% confidence level) are in italics. Historic (19792018) Annual -83.5 mm per century -97.0 Winter +5.7 Spring Summer +59.5 -266.9 Fall -29.4 +20.9 +65.0 -198.7 -4.0 Kelly Creek – high elevation Columbia Gardens -97.0 +93.4 +20.9 +21.9 +65.0 +64.2 -198.7 -6.3 -4.0 +32.6 Fruitvale +81.6 +11.5 +64.4 -4.7 +43.1 Kelly Creek – high elevation +77.8 +6.3 +59.4 +10.4 +32.5 Columbia Gardens +218.8 +87.0 +59.0 -34.4 +64.6 Fruitvale +221.3 +105.6 +67.6 -36.3 +80.1 Kelly Creek – high elevation +212.9 +106.6 +67.3 -40.8 +86.5 Columbia Gardens Fruitvale 2050s – low carbon scenario 2050s – high carbon scenario 1400 High Carbon 1200 Precipitation (mm) +50.6 mm by the 2050s 1000 Low Carbon +41.0 mm 800 by the 2050s 600 Baseline 1961-1990 682.8 mm Low Carbon Scenario High Carbon Scenario 20 90 20 80 20 70 20 60 20 50 20 40 20 30 20 20 20 10 20 00 19 90 19 80 19 70 19 60 19 50 400 Historical Figure 4: Historical and projected total annual precipitation for Columbia Gardens Precipitation projections for the 2050s (Table 3) indicate an increase of approximately 4% to 7% in average annual precipitation by the 2050s (depending on location and scenario), with less precipitation falling in summer, and more precipitation falling in the other seasons. Looking to the 2050s, only the high carbon scenario projections for spring and fall precipitation are statistically significant (Table 4), with total annual precipitation increasing between 212 to 221 mm per century depending on location, falling just below the 95th percentile confidence interval. 11 Frequency of hot days This extreme temperature indicator measures the mean annual sum of days when the temperature exceeds the 90th percentile for the baseline period (1961-1990). For Area A locations, this translates into the following baselines and projections for the 2050s: Table 5: Baseline and projected changes to the average number of days annually when temperature exceeds the 90th percentile Baseline (1961-1990) 90th percentile threshold for daily temperature Number of days over 90th percentile (1961-1990) Projected change in days over 90th percentile – low carbon 2050s Projected change in days over 90th percentile – high carbon 2050s Columbia Gardens 30.6oC Fruitvale 28.3oC Kelly Creek 22.3oC 36.2 days 36.2 days 36.2 days +25.9 days +25.8 days +26.2 days +33.5 days +33.5 days +33.7 days All Area A locations have experienced and are projected to continue experiencing an absolute increase in hot days (i.e. above the baseline 90th percentile temperature) during this century, as well as an increasing trend in days over the 90th percentile temperature. Hot days are projected to increase by 25.8 to 33.7 days by the 2050s, depending on location and scenario, and the rate of increase by the 2050s is projected at 92 to 94 days per century in a high carbon scenario. Amount of precipitation falling during heavy rainfalls / More days with heavy rainfall The extreme precipitation indicator measures the mean annual sum of daily precipitation exceeding the 95th percentile for the baseline period (1961-1990) and can be described as the amount of rain that falls during very heavy rainfall days. For Area A locations, this translates into the following baselines and projected changes for the 2050s: Table 6: Baseline and projected change in the average annual sum of daily precipitation above the 95th percentile, in millimeters Baseline (1961-1990) 95th percentile threshold for daily precipitation Total annual precipitation over 95th percentile (1961-1990) Projected change in total annual precipitation over 95th percentile 2050s low carbon Projected change in total annual precipitation over 95th percentile 2050s high carbon Columbia Gardens 9.4 mm Fruitvale 9.8 mm Kelly Creek 10.1 mm 114.8 124.0 132.7 +42.4 +45.3 +45.3 +47.1 +48.7 +49.4 12 Similar to the Area A data for total annual precipitation, statistical confidence levels for all historical and low carbon scenario trends are below 95 per cent. However, projections for annual precipitation above the 95th percentile in a high carbon scenario are statistically significant, showing increases of 143, 140 and 165 mm per century in the annual sum for Columbia Gardens, Fruitvale and Kelly Creek, respectively. This means more heavy rain days above the baseline (1961-1990) 95th percentile thresholds in all locations, in all seasons except summer. 13 EXTREME WEATHER AND EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS Extreme weather events, such as extreme precipitation, windstorms and heat waves, can have significant impacts on communities. This was underscored by an independent review of BC’s historic flood and fire events of 2017 commissioned by the BC government. This review noted, “A range of data from reputable sources points to growing challenges with respect to heat, drought, lightning and intense rains intersecting with snow melt, underlining the imperative for government to respond in new, different or better ways.” 9 The review produced over 100 recommendations to improve emergency preparedness and disaster response. Future projections suggest an increase in some extreme weather events, such as warm days, extreme warm days, and extreme wet days. Communities can prepare for the immediate short-term demands of extreme weather events with adaptations such as emergency preparedness plans, backup power sources, and home emergency preparedness kits. The Overall Picture RDKB Area A is experiencing a higher number of extreme heat days than in the past. Other indicators of extreme weather in the area, however, are either lacking long-term datasets or not yet showing the trends that have been identified at wider geographic scales. The RDKB’s Emergency Preparedness Plan will help mitigate the impacts of extreme weather events on residents and businesses. The number of RDKB Area A residents with emergency preparedness kits is low, suggesting the benefits of supporting information and awareness of personal emergency preparedness. Climate Changes As discussed in the Climate section, data for Area A locations show increase in annual and seasonal average temperatures, increased annual precipitation and decreased summer precipitation over the last century. The frequency of hot days has increased and will continue to increase, and a similar but less statistically robust trend is occurring in respect of the amount of rain falling on heavy rainfall days. Additional climate indicators related to the Extreme Weather pathway are discussed below. More extreme heat days Heat waves and heat extremes have negative health impacts on vulnerable populations including the elderly, socially isolated, chronically ill, and infants. Historical temperature data for Columbia Gardens and Fruitvale show a clear upward trend in annual frequency of days over 30oC, with 1961-1990 baselines of 40.6 and 23.3 days, respectively. The data for the Kelly Creek location averaged 0.2 days over 30oC in the baseline period. 14 By the 2050s, all locations are projected to see an increase in days over 30oC (Table 7). In a high carbon scenario, the projected rate of increase in the 2050s ranges from 64 days per century at the Kelly Creek high elevation location to 90 days per century in Columbia Gardens (Figure 6). Table 7: Baseline and projected change in average annual number of days over 30oC Annual days over 30oC Baseline (1961-1990) Projected change in 2050s low carbon scenario Projected change in 2050s high carbon scenario Columbia Gardens 40.6 days Fruitvale Kelly Creek 23.3 days 0.2 days +26.6 +24.7 +7.8 +33.9 +33.1 +14.9 140 120 High Carbon +33.9 Days 100 Days by the 2050s 80 Low Carbon +26.6 Days 60 by the 2050s 40 Baseline 1961-1990 20 20 90 20 80 20 70 20 60 20 50 20 40 20 30 20 20 20 10 20 00 19 90 19 80 19 70 19 60 19 50 40.6 Days o Figure 5: Annual historical andScenario projected days C for Krestova Low Carbon High over Carbon30 Scenario Historical Figure 6: Historical and projected annual sum of days over 30 oC for Columbia Gardens Heavy snowfalls inconclusive Heavy snowfall days are defined as those receiving 15 cm or more over 24 hours. These events can pose challenges to the regular operations of businesses and local governments and may affect the movement of people throughout the region. Snowfall records from Environment and Climate Change Canada’s weather stations in Castlegar (1965-2019), Warfield (1929-2002), and Waneta (1913-1977) do not show a statistically significant decline in heavy snowfall days in the recorded time periods available.10 Data from these stations have large variability in the number of heavy snowfall days per year, ranging from 0 to 6 events annually. The records are also shorter than other stations in the Columbia Basin region that do show significant decreases in heavy snowfall events. The same data was also used to assess changes in the annual maximum one-day snowfall; however, none of the stations showed a significant trend for this indicator. 15 No strong wind events recorded Wind storms can damage infrastructure, bring down power lines, and cause power outages. A strong wind event is defined as a day with sustained winds over 70 km/h and/or gusts to 90 km/h or more. Wind data is not well recorded in the Columbia Basin and the only data available within Area A come from BC Wildfire Service weather stations. These stations provide an hourly reading of sustained wind speed over a ten-minute period, which means 83% of wind behaviour is unrecorded.11 Analysis of the Pend Oreille station, which has data from 1990 to 2019, revealed no records over the 70 km/h threshold.12 Maximum 1-day rainfall is projected to increase in all seasons except summer Heavy rainfall is a major cause of flooding of creeks and rivers, and can cause storm water management issues, erosion, and debris slides. A warming climate generally increases the risk of extreme rainfall events because a warmer atmosphere can carry more water vapour, which can fuel more intense precipitation events. The projections for Area A indicate a 15 to 20% increase in mean maximum 1-day rainfall annually by the 2050s; however, most of the projected trends for the 2050s lack statistical significance due to the high natural variability of precipitation. Maximum 1-day precipitation in the spring and fall seasons are projected to increase more than the winter season, and maximum 1-day rainfall in summer is projected to decrease. Table 8: Baseline and projected changes to average annual maximum 1-day rainfall, in millimetres Maximum 1-day rainfall Baseline (1961-1990) Projected change in 2050s low carbon scenario Projected change in 2050s high carbon scenario Columbia Gardens 23.1 mm Fruitvale Kelly Creek 23.1 mm 22.8 mm +4.0 (+17.3%) +4.5 (+19.5%) +4.6 (+20.0%) +4.4 (+19.0%) +3.4 (+14.9%) +3.8 (+16.7%) Adaptation Actions and Capacity Building Emergency Preparedness Plan Emergency preparedness occurs at the regional scale in the RDKB, including the eight municipalities that fall within the RDKB boundaries. The information in this section reviews emergency preparedness for the entire RDKB, rather than just Area A. The last update to the emergency management plan took place in 2012 and it is scheduled for review within the next two years. One key area of revision is the recovery plan, which will include a greater emphasis on climate-related issues. Most components of an emergency preparedness plan are in place for the RDKB (Table 9). A flood response plan is an important emergency procedure that is in progress to cover all areas within the RDKB. A public communications plan has just been developed and will go to the RDKB Board for approval in early 2020. An action list for most 16 types of hazard is in place and the list will be updated when updated floodplain mapping data is available.13 The RDKB has an emergency alert system. As of October 2019, there are 1400 people signed up for emergency alerts, which is approximately 4% of the RDKB population. The RDKB does not track the number of residents signed up from specific electoral areas.14 Table 9: Emergency preparedness plan components for the Regional District of Kootenay Boundary Component Hazard risk assessmenti Emergency proceduresii Municipal business continuity planiii Community evacuation planiv Public communication plan Designated emergency response centrev Emergency program coordinator Designated emergency response team Identified emergency roles and responsibilities Action list for each type of hazard Designated emergency/reception sheltervi Plan for shelter stockingvii Training and emergency exercise plan for response personnel Contact list for all response personnel Fan-out call listviii Mutual aid agreements with any agencies helping in response (e.g. neighbouring municipalities, school board, local service groups)ix i. ii. iii. iv. v. vi. vii. viii. ix. Included in Emergency Preparedness Plan? Yes In Progress No N/A                                                              Will be updated with full plan update The flood response plan needs to be updated to cover all areas of RDKB Inadequate now, but will be updated with full emergency management plan update Was done in 2015 and going through second revision now The primary location is in Trail, secondary in Grand Forks Have an agreement/contract with the Canadian Red Cross to provide these services Have an agreement/contract with the Canadian Red Cross to provide these services RDKB has GIS zones for addresses to allow for quick communication with impacted properties. They also have an emergency alert system with voluntary sign-up Have agreements in place with all municipalities within the RDKB boundaries and with the Canadian Red Cross 17    Essential backup power for Area A drinking water systems The RDKB has backup power at their main office in Trail, emergency operations centre (EOC) and for their drinking water systems. The main fire hall situated at the RDKB office also has backup power, but the smaller fire halls in Area A do not have backup power. Only one reception center for the RDKB has backup power; it is not located in Area A. Reception centers are not owned by the RDKB.15 Few residents have emergency preparedness kits Having an emergency preparedness kit can help alleviate some of the difficulties caused by an extreme weather event. A voluntary survey of Area A residents, completed by 61 people between August and September 2019, found that only 13% of respondents had 72-hour emergency preparedness kits in their homes. Of those, 57% reported having their kits consolidated in an easy to access location and no respondents reported having reviewed or updated their kits within the previous year. See Table 10 to review the percentage of respondents who had the presence of important items in their kits. Many residents could better prepare for extreme weather events by compiling complete kits and storing them in a single accessible location. Table 10: Respondents from RDKB Area A with emergency kits indicating the presence of important items in their kit Item Drinking water (2-3 litres of water per person and pets per day, for 3 days) Foods that will not spoil (minimum 3-day supply) Manual can opener Flashlight and batteries Candles and matches/lighter Battery-powered or wind-up radio Cash in smaller bills and change First aid kit Special items such as prescription medications, infant formula or equipment for people with disabilities Extra keys that you might need (e.g. for your car, house, safe deposit box) A copy of your emergency plan including contact numbers (e.g. for out-of-town family) Copies of relevant identification papers (e.g. licenses, birth certificates, care cards) Insurance policy information Mobile phone charger Yes 88% 100% 63% 100% 75% 63% 88% 100% 75% 75% 38% 88% 63% 88% 18 Community Impacts and Adaptation Outcomes No trend in weather-related highway closures Between 2006 and 2017, there have been no weather-related highway closures within Area A. This is based on Drive BC records that report closures on major highways only. For Area A, this is Highway 3B from Trail to Meadows Junction and Highway 22A from the Waneta Border to the Junction with Highway 3B.16 Area A is affected by closures on Highway 3 over Kootenay Pass and the Blueberry-Paulson Pass. Avalanche control is the main cause of closures on these passes, though other weatherrelated events have closed these highways in the past. Between 2006 and 2017, Kootenay Pass had five weather-related closures, not including those caused by avalanches. The longest was a mudslide that closed the road for 13 hours. The Paulson Pass has two recorded closures from rock slides in 2008 and 2009 that stopped traffic for less than 2 hours.17 Avalanche-related activities have accounted for an annual average of 93 hours over 37.6 closures at Kootenay Pass (2003-2019) and 4.7 hours over 1.5 closures at the Paulson Pass (1989-2019). No trends are evident in the number or duration of avalanche related closures at this time.18 Power outages may be increasing Longer-duration power outages caused by extreme weather events can have significant impacts on local economies, health, and quality of life. FortisBC data for a territory closely matching the boundaries of Area A is available from 2003 to October 2019. The duration of outages ranged from less than a minute to over 24.5 days with a total of 144 outages over this time period. The average outage lasted 10.2 hours, but the median outage is only two hours. The dataset is skewed by a very long outage in the dataset (24.5 days) that started due to an extreme wind event that took place on July 23, 2014, followed by a couple long outages (6.6 days) in November 2014 from wet snow. Starting in 2014, FortisBC introduced more detailed outage cause subcategories that are useful when tracking climate change related outages, such as wet snow and extreme wind. Figure 7 shows the annual duration of power outages.19 19 60000 Outage Duration (min) 50000 40000 30000 20000 10000 0 Figure 7: Power outage duration for Area A from 2003 to 2019. Provincial emergency assistance Monitoring emergency assistance funding issued by the province can provide some measure of the economic impact of disaster and associated recovery over time. Reviewing records since 2011, there has been no emergency assistance funding received for extreme weather events in Area A.20 No evacuation alerts Since 2007, there have been no evacuation alerts for extreme weather.21 20 WATER SUPPLY Projected changes to the climate could influence both the supply of and demand for fresh water for human use. Shifts in temperature and precipitation combined with forest disturbance could change the amount of water stored in the snowpack and the timing of surface water availability in the spring. The water supply pathway focuses on the quality and quantity of water available for consumptive use and adaptation actions that help to conserve and protect the water supply. There are three main water systems relevant to RDKB Area A. These include two systems owned by the RDKB – Beaver Valley Water Service and Columbia Gardens Water Utility. The third system is the Beaverfalls Waterworks District. The Beaver Valley Water Service (BVWS) provides water for most of the properties within the Village of Fruitvale and a portion of Area A. It serves approximately 2900 residents for a total of 1247 connections. The water for this system comes from Kelly Creek, augmented by two backup groundwater wells.22 The Columbia Gardens Water Utility serves the Columbia Gardens Industrial Park, providing drinking water to 23 connections. This water comes from two groundwater wells that feed into a 3,000 m3 reservoir that gravity feeds its connections.23 The Beaverfalls Waterworks District is located between the Village of Montrose and the Village of Fruitvale. It serves water to 500 people through 200 connections (195 residential and 5 businesses). This water comes from two groundwater wells.24 The Overall Picture The trend toward a wetter, warmer spring and hotter drier summers is likely to have negative implications for surface water supply from Kelly Creek, including an earlier runoff and reduced volume and quality of water available for human use, especially in late summer and early fall. The short-term datasets available for Kelly Creek preclude an assessment of whether this regional trend exists locally. This surface water system demonstrates some of the challenges common to utilities in small communities, including limited data and limited resources for system monitoring and improvements. Re-establishing a monitoring site on Kelly Creek would provide valuable information on changes in the timing and volume of flows over the past three to four decades and would provide a basis for an improved understanding of the effects of future changing climate and land cover on water supply. Climate Changes As discussed in the Climate section, average annual and seasonal temperatures are increasing, and are projected to continue increasing over the coming decades. Precipitation trends have been increasing in all seasons except summer, but the trends fall below the 95 per cent confidence level due to the higher natural variability of precipitation. Future projections indicate an increase in total annual precipitation by the 2050s under both low and high carbon scenarios, with more precipitation falling in every season except summer, which is projected to see a decline in precipitation. 21 Environmental Impacts Stream flow timing lacks sufficient data to establish trend Stream flow timing is sensitive to climate change, especially in low-elevation snowmelt watersheds such as Kelly Creek. No active stream flow monitoring sites exist on Kelly Creek, but daily flow data was collected by Environment Canada on Kelly Creek between 1972 and 1982 (station # 08NE113).25 There are no nearby gauged watersheds with physical characteristics representative of Kelly Creek on which to base a comparative trend analysis. Between 1972 and 1982, the average date of annual maximum discharge on Kelly Creek was May 15th, the average date of the half annual flow was May 21st, and the average day of summer minimum discharge was September 10th. Stream flow volume lacks sufficient data to establish trend Minimum daily discharge can be an indicator of water supply constraints, whereas maximum daily discharge can be an indicator of flood risk. The discharge record for Kelly Creek is not of sufficient length to establish trends in flow volume. During the period of gauging (1972 – 1982) the annual maximum daily discharge for Kelly Creek ranged from 1.6 to 6.7 m3/s. Over the same time period, late summer minimum daily discharge for Kelly Creek ranged from 0.03 to 0.11m3/s (Figure 8). 26 Minimum summer (m 3/s) 0.12 0.1 0.08 0.06 0.04 0.02 0 Figure 8: Late summer minimum daily discharge for Kelly Creek Groundwater level data is patchy According to the provincial groundwater well database, there are 200 wells in Area A, and at least five of these are listed as dry.27 An investigation of a selection of well logs from across Area A indicates that, for the most part, these are deep wells, typically over 100 feet deep, and the groundwater aquifer occurs in bedrock mapped as the Hall Creek Formation. Shallower groundwater wells are also present, although these tend to have lower flow volumes. 22 There are no observational wells in the Beaver Valley area, so it is not known how variable the water levels are in the wells. In general, the deeper, bedrock-supplied groundwater wells are poorly connected to surface water systems and display limited to no seasonal variability. The Beaver Valley Water Service’s two backup groundwater wells are used for emergency situations, i.e. when turbidity levels reduce Kelly Creek water quality during the spring freshet, and during summer months when flow from Kelly Creek is low. Data for these wells shows that the water level has not changed over time. Both wells were drilled in 1986 with depths of 88 feet and 123 feet respectively. As of 2013, these depths remained unchanged.28 The Columbia Gardens Water Utility sources its water from two groundwater wells that service 23 connections. The 2010 well report indicates groundwater level at 88.6 feet. It also indicates that the aquifer is unconfined and well connected to the Columbia River.29 The Beaverfalls Waterworks District also sources its water from two groundwater wells that service 200 connections (195 residential and 5 businesses). The 2019 groundwater level is 24 feet.30 Source water temperature meets aesthetic objectives Temperature can be an important determinant of water quality. Daily temperature readings are collected on Kelly Creek for the Beaver Valley Water Service. The temperature varies seasonally, as expected. In 2019, temperature ranged from 0oC in winter to 12oC in August/September.31 These temperatures are well below 15oC—the aesthetic objective set by Health Canada for drinking water sources.32 Source water turbidity highest during spring freshet Higher turbidity can result in boil water notices or water quality advisories. Turbidity becomes a concern when it rises above 1 Nephelometric Turbidity Units (NTU). A turbidity reading between 1 to 5 NTU is considered fair quality, while a reading greater than 5 NTU indicates poor drinking water.33 The 2019 turbidity data for Kelly Creek, the source water for the Beaver Valley Water District, ranged from a monthly average of 0.2 NTU in the winter months to a high of 1.0 NTU in April during the freshet (Figure 9). During the freshet period in April 2019, four days exceeded 1 NTU. Three of these days were just above 1 NTU, with one day recording 11 NTU.34 23 Nephelometric Turbidity Units (NTU) 1.2 1.0 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.0 Figure 9: Average monthly turbidity of Kelly Creek feeding the Beaver Valley Water System in 2019 Adaptation Actions and Capacity Building Policies to reduce water consumption The RDKB has integrated some water conservation measures into its policies for the drinking water systems it owns and operates. Other opportunities exist to improve water conservation efforts. Public communications around water consumption have full implementation according to the RDKB. Water utility rates are sufficient to cover operating costs and the RDKB has the ability to implement water restrictions, although enforcement is complaint-driven.35 The Beaver Valley Water Service (BVWS) participated in Columbia Basin Trust’s Water Smart Initiative from 2009 to 2015 and has an updated 2015-2020 Water Smart Action Plan. This plan includes a water conservation target of 20% reduction from 2009 levels. As of 2015, the BVWS achieved a 14% reduction. This compares to an average 11% reduction across other Columbia Basin communities participating in Water Smart.36 There is no or minimal water metering in Area A, although a Universal Water Metering Plan was developed in 2014.37,38 24 Table 11: Implementation of policies to reduce water consumption for all of RDKB. Policy/Practice Universal water metering Public education and outreach on water conservation Public education and outreach on water consumption trends Water meter data analysis Consumer billing by amount of water used (volumetric) Implementation of water utility rates sufficient to cover capital and operating costs of water system Water conservation outcome requirements for developers Water conservation targetsi Stage 1 through 4 watering restriction bylaw Enforcement of watering restriction bylawii Drought management plan Actions to address water system leaks: Targeted leak repair Water operator training Replacement of aging mains Addressing private service line leakage Pressure management solutionsiii i. ii. iii. Level of Implementation Full Moderate Minimal None                                                                 20% reduction from 2009 levels Complaint-driven Starting to do pressure management Source water protection plan and climate change The RDKB has a 2015 watershed assessment and source water protection plan for Beaver Valley that identifies potential effects of projected climate changes on water supply as well as measures to adapt to climate change, including water monitoring and peak demand reduction.39,40 Water loss detection practices The RDKB participated in the Columbia Basin Water Smart program, which supported capacitybuilding for water loss detection. The RDKB has not yet implemented water loss detection practices in Area A (Table 12).41 25 Table 12: Implementation of water loss detection practices for RDKB Area A Full       District water meters Residential water meter Night flow analysis Water loss audits Acoustic leak detection Leak noise correlation testing Level of Implementation Moderate Minimal             None       Community Impacts and Adaptation Outcomes Per capita water consumption This indicator measures water use attributable to user demand and system water loss. The RDKB has monthly and annual water consumption data for the Beaver Valley Water Service.42 Assuming a service population of 2,875 people,43 the per capita water consumption shows a statistically significant downward trend (Figure 10). The 2019 per capita water consumption is 525 litres per day. The provincial average is 494 litres per day.44 Water Consumption (L/person/day) 800 700 600 683 696 657 693 637 664 615 597 557 595 567 577 549 525 500 400 300 200 100 0 Figure 10: Per capita water consumption for the Beaver Valley Water Service Drinking water quality Drinking water quality can be adversely affected by source water quality issues caused by higher air temperatures, more extreme precipitation patterns, and more rapid snowmelts that may accompany climate change.45 Water utilities are required to notify residents of high turbidity and/or the presence of pathogens in drinking water. The frequency of notices could increase with climate change due to potential changes in surface water quality associated with rising temperatures or more rapid runoff. Wildfire in the watershed could also have short and mediumterm impacts on surface water quality. 26 Using data from the Interior Health Authority (IHA), eight water systems in Area A experienced a total of 15 Water Quality Advisories (WQA) or Boil Water Notices (BWN) between 2000 and mid-July 2019. The Columbia Gardens Industrial Park is the only system operated by the RDKB that experienced water quality issues during this time, with one WQA in 2009 and two BWNs in 2016 and 2018. Ten of the 15 advisories lasted less than 150 days, while five were longer than one year. Of the latter, two BWNs remain open: one for the Columbia Garden Vineyard and Winery since 2017, and another for the Short/Bisgard Water System near Champion Park Road since 2000.46 Unfortunately, the cause of water advisories is not specified in the dataset provided by IHA, making it difficult to link water quality issues to weather conditions. Additionally, there are some inconsistencies among the IHA dataset, IHA’s drinking water advisory website (www.drinkingwaterforeveryone.ca), and information from local governments about water system names and the status of water advisories. IHA provided a disclaimer with the dataset that accuracy issues may exist within the data. Watering restrictions Watering restriction bylaws provide a tool for utilities to reduce their vulnerability to water supply challenges, and by tracking the need to implement these restrictions, water operators can better understand how climate change is affecting supply and demand. RDKB Bylaw 1493 includes a section on water restrictions, allowing the RDKB to restrict water use during times of water shortage. In response, the Beaver Valley Water Service has five levels of sprinkler regulations. Level 1 is in effect year-round, which limits the use of sprinklers to certain times every second day.47 There is no data on when different stages of water restrictions have been in place.48 No data on water loss No water loss data exists for Area A due to the absence of water loss detection practices; however, the Water Smart Action Plan 2015-2020 for Beaver Valley Water Service includes a 2015 water balance showing an estimate of 16% associated with system leakage and nonrevenue water.49 27 FLOODING Projected climate changes, including more intense rainstorms and warmer, wetter winters indicate a potential for increased flooding in snowmelt watersheds. Similarly, alterations to forest cover through wildfire, disease, pests and logging can also increase flooding. Increases in the frequency and magnitude of floods affect communities through damage to homes and infrastructure, and negative impacts on water quality. Although there are few dwellings in Area A that fall within the floodplain, the municipalities nested within Area A have many dwellings situated in the floodplain. Recognizing how flooding is changing allows communities to address infrastructure vulnerabilities and establish flood mitigation measures. The Overall Picture While the southern Selkirk Mountains are not yet witnessing the trends toward more extreme precipitation that climate models are predicting for our region, a trend toward higher average winter and spring precipitation may drive more rapid snow melt, increasing flood risk, particularly for low elevation watersheds such as Beaver Creek. This risk may be partially mitigated by a declining trend in spring snowpack. Two extreme flood events have been documented on Beaver Creek in the last ten years. The April 2012 flood occurred in response to late March and early April rain-on-snow, while the May 2018 flood followed an extended period of warm weather. There is no documented flood record for Kelly Creek. This channel is subject to debris floods given its steeper gradient and cobble-bed channel. Existing floodplain maps for Area A only indicate two dwellings within the floodplain; however, these maps are out of date. Climate Changes As discussed in the Climate and Extreme Weather sections, an analysis of historical climate data for Area A does not yet indicate a trend toward more extreme rainfall. However, unprecedented precipitation events have had significant impacts on areas in the region in recent years. An analysis of average precipitation data and future projections shows rising annual, spring, winter and fall precipitation and declining summer precipitation. Freeze-thaw cycles The frequency of freeze/thaw cycles is an important parameter for engineering design in cold regions. This climate index is measured by daily fluctuations between -2oC and +2oC (Table 13). The historical data for Area A locations (1979-2018) show freeze-thaw cycles for Kelly Creek have been on the decline by -38.7 days per century, whereas Columbia Garden has seen an increasing trend of +5.6 days per century. There is no apparent trend in Fruitvale. Looking to the future, mean annual daily freeze/thaw cycles are projected to decrease in all locations through the rest of the century under both high carbon and low carbon scenarios. For Columbia Garden and Fruitvale, the biggest rate of decline is projected to occur during the 28 winter season, whereas for the Kelly Creek location this is projected to occur in the spring season. Table 13: Baseline and projected changes to average annual sum of days with freeze-thaw cycles, in days. Daily freeze-thaw cycles Baseline (1961-1990) Projected change in 2050s Low carbon scenario Projected change in 2050s High carbon scenario Columbia Gardens 27.5 days Fruitvale Kelly Creek 36.4 days 52.7 days -14.6 -15.6 -14.0 -17.2 -20.6 -18.4 Environmental Impacts April 1st snowpack Springtime snowpack provides some indication of how much meltwater will be available to feed creeks in the spring and early summer months, which is relevant to both flooding and water supply. According to a 2013 watershed assessment by Urban Systems, the upper 60% of the Kelly Creek watershed lies above the 1380m contour (Figure 12).50 The April 1st snowpack is historically considered the date of maximum snow accumulation in a watershed. There is no snow gauging for Kelly Creek, so trends in snowpack are estimated using nearby long-term, manual snow courses on Record Mountain in Rossland (1890m) and Char Creek (1300m) near Kootenay Pass. The data from Char Creek dating back to the mid 1960’s reveals a downward trend in April 1st snow water equivalent (SWE), which is not present at the higher elevation Record Mountain snow course (Figure 11). The trend is not statistically significant at the 95% confidence level but does suggest that the April 1 SWE at the mid-elevations has decreased by roughly 23% over the past 40 years since gauging began.51 29 Snow Water Equivalent (mm) 1400 1200 1000 800 600 400 200 0 Record mountain Char Creek Linear (Char Creek) Figure 11: April 1st snow water equivalent (SWE) for Record Mountain and Char Creek, including the trend for Char Creek Beaver Creek and Kelly Creek peak stream flow volume and timing As discussed in the Water Supply section, available streamflow data precludes an assessment of local trends in flooding. Documentation in local newspapers indicate that May 10th, 2018 and April 4th, 2012 were the most recent extreme flood events on Beaver Creek, with mention of a previous major flood in 2007.52,53 An investigation of climate conditions contributing to these floods determined that the April 2012 flood was due to early season rain-on-snow conditions that recorded over 70mm of rain (recorded at the Castlegar Airport) in the week preceding the flood, while the May 2018 flood was due to several days of hot temperatures combined with a higher-thanaverage May snowpack.54 Figure 12: Elevations within the Beaver Creek watershed, including the Kelly Creek watershed. A geospatial investigation of Beaver Creek shows that the majority of the watershed lies below 1300m elevation (Figure 12). The large component of low elevation terrain in this watershed makes it particularly vulnerable to early season rain-on-snow flooding such as that which occurred in April 2012. 30 Kelly Creek, a tributary to Beaver Creek, displays a greater range of elevations with more than half of the watershed between 1300m and 1955m elevation (Figure 12). Different physical watershed characteristics in Kelly Creek result in different mechanisms and timing of flooding compared to Beaver Creek. The maximum annual peak flow in Kelly Creek occurs on May 15th, on average, which is 7.5 days later than the peak on Beaver Creek. Kelly Creek is a moderate gradient (>5%) cobble channel that is capable of carrying debris floods. Floods in this watershed are likely to be caused by rapid melt of slopes above 1380m elevation. Adaptation Actions and Capacity Building As discussed in the Extreme Weather section, the RDKB has an Emergency Preparedness Plan in place. Floodplain mapping The RDKB has not updated its floodplain mapping since 1992, although some municipalities within the RDKB have completed updates since then, such as the Village of Fruitvale. Efforts to secure funding for floodplain mapping updates are undertaken when grant opportunities arise.55 Flood protection expenditures Information on spending related to flood protection infrastructure provides some measure of a local government’s efforts to improve their resilience to climate change. No funds have been spent on flood protection in recent memory.56 Community Impacts and Adaptation Outcomes Provincial emergency assistance As discussed in the Extreme Weather section, monitoring emergency assistance funding issued by the province can provide some measure of the economic impact of disaster and associated recovery over time. Based on available records dating back to 2011, there has been no emergency assistance funding received for flooding events in Area A. Although there have been flooding events, the RDKB did not apply for funding due to limitations in the funding criteria.57 Dwellings in the floodplain Understanding how many dwellings are within the floodplain will permit a more accurate assessment of flood risk and help planners understand whether new development policies are needed to support community resilience to flooding. According to current RDKB floodplain mapping, there are only two dwellings in Area A that fall within the floodplain.58 Flood-related highway closures There are no records of flood related highway closures in Area A since the launch of the Drive BC monitoring program in 2006.59 No evacuation notices There have been no evacuation alerts for flooding since 2007.60 31 AGRICULTURE Climate has a significant, but complex, impact on food growing activities, with some projected climate changes expected to increase productivity and others reducing it. Climate change also has the potential to negatively affect food production in other parts of the world, which means that locally produced food and local food self-sufficiency could become important climate adaptations in coming years. The Agriculture Pathway tracks the climate-related viability of food production, the impact of climate change on agricultural activity, and the degree to which farmers and backyard growers are prepared to deal with climate change. While outside the scope of this indicator suite, another variable that may impact agriculture is smoke from wildfires. Growing anecdotal evidence and emerging research is showing links between wildfire smoke and reduced overall plant production.61 See the Wildfire Pathway for more information related to wildfires and air quality. The Overall Picture A trend toward higher temperatures is influencing the growing climate in the region, with RDKB Area A experiencing more growing degree days than in the past. Notably, however, higher temperatures have not been accompanied by a significant change in the length of the growing season. Continued monitoring of drought levels will help planners understand how a trend toward higher precipitation levels is affecting agricultural viability and local food production. Survey results indicate an enthusiasm for food self-sufficiency, with 68% of Area A survey respondents cultivating some of their own food. Climate Changes As discussed in the Climate and Extreme Weather sections, average annual and seasonal temperatures are increasing, as is annual precipitation. While Area A locations have not yet seen a statistically significant trend in extreme precipitation, projections show it to be increasing, along with more precipitation in winter, spring and fall. Summer precipitation has decreased and is projected to continue decreasing, and both the number and frequency of extreme heat days is on the rise. Environmental Impacts Drought index available since 2015 The BC drought index is comprised of four core indicators: Basin snow indices; seasonal volume runoff forecast; 30-day percent of average precipitation; and 7-day average streamflow. While this data set is too short to infer any trends, initial years will contribute to creating a baseline against which future conditions can be assessed. Area A is within the Lower Columbia Basin. Since 2015, there has been an annual average of 51 ‘dry’ and 31 ‘very dry’ days in the Lower Columbia Basin. The number of days under drought conditions varies greatly from year to year. 32 2015 was a particularly dry year with 99 dry and very dry days, while 2016 was a wetter year with only 70 dry days and no very dry days.62 Length of the growing season is increasing A longer growing seasonii allows for greater diversity of crops (especially crops requiring longer days to maturity), greater flexibility in early planting avoiding late summer drought, and more time for plant growth. Some communities in the Columbia Basin are already experiencing a longer growing season. Historical data for Area A locations (1979-2018) shows an increasing trend in growing season length of 19 days per century for Columbia Gardens and Kelly Creek at 1500m, respectively, and 33 days per century for Fruitvale, but these trends are not statistically significant. During the 1961 to 1990 baseline period, mean annual growing season length ranged from 156.9 days in the Kelly Creek location to 239.6 days in Columbia Gardens (Table 14). By the 2050s, all three locations are projected to have a longer growing season under both low and high carbon scenarios (Table 14), extending the season between 22.5 to 36.2 days depending on scenario and location. The projected rate of change in the 2050s in a high carbon scenario ranges from +42 days per century in Columbia Garden to +75 days per century at the high elevation location in Kelly Creek. Table 14: Baseline and projected changes to average annual growing season length, in days Growing season length Baseline (1961-1990) Projected change in 2050s Low carbon scenario Projected change in 2050s High carbon scenario Columbia Gardens 239.6 Fruitvale Kelly Creek 216.8 156.9 +22.5 +26.4 +28.3 +29.8 +33.5 +36.2 More growing degree days Growing degree daysiii (GDD) describe the amount of heat energy available for plant growth and provide better insight on how plants are affected by temperatures than straight temperature data. Current baselines for average annual GDD in the 1961-1990 period (Table 15) range from 1013.3 GDD for the high elevation location in Kelly Creek to 2416.8 GDD for Columbia Gardens (Figure 13). The relative projected change in growing degree days varies considerably among the three locations, with the Kelly Creek high elevation location projected to have a 60% ii For the purposes of this report, growing season is defined as the number of days annually between the first and last five consecutive days with a mean temperature of 5oC. iii For the purposes of this report, growing degree days was calculated by multiplying the number of days that the average daily temperature exceeds 5 C (average base temperature at which plant growth starts) by the number of degrees above that threshold. Studies often use different definitions of growing degree days; therefore, caution should be exercised when comparing these results to other research. 33 increase in growing degree days in the 2050s under a high carbon scenario, and Columbia Gardens projected at a 36% increase. Table 15: Baseline and projected changes to average annual growing degree days Growing degree days Baseline (1961-1990) Projected change in 2050s Low carbon scenario Projected change in 2050s High carbon scenario Columbia Gardens 2416.8 GDD Fruitvale Kelly Creek 1969.7 GDD 1013.3 GDD +677.1 (28%) +876.0 (36%) +619.2 (31%) +797.5 (39%) +467.7 (46%) +608.4 (60%) 5500 5000 High Carbon +876.0 GDD 4500 by the 2050s GDD 4000 Low Carbon 3500 +677.1 GDD 3000 by the 2050s 2500 Baseline 1961-1990 Low Carbon Scenario High Carbon Scenario 20 90 20 80 20 70 20 60 20 50 20 40 20 30 20 20 20 10 20 00 19 90 19 80 19 70 2416.8 GDD 19 60 19 50 2000 Historical Figure 13: Historical and projected growing degree days for Columbia Gardens Consecutive dry days are increasing The mean annual maximum number of consecutive dry days for Area A locations show small increasing trends since 1979, however, none of these trends are statistically significant. During the 1961 to 1990 period, the annual maximum number of consecutive dry days ranged from 17.4 days for Kelly Creek at 1500m to 20.1 days for Columbia Garden (Table 16). By the 2050s, depending on location and scenario, the number of consecutive dry days is projected to increase by 1.6 to 3.9 days, with Columbia Gardens experiencing the most increase (3.9 days) and Kelly Creek the least (1.6 days). Projected trends in the 2050s for Columbia Gardens and the Kelly Creek locations in a high carbon scenario are +28.1 and +16.7 days per century, respectively. 34 Table 16: Baseline and projected changes to average annual consecutive dry days Maximum dry spell Baseline (1961-1990) Projected change in 2050s Low carbon scenario Projected change in 2050s High carbon scenario Columbia Gardens 20.1 days Fruitvale Kelly Creek 19.1 days 17.4 days +2.0 +2.3 +1.6 +3.9 +3.6 +2.5 Adaptation Actions and Capacity Building Many residents grow some of their own food Backyard gardening of edible crops is an indicator of local self-sufficiency and food security. A voluntary survey of Area A residents conducted between August and September 2019 completed by 61 people found that 68% of respondents grow or raise some of their own food, mostly in home gardens, in plots ranging from less than 5 square feet to over 300 square feet (Table 17). No residents reported growing food in community gardens. Over half of home gardeners estimated producing between 1-10% of their total food intake and 10% of respondents reported growing between 31 – 40% of their total food intake. Some of the items commonly grown included tomatoes, beans, carrots, potatoes, and squash. Fruit trees and berry patches were also common with strawberries being the most popular berry. Additionally, 18% of respondents reported keeping livestock such as chickens, rabbits, and sheep. Table 17: Area under cultivation (excluding orchards and berry patches) by growers in Area A Area Less than 5 square feet 5-15 square feet 15-30 square feet 30-50 square feet 50-100 square feet 100-200 square feet 200-300 square feet More than 300 square feet % of respondents 10.3 10.3 5.1 2.6 25.5 7.7 12.8 23.1 # of respondents 4 4 2 1 10 3 5 9 35 Amount of area being farmed There are multiple sources of data that can help determine the area being farmed or the potential area to be farmed. BC Assessment records indicate 597 hectares of land used for farming.63 The farming potential within Area A can also be estimated by the amount of land in the Agricultural Land Reserve (ALR). In Area A, the ALR accounts for 590 hectares.64 Figure 14 shows how this data is related, and shows the limited area available to be farmed, which rests within the valley bottoms. Figure 14: BC Assessment farm properties and ALR lands within Area A 36 WILDFIRE Wildfire can cause serious damage to community infrastructure, water supplies and human health. It is projected that climate change may increase the length of the wildfire season and the annual area burned by wildfire due to warmer, drier summers. The Wildfire Pathway tracks fire risks and impacts on communities as well as adaptation actions being undertaken by communities. RDKB Area A is situated in the Arrow Fire Zone, which falls within the boundaries of BC’s Southeast Fire Centre. Figure 15: Arrow Fire Zone and RDKB Area A The Overall Picture Wildfires are becoming more frequent at regional and national scales and studies generally suggest that this trend, along with a trend to more area burned, will continue. The active wildfire seasons experienced in 2017 and 2018 highlight the social and economic impacts of fire due to fire bans, evacuation notices and alerts, and road closures. Fires in Area A are more frequently started by humans than lighting but, fortunately, the number of human-caused fires in Area A is decreasing. There is an average of three wildfire starts per year in Area A. Although priority wildland urban interface areas have been determined and mapped in the Community Wildfire Protection Plan, no interface fuel treatment has been conducted by the RDKB due to jurisdictional limitations, and it is unknown if any work has been done by others. A FireSmart program is being developed. Fire prevention education and fuel management remain important as most human-caused fires occur near communities. 37 Climate Changes Days at high or extreme danger rating High fire danger is increasing The BC Wildfire Service establishes wildfire danger ratings using the Canadian Forest Fire Danger Rating System. The number of days in the high and extreme danger classes provides an indication of how weather and water availability are influencing fire risk. From 1986 to 2019, the Pend Oreille fire weather stations had an average of 35.2 days per year with a danger rating of high or above. This is the only fire danger forecasting station within Area A. The greatest number of days above a high danger rating was 89 days in 2015, followed by 79 days in 2017, and 65 days in 2007 (Figure 16). These records also show a significant increase in the number of days above a high danger rating. The trend is 1.1 more days of high fire danger each year.65 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 High Extreme Figure 16: Days with high or extreme fire danger rating at the Pend Oreille fire weather station Environmental Impacts Air quality lacks data The air quality indicator reports daily concentrations of fine particulate matter (PM2.5) in the air, which can be influenced strongly by wildfire events. High PM2.5 concentrations can have significant impacts on human health.66 There is no air quality monitoring station in Area A; however, the nearest station in Castlegar can provide some insight on air quality in the region. The worst air quality on record occurred in 2018, with 30 days of PM2.5 concentrations above the 24-hour PM2.5 air quality objective for British Columbia of 25 ug/m3.67,68 38 A comparison of Castlegar data from 2016 (a year with minimal wildfire activity) to 2018 (a year with exceptionally high wildfire activity) shows how air quality in our mountainous region is influenced by smoke from wildfires (Figure 17). 450.0 400.0 PM2.5 (ug/m2) 350.0 300.0 250.0 200.0 150.0 100.0 50.0 0.0 2016 2017 2018 Figure 17: Daily average PM2.5 readings at Castlegar Zinio Park in 2016, 2017 and 2018 Data for fine particulate matter is limited in the Columbia Basin-Boundary Region, with active stations in Grand Forks, Castlegar, Cranbrook, and Golden. Datasets are generally short and often contain large gaps, precluding trend analysis at this time. In 2017, the BC Ministry of Environment implemented a Smokey Skies Advisory service to advise communities when they are likely to be affected by wildfire smoke. This smoke modeling initiative does not serve as a substitute for a PM2.5 monitoring station but can provide some indication of smoke prevalence. In 2017 and 2018 the Arrow Lakes and Slocan region was under a Smokey Skies Advisory for 43 and 37 days respectively.69 Human-caused fires are on the decline This indicator tracks the total number of human-caused and lightning-caused wildfire starts per year. Since the mid-1900s, there is no statistically significant trend in the number of wildfires started annually in the Southeast Fire Centre region. All fire zones in the Southeast Fire Centre and the RDKB show significant decreases in human-caused fires since 1950. Neither Area A nor the RDKB show a significant increase in lightning-caused fire starts over the 68-year period of record. This is typical of most areas analyzed in the Southeast Fire Centre 70 The ratio of fires caused by humans vs. lightning can be influenced by both climate and human activities. For Area A, the ratio stands out from that of the Southeast Fire Centre where, historically, about two-thirds of fires are lightning-caused. In Area A, records show that more fires have been caused by humans than lightning. However, both the Southeast Fire Centre and 39 Area A have seen significant declines in human-caused fires over time, and records from recent years show lightning as the dominant cause of wildfires. On average, there are three wildfires starts per year in Area A.71 A significant upward trend is present in the number of fires in the Southeast Fire Centre region that grew larger than 1 ha in size (Figure 18). This aligns with recent reports that BC’s fire seasons are becoming more extreme as a result of climate change.72 160 Number of fires > 1ha 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 Figure 18: Fires >1 ha in the Southeast Fire Centre region, 1950-2018 Two factors may be affecting the identification of trends in the analysis. One is the small geographic scale of the datasets, which may not represent changes in weather patterns that take place over a large geographic area. The second is an issue with data reporting standards, which changed in the late 1990s to exclude suspected fires and smoke traces. This may overinflate estimates of fire starts in earlier years.73 No trend in area burned, but extremes are increasing This indicator provides a direct measure of how much fire is occurring on a specific landscape. The Arrow Fire Zone, which includes Area A, experienced severe wildfire seasons in 1985, 2003, 2007 and 2018. In the Arrow Fire Zone, 2018 was the worst fire season since 1950 in terms of area burned, with over 19,000 hectares of forest burned. Area A has experienced relatively little wildfire in recent years. The most active year was 2007, with 231 hectares burned. It is worth noting that these were large fires that extended well beyond the boundaries of Area A and burned over 2,700 hectares of forest.74 Since the onset of provincial wildfire suppression efforts in the mid-1900s, no statistically significant trend can be observed in the annual area burned in Area A, the RDKB, or the Southeast Fire Centre region. The annual area burned is highly variable and appears to follow a pattern of severe fires seasons occurring roughly every 10 to 20 years.75 The area burned during 40 severe fire seasons shows an apparent increase at the regional scale, but this is not detected by statistical trend analysis (Figure 19). 120000.00 Area Burned (ha) 100000.00 80000.00 60000.00 40000.00 20000.00 0.00 Figure 19: Annual area burned in the Southeast Fire Region Changes in the size of wildfire may reflect changes in forest management practices as well as changing climate conditions. The value of fire as a natural disturbance regime has been more recognized in recent years, and in some cases, forest managers may be allowing wildfires to grow larger now than in the 1950s.76 Improved data quality and fire mapping in later years may also influence this trend. Adaptation Actions and Capacity Building No data on interface fire fuel treatments Interface fire risk reduction involves assessing and treating high-risk areas to reduce wildfire risk. A Community Wildfire Protection Plan is in place for the lower Columbia region, including Area A. This plan includes mapping of the priority interface areas for fuel treatment.77 To date, none of this area has been treated by the RDKB because they do not own any land in the area and do not treat private or Crown lands. The RDKB is unaware if these areas have been treated by anyone else.78 FireSmart recognition efforts are in early stages This indicator reports on the number of neighbourhoods and households recognized through Fire Smart Canada's Community Recognition Program and Home Partners Program, providing a measure of citizen involvement in reducing the risk of wildfire to their homes. The RDKB is just starting their FireSmart program. A consultant is presently building a FireSmart framework to deliver FireSmart within the RDKB. This plan is scheduled to be completed by March 2020. This framework will follow FireSmart principals, but will not recommend that neighbourhoods pursue certification due to the need to have community boards that can be labour intensive. Grant 41 applications have been submitted to implement this framework.79 The RDKB has no Wildfire Hazard Development Permit Areas within Area A, but it recognizes the wildfire interface zone and identifies it in the Official Community Plan (OCP).80 Community Impacts and Adaptation Outcomes Frequency of interface fires shows no trend This indicator measures the annual number of wildfires that come within two kilometres of address points (Figure 20). Since 1950, Area A has experienced 10 interface fires. These fires were generally small with the exception of two that occurred in 2007 burning over 2,700 hectares. On average, this equates to far less than one interface fire per year and there is no trend evident in these data.81 Cost of fire suppression is increasing The average annual cost of fire suppression in the Arrow Fire Zone from 1970-2019 was $2.68 million, peaking at $22.38 million in 2007 and falling as low as $144 in 1976. 82 Costs of fire suppression will vary from year to year and are influenced significantly by prevailing weather conditions. The dataset shows an upward trend over the period of record (Figure 21); however, given that reported values are not corrected for inflation, the true direction and magnitude of this trend cannot be assessed. Figure 20: 2 km wildland urban interface zone around civic addresses in Area A. 42 $25 Cost (millions) $20 $15 $10 $5 $0 Figure 21: Annual cost of fire suppression in the Arrow Fire Zone. (Data values from the 1970s are generally too small to show on the scale needed to show data from recent years.) One fire-related highway closure in 2010 In August 2010, a small wildfire near Waneta caused a closure of Highway 22A in both directions for nearly four hours. While there have been several worse fire seasons in Area A, this was the only wildfire-caused highway closure on record by Drive BC, which has records beginning in 2006. Highway 22A and Highway 3B are the only roads in Area A monitored by Drive BC.83 Provincial emergency assistance As discussed in both Extreme Weather and Flooding sections, monitoring emergency assistance funding issued by the province can provide some measure of the economic impact of disaster and associated recovery over time. Since 2011, there has been no emergency assistance funding received for wildfire events in Area A. Although there have been wildfire events, the RDKB did not apply for funding due to limitations in the funding criteria.84 Annual days under campfire ban This indicator tracks the number of days annually for which the BC Wildfire Service has issued a campfire ban for the Southeast Fire Centre. It provides a measure of the social cost of the increasing wildfire risk that is projected to accompany climate change. Since 2000, there have been eight years with campfire bans, with the longest fire ban in 2017 at 77 days.85 Long term tracking of this indicator is necessary to establish a trend. Evacuation notices in 2007 There were some evacuation notices in Area A due to wildfire in 2007, and there have been none since.86 43 NEXT STEPS Action Areas Assessment results indicate that RDKB Area A has initiated important steps to improve its adaptive capacity. Areas for further consideration are evident in the data:       Wildfire risk reduction. The Community Wildfire Protection Plan identifies priority fuel treatment areas and measures to reduce interface fire risk. It is unknown how much of this priority land has been treated, as none of it falls on land owned by the RDKB. The RDKB has not completed any fuel treatments to date, due to jurisdictional limitations. By engaging other agencies and private land owners, the RDKB may be able to advance creative solutions to this issue, an approach that is supported by the province’s new community wildfire resilience framework. Implementing the FireSmart program in the RDKB will help Area A residents advance their own contributions to risk reduction in the wildland urban interface. Water conservation. Source water monitoring and protection; water conservation targets, data collection, and education; and leak detection and repair represent significant opportunities to increase the efficient use and resilience of RDCK Area A water supplies. Further research on the water security of surface versus groundwater systems in the face of climate change will help water supply planning. Personal and household emergency preparedness. Continued encouragement of personal and household emergency preparedness among residents would help foster resilience to the types of extreme weather that are expected to increase with climate change. Local governments have an important role to play in personal emergency preparedness as they are often the ‘front line’ for residents when disaster strikes. Local food production. Support local food self-sufficiency, as it can be an important contributor to the resilience of a community, and the enthusiasm for farming and backyard food growing in Area A is evident. At the same time, growing agricultural water demand and climate impacts on water supply and demand during the growing season could result in water use conflicts and shortages in the future. Floodplain mapping. The RDKB’s floodplain maps have not been updated since 1992. Outdated floodplain maps are a common problem faced by BC local governments, and there is growing concern that development decisions are being made based on outdated information. Shifts in climate variables are one of many factors influencing changes to flood risk. Updated floodplain mapping will inform planning, relevant asset management, and emergency preparedness and response. Official Community Plan. The RDKB is planning to renew the Area A OCP in the next couple of years, which provides a timely opportunity to identify and incorporate climateresilient policies that reflect and address the risks and challenges associated with a changing climate. 44   Air quality. Air quality data is not currently collected in RDKB Area A. Other communities have considered operation of cost-effective air quality monitoring equipment to gather data on select variables on a seasonal basis. By exploring this opportunity with relevant government agencies, the RDKB may be able to better understand the potential impact of wildfires on human health. Vulnerable populations. The elderly, chronically ill and the very young are more vulnerable to poor air quality events and extreme heat events. Publicly accessible buildings or refuges are a relatively new idea in most jurisdictions and rural communities may have few locations, if any, that would be suitable to act as a heat refuge or clean air shelter. While this is not a lead responsibility for local governments, they can play a supportive role in identifying and/or establishing these facilities. Future Assessments It is recommended that the next full SoCARB assessment be conducted in five years (2025). In the interim, the RDKB may wish to track certain priority indicators on a more frequent basis to inform planning and decision making on policy, operations and capital expenditures. A number of SoCARB indicators are tracked as part of the State of the Basin initiative, which means substantial data may be available through the RDI. 45 REFERENCES 1 United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. (2019). The Paris Agreement. Retrieved from https://unfccc.int/process-and-meetings/the-paris-agreement/the-paris-agreement Knutti, R., Rogelj, J., Sedláček, J. et al. (2016). A scientific critique of the two-degree climate change target. Nature Geoscience, 9, 13–18. doi:10.1038/ngeo2595 2 3 European Centre for Mid-range Weather Forecasts (ECMWF). ERA5 data documentation. Retrieved from https://confluence.ecmwf.int/display/CKB/ERA5+data+documentation#ERA5datadocumentation-Introduction 4 Copernicus Climate Change Service (C3S). (2017). ERA5: Fifth generation of ECMWF atmospheric reanalyses of the global climate. Copernicus Climate Change Service Climate Data Store (CDS), Accessed August 2019. https://cds.climate.copernicus.eu/cdsapp#!/home 5 Climate Change Service. (n.d.). Climate reanalysis. Retrieved from https://climate.copernicus.eu/climatereanalysis 6 Pacific Climate Impacts Consortium. (n.d.). Statistically downscaled GCM scenarios - BCCAQv2. Retrieved from https://data.pacificclimate.org/portal/downscaled_gcms/map/ 7 Taylor, K.E., Stouffer, R.J., and Meehl, G.A. (2012). An overview of CMIP5 and the experiment design. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 93, 485–498. doi:10.1175/BAMS-D-11-00094.1 Werner, A.T. and Cannon, A. J. (2016) Hydrologic extremes – an intercomparison of multiple gridded statistical downscaling methods. Hydrololgy and Earth System Sciences, 20, 1483-1508. doi:10.5194/hess-20-1483-2016 8 9 Government of British Columbia. (2018). Addressing the new normal: 21st century disaster management in British Columbia. Retrieved from https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/public-safety-and-emergency-services/emergencypreparedness-response-recovery/embc/bc-flood-and-wildfire-review-addressing-the-new-normal-21st-centurydisaster-management-in-bc-web.pdf 10 Environment and Climate Change Canada. (2019). Historical daily data. Retrieved from https://climatechange.canada.ca/climate-data/#/daily-climate-data 11 BC Wildfire Service. (July 19, 2019). Fire behavior in the Southeast Fire Centre [personal communication]. 12 Pacific Climate Impact Consortium. (2019). BC Ministry of Forests, Lands, Natural Resource Operations and Rural Development station data. Retrieved from https://pacificclimate.org/data/bc-station-data 13 Regional District of Kootenay Boundary. (1 October, 2019). Emergency preparedness [personal communication]. 14 Regional District of Kootenay Boundary. (9 October, 2019). RDKB emergency alert system [personal communication]. 15 Regional District of Kootenay Boundary. (1 October, 2019). Backup power sources [personal communication]. 16 BC Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure. (2019). Drive BC historical highway closure [custom data request]. 17 Wilbur, C. & Kraus, S. (2018). Looking to the future: Predictions of climate change effects on avalanches by North American practitioners. Retrieved from http://arc.lib.montana.edu/snowscience/objects/ISSW2018_P06.7.pdf 46 18 BC Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure. (2019). Kootenay avalanche program [personal communication]. 19 FortisBC. (2019). Power outages for Area A [custom data request]. 20 Regional District of Kootenay Boundary. (6 December, 2019). Provincial emergency assistance [personal communication]. 21 Regional District of Kootenay Boundary. (9 October, 2019). Evacuation alerts [personal communication]. 22 Regional District of Kootenay Boundary (2019). Beaver Valley Water Service: 2018 annual report. 23 Regional District of Kootenay Boundary (2019). Annual water systems report 2018: Rivervale Water Utility and Columbia Gardens Water Utility. 24 Beaverfalls Waterworks District. (2019). Beaverfalls Waterworks District. Retrieved from https://beaverfallswaterworksdistrict.myruralwater.com/home Environment Canada. (2019). Hydrometric data – Kelly Creek (#08NE113). Retrieved from https://wateroffice.ec.gc.ca 25 26 Ibid 27 Government of British Columbia. (n.d.). Groundwater wells and aquifers. Retrieved from https://apps.nrs.gov.bc.ca/gwells/ 28 Regional District of Kootenay Boundary (2019). Beaver Valley Water Service: 2018 annual report. 29 Golder Associates. (2010). Drilling, construction, hydraulic testing, and water quality sampling of new water supply well, Columbia Gardens Industrial Park, Trail, British Columbia. 30 Beaverfalls Water Improvement District (2019). Beaverfalls Water Improvement District water data [personal communication]. 31 Regional District of Kootenay Boundary. (2019). Beaver Valley Water Service water data [custom dataset]. 32 BC Ministry of Environment and Climate Change Strategies. (2017). Source drinking water quality guidelines. Retrieved from https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/environment/air-land-water/water/waterquality/water-qualityguidelines/approved-wqgs/drinking-water-and-recreation/source_drinking_water_quality_guidelines_bcenv.pdf 33 Interior Health Authority. (n.d.). Turbidity education and notifications campaign. Retrieved from: https://www.interiorhealth.ca/YourEnvironment/DrinkingWater/Documents/turbidity.pdf 34 Regional District of Kootenay Boundary. (2019). Beaver Valley Water Service water data [custom dataset]. 35 Regional District of Kootenay Boundary (2 October, 2019). Water conservation [personal communication]. 36 Hamstead, M. Pare, E. & Klassen N. (2016). Water smart action plan 2015-2020: Regional District of Kootenay Boundary Beaver Valley Water System (BVWS). 37 Regional District of Kootenay Boundary (2 October, 2019). Water conservation [personal communication]. 38 Diameter Services Inc. (2014). Regional District of Kootenay Boundary universal water meter plan implementation report and budget. 47 39 Regional District of Kootenay Boundary (2 October, 2019). Water source protection plan [personal communication]. 40 WSP Canada. (2015). Watershed assessment and protection plan modules 1,2,5,7 and 8: Beaver Valley Water Service. 41 Regional District of Kootenay Boundary (2 October, 2019). Water loss detection at RDKB [personal communication]. 42 Regional District of Kootenay Boundary. (2020). Water consumption for BVWS [custom data request]. 43 Hamstead, M. Pare, E. & Klassen N. (2016). Water smart action plan 2015-2020: Regional District of Kootenay Boundary Beaver Valley Water System (BVWS). 44 Honey-Roses, J., Gill, D. & Pareja, C. (2016). BC municipal water survey 2016. Retrieved from http://waterplanninglab.sites.olt.ubc.ca/files/2016/03/BC-Municipal-Water-Survey-2016.pdf 45 Fraser Basin Council. (2011). Rethinking our water ways 3.1 - climate change impacts on water. Retrieved from https://www.rethinkingwater.ca/climate_impacts.html 46 Interior Health Authority. (2019). Historical water quality bulletins [custom data request]. 47 Village of Fruitvale. (2020). BV Water Service sprinkling regulations. Retrieved from: http://www.village.fruitvale.bc.ca/content/bv-water-service-sprinkling-regulations 48 Regional District of Kootenay Boundary. (30 January, 2020). Water restrictions in RDKB [personal communications]. 49 Hamstead, M. Pare, E. & Klassen N. (2016). Water smart action plan 2015-2020: Regional District of Kootenay Boundary Beaver Valley Water System (BVWS). 50 Urban Systems. (2013). Hydrologic assessment of the Kelly Creek watershed. 51 Government of British Columbia. (2019). Snow survey data. Retrieved from https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/environment/air-land-water/water/water-science-data/water-data-tools/snowsurvey-data 52 Regnier, S. (10 May, 2018). Fruitvale on watch as creek rises. Trail Times. Retrieved from https://www.trailtimes.ca/news/fruitvale-on-watch-as-creek-rises/ 53 Schafer, T. (4 April, 2012). Pending runoff puts preparedness in place in Beaver Valley. Trail Times. Retrieved from https://www.bclocalnews.com/news/pending-runoff-puts-preparedness-in-place-in-beaver-valley/ Environment Canada. (2019). Historical data station data – Castlegar. Retrieved from https://climate.weather.gc.ca/historical_data 54 55 Regional District of Kootenay Boundary. (1 October, 2019). Floodplain mapping [personal communication]. 56 Regional District of Kootenay Boundary. (18 December, 2019). Flood prevention expenditures [personal communication]. 57 Regional District of Kootenay Boundary. (6 December, 2019). Provincial emergency assistance [personal communication]. 58 Regional District of Kootenay Boundary. (2019). Floodplain mapping [custom data request]. 48 59 BC Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure. (2019). Drive BC historical highway closure [custom data request]. 60 Regional District of Kootenay Boundary. (9 October, 2019). Evacuation alerts [personal communication]. 61 Yue, X., & Unger, N. (2018). Fire air pollution reduces global terrestrial productivity. Nature Communications, 9, 5413. Doi:10.1038/s41467-018-07921-4 62 BC Drought Information Portal. (2019). Historical drought information. Retrieved from https://governmentofbc.maps.arcgis.com/apps/MapSeries/index.html?appid=838d533d8062411c820eef50b08f7ebc 63 BC Assessment. (2019). 2019 Assessments. [Custom data request]. 64 Data BC. (2019). ALC ALR polygons. Retrieved from https://catalogue.data.gov.bc.ca/dataset/alc-alr-polygons 65 BC Wildfire Service. (2019). Daily fire weather danger ratings [custom data request]. 66 BC Center For Disease Control. (2019). Wildfire smoke and your health. Retrieved from http://www.bccdc.ca/resourcegallery/Documents/Guidelines%20and%20Forms/Guidelines%20and%20Manuals/HealthEnvironment/BCCDC_WildFire_FactSheet_CompositionOfSmoke.pdf 67 BC Ministry of environment. (2019). BC air data archive. Retrieved from https://envistaweb.env.gov.bc.ca/ 68 BC Ministry of Environment. (2009). Provincial air quality objective for PM2.5. Retrieved from https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/environment/air-land-water/air/air-quality-management/regulatoryframework/objectives-standards/pm2-5 69 BC Ministry of Environment. (2019). Smokey sky advisories [custom data request]. BC Data Catalogue. (2019). Fire incident locations – Historical. Retrieved from https://catalogue.data.gov.bc.ca/dataset/fire-incident-locations-historical 70 BC Data Catalogue. (2019). Fire incident locations – Historical. Retrieved from https://catalogue.data.gov.bc.ca/dataset/fire-incident-locations-historical 71 Environment and Climate Change Canada. (2019). Canada’s scientists conclude that human-induced climate change had a strong impact on forest fires in British Columbia. Retrieved from https://www.canada.ca/en/environment-climate-change/news/2019/01/canadas-scientists-conclude-that-humaninduced-climate-change-had-a-strong-impact-on-forest-fires-in-british-columbia.html 72 73 BC Wildfire Service. (July 19, 2019). Fire behavior in the Southeast Fire Centre [personal communication]. BC Data Catalogue. (2019). Fire perimeters – historical. Retrieved from https://catalogue.data.gov.bc.ca/dataset/fire-perimeters-historical 74 75 Ibid 76 Natural Resources Canada. (2019). Fire Management. Retrieved from https://www.nrcan.gc.ca/our-naturalresources/forests-forestry/wildland-fires-insects-disturban/forest-fires/fire-management/13157 77 B.A. Blackwell & Associates Ltd. (2011). Lower Columbia region community wildfire protection plan. 78 Regional District of Kootenay Boundary (19 December, 2019). Area A interface fuel treatment [personal communication]. 49 79 Regional District of Kootenay Boundary (20 December, 2019). RDKB FireSmart status [personal communication]. 80 Regional District of Kootenay Boundary (3 October, 2019). Wildfire development permit area [personal communication]. BC Data Catalogue. (2019). Fire perimeters – historical. Retrieved from https://catalogue.data.gov.bc.ca/dataset/fire-perimeters-historical 81 82 BC Wildfire Service. (2019). Annual cost of fire suppression – Southeast Fire Centre [custom data request]. 83 BC Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure. (2019). Drive BC highway closure events [custom data request]. 84 Regional District of Kootenay Boundary. (6 December, 2019). Provincial emergency assistance [personal communication]. 85 BC Wildfire Service. (2019). Historical campfire prohibitions – Southeast Fire Centre [custom data request]. 86 Regional District of Kootenay Boundary. (9 October, 2019). Evacuation alerts [personal communication]. 50