Stantec Consulting Ltd

Stantec Consulting Ltd. Owner’s Engineer 100-75 24th Street East, Highway 5, Highway 6/39, Saskatoon SK S7K 0K3 Highway 9 and Highway 10

Attention: Charlotte Brockman March 8, 2019 Saskatchewan Ministry of Highways and Infrastructure Unit 18 – 3603 Millar Avenue Saskatoon, SK S7P 0B2

File: 111000236 Reference: Owner’s Engineer Services for Highway 6/39 Corridor Improvements –Climate Change Assessment Report

Hi Charlotte,

Attached please find a finalized version of the Climate Change Assessment report for Highway 6/39. We would be happy to discuss this further with you.

Stantec Consulting Ltd.

Tom Mercer M.Eng., P.Eng. Project Director

Phone: (306) 667-2453 Email: [email protected]

Attachment: Highway 6 and 39 Climate Change Assessment Final Report

Saskatchewan Ministry of Highways & Infrastructure Recommendation & Approval:

Approved by:

Charlotte Brockman, P.Eng., PMP Date Senior Project Manager Saskatchewan Ministry of Highways and Infrastructure

Climate Change Risk and Vulnerability Assessment

Highway 6 and Highway 39 Corridor Improvements

March 8, 2019

Prepared for:

Saskatchewan Ministry of Highways and Infrastructure

Prepared by:

Stantec Consulting Ltd.

Sign-off Sheet

This document entitled Climate Change Risk and Vulnerability Assessment was prepared by Stantec Consulting Ltd. (“Stantec”) for the account of the Saskatchewan Ministry of Highways and Infrastructure (the “Client”). Any reliance on this document by any third party is strictly prohibited. The material in it reflects Stantec’s professional judgment in light of the scope, schedule and other limitations stated in the document and in the contract between Stantec and the Client. The opinions in the document are based on conditions and information existing at the time the document was published and do not take into account any subsequent changes. In preparing the document, Stantec did not verify information supplied to it by others. Any use which a third party makes of this document is the responsibility of such third party. Such third party agrees that Stantec shall not be responsible for costs or damages of any kind, if any, suffered by it or any other third party as a result of decisions made or actions taken based on this document.

Prepared by Jordan Stewart, P.Eng.

Reviewed by ______

Tom Mercer, M.Eng., P.Eng.

Approved by ______

Guy Felio, PhD, P.Eng., FCSCE, IRP (Climate)

Table of Highway 6 and Highway 39 Climate Change Risk and Vulnerability Assessment Contents

1.0 INTRODUCTION ...... 1.1 1.1 BACKGROUND ...... 1.1 1.2 HIGHWAY 6 AND HIGHWAY 39 PROFILE ...... 1.2 1.3 PROJECT OUTLINE ...... 1.4 1.3.1 Scope of the Study ...... 1.4 1.3.2 Climate Change Risk and Vulnerability Assessment Team ...... 1.5 1.3.3 Timeline ...... 1.6 1.3.4 Study Limitations ...... 1.7 1.4 THE PIEVC PROTOCOL...... 1.7 1.4.1 Step 1 – Project Definition ...... 1.8 1.4.2 Step 2 – Data Gathering and Sufficiency ...... 1.9 1.4.3 Step 3 – Vulnerability and Risk Assessment ...... 1.10 1.4.4 Step 4 – Engineering Analysis – Optional ...... 1.10 1.4.5 Step 5 – Conclusions and Recommendations ...... 1.10 1.4.6 Steps 6 to 8 – Triple Bottom Line Module ...... 1.11

2.0 PROJECT DEFINITION AND DATA GATHERING – STEP 1 AND STEP 2 ...... 2.1 2.1 INVENTORY OF INFRASTRUCTURE COMPONENTS ...... 2.2 2.2 CONDITION OF INFRASTRUCTURE COMPONENTS ...... 2.3 2.3 CLIMATE RELATED CONCERNS ...... 2.4 2.4 TIME HORIZON FOR THE STUDY ...... 2.7 2.5 DATA SUFFICIENCY ...... 2.8

3.0 CLIMATE CONSIDERATIONS ...... 3.1 3.1 GENERAL OVERVIEW ...... 3.1 3.2 SOURCES OF INFORMATION ...... 3.2 3.3 CLIMATE EVENTS...... 3.3 3.3.1 Climate Trends and Future Climate Projections ...... 3.3 3.3.2 Temperature ...... 3.3 3.3.3 Maximum Temperature ...... 3.6 3.3.4 Precipitation ...... 3.7 3.3.5 Freezing Rain ...... 3.10 3.3.6 Drought ...... 3.11 3.3.7 Flood ...... 3.11 3.3.8 Climate Parameters Selected for the Risk Assessment ...... 3.12

4.0 VULNERABILITY AND RISK ASSESSMENT – STEP 3 ...... 4.1 4.1 RISK ASSESSMENT PROCESS ...... 4.1 4.2 RISK THRESHOLDS ...... 4.1 4.3 INFRASTRUCTURE RESPONSE ...... 4.2 4.4 CLIMATE PROBABILITY SCORING ...... 4.2 4.5 INFRASTRUCTURE SEVERITY SCORING ...... 4.5 4.6 RISK ASSESSMENT ...... 4.5 4.6.1 Infrastructure Components Evaluated ...... 4.5 4.6.2 Risk Screening Process ...... 4.6 4.6.3 Summary of Risk Results ...... 4.6

Table of Highway 6 and Highway 39 Climate Change Risk and Vulnerability Assessment Contents

5.0 POTENTIAL MITIGATION STRATEGIES ...... 5.1

6.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ...... 6.1

7.0 REFERENCES ...... 7.1

LIST OF TABLES Table 1-1: Climate Change Risk and Vulnerability Assessment Team ...... 1.6 Table 3-1: Average Change in Mean Temperature from Baseline ...... 3.3 Table 3-2: Average Change in Maximum Daily Temperature from Baseline ...... 3.6 Table 3-3: Average Percent Change in Total Precipitation from Baseline...... 3.7 Table 3-4: Historical (Weyburn; Station ID 4018760; 1962-2004) – Total Precipitation (mm). (ICLR, 2018) ...... 3.9 Table 3-5: Projected (2025-2075) IDF Data using RCP 8.5 - (Weyburn; Station ID 4018760; 1962-2004) -Total Precipitation (mm). (ICLR, 2018) ...... 3.9 Table 3-6: Projected Percentage Precipitation Accumulation Increase for Weyburn Weather Station under RCP 4.5 and 8.5, 2025-2075. (ICLR, 2018) ...... 3.10 Table 4-1: Selected Risk Thresholds ...... 4.2 Table 4-2: Probability Scoring ...... 4.2 Table 4-3: Climate Event Risk Assessment Criteria, Occurrence and Probability Rating ...... 4.3 Table 4-4: Modified Infrastructure Severity Scoring ...... 4.5 Table 4-5: Infrastructure Components Evaluated ...... 4.6 Table 4-6: Summary of Risks for Highway 6/39 ...... 4.8 Table 5-1: Brainstormed Mitigation Strategies for High Risk Climate-Infrastructure Interactions – Workshop #2 ...... 5.2

LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1-1: Highway 6/39 Proposed Corridor Improvements and Project Limits ...... 1.2 Figure 1-2: Bird Conservation Region 11 in the Prairie and Northern Region: Prairie Potholes (Environment Canada, 2013) ...... 1.4 Figure 1-3: PIEVC Protocol Process Flowchart (Source: Engineers Canada, PIEVC Protocol Revision PG-10, May 2012) ...... 1.8 Figure 2-1: PIEVC Protocol Project Step 1 - Definition Process Flowchart (Source: Engineers Canada, PIEVC Protocol Revision PG-10, May 2012) ...... 2.1 Figure 2-2: Step 2 - Data Gathering and Sufficiency Process Flowchart (Source: Engineers Canada, PIEVC Protocol Revision PG-10, May 2012) ...... 2.2 Figure 2-3: Typical Extent of Linear Infrastructure Assessed as the Road Prism ...... 2.3 Figure 3-1: Location of Primary and Supporting Environment Canada Weather Stations ...... 3.1 Figure 3-2: Temperature and Precipitation Graph for 1981 to 2010 Canadian Climate Normals for Weyburn Measured at Environment Canada's Weyburn Station (Source: Environment Canada) ...... 3.2 Figure 3-3: Annual Temporal Average - Mean Daily Temperature (RCP 8.5) ...... 3.4 Figure 3-4: Winter Temporal Average – Mean Daily Temperature (RCP 8.5) ...... 3.4 Figure 3-5: Long Term Annual Temporal Average - Mean Daily Temperature ...... 3.5 Figure 3-6: Annual Temporal Average - Mean Daily Temperature - Weyburn, Midale, Regina (RCP4.5 and RCP 8.5) ...... 3.6 Figure 3-7: Summer Temporal Average – Maximum Daily Temperature (RCP 8.5) ...... 3.7

Table of Highway 6 and Highway 39 Climate Change Risk and Vulnerability Assessment Contents

Figure 3-8: Annual Precipitation Temporal Total (RCP 8.5) ...... 3.8 Figure 3-9: Spring Precipitation Temporal Total (RCP 8.5) ...... 3.8 Figure 3-10: Average Days per Year with Freezing Precipitation 1971-2005 (Env. Canada) ...... 3.10 Figure 3-11: Date and Extent of Major North American Droughts (Wheaton, 2004) ...... 3.11 Figure 4-1: PIEVC Protocol Risk Assessment Process Flowchart ...... 4.1 Figure 6-1: Adaptation in the Infrastructure Life Cycle (Larrivée and Simonet, 2007) ...... 6.1

LIST OF APPENDICES

CLIMATE TRENDS AND PROJECTIONS ...... A.1

WORKSHOP #1 PRESENTATION ...... B.1

WORKSHOP #2 PRESENTATION ...... C.1

Executive Highway 6 and Highway 39 Climate Change Risk and Vulnerability Assessment Summary

The Saskatchewan Ministry of Highways and Infrastructure (the Ministry) retained Stantec to provide Owner’s Engineering Services related to corridor improvements on Highway 6 and Highway 39. As part of these services, the Ministry has engaged Stantec to lead a climate change risk and vulnerability assessment of the portions of Highway 6 and Highway 39 that are proposed to undergo corridor improvements in the coming years. This risk and vulnerability assessment include the current and proposed infrastructure assets and was completed using Engineers Canada’s Public Infrastructure Engineering Vulnerability Committee’s (PIEVC) vulnerability assessment Protocol (the Protocol). This assessment will help the Ministry identify potential vulnerabilities these highway sections may have to various weather events, including weather events with the frequency and severity that is projected in the changing climate over the next several decades. Results from this assessment will provide the Ministry with necessary data and recommendations for future adaptation strategies to mitigate the identified risks.

Engineers Canada describes the Protocol as a methodology that “systematically reviews historical climate information and projects the nature, severity and probability of future climate changes and events. It also establishes the adaptive capacity of an individual infrastructure as determined by its design, operation and maintenance. It includes an estimate of the severity of climate impacts on the components of the infrastructure (i.e. deterioration, damage or destruction) to enable the identification of higher risk components and the nature of the threat from the climate change impact. This information can be used to make informed engineering judgments on what components require adaptation as well as how to adapt them e.g. design adjustments, changes to operational or maintenance procedures.”

The study area for risk assessment includes the various sections along Highway 6 and Highway 39 that have proposed corridor improvements. This includes about 228 km from approximately 6.5 km south of the Trans-Canada Highway (Highway 1) to the USA–Canada border at North Portal, SK.

The group completing the climate change risk and vulnerability assessment was composed of representatives from the Ministry and the Owner’s Engineer team. This small but focused group of subject matter experts are knowledgeable on design, construction, operations and maintenance and emergency procedures of the highways. The strong technical and operational expertise of the Ministry and Owner’s Engineer team representatives and their knowledge and experience as long-time residents of Saskatchewan was an essential and invaluable source of infrastructure and climate information to this project.

Although highways typically contain similar infrastructure components, there are always some variabilities that make selected sections of highways unique. The Owner’s Engineer Team decided to group the common linear roadway infrastructure into one common element to be assessed. This “road prism” includes the road base, asphalt, shoulders, pavement markings, ditches, embankments, cuts, and natural hillsides and slopes. The table below lists the infrastructure considered in this assessment.

Executive Highway 6 and Highway 39 Climate Change Risk and Vulnerability Assessment Summary

INFRASTRUCTURE

SURFACE UNDERGROUND Curbs - concrete (future) Drainage appliances (outfall/sewer/MHs etc.) Protection works/armouring (rip-rap etc.) Catch basins Bridges Grates Railway crossings Culverts <3 meters Railway approach crossing signals Culverts >3 meters Road signage - all types Below ground 3rd party utilities Road signage - sheeting MISCELLANEOUS Street luminaires (including poles) (SaskPower) Personnel (O&M staff) Bridge approach guard rails Semi-closed basins Above ground 3rd party utilities Maintenance yards Intelligent Transportation System (ITS) Salt/material storage yards Estevan weigh scale centre

Road prism (including road base, asphalt, shoulders, markings, ditches, embankments/cuts, natural hillsides/slopes)

Climate data used for this analysis was obtained from Environment Canada Weyburn Station (Station ID:4018760, [- 103.833, 49.65]) located close to Highway 39, just south-east of Weyburn, SK. This station collected nearly complete data from 1953 to 2012 and is appropriately located to provide a representation of the climate of the selected sections of Highway 6 and Highway 39. Given the overall length of the project, weather data was checked with supporting stations to confirm there wasn’t too much variance of climate from one end of this project to the other. Climate data was confirmed with the Regina International Airport Station (Station ID: 4016560, [-104.667, 50.433]) and the Midale, SK Stations (Station ID 4018760 and 4015159, [-103.4, 49.4] and [-103.3, 49.3833]). Where the Weyburn Station did not contain the appropriate data, such as for variables like wind gust speeds, some supporting data was used from the Regina International Airport Station. Risk Sciences International (RSI) Climate Change Hazards Information Portal (CCHIP) was used to analyze historical trends and for future climate projections.

Future climate projections were based on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) RCP 8.5 scenario - a scenario characterized by increasing greenhouse gas emissions over time, representative of scenarios in the literature that lead to high greenhouse gas concentration levels.

The following are observations regarding the risks identified:

1. Extreme Heat

The risks associated with extreme heat events are only moderate in the current climate, however under future climate conditions the probability of these events occurring becomes higher, yielding a high-risk rating. The current climate of the Highway 6 and Highway 39 area suggests only 2.4 days per year with temperatures in excess of 35°C, and by the 2080’s this is projected to increase to 26.7 days per year.

2. Rainfalls – Short and Long Duration

Executive Highway 6 and Highway 39 Climate Change Risk and Vulnerability Assessment Summary

Intense rain events in the area are projected to become approximately 18% more common under future climate conditions, however this does not change the frequency rating enough to produce a higher risk rating. Although the process did not yield a “high” risk rating for this climate event, the projected increased of precipitation intensity does deserve its own consideration as a risk to be mitigated.

3. Freezing Rain and Winter Storms

The risks associated with freezing rain and winter storms will remain a high under future climate conditions.

4. Flooding Events

The risks associated with flood events are low under current climate conditions, given the extremely rare frequency of the benchmark 2011 flood event that was selected for analysis. Under future climate conditions, autumn, winter and summer precipitation levels are projected to increase. As such, the Assessment Team has increased the probability of occurrence rating under future climate conditions.

5. High Winds and other Wind Events

There are already high risks associated with high winds and wind events such as plough winds under current climate conditions. There are future climate models that suggest an increase in high wind events in the Canadian prairies. As such, there are projected to be even more risks associated with high winds and wind events in the coming decades. It should be noted however that the impacts of wind events such as plough winds are very localized, so impacts are not as widespread as other events.

6. Grass/Wild Fires

Under current climate conditions there were no risks to infrastructure identified as high. It is expected that the increased frequency of severe droughts in southern Saskatchewan under future climate conditions will lead to an increased frequency of grass fires. This leads more high-risk ratings under future climate conditions. The Assessment Team brainstormed risk mitigation strategies for the highest risk climate- infrastructure interactions. Most interactions that yielded a high-risk result, were due to the climate event having a high probability of occurrence; in most of cases where this occurs, the Ministry already implements several strategies to mitigate the risks of the climate event, including, salting the highways during freezing rain events. In those cases, the Assessment Team did not identify other mitigation strategies. Conversely, the Assessment Team did spend time brainstorming potential mitigation strategies for high stream flows similar to 2011 flood event, given the high cost of repairs that event yielded.

Potential adaptive and risk mitigation measures were identified by Workshop #2 participants. Since the intent of the study is to provide an overall risk profile of the transportation infrastructure owned and managed by the Ministry, the recommendations do not address specific infrastructure issues. The recommendations below are not listed in a priority order.

• Review and improve, as required, policies and procedures – for example:

o Operations and Maintenance: this could include inspection cycles, practices to maintain the performance of the assets, standard operating procedures etc.; and

iii

Executive Highway 6 and Highway 39 Climate Change Risk and Vulnerability Assessment Summary

o Climate related events in emergency response measures and plans, etc. This could include, for example, monitoring the existing water storage in the system to determine impacts of immediate weather events and whether they may cause flooding.

• Promote public use of Saskatchewan Highway Hotline information system. Motorists who are informed of the hazards associated with all these climate events can make informed decisions about their travel and plan accordingly;

• Complete a more detailed analysis of stream flood risks under future climate conditions and/or engage the Saskatchewan Water Security Agency, to review the processes for developing stream design flows and floodplain extents. Flood events, although rare have historically been the most destructive climate events in the region and future climate precipitation projections in the autumn, winter and spring months suggest they may become more frequent;

• It is recommended that the Ministry review the function of the undrained basins adjacent to the highways as retention areas for storm water during rain events to identify areas that lack the ability to store stormwater;

• Engage private landowners in areas vulnerable to flooding to proactively report beaver dams;

• Consider creating a weather alert system to support operational staff and emergency first responders allowing them to be pro-active in anticipation of severe weather;

• Evaluate the financial constraints and resources needed to maintain Highway 6 and Highway 39 infrastructure in a state of good repair and to invest in a timely manner in the replacement of infrastructure when it reaches the end of its service life. This can be done through the life-cycle analysis and investment planning processes of an asset management plan;

• Develop a better system to identify and record historical high-water levels at culvert crossings to support flood risk analysis;

• Include the risks identified through this study in planning works for infrastructure renewal, future design and construction, and include climate change considerations in best management practices; and

• Anticipate and plan collaborations for high risk weather events, such as interactions with emergency and community services, and third-party utility agencies.

The recommendations above are based on the results of the risk assessment that produced a “high” risk rating through this PIEVC process. However, although the projected increase in short and long duration rainfall intensity did not produce a “high” risk rating, it still deserves extra consideration. It is recommended the design of Highway 6 and Highway 39 consider these projected increases. Understanding that any increase in design requirements can yield significant construction cost increases; it is recommended the OE Team hydrologists and design engineers further validate these projected precipitation increases and develop appropriate design parameters for inclusion in the Highway 6 and Highway 39 Improvement Project.

Abbreviations Highway 6 and Highway 39 Climate Change Risk and Vulnerability Assessment

CCCSN Canadian Climate Change Scenarios Network

GCM Global Climate Model

ICLR Institute for Catastrophic Loss Reduction (at the University of Western Ontario)

IDF (curve) Intensity, Duration, Frequency (curve)

IPCC Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change

ITS Intelligent Transportation Systems

PCIC Pacific Climate Impacts Consortium

PIEVC Public Infrastructure Engineering Vulnerability Committee

RCP Representative Concentration Pathway

RSI CCHIP Risk Sciences International (RSI) Climate Data Portal (CCHIP)

Climate Change Risk and Vulnerability Assessment Highway 6 and Highway 39

1.0 INTRODUCTION

Severe weather and climate uncertainty represent risks to the safety of and service provided by engineered systems and to public safety in Canada and around the world. In this context, an increasing number of public agencies and organizations that provide public services have identified climate change adaptation as a priority due to its relevance to the protection of the public interest - which includes life, health, property, economic interests, and the environment.

The impacts of severe weather add to the existing stresses on the infrastructure and the services it provides. In addition to the factors that reduce the capacity and performance of these assets such as age, increased demand, material weathering, design and construction inadequacies, lack of maintenance, extension of service life beyond design, or the increased intensity or frequency of weather events can produce the additional load that causes the asset to fail.

Infrastructure vulnerability and risk assessments are the foundations to ensure climate change is considered in engineering design, operations and maintenance of public infrastructure, buildings, and facilities. Identifying the services and related assets that are highly vulnerable to current and projected climate impacts enables infrastructure owners to plan and implement cost-effective solutions to adapt to these new weather patterns.

In December 2017, the Government of Saskatchewan showed their commitment by making climate change adaptation part of their mandate by publishing Prairie Resilience: A Made-in-Saskatchewan Climate Change Strategy. This document acknowledges the challenges climate change will pose to the province and commits to addressing those challenges by saying “today, we face the global challenge of climate change, and once again our province is motivated to develop an effective response” (Government of Saskatchewan, 2017). The Government of Saskatchewan recognizes that while efforts to mitigate climate change are valuable, it is also important to focus efforts on policies that allow the province to adapt to climate changes. “For Saskatchewan, mitigation is not enough. Our agriculture and resource-rich province must also focus on climate adaptation and resilience in order to be effective” (Government of Saskatchewan, 2017).

1.1 BACKGROUND

The Saskatchewan Ministry of Highways and Infrastructure (the Ministry) retained Stantec to provide Owner’s Engineering Services related to corridor improvements on Highway 6 and Highway 39. As part of these services, the Ministry has engaged Stantec to lead a climate change risk and vulnerability assessment of the portions of Highway 6 and Highway 39 that are proposed to undergo corridor improvements in the coming years. This risk and vulnerability assessment includes the current and proposed infrastructure assets and was completed using Engineers Canada’s Public Infrastructure Engineering Vulnerability Committee’s (PIEVC) vulnerability assessment Protocol (the Protocol). This assessment will help the Ministry identify potential vulnerabilities these highway sections may have to various weather events, including weather events with the frequency and severity that is projected in the changing climate over the next several decades. Results from this assessment will provide the Ministry with necessary data and recommendations for future adaptation strategies to mitigate the identified risks.

1.1

Climate Change Risk and Vulnerability Assessment Highway 6 and Highway 39

Figure 1-1: Highway 6 and Highway 39 Proposed Corridor Improvements and Project Limits

1.2

Climate Change Risk and Vulnerability Highway 6 and Highway 39 Assessment

1.2 HIGHWAY 6 AND HIGHWAY 39 PROFILE

Highway 39 is a provincial paved highway approximately 263 km in length, which at its south-east end terminates at the Canada-USA border at North Portal, SK and at its north-west end terminates at Moose Jaw, SK. Highway 39 intersects Highway 6 at Corinne, SK.

Highway 6 is a provincial paved highway approximately 522 km in length, which at its south end terminates at the Canada-USA border at Regway, SK and at its north end terminates at Saskatchewan Highway 55, near Choiceland, SK. These highways comprise part of the approximately 3,179 km CanAm Highway route, connecting Mexico, the USA and Canada, providing a route for trade and travel.

Population centers along the portions of Highway 6 and Highway 39 include Estevan and Weyburn, along with several other smaller villages. According to the 2016 Canadian Census, Estevan and Weyburn have populations of 11,258 and 10,679 respectively (Statistics Canada, 2017). Additionally, these highways are part of a direct route between the larger population center of Regina, with a population of 214,631 (Statistics Canada, 2017) and major cities in the USA.

The sections of Highway 6 and Highway 39 included in this project are currently undivided paved highways with ditch drainage. Highway 39 runs parallel to a Class I railway part of the Canadian Pacific Railway system. Also running nearly parallel to Highway 39 is the Souris River. Highway 39 crosses the Souris River at Weyburn, SK; however, the river crossing is not identified as one of the sections for improvements as part of this project. The sections of proposed improvements are highlighted in Figure 1-1 and the types of improvements are indicated including, highway twinning, resurfacing and the addition of passing lanes.

The sections of Highway 6 and Highway 39 being assessed are contained within the Prairies ecological zone, as described by the ecological framework of Canada. More specifically, these highways are within the Moist Mixed Grassland ecological region. This ecoregion comprises the northern extension of open grasslands in the Interior Plains of Canada and is closely correlated with semiarid moisture conditions and Dark Brown Chernozemic soils. The region is composed of upper Cretaceous sediments and covered almost entirely by hummocky to kettled glacial till and level to very gently undulating, sandy to clayey lacustrine deposits (Ecological Stratification Working Group, 1995).

1.3

Climate Change Risk and Vulnerability Highway 6 and Highway 39 Assessment

The area is also part of the Prairie Pothole Region. This formerly glaciated landscape is pockmarked with an immense number of potholes, which fill with snowmelt and rain in the spring. Some prairie pothole marshes are temporary, while others may essentially be permanent. The area is home to more than 50 percent of North American migratory waterfowl, with many species dependent on the potholes for breeding and feeding. In addition to supporting waterfowl hunting and birding, prairie potholes also absorb surges of rain, snow melt, and floodwaters thereby reducing the risk and severity of downstream flooding (United States Environmental Protection Agency, 2018). Figure 1-2: Bird Conservation Region 11 in the Prairie and Northern Region: Prairie Potholes (Environment Canada, 2013)

The role of the prairie pothole wetlands in storing rain during intense rain events was discussed with the Ministry during this project and comments regarding their role and influence on the highway are discussed in the Risk Assessment results of this report. The ability of the prairie potholes to store rain is dependent upon their condition state prior to the rain or snow melt event which could range from dry to full. The condition state changes from dry years to wet years and also changes during a year due to the effects of evaporation and groundwater recharge. Because of this rain fall data is not a reliable predictor of runoff. The same rainfall event can generate no runoff, average runoff or extreme runoff depending upon the condition state. There is also a secondary effect in that the condition state effectively changes the size of the effective drainage area of the drainage basin because of how the effective drainage area is defined and used to generate design low estimates in Saskatchewan1.

1.3 PROJECT OUTLINE

1.3.1 Scope of the Study

The PIEVC Protocol offers the user flexibility in adapting the process to the assessment context and constraints (e.g., time, resources, etc.). The PIEVC Protocol is described in brief in Section 1.4. For this assessment, the application of the Protocol did not include Step 4 – Engineering Analysis, since the objective was to develop an overall risk profile of the existing and proposed highway infrastructure assets, and related facilities. In addition, although social, economic and environmental impacts and benefits were discussed throughout the assessment, the triple bottom line (TBL) module of the PIEVC Protocol was not explicitly applied.

1 Source: communication from the Ministry

1.4

Climate Change Risk and Vulnerability Highway 6 and Highway 39 Assessment

Based on Stantec’s experience with the PIEVC Protocol, Steps 1 and 2 were completed through an iterative process involving exchange of information, meetings and workshops with the Climate Change Risk and Vulnerability Assessment Team (the Assessment Team).

The objectives of the risk assessment were to:

• Build awareness of the PIEVC Protocol as a risk assessment and management tool to the Ministry staff;

• Identify infrastructure vulnerabilities to current and future severe weather. The current and future highway infrastructure and related assets were considered in the study. These included the entire road prism (which was defined as base materials, asphalt, shoulders, markings, ditches, embankments, cuts, natural hillsides and slopes), drainage works (such as culverts and rip-rap), road signage, signals, and guard rails. Related assets such as the Estevan weigh scale, maintenance yards and the operations and maintenance crews and ITS infrastructure were also considered. A full list of the infrastructure/assets assessed is outlined in Table 4- 5 of this report;

• Establish a risk profile for existing and proposed portions of Highway 6 and Highway 39 that are scheduled for improvements, as seen in Figure 1-1; and

• Provide recommendations regarding mitigating risks with the highest consequences to the assets, service, and communities.

1.3.2 Climate Change Risk and Vulnerability Assessment Team

The strong technical and operational expertise of the Ministry and OE team representatives and their knowledge and experience as long-time residents of Saskatchewan was an essential and invaluable source of infrastructure and climate information to this project.

The members of the Climate Change Risk and Vulnerability Assessment Team (the Assessment Team) are listed in Table 1-1.

1.5

Climate Change Risk and Vulnerability Highway 6 and Highway 39 Assessment

Table 1-1: Climate Change Risk and Vulnerability Assessment Team

Assessment Team

Saskatchewan Ministry of Highways and Infrastructure Owner’s Engineer Representatives • Matthew Stephenson, Senior Project Manager • Dr. Guy Félio, PIEVC and Climate Lead • David Sterns, Executive Director, Construction • Jordan Stewart, PIEVC Assessment Support Branch • Kevin Paul • Douglas Ross, Senior Design Engineer, Design • Nathan Ruecker, SNC-Lavalin Standards • Ron Gerbrandt, Executive Director, Design Branch • Reg Cox, Director, Intergovernmental Relations/Aviation and Marine Policy • Zvjedan Lazic, Executive Director, Project Support Office

The following staff from Stantec provided workshop facilitation and various project support: • Josh Richer, Jordan Parisien, Kaitlyn Helmeczi, Erin Medforth

The group participated to the following workshops at Stantec’s office in Saskatoon, SK:

• Workshop #1 Project Definition/Data Gathering and Confirmation: July 10, 2018 o Coincides with Steps 1 and 2 of the standard PIEVC Protocol (see Section 1.4) • Workshop #2 Risk and Vulnerability Assessment/Mitigation Planning: August 1, 2018 o Coincides with Steps 3 and 4 of the standard PIEVC Protocol (see Section 1.4) 1.3.3 Timeline

The project timelines are shown below:

• Background information collection: June 25 – July 9, 2018 o Including information requests for infrastructure identification, and development of preliminary climate profile for the area • Workshop #1 Project Definition/ Data Gathering and Confirmation: July 10, 2018

• Building Risk Assessment framework and supplemental information collection: July 11 – July 31, 2018 o Based on Results of Workshop #1, the selected infrastructure and climate events were assembled and further researched to allow for completion of the risk assessment at Workshop #2. • Workshop #2 Risk and Vulnerability Assessment/ Mitigation Planning: August 1, 2018

• Draft final report: August 2 – August 30, 2018

• Drafted final report submitted to the Ministry for review: November 1, 2018

• Drafted final report returned to Stantec for revisions: December 20, 2019

• Final report provided to the Ministry: March 6, 2019

1.6

Climate Change Risk and Vulnerability Highway 6 and Highway 39 Assessment

1.3.4 Study Limitations

The analysis and recommendations in this assessment are based on information available within the timeline and scope of this project, and on the risk assessment group’s experience with the design, operations and maintenance of the infrastructure and related assets that are part of the selected sections of Highway 6 and Highway 39. It is possible that additional infrastructure and climate data exists and were not available at the time of the project or could not be considered. The risk assessment group did not conduct site visits related to this project.

Climate data and trends (current and future projections) used in this study were obtained from published literature, Environment Canada weather station data, and from the Risk Sciences International (RSI) Climate Data Portal (CCHIP). The scope of the project did not include future climate modelling beyond the future climate projections from existing global climate models (GCMs) published results or specific event modelling.

General information regarding the impacts of some past climate events on the highway assets was provided by the risk assessment group. Stantec did not conduct inspections or review incident reports to validate this information.

As appropriate, the need for further investigation into infrastructure or climate arising from this PIEVC assessment are included in the recommendations.

1.4 THE PIEVC PROTOCOL

This section describes the PIEVC Protocol in a condensed format. The results of each step completed as part of this project scope will be documented in the remainder of this report.

In August 2005, Engineers Canada partnered with Natural Resources Canada to conduct a national engineering vulnerability assessment of existing and planned public infrastructure to the impacts of climate change. One of the key outcomes from this partnership, completed in April 2008, was a formalized risk assessment procedure or tool, known as the PIEVC Engineering Protocol. This Protocol is in alignment with ISO Standard 31000 (Risk Management). Since 2008, more than 50 infrastructure systems have been completed in Canada – several related to highway infrastructure, and twice internationally - a complete list can be found at www.PIEVC.ca.

The Saskatchewan Ministry of Highways and Infrastructure signed a Non-Disclosure and Release Agreement with Engineers Canada to use the Protocol for this assessment. The version used to guide this assessment was PIEVC Engineering Protocol for Infrastructure Vulnerability Assessment and Adaptation to a Changing Climate, Revision PG- 10, May 2012. The steps in the Protocol application are illustrated in Figure 1-3 below. A brief description of each step follows.

1.7

Climate Change Risk and Vulnerability Highway 6 and Highway 39 Assessment

Figure 1-3: PIEVC Protocol Process Flowchart (Source: Engineers Canada, PIEVC Protocol Revision PG-10, May 2012)

1.4.1 Step 1 – Project Definition

The first step in the application of the PIEVC Protocol involves setting the general boundary conditions for the project. The Assessment Team establishes the infrastructure to be assessed and its key attributes such as location, condition,

1.8

Climate Change Risk and Vulnerability Highway 6 and Highway 39 Assessment

known concerns, etc. The Assessment Team identifies the overall climatic elements that impact the infrastructure and past weather events that have caused disruptions or failures to the service(s) provided by the asset(s).

This step is used to narrow the focus of the study to allow efficient data collection and vulnerability assessment processes.

1.4.2 Step 2 – Data Gathering and Sufficiency

At this stage of the project, the Assessment Team compiles relevant information appropriate to the project scope regarding:

• The infrastructure, facilities, and buildings part of the assessment. For example: o Physical components of the infrastructure; . Number of physical components; and . Location(s); o Other relevant engineering/technical considerations: . Material of construction; . Age; . Importance within the community served; . Physical condition; and . Previous failures causing service disruptions. o Operations and maintenance practices. • Maintenance and operations logs and reports. For example: o Management practices related to the infrastructure: . Insurance considerations; . Policies and guidelines; . Financial and funding considerations; . Regulatory setting; and . Legal considerations.

• Applicable climate information. Sources of climate information include, but are not limited to: o Government agencies (for example: Environment and Climate Change Canada; Saskatchewan Ministry of the Environment); o The National Building Code of Canada, Appendix C, Climate Information; o Intensity - Duration – Frequency (IDF) curves (for example, from the Institute for Catastrophic Loss Reduction - ICLR); o Flood plain mapping; o Regionally specific climatic modeling and scenario development (IPCC, CCCSN.ca); o Historical records of severe weather events (for example: Ministry Reports from past events, etc.); o Airport weather information (particularly wind patterns); o Climate research organizations (for example, CCHIP, PCIC, Ouranos); and o Others, as appropriate.

1.9

Climate Change Risk and Vulnerability Highway 6 and Highway 39 Assessment

1.4.3 Step 3 – Vulnerability and Risk Assessment

The Assessment Team first establishes which infrastructure (assets or components) are affected by the selected climate elements; this narrows down the number of “climate-infrastructure interactions” the Assessment Team will have to review. These climate-infrastructure interactions are identified in the context of particular response considerations, for example: structural performance, operational impacts, loss of functionality, etc.

In the Protocol, Risk is defined as the product of two ratings:

• Probability rating: a rating that represents the probability of occurrence of a climate event above a selected threshold, ranging from 0 (not applicable) to 5 (certain to occur); and

• Severity rating: a rating of the impacts on the infrastructure asset or component should the climate event occur, ranging from 0 (no impact) to 5 (complete failure).

Risk = Probability x Severity

Risks are evaluated under current climate conditions to establish a baseline; future risks are assessed considering future (projected) climate changes and the projected condition of the infrastructure. The interactions identified are evaluated based on the professional judgement of the Assessment Team.

In a PIEVC Protocol application, the assessment process does not require that all interactions be subjected to further assessment. In fact, most of the interactions considered will ultimately be eliminated from further consideration. Some interactions may clearly present no, or negligible, risk. Some interactions may clearly indicate a high risk and a need for immediate action. Those interactions that do not yield a clear answer regarding vulnerability may be the subject of a more detailed analysis (for example, refining the relevant climate event projections or improving the knowledge about the condition of the infrastructure and potential impacts of climate events), subjected to the further Engineering Analysis (Step 4 of the Protocol) or recommended for additional study after the assessment.

1.4.4 Step 4 – Engineering Analysis – Optional

The optional Step 4 of the Protocol was not performed in this study. This step can be undertaken when specific climate- infrastructure interactions are identified for additional, more focused, analysis to resolve the risk profile, but this was not part of the scope of this project. Any climate-infrastructure interactions that could benefit from further Engineering Analysis will be indicated as such in the Recommendations of the project (see Step 5).

1.4.5 Step 5 – Conclusions and Recommendations

The results of the previous Protocol steps are used to provide recommendations that generally fall into six major categories:

• No further action is required;

• Remedial actions required to mitigate infrastructure performance risks – typically engineering solutions such as upgrades to the infrastructure;

• Design parameters should be considered for revision – reviewing design standards so that new infrastructure constructed will be designed according to the projected change in demands due to climate change;

1.10

Climate Change Risk and Vulnerability Highway 6 and Highway 39 Assessment

• Management actions required to account for changes in the infrastructure performance - for example, modifying operation and maintenance procedures due to fluctuations in winter precipitation patterns;

• Monitoring activities - for example, performance of the infrastructure or climate data analysis to validate projections; and/or

• Further work required to fill gaps in data availability or data quality.

1.4.6 Steps 6 to 8 – Triple Bottom Line Module

The PIEVC Protocol provides a triple bottom line (TBL) decision making module that helps to establish, in broad terms, environmental, social and economic factors to aid decision makers in selecting appropriate adaptation actions and strategies. The use of the TBL support tool is a means of priority setting; it helps decision makers balance competing interests to provide the greatest overall return on investment that extends beyond purely financial terms. The scope of this risk assessment did not include the TBL module, however, the risk mitigation and adaptation strategies discussed in Section 5.0 can be assessed using a TBL analysis such as the PIEVC-TBL module if desired.

1.11

Climate Change Risk and Vulnerability Highway 6 and Highway 39 Assessment

2.0 PROJECT DEFINITION AND DATA GATHERING – STEP 1 AND STEP 2

The PIEVC Protocol illustrates the elements that are considered during Step 1 Project Definition and Step 2 Data Gathering and Sufficiency, as illustrated below in Figure 2-1 and Figure 2-2 respecitively.

Figure 2-1: PIEVC Protocol Project Step 1 - Definition Process Flowchart (Source: Engineers Canada, PIEVC Protocol Revision PG-10, May 2012)

2.1

Climate Change Risk and Vulnerability Highway 6 and Highway 39 Assessment

Figure 2-2: Step 2 - Data Gathering and Sufficiency Process Flowchart (Source: Engineers Canada, PIEVC Protocol Revision PG-10, May 2012)

Prior to Workshop #1, the Owner’s Engineer Team completed a desktop review of the proposed project extents. Using prior knowledge of typical highway infrastructure, aerial photography and other background information collected as part of the greater Highway 6 and Highway 39 Corridor Improvements Project, the OE Team was able to create a Project Definition and Inventory of Data that could be confirmed by the Ministry at Workshop #1. During Workshop #1, participants validated the data gathered and narrowed the focus of the applicable infrastructure, time horizon, climate change assumptions and climate events which refined the project definition.

2.1 INVENTORY OF INFRASTRUCTURE COMPONENTS

Linear Infrastructure to be Considered

Although highways typically contain similar infrastructure components, there are always some variabilities that make selected sections of highways unique. The OE Team decided to group the common linear roadway infrastructure into one common element to be assessed. This “road prism” includes the road base, asphalt, shoulders, pavement markings, ditches, embankments/cuts, and natural hillsides and slopes, as shown in below in Figure 2-3.

2.2

Climate Change Risk and Vulnerability Highway 6 and Highway 39 Assessment

Figure 2-3: Typical Extent of Linear Infrastructure Assessed as the Road Prism

Localized Infrastructure

In addition to the linear road prism, which runs the entire length of the project limits, there are more localized infrastructure assets such as rip-rap, signage, street luminaires, guard rails, and culverts. These types of infrastructure are present to overcome some localized need, such as enhancing intersection safety or conveying surface water drainage crossings and as such, complement the road prism to create a safe highway system.

Miscellaneous and Related Assets

Other related miscellaneous infrastructure such as the existing and proposed Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS), 3rd party utilities, railway crossings, or Ministry maintenance yards were also assessed to assess any vulnerabilities they might have. As discussed in Section 1.2, Highway 6 and Highway 39 is part of the Prairie Pothole Region, which means the area is scattered with “potholes” that have some capacity to store surface water drainage during rain events. The OE Team agreed to call these “undrained basins” and consider them as an asset to be assessed based on their ability to provide storm water storage.

It is important to note that it was agreed upon by the OE Team that the risk assessment would evaluate existing infrastructure as well as the infrastructure proposed as part of the Highway 6 and Highway 39 Corridor Improvements Project. All infrastructure assessed is listed in Table 4-5 in this report.

2.2 CONDITION OF INFRASTRUCTURE COMPONENTS

A site visit was not conducted as part of this project scope .The OE Team relied on the knowledge and experience of Ministry and OE Team representatives about the assets to conduct the assessment. Since this risk assessment is carried out as part of the greater Highway 6 and Highway 39 Corridor Improvements project, the vulnerabilities of the proposed design are the foremost priority. As such all assets were assumed to be new, in good working condition. The existing infrastructure that will not be replaced by the Project was considered to be in good operating condition as well on the basis of the Ministry’s ongoing monitoring, maintenance and replacement programs. Field inspections to assess the condition of the infrastructure were not conducted as part of this project.

2.3

Climate Change Risk and Vulnerability Highway 6 and Highway 39 Assessment

2.3 CLIMATE RELATED CONCERNS

A preliminary climate profile was created for the area containing Highway 6 and Highway 39, (see Section 3.0 and Appendix A) and completed a desktop review of recent climate events that were reported on in the media. The OE Team was able to bring this list of events to the Workshops and have the entire Assessment Team confirm these events and provide additional details and/or identify other events they recalled. Where available, the OE Team collected additional information to confirm dates and details on all the events selected. As with many other areas in Canada, southern Saskatchewan is not immune to extreme weather and climate uncertainty and has experienced meteorological events that have caused service disruptions and damage to its highway infrastructure.

At Workshops #1 and #2, the climate events listed below were discussed in detail and validated by the Assessment Team. Ministry staff at the workshops indicated these types of climate events have caused and are likely to cause in the future disruptions of service, and/or damage to and failure of the infrastructure assets considered in the study. The current frequency of these climate events occurring in the area of Highway 6 and Highway 39 is summarized in Table 4-3 in this report. Table 4-3 also summarizes the frequency of these events that can be expected under future climate conditions.

Heat Waves

Heat waves are a common occurrence in most areas of Canada. The Assessment Team agreed that most infrastructure is designed for, and people have become accustomed to several days with daytime high temperatures in excess of 30°C and that significant impacts typically only come about on extremely hot days. The benchmark for this risk assessment was days with daytime high temperatures in excess of 35°C. The Assessment Team identified that temperatures in this range can soften the asphalt and heavy loads can contribute to asphalt deformation including rutting and cracking. This is confirmed in the Natural Resources Canada Publication on Climate Risks for the Canadian Transportation Sector which reads, “extreme heat causes asphalt pavements to rut and bleed” (Transportation Research Board, 2008). Heat waves can also negatively impact the performance of seal coats and can lead to their failure.

In addition to the impacts on the physical infrastructure, the Assessment Team identified the impacts that temperatures like these have on operations and maintenance staff.

During the climate change assessment period in the summer of 2018, the Weyburn weather station recorded 3 days with maximum temperatures more than 35°C. This included one day more than 40°C, which was hottest day ever recorded in August in Weyburn, SK.

Seasonal Temperature Variations

Understanding that climate change is generally warming Saskatchewan, (see Section 3.0) the Assessment Team wanted to investigate the effects of the change in seasonal duration, such as the extension of the agricultural and construction seasons.

Winter Temperature Variations: Freeze-Thaw Events

The Assessment Team identified freeze-thaw events as a concern to be assessed, since they can contribute to a variety of issues including formation of ice on roads, clogging drainage systems, and asphalt deformation such as cracking and heaving. Although not all freeze thaw events cause issues, as confirmed in the Natural Resources Canada

2.4

Climate Change Risk and Vulnerability Highway 6 and Highway 39 Assessment

Publication on Climate Risks for the Canadian Transportation Sector which reads, “Greater variability in temperature contributes to more rapid deterioration of road infrastructure. It is expected that the Prairies will experience an increase in the frequency of freeze-thaw cycles by mid-century (Sauchyn and Kulshreshtha, 2008) stressing road surfaces and bridges and increasing renewal and replacement costs (Amiro et al., 2014)” (Transportation Research Board, 2008).

Drought

The Assessment Team agrees that the impacts of severe droughts in southern Saskatchewan are more severe for economic sectors such as agriculture, as opposed to having direct impacts on the transportation networks like Highway 6 and Highway 39. However, the Assessment Team wished to add droughts to the list of events to be evaluated because of their contribution to another damaging event; grass fires (see below). Extreme drought can also affect the road structure itself due to materials contraction from moisture changes. For example, there are increased potential for subgrade shrinkage (U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration, 2015) and, as highlighted in the Natural Resources Canada Publication on Climate Risks for the Canadian Transportation Sector, “during drought years in 2014-2015 in the Greater Edmonton Area, there was severe cracking of roadways as a result of desiccation of clay sub-soils (Kelm and Wylie, 2008)” (Transportation Research Board, 2008).

Drought can also result in the water level in the prairie potholes to be lower than average and results in lower runoff volumes for the same return period rain fall event.

Extreme Cold

Much like heat waves, periods of cold temperatures are a normal part of life in southern Saskatchewan. Infrastructure has been designed to operate in these temperatures, and people are generally accustomed to cold temperatures. This assessment considered days with temperatures below -30°C.

The very shallow grades throughout southern Saskatchewan present stormwater drainage challenges when designing and maintaining roadways. The risk vulnerability assessment was completed based on the impacts of a 24-hour duration rain event with 50 mm of rain. This intensity threshold was selected by the project team as potentially causing disruptions in service or damage to the infrastructure. It should be noted, as indicated previously, that the contribution of “prairie potholes” to rainfall storage or run-off influences the impacts of these types of events on the infrastructure. Weather station data allows for historical “Intensity-Frequency-Duration” (IDF) analysis that indicates how often storms of this magnitude have occurred and extensive research has also been completed to predict the IDF information of storms under future climate scenarios (see Section 3.0).

Short Duration Rainfall

Similar to long duration rainfalls, the historic and projected IDF information for short, intense rainfalls is available for the areas containing Highway 6 and Highway 39. The risk assessment was completed based on the impacts of a 1- hour duration rain event with 50 mm of rain. From the perspective of transportation infrastructure, rainfalls with this intensity and duration are a concern due to the possibility of damaging high storm-water flows and flash flooding. In southern Saskatchewan, rainfall events like these are more common in the summer months as hot daytime

2.5

Climate Change Risk and Vulnerability Highway 6 and Highway 39 Assessment

temperatures produce intense summer storms. This intensity threshold was selected by the project team as potentially causing disruptions in service or damage to the infrastructure. It should be noted, as indicated previously, that the contribution of “prairie potholes” to rainfall storage or run-off influences the impacts of these types of events on the infrastructure.

Winter Rainfall

Rainfall events in winter months can have negative impacts on highway infrastructure and safety if the drainage system is or becomes blocked with ice and snow or, if rain events are followed by cold winter temperatures so that ice forms on roadways. The Assessment Team reinforced that their major concern with this type of event was the worst-case scenario of the rain being followed by extreme cold temperatures over extended periods. Under these assumptions, this type of event has the same effects a as a freezing rain event, so the risk matrix was only completed for a freezing rain event described below. Winter rainfall, or period of melting in the winter, can also lead to higher than normal spring runoff and flooding from otherwise normal snow pack conditions.

Freezing Rain

Freezing rain is rain that freezes on impact to form a coating of clear ice on the ground and on exposed objects (Environment and Climate Change Canada, 2017). Like most areas of Canada, southern Saskatchewan has several annual instances of temperatures around 0°C, and thus freezing rain is a risk. Although heavy freezing rain accumulation can be detrimental to power lines, the power lines are not Ministry assets and the risk to these is not the responsibility of the Ministry even though power failures may impact Ministry operations. For this assessment, no magnitude freezing rain event was defined since any freezing rain must be dealt with from an operations perspective.

Widespread Snowfall

The Assessment Team identified weather events that bring widespread snowfall across a large region and therefore stress their maintenance resources so that it can be difficult to complete snow clearing on all roads in a timely manner. It should be noted however, that since Highway 6 and Highway 39 are provincial highways, they are prioritized for clearing. Therefore, the risks due to widespread snowfall events is essentially shifted to other, less travelled roadways. This assessment considered events with more than 10 cm of snowfall.

Winter Storms

Snowfall is not the only component of winter storms that impacts highways such as Highway 6 and Highway 39. The Assessment Team agreed that in areas like southern Saskatchewan especially, the combination of snow (either being precipitated or previously accumulated on the ground) and wind can create hazardous driving conditions such as poor visibility or snow drifting over the roads. This assessment considered all types of winter storms that generate these conditions; including but not limited to storms caused by “Colorado Lows” and the “Pineapple Express”. Although storms created by different atmospheric phenomena have different characteristics, for this report, the impacts of these storms are considered similar enough to categorize them as one category of climate event. Statistics such as “blowing snow days per year” or “blizzard hours per year” can help characterize the frequency of these types of events in southern Saskatchewan.

High Stream Flows (Floods)

Although short- and long-term rainfall events can create immediate drainage concerns for roadways such as Highway 6 and Highway 39, higher than normal precipitation rates on a seasonal level can contribute to high stream and river

2.6

Climate Change Risk and Vulnerability Highway 6 and Highway 39 Assessment

flows which can be even more damaging to highway infrastructure. As discussed in Section 1.2, the Souris River runs nearly parallel to Highway 39 and there are numerous culvert crossings on the highway that facilitate drainage into this river. The Ministry provided the records of their response to a flood event in 2011, and on Highway 6 and Highway 39 alone, there was over $5.5 million in repairs and services required to rectify the issues that event caused. This assessment considers events that are similar to that 2011 flood.

Tornados

Although tornados can be extremely destructive when considering a 228 km stretch of highway, the effects of a tornado would be extremely localized, unlike all the other weather events selected for this assessment. The highly local impacts of tornadoes, combined with the extremely low frequency of occurrence, lead the Assessment Team not to include tornadoes in this assessment. The Assessment Team however acknowledged that there would be operational and possibly structural impacts should a tornado occur in the highway area under consideration.

High Winds

The Assessment Team discussed the impacts that extremely high winds can have on highways such as Highway 6 and Highway 39. In addition to numerous cases of large vehicles, like transport trucks, being blown off roads, high winds also pose a risk to signage. In Saskatchewan, Environment and Climate Change Canada issues wind warnings, when there are 70 km/h or more sustained winds or wind gusts of 90 km/h or more. For this assessment, the Team considered the impacts and frequency of 80 km/h or more for sustained winds, or wind gusts of 100 km/h or more.

Other Wind Events: Plough Winds; Downbursts; Straight-line Winds; Derecho

The Assessment Team identified plough winds as another damaging wind event that are common to Saskatchewan. Plough winds are one among several meteorological phenomena that can produce wind gusts over 200 km/h that lack the rotational characteristic of tornados. The Assessment Team recalled recent occurrences and speculated that plough winds occur less than once per year in Saskatchewan. Like tornados, these events are localized and difficult to analyse. However, they are included in the assessment and professional judgement was applied to the ratings for frequency of occurrence.

Grass Fires

In dry conditions, grass fires (wild fires) can be a common occurrence in southern Saskatchewan; whether started by lightening, arson or accidentally such as by off-road vehicles. There are many reports of wildfires in Saskatchewan every year. Damage to signage and impacts to operations and maintenance crews are an example of some of the impacts wild fires can have on roadways. Since efforts are made to control these fires quickly, a report of a fire doesn’t necessarily mean there will be impact on the highway’s infrastructure. These events share similar characteristics to the abovementioned tornados and other wind events in that they are localized events. They are included in the assessment; however professional judgment has been applied to the ratings for the frequency of occurrence.

2.4 TIME HORIZON FOR THE STUDY

The time horizons for the study were selected as current conditions (establishing the baseline risks) and the 2080’s for future conditions as this represents the design life of new highway improvements proposed as part of the greater Highway 6 and Highway 39 Corridor Improvements Project.

2.7

Climate Change Risk and Vulnerability Highway 6 and Highway 39 Assessment

2.5 DATA SUFFICIENCY

Stantec obtained and used several data and information sources to complete the PIEVC vulnerability assessment; these included: • Internal reports (for example, Saskatchewan Ministry of Highways and Infrastructure database of damages and repairs required due to 2011 flood); • External studies from consultants, academic institutions, and Provincial and Federal governments; • News reports on climate events and their impacts on the community; and • Ministry and Stantec input during the workshops.

2.8

Climate Change Risk and Vulnerability Highway 6 and Highway 39 Assessment

3.0 CLIMATE CONSIDERATIONS

The climate considerations presented hereafter are the result of discussions of the Assessment Team at the project workshops, and research into available information. The selection of climate parameters and infrastructure thresholds was the result of the workshops where the history of climate-infrastructure interactions that have caused structural or functional failures, or service disruptions to infrastructure were discussed.

3.1 GENERAL OVERVIEW

Climate data used for this analysis was obtained from Environment Canada Weyburn Station (Station ID:4018760, [- 103.833, 49.65]) located close to Highway 39, just south-east of Weyburn, SK. This station collected nearly complete data from 1953 to 2012 and is appropriately located to provide a representation of the climate of the selected sections of Highway 6 and Highway 39. Given the overall length of the project, weather data was checked with supporting stations to confirm there wasn’t too much variance of climate from one end of this project to the other. Climate data was confirmed with the Regina International Airport Station (Station ID: 4016560, [-104.667, 50.433]) and the Midale, SK Stations (Station ID 4018760 and 4015159, [-103.4, 49.4] and [-103.3, 49.3833]); see Figure 3-1. Where the Weyburn Station did not contain the appropriate data, such as for variables like wind gust speeds, some supporting data was used from the Regina International Airport Station. Risk Sciences International (RSI) Climate Change Hazards Information Portal (CCHIP) was used to analyze historical trends and for future climate projections.

Figure 3-1: Location of Primary and Supporting Environment Canada Weather Stations

3.1

Climate Change Risk and Vulnerability Highway 6 and Highway 39 Assessment

The temperature and precipitation for 1981 to 2010 Canadian climate normals for Weyburn (Environment Canada’s Weyburn Station) are shown in Figure 3-2 below.

Figure 3-2: Temperature and Precipitation Graph for 1981 to 2010 Canadian Climate Normals for Weyburn Measured at Environment Canada's Weyburn Station (Source: Environment Canada) 3.2 SOURCES OF INFORMATION

The main sources of climate information for this study are listed below:

• Environment Canada Weather Station – Weyburn Station ID 4018760;

• Climate Change Hazards Information Portal (RSI, CCHIP.ca);

• Facility for Intelligent Decision Support, Western University Canada, supported by Institute for Catastrophic Loss Reduction;

• Climate Atlas of Canada, Prairie Climate Centre, University of Winnipeg;

• Sask Adapt, Prairie Adaptation Research Collaborative; and

• Environment, Public Health, and Safety, Government of Saskatchewan.

3.2

Climate Change Risk and Vulnerability Highway 6 and Highway 39 Assessment

3.3 CLIMATE EVENTS

3.3.1 Climate Trends and Future Climate Projections

The tables and figures below provide examples of The IPCC is the international body for assessing the data used for the study; details are provided in science related to climate change. The IPCC was set up in Appendix A. Initial future climate projections were 1988 by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) based on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate and United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) to Change (IPCC) RCP2 8.5 scenario - a scenario provide policymakers with regular assessments of the scientific basis of climate change, its impacts and future characterized by increasing greenhouse gas risks, and options for adaptation and mitigation. emissions over time, representative of scenarios in the literature that lead to high greenhouse gas IPCC assessments provide a scientific basis for concentration levels. governments at all levels to develop climate related policies, and they underlie negotiations at the UN Climate 3.3.2 Temperature Conference – the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). The assessments are Table 3-1 below presents the annual and seasonal policy-relevant but not policy-prescriptive: they may present projections of future climate change based on average changes in mean temperatures projected for different scenarios and the risks that climate change the area using the IPCC RCP 8.5 scenario. Mean poses and discuss the implications of response options, winter temperatures are projected to experience the but they do not tell policymakers what actions to take. largest increase.

Table 3-1: Average Change in Mean Temperature from Baseline

Average Change in Mean Temperature from 1981-2010 Baseline (°C) RCP 8.5 Season 2020s 2050s 2080s Annual 1.4 3.3 5.6 Winter 1.8 4.0 6.4 Spring 1.2 2.8 4.7 Summer 1.3 3.3 5.7 Autumn 1.3 3.3 5.5

The following figures illustrate some of the trends and future climate forecasts for mean temperature in Weyburn, SK.

2 RCP: Representative Concentration Pathways – a greenhouse gas concentration (not emissions) trajectories adopted by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) for its fifth Assessment Report (AR5) in 2014.

3.3

Climate Change Risk and Vulnerability Highway 6 and Highway 39 Assessment

Figure 3-3: Annual Temporal Average - Mean Daily Temperature (RCP 8.5)

Figure 3-4: Winter Temporal Average – Mean Daily Temperature (RCP 8.5)

When viewing the historic linear trend lines in the above figures, it may lead one to question the projections of a warming climate since the mean temperature trend remains relatively constant for the years shown. To better show the trend of a warming climate, the mean daily temperature data was also analyzed over the entire time that the Weyburn Station has been collecting complete data. The results of this long-term trend are shown in Figure 3-5 and reinforce the trend of climate warming in Weyburn when a larger sample of data is analyzed. The results indicate a warming of 1.6°C over the 60-year period available.

3.4

Climate Change Risk and Vulnerability Highway 6 and Highway 39 Assessment

Figure 3-5: Long Term Annual Temporal Average - Mean Daily Temperature

As discussed above, to confirm there wasn’t too much variability in climate from one end of the project limits to the other, the Weyburn Station data was compared to data from Regina and Midale (note that Midale data was incomplete). Figure 3-6 shows the results of this comparison and suggest that the Regina may typically be slightly less than 1 degree cooler than Weyburn and Midale, but generally each location follows the same pattern of years being warmer or cooler than their normal.

3.5

Climate Change Risk and Vulnerability Highway 6 and Highway 39 Assessment

Figure 3-6: Annual Temporal Average - Mean Daily Temperature - Weyburn, Midale, Regina (RCP4.5 and RCP 8.5)

3.3.3 Maximum Temperature

Table 3-2 presents the annual and seasonal average changes in maximum daily temperatures projected for the area using the IPCC RCP 8.5 scenario. Maximum summer temperatures are projected to experience the largest increase.

Table 3-2: Average Change in Maximum Daily Temperature from Baseline

Average Change in Maximum Daily Temperature from 1981-2010 Baseline (°C) RCP 8.5 Season 2020s 2050s 2080s Annual 1.4 3.2 5.4 Winter 1.6 3.5 5.7 Spring 1.2 2.8 4.6 Summer 1.3 3.3 5.9 Autumn 1.3 3.3 5.5

3.6

Climate Change Risk and Vulnerability Highway 6 and Highway 39 Assessment

Figure 3-7: Summer Temporal Average – Maximum Daily Temperature (RCP 8.5)

Table 3-2 and Figure 3-7 summarize the projected increase in maximum daily temperatures that are expected for Weyburn. The large increase in the summer months is worth noting since these months are already the warmest months of the year and an increase in temperatures will further exacerbate the impacts of heat waves on infrastructure and people.

3.3.4 Precipitation

Table 3-3 presents the changes in total precipitation projected for the area using the IPCC RCP 8.5 scenario. Summer precipitation is projected to only marginally decrease in later decades while precipitation is projected to increase in all other seasons in all other timeframes – resulting in a net annual increase.

Table 3-3: Average Percent Change in Total Precipitation from Baseline

Average Percent Change in Total Precipitation from 1981-2010 Baseline (%) RCP 8.5 Season 2020s 2050s 2080s Annual 3.7 6.9 9.8 Winter 4.3 10.6 19.5 Spring 7.4 17.4 26.6 Summer 1.4 -0.8 -4.2 Autumn 3.8 4.9 7.9

The following figures below illustrate some of the trends and future climate forecasts in precipitation.

3.7

Climate Change Risk and Vulnerability Highway 6 and Highway 39 Assessment

Figure 3-8: Annual Precipitation Temporal Total (RCP 8.5)

Figure 3-9: Spring Precipitation Temporal Total (RCP 8.5)

The historic and projected increase of precipitation in the spring months is an important trend to note since these are the months where the most damaging flood events have occurred, such as the 2011 flood.

3.8

Climate Change Risk and Vulnerability Highway 6 and Highway 39 Assessment

In addition to temporal averages and extremes, impacts of future climate changes on the intensity of design rainfalls was assessed. The intensity, duration and frequency (IDF) historical and projected future climate data was produced using the Western University Canada, Institute for Catastrophic Loss Reduction (ICLR) model (see: http://www.idf-cc- uwo.ca/ ). This data includes total precipitation amount (mm) in specific time interval (5 minutes to 24 hours) for various return periods (2 years to 100 years) as shown in the tables below. The Weyburn weather station has historical IDF information available as shown in Table 3-4. Projected precipitation information is presented in Table 3-5.

Table 3-4: Historical (Weyburn; Station ID 4018760; 1962-2004) – Total Precipitation (mm). (ICLR, 2018)

T (years) 2 5 10 25 50 100 5 min 6.76 9.73 11.81 14.6 16.77 19.03 10 min 8.94 13.47 17.03 22.28 26.81 31.93 15 min 10.99 16.84 21.4 28.09 33.81 40.22 30 min 14.66 23.39 30.32 40.66 49.65 59.87 1 h 17.21 28.28 37.64 52.45 66.08 82.34 2 h 19.4 32.13 43.81 63.67 83.28 108.14 6 h 25.63 40 52.24 71.7 89.71 111.3 12 h 32.06 47.04 59.97 80.77 100.25 123.84 24 h 37.59 56.38 72.4 97.89 121.49 149.82

Table 3-5: Projected (2025-2075) IDF Data using RCP 8.5 - (Weyburn; Station ID 4018760; 1962-2004) -Total Precipitation (mm). (ICLR, 2018)

T (years) 2 5 10 25 50 100 5 min 7.61 11.51 14.33 17.92 20.82 23.63 10 min 10.15 15.91 20.47 26.87 32.49 37.97 15 min 12.48 19.9 25.75 33.92 41.01 47.85 30 min 16.69 27.65 36.4 48.9 59.81 71.39 1 h 19.74 33.41 44.89 62.17 77.91 96.93 2 h 22.48 37.92 51.59 73.84 95.59 122.95 6 h 29.36 47.2 62.18 84.95 105.84 131.6 12 h 36.66 55.38 71.09 95.5 118.23 147.13 24 h 42.98 66.45 86.06 116.05 143.66 178.11

The tables above show that, for example, the total precipitation that can be expected for a 1:100-year, 24-hour duration rainfall is projected to increase by approximately 19% under future climate conditions. Another way to interpret the data is to consider past events. For example, the greatest amount of precipitation ever recorded in a 24-hour period in Weyburn was 113 mm on July 2, 1990. According to historical IDF information, this amount of rain would statistically be expected to occur approximately every 41 years. Meanwhile under future climate scenarios, this type of event is projected to be statistically expected approximately every 23 years.

The projected IDF information under future climate conditions was also obtained for the RCP 4.5 scenario and in that scenario the projected increase in precipitation intensities was more severe than the RCP 8.5 scenario. The projected increased precipitation accumulation under the effects of climate change for the Weyburn area for specific events is shown below in Table 3-6.

It should be noted that the Ministry uses stream gauge data as the primary source for the determination of design flows for a specific return frequency. IDF data is only used for small basins (<25 km2) where stream data cannot provide a flow estimate. This is an important consideration given the poor linkage between IDF data and drainage basin runoff in areas of prairie pothole topography.

3.9

Climate Change Risk and Vulnerability Highway 6 and Highway 39 Assessment

Table 3-6: Projected Percentage Precipitation Accumulation Increase for Weyburn Weather Station under RCP 4.5 and 8.5, 2025-2075. (ICLR, 2018)

T (years) 2 5 10 25 50 100 RCP 4.5 8.5 4.5 8.5 4.5 8.5 4.5 8.5 4.5 8.5 4.5 8.5 5 min 10.4% 12.6% 15.2% 18.3% 13.5% 21.3% 18.6% 22.7% 23.1% 24.2% 33.1% 24.2% 10 min 10.6% 13.5% 14.4% 18.1% 13.3% 20.2% 17.0% 20.6% 21.8% 21.2% 31.8% 18.9% 15 min 10.6% 13.6% 14.8% 18.2% 13.3% 20.3% 17.1% 20.8% 21.9% 21.3% 31.7% 19.0% 30 min 10.8% 13.8% 15.0% 18.2% 13.2% 20.1% 16.6% 20.3% 21.5% 20.5% 30.8% 19.2% 1 h 10.7% 14.7% 14.5% 18.1% 13.3% 19.3% 15.1% 18.5% 20.1% 17.9% 29.1% 17.7% 11.2% 2 h 15.9% 13.9% 18.0% 13.4% 17.8% 12.8% 16.0% 17.2% 14.8% 25.8% 13.7% 10.5% 6 h 14.6% 13.8% 18.0% 13.6% 19.0% 15.1% 18.5% 19.9% 18.0% 29.6% 18.2% 10.4% 12 h 14.3% 14.1% 17.7% 13.9% 18.5% 15.1% 18.2% 19.4% 17.9% 30.1% 18.8% 10.4% 24 h 14.3% 13.9% 17.9% 13.7% 18.9% 15.3% 18.6% 19.9% 18.2% 30.2% 18.9%

3.3.5 Freezing Rain

The area containing Highway 6 and Highway 39 has historically had a relatively high rate of occurrence of freezing rain when compare to the regions located to its east and west. Figure 3-10 shows that the region has approximately 10 or 11 days with freezing precipitation annually. Meanwhile according to the Prairie Adaptation Research Collaborative (PARC), freezing rain, a currently infrequent event, may become more common with warmer winter temperatures. (Prairie Adaptation Research Collaborative, SaskAdapt, n.d.).

Figure 3-10: Average Days per Year with Freezing Precipitation 1971-2005 (Env. Canada)

3.10

Climate Change Risk and Vulnerability Highway 6 and Highway 39 Assessment

3.3.6 Drought

Droughts are a difficult climate event to apply a frequency rating to since impacts can be linked to the severe lack of precipitation in an individual year, or ongoing low levels of precipitation year after year, or both. Figure 3-11 shows the years of major droughts that have hit the area of Highway 6 and Highway 39 in southern Saskatchewan, and it can be seen that there have been four major droughts in the past century.

Figure 3-11: Date and Extent of Major North American Droughts (Wheaton, 2004)

There are many variables that will be a factor in the future frequency of droughts in this area which makes it difficult to quantify. In a report to the Saskatchewan Ministry of the Environment from PARC it was summarized, “The most plausible climate future for Saskatchewan includes a declining net surface and soil water balance in summer, as water loss by evapotranspiration potentially exceeds precipitation to a greater degree. Increased aridity most likely will be realized by more frequent and/or sustained drought” (Sauchyn, D. et al, 2009).

3.3.7 Flood

The Souris River flood of 2011 was a historical event, which as discussed caused of millions of dollars of repairs. As such is important to try and estimate how rare an event like this will be for the area. “Some of the biggest floods on record happened in 1969, 1976, and 2011. The Souris River flood of 2011 was the biggest flood event in recorded history by far” (North Dakota State Water Commission, 2015). This event was “caused by high precipitation in the

3.11

Climate Change Risk and Vulnerability Highway 6 and Highway 39 Assessment

summer and fall of 2010 combined with above-average snowfall this past winter” (Saskatchewan Watershed Authority, 2011).

Several analyses of this 2011 event, suggest this was an extremely rare event. An analysis of the river flow further downstream in Manitoba calculated a peak flow of this magnitude to have a return period of 145 years, while another peak flow analysis in North Dakota calculated a return period of 500 years.

In regard to the impacts of prairie potholes on potential flooding, the Government of Saskatchewan Hydraulic Manual (2014) states, “of particular significance is the typical large amount of “prairie pothole” depression storage contained in the effective contributing areas of the basin in the central and southern parts of the Province. The amount of water stored in these areas varies throughout the year and between years. Depending upon the water level the same rainfall or spring runoff event can produce anything from no runoff to a flood.”

3.3.8 Climate Parameters Selected for the Risk Assessment

The selection of climate parameters and infrastructure was the result of discussions with Assessment Team members at Workshop #1, and then further validated at Workshop #2. The climate events selected are a nearly exhaustive list of the types of climate events that can cause impacts in Southern Saskatchewan. The full list is in Table 4-3.

3.12

Climate Change Risk and Vulnerability Highway 6 and Highway 39 Assessment

4.0 VULNERABILITY AND RISK ASSESSMENT – STEP 3

4.1 RISK ASSESSMENT PROCESS

Step 3 of the Protocol instructs the Assessment Team to perform the following steps, illustrated Figure 4-1 below.

Figure 4-1: PIEVC Protocol Risk Assessment Process Flowchart 4.2 RISK THRESHOLDS

Risk is defined as the product of the probability score multiplied by the severity score. Since the probability and the severity scores are each rated from 0 to 5, the maximum risk score will be 25. For this project, the risk thresholds for discussion purposes are shown below in Table 4-1.

4.1

Climate Change Risk and Vulnerability Highway 6 and Highway 39 Assessment

Table 4-1: Selected Risk Thresholds

Score Description ≤ 5 Low: No action required

6 to 12 Moderate: Monitoring recommended; action may be required if threat materialises; a more detailed analysis may be needed

15 to 25 High: Action required; immediate attention if risk occurs in current climate; adaptation planning necessary if risk occurs in future climate projections

4.3 INFRASTRUCTURE RESPONSE

During Workshop #2, participants discussed and came up with the infrastructure response criteria against which the infrastructure-climate interactions and risks would be evaluated. The details of the infrastructure responses are summarized below:

Infrastructure response

1. Structural capacity

2. Functionality

3. Operations, maintenance, and materials performance

Community impacts were not assessed as part of this risk assessment as they are outside the scope of the project. The focus of this study is to understand the vulnerability of Highway 6 and Highway 39 to specific climate events and how these risks evolve with a changing climate.

4.4 CLIMATE PROBABILITY SCORING

The PIEVC protocol uses a scale to rate the probability of the climate events occurring (current and future climate). For the purposes of this project, a 0-5 scale (shown in Table 4-2) was selected.

Table 4-2: Probability Scoring

Score Quantitative Probability Descriptive Probability 1 >1 in 50 years Highly unlikely, Improbable

2 1 in 10 to 1 in 50 years Remotely possible

3 1 in 1 to 1 in 10 years Possible, Occasional

4 10 per year to 1 in 1 year Somewhat likely, Normal

5 >10 per year Likely, Frequent

The Climate Events, their researched occurrence, and probability score for both the current climate and the future climate are shown in Table 4-3.

4.2

Climate Change Risk and Vulnerability Assessment Highway 6 and Highway 39

Table 4-3: Climate Event Risk Assessment Criteria, Occurrence and Probability Rating

Occurrence Probability Rating Climate Event Comments Current Future Current Climate Future Climate Climate Climate Extreme Heat Env. Canada issues heat warning when 2 or more consecutive days of daytime maximum temperatures are expected to reach 1981-2010 Normal = 2.4 days/year CCHIP.ca RCP8.5 4 5 32°C or warmer and nighttime minimum temperatures are expected to fall to 16°C or warmer. Or, issued when 2 or more 2050s:11.5 days/year consecutive days of humidex values are expected to reach 38 or higher. 2080s:26.7 days/year For this assessment we will consider occurrences of Days with Temp. >35°C Seasonal Temp The Climate Elements in section 3.3, clearly indicate warming in the coming decades. This is a special case as the assessment NA NA NA NA Variations aimed to discuss any impacts that may arise from a longer warm season. It was discovered that there were no negative impacts with a severity rating higher than 1. As such a “Moderate” risk threshold rating would be unattainable. This assessment will not consider an occurrence rating for this climate event. Winter Freeze- Days when air temp fluctuates between freezing and non-freezing temperatures. CCHIP.ca CCHIP.ca RCP8.5 5 5 Thaw This assessment will consider all occurrences of days with these temperatures. 94.7 days/year 2050s:79.0 days/year 2080s:67.2 days/year Drought Major droughts as defined by Palmer Drought Index of -3 and less in summer. ~4 major droughts/century more frequent and/or sustained 2 3 drought Extreme Cold Environment Canada South Saskatchewan warning criteria: issued when the temperature or wind chill is expected to reach 1981-2010 Normal = 8.4 days/year CCHIP.ca RCP8.5 4 3 minus 40°C for at least two hours. This assessment will consider occurrences of Days with Temp. <-30°C 2050s:2.8 days/year 2080s:1.0 days/year Long Duration Environment Canada warning criteria: when 50 mm or more of rain is expected within 24 hours*; or when 75 mm or more of Historical IDF Weyburn (1962-2004) ICLR: RCP8.5 Projected IDF 3 3 Rainfall rain is expected within 48 hours. = ~4-year return period Weyburn (2025-2075) = ~3-year This assessment will consider events with more the 50 mm of rain in 24 hours as relevant to the infrastructure being assessed. return period Short Duration Environment Canada Saskatchewan warning criteria: When 50 mm or more of rain is expected within one hour. Historical IDF Weyburn (1962-2004) ICLR: RCP8.5 Projected IDF 2 2 Rainfall This assessment will consider events with more the 50 mm of rain in 1 hour. = ~22.5-year return period Weyburn (2025-2075) = ~15-year return period Winter Rainfall Environment Canada warning criteria: when 25 mm or more of rain is expected within 24 hours in winter months. This has NA NA NA NA never occurred in the recorded data for Weyburn Station in the months of November to March. At Workshop #2, the Assessment Team identified that winter rain only causes issues on Highway 6 and Highway 39 when it is followed by cold temperatures and freezes. In that case this climate event becomes almost identical to Freezing Rain. This assessment will not consider an occurrence rating for this climate event; these risks are assessed under the freezing rain event Freezing Rain Environment Canada warning criteria: when freezing rain is expected to pose a hazard to transportation or property. Typically, Environment Canada = 10-11 Prairie Adaptation Research 5 5 heavy accumulation of freezing rain can cause issues by damaging power lines or large tree limbs. The Assessment Team days/year Collaborative: “freezing rain . . may agreed the risk to power lines is not the responsibility of the Ministry as they do not own this infrastructure. Furthermore, the become more common” region does not contain many trees large enough to have major issues from tree branches falling. This assessment will consider days with any freezing rain intensity. Widespread The Assessment Team expressed that snowfalls have the greatest impact if they cover a large (regional) area, stretching CCHIP.ca CCHIP.ca 4 4 Snowfall winter maintenance resources. 1.88 days/year RCP8.5 Projection ~12.5% This assessment will consider days with >10cm snowfall over a large area; however, the frequency of such an event is just increase = ~2.11 days/year based on days with >10cm snowfall at the Weyburn weather station. Winter Storm Environment Canada warning criteria: when severe and potentially dangerous winter weather conditions are expected, Env. Canada: Projections for increased snowfall 5 5 including a major snowfall (25 cm or more within a 24-hour period) and a significant snowfall (snowfall warning criteria Hwy 6: >25 blizzard hours/year. Hwy and wind suggest Winter Storms amounts) combined with other cold weather precipitation types such as: freezing rain, strong winds, blowing snow and/or 39: 15-25 blizzard hours/year. will continue with its high extreme cold. Regina=24 blowing snow days/year; occurrence in the area. This assessment will consider blizzard hours and days with blowing snow. Estevan= 19 blowing snow days/year Blizzard The Assessment Team originally planned to assess “Blizzards” as a separate climate event but during Workshop #2 it was NA NA decided Blizzards could be considered under “All Winter Storms”. For this assessment a separate event for Blizzards was not assessed.

4.3

Climate Change Risk and Vulnerability Assessment Highway 6 and Highway 39

Occurrence Probability Rating Climate Event Comments Current Future Current Climate Future Climate Climate Climate High Stream Flows Combination of factors such as prolonged heavy rains in upstream river basin, and snow melt, i.e., the June 2011 flooding Multiple estimates >1:100-year return CCHIP.ca 1 2 – Floods "caused by high precipitation in the summer and fall of 2010 combined with above-average snowfall this past winter.” period for this event. RCP8.5 projects increased This assessment considers an event like the June 2011 flood. precipitation in Autumn, Winter and Spring. Professional judgement used to suggest increased frequency Tornado Environment Canada warning criteria: When a tornado has been reported; or when there is evidence based on radar, or from NA NA NA NA a reliable spotter that a tornado is imminent. Tornados are a special case where impacts are extremely localized, and probability of occurrence is extremely rare. This assessment will not include this event High Winds Environment Canada warning criteria: 80 km/h or more sustained wind; and/or gusts to 100 km/h or more. Env. Canada: Regina Airport Research indicates 200% increase 4 5 This assessment will consider hour days with winds >80 km/h or gusts >100 km/h collected 16 readings of gusts ≥100 on frequency of days with peak km/h in 18 years of data. 3 instances wind >90 km/h. Professional of hourly windspeed ≥80 km/h in full judgement used to suggest 30 years of data from 1984-2013. increasing frequency. Other Wind Events Recorded data of other wind events such as Plough Winds and Microbursts was not available. The Assessment Team A little less often than once per year Based on other wind events 3 4 provided their estimates as to the rate of occurrence of these events. It should be noted that the effects of these events are projected increased frequency, very localized, and an occurrence does not necessarily mean Highway 6 and Highway 39 was impacted. Professional judgement used to suggest increasing frequency. Grass Fires The Assessment Team identified the risks that grass fires pose to highway infrastructure. It should be noted that the effects Government of Saskatchewan 5-year Based on droughts projected 2 3 of these events are very localized, and an occurrence does not necessarily mean Highway 6 and Highway 39 was impacted. average: 392 wildfires per year increase frequency, Professional Professional Judgement was used to suggest frequencies for this event. (entire province) judgement used to suggest increasing frequency.

4.4

Climate Change Risk

and Vulnerability

Assessment

Highway 6 and Highway 39

4.5 INFRASTRUCTURE SEVERITY SCORING

During the Workshops the Assessment Team decided to use a 1-5 rating system for the scoring the severity of impacts of climate events on Highway 6 and Highway 39. The Ministry uses a 3-score rating scale in their risk management practices. The Assessment Team defined the scores for Insignificant (1), Moderate (3) and Catastrophic (5). Intermediate scores (Minor=2 and Major-4) were used when the Assessment Team during the risk assessment workshop needed an in-between score for the particular climate-infrastructure interaction.

Table 4-4 shows the severity rating scale used in this assessment.

Table 4-4: Modified Infrastructure Severity Scoring

Score Impact Ratings

1 Insignificant No serious impact from a weather event, routine maintenance will repair any damage 2 Minor Used during Assessment Team discussions at the workshop to define an intermediate rating between Insignificant and Moderate 3 Moderate Lower Level of Service (slow speed or detour) but still useable; just not fully functional. 4 Major Used during Assessment Team discussions at the workshop to define an intermediate rating between Moderate and Catastrophic 5 Catastrophic Complete loss of the asset after a weather event 4.6 RISK ASSESSMENT

4.6.1 Infrastructure Components Evaluated

The infrastructure components of Highway 6 and Highway 39 identified for risk assessment are listed in Table 4-5 below.

4.5

Climate Change Risk

and Vulnerability

Assessment

Highway 6 and Highway 39

Table 4-5: Infrastructure Components Evaluated

INFRASTRUCTURE

4.6.2 Risk Screening Process

The first step in the production of the risk matrix is to evaluate whether there is an interaction between an infrastructure component and a climate event. This process follows the logic flow described in Figure 4-1. This is also referred to as establishing the exposure of the infrastructure element to climate hazards. Where an interaction exists, the Assessment Team identifies where the potential risk may exist within the infrastructure performance considerations (for example, impacts on the structural capacity or the functionality of the asset). The infrastructure performance considerations selected for this study were described in Section 4.3 of this report.

4.6.3 Summary of Risk Results

In the risk assessment, when considering the infrastructure for Highway 6 and Highway 39, the Assessment Team evaluated 546 climate-infrastructure interactions. Of the evaluated interactions, most were given the designation of no interaction, 31 presented as high risks, 44 moderate risks, and 80 low risks. In the future, these risks change to 48 high risks, 47 moderate risks, and 60 low risks. Table 4-6 below presents a summary of the risk counts (moderate and high cases only), the infrastructure assets or components affected, and the performance impacted if the risks occur. The general risk matrices created for this project consider infrastructure in a good state of repair, operating at the performance level it was designed for.

Most interactions that yielded a high-risk score, were due to the climate event having a probability of occurrence rating of 5. For example, freezing rain events are shown to have occurred 10 to 11 times per year resulting in a probability of occurrence rating of 5. However, none of the impacts to infrastructure have a severity rating higher than 3, resulting in a risk score of 15. As will be shown in Section 5.0 of this report, the Ministry already has risk mitigation measures in

4.6

Climate Change Risk

and Vulnerability

Assessment

Highway 6 and Highway 39

place for these highly common climate events; as such the risks of these events are well understood. The Assessment Team decided that this assessment should focus on climate-infrastructure interactions with higher Risk scores and the climate-infrastructure interactions that were given a high severity score.

The following are observations regarding the risks identified:

7. Extreme Heat

8. Rainfalls – Short and Long Duration

9. Freezing Rain and Winter Storms

The risks associated with freezing rain and winter storms will remain a high under future climate conditions.

10. Flooding Events

11. High Winds and other Wind Events

12. Grass/Wild Fires

4.7

Climate Change Risk

and Vulnerability

Assessment

Highway 6 and Highway 39

Table 4-6: Summary of Risks for Highway 6 and Highway 39

Risk Score Counts Main Climate Events Principal Infrastructure Affected Infrastructure Performance Current Future *under Future Climate *under Future Climate Conditions only Impacted Climate (2080s) Conditions only Climate • Extreme Heat • Road Prism • Structural capacity Moderate 44 47 • Winter Temp Variations • *Curbs-Concrete • Functionality (from 5 to 14) • Extreme Cold • Protection Works (Rip-Rap) • Operations & Maintenance • Long Duration Rainfall • Railway Crossing • Short Duration Rainfall • Railway Approach Signals • Widespread Snowfall • Road Signage Sheeting • High Winds • Road Signage (All Types) • Other Wind Events • Culverts (<3m diameter) • Grass Fires • Culverts (>3m diameter) • Underground 3rd Party Utilities • ITS • Personnel (O&M Staff) • Catch Basins • Grates • Semi-closed Basins • Winter Temp Variations • Road Prism • Structural capacity High 31 48 • Freezing Rain • Curbs-Concrete • Functionality • Winter Storms • Bridges • Operations & Maintenance (>14) • High Winds • Culverts (<3m diameter) • Other Wind Events • Culverts (>3m diameter) • *Extreme Heat • Catch Basins • *Grass Fires • Grates • Railway Approach Signals • Road Signage Sheeting • Road Signage (All Types) • Above Ground 3rd Party Utilities • ITS • Estevan Weigh Scale • Personnel (O&M Staff)

4.8

Climate Change Risk

and Vulnerability

Assessment

Highway 6 and Highway 39

5.0 POTENTIAL MITIGATION STRATEGIES

As part of Workshop #2 of this project, the Assessment Team was invited to brainstorm risk mitigation strategies for the highest risk climate-infrastructure interactions. Most interactions that yielded a high-risk result, were due to the climate event having a probability of occurrence rating of 5; as discussed in the summary of risk results. In most of cases where this occurs, the Ministry already implements several strategies to mitigate the risks of the climate event, including salting the highways during freezing rain events. In those cases, the Assessment Team did not identify other mitigation strategies.

Conversely, the Assessment Team brainstormed potential mitigation strategies for the one climate event that had most common impact severity scores of 5: high stream flows similar to 2011 flood event. Given the high cost of repairs that event yielded, it was decided to be worth discussing even though its probability of occurrence was low enough to not yield high risk score.

These ideas have been consolidated in Table 5-1, providing insight where possible; this report also presents a high- level assessment of the strategies, which is expected to inform the overall project design team. The timeframe for implementation, costs, and effectiveness at risk mitigation for each measure are given as a qualitative assessment of high/medium/low. In regard to the timeframes for implementation, the report defines short as less than 5 years, medium as 5 to 10 years, and long as greater than 10 years. Cost and effectiveness are estimated only as a means of comparison between different mitigation options. Effectiveness indicates how well the feature mitigates the risks over the long term.

The list of brainstormed mitigation options from Workshop #2 ranged from general to specific. The OE Team’s comments and evaluation of the strategies are based on high-level assumptions and does not represent an endorsement of the strategies. The OE Team has not completed feasibility assessments for any of the brainstormed mitigation strategies; we recommend that the Ministry review the list of mitigation strategies against internal goals and objectives and proceed with detailed technical feasibility and costs/benefits analysis for high priority strategies.

The Risk Assessment process did not yield “high” risk ratings for the projected increased in precipitation intensity and frequency in the project area, however given the effort that is put into designing infrastructure to withstand a specific historic “design storm”, this projected increase should be given additional consideration for mitigation strategies. Table 4-1 showed the projected increase in design storm precipitation accumulation under the effects of climate change for both the RCP 4.5 and 8.5 scenarios. The increases range from 10.4% to 31.8%. These increases indicate that drainage features accompanying transportation infrastructure with design parameters based on the historic IDF information may be under-designed in future precipitation scenarios. A review and update of the “design storms” required for any Ministry designs would mitigate this risk.

5.1

Climate Change Risk and Vulnerability Assessment Highway 6 and Highway 39

Table 5-1: Brainstormed Mitigation Strategies for High Risk Climate-Infrastructure Interactions – Workshop #2

Brainstormed Mitigation Strategies for risks identified for selected Climate Timeframe for Cost Effectiveness Comments Events: Implementation

Extreme Heat *Future Climate Only Review Standard Operating Procedures for working in heat and ensure employees are following procedures. New mitigation Strategies not identified Ongoing Low High Considerations to be given of future climate temperature extremes at the asphalt concrete design and specifications The Ministry has Safe Operation Procedures for working in heat stages. Asphalt concrete mix design considers current temperature extremes and is adjusted

Winter Temperature Variations – Freeze Thaw Events Continue maintenance practices including culvert clearing and asphalt crack sealing to preserve road integrity and New mitigation Strategies not identified Ongoing Low Medium infrastructure longevity. O&M personnel typically work to clear drainage culverts with methods such as steaming

Continue road salting/sanding in response to freezing rain events. Consider applying anti-icing solution prior to events Freezing Rain when freezing rain is forecasted. New mitigation Strategies not identified Ongoing Medium Medium Highway 6/ 39 has Level 1 (of 3) designation for Winter Maintenance Levels of Service, which means their de-icing Salting/sanding highways is primary response to mitigate risks is prioritized.

Winter Storms Continue road plowing, salting/sanding in response to winter storm events, and installation of snow-fences to New mitigation Strategies not identified mitigating snow drifting. Ongoing Medium Medium Plowing, salting/sanding highways, and installation of snow fences to prevent drifting is Highway 6 and Highway 39 has Level 1 (of 3) designation for Winter Maintenance Levels of Service, which means primary response to mitigate these risks their clearing is prioritized.

High Stream Flows Detouring traffic should only be a temporary measure as detour roads may not be designed for the heavier traffic and Short Low Low Detour traffic can quickly deteriorate.

For rarely flooded areas, temporary sandbagging may be an effective on-demand solution to keep water from flooding Sand bag roads at risk of flooding Short Medium Medium roadways

Increase culvert design flow standards Long High Medium Review culvert design flow standards to ensure new culverts can convey these high flows

Objective is to prevent culvert washout with more end protection. Review high risk culverts and prioritize end Culvert end protection: Concrete headwalls, rip-rap, inlet treatment Medium Medium Medium protections.

Would require road re-alignments and likely private property expropriation. Limiting new construction in flood plain is Don’t build infrastructure in flood plain Long High High highly recommended.

Further review and cost estimates required. Possibly worth implementing on new culverts. Review of construction Eliminate joints in culverts Medium High Medium practices at culvert joints recommended.

Raise road grade above flood level Long High High Further review could prioritize areas of road grade to be raised.

Temporary bridging of damaged areas could mitigate need for large detours. Review costs, availability, and delivery Bailey bridges Short High Medium timeline for emergency response plans.

5.2

Climate Change Risk and Vulnerability Assessment Highway 6 and Highway 39

Brainstormed Mitigation Strategies for risks identified for selected Climate Timeframe for Cost Effectiveness Comments Events: Implementation

Stockpile Replacement Parts (e.g., culverts) Short Medium Medium Potentially decreasing time required for repairs

Repairs contract procedures (e.g., contractor standing offers, approvals process) Short Low Medium Potentially decreasing time required for interventions and repairs

Coordinate responses with 3rd Party Companies Short Low Medium Potentially decreasing time required for interventions and repairs

Construct viaducts Long High High Costs are likely prohibitive unless traffic increases

Proactive beaver dam removal Short Low Medium Engage landowners to report beaver dams, especially in areas vulnerable to flooding.

Operations and Maintenance Personnel Support: manage workloads, emergency response trailers, standing offer housing in nearby hotels, updated Standard Operating Medium Medium Medium Review emergency response procedures and resources. Procedures

High Winds/Other Wind Events Replacement inventory for common signage only is likely more cost effective than for custom or unique signage. Use Short Medium Medium Have inventory of replacement signage temporary signage until damage to large signs is repaired, or for widespread signage damage

Further review wind loads and current design standards. Results may show benefits of upgrading standards for Enhance design standards for signage Medium Medium High signage material and support post materials.

Grass Fires Short Medium Medium Review frequency and extents of mowing programs. Reduce fire spread through grass mowing and maintaining of fire breaks

Review policy for road closures and detouring traffic when active fires are close to highways or nearby fire’s smoke Control traffic during fires Short Low Medium reduces visibility to unsafe levels.

To reduce risk of losing signage to fires, review sign posts that can be upgraded to metal supports. Prioritize regulatory Install metal sign posts Medium Medium High signage.

Review ways to incorporate protections of ITS system into new designs, such as bollards, proximity to roadway, *General Mitigation: ITS System Protection – vulnerable in many events Medium Unknown Unknown robustness. ITS systems were identified by the Assessment Team as requiring special attention to ensure they can remain operational during these climate events. Further detailed review recommended.

Promote public use of Saskatchewan Highway Hotline information system. Motorists who are informed of the hazards *General Mitigation: Saskatchewan Highway hotline Short Low High associated with all these climate events can make informed decisions about their travel and plan accordingly.

*Special Case: Increased Rainfall Intensity – Short and Long Duration As discussed, the risk ratings developed for these climate events were not classified as “high” but further investigation Medium Medium High Review and update IDF information to reflect projected increases under climate change into the projected precipitation intensity may still be a priority for the Ministry.

5.3

Climate Change Risk

and Vulnerability

Assessment

Highway 6 and Highway 39

6.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Transportation infrastructure exists to provide a service; to provide safe and reliable pathways for transportation that enhances economic and recreational opportunities in an area. Since many of the components or assets within infrastructure systems have long service lives, there are many opportunities to introduce climate change adaptation measures throughout this life-cycle, as illustrated in Figure 6-1 below.

Figure 6-1: Adaptation in the Infrastructure Life Cycle (Larrivée and Simonet, 2007)

• Review and improve, as required, policies and procedures – for example:

o Operations and Maintenance: this could include inspection cycles, practices to maintain the performance of the assets, standard operating procedures etc.; and

6.1

Climate Change Risk

and Vulnerability

Assessment

Highway 6 and Highway 39

extents. Flood events, although rare have historically been the most destructive climate events in the region and future climate precipitation projections in the autumn, winter and spring months suggest they may become more frequent;

• Review the function of the undrained basins adjacent to the highways as retention areas for storm water during rain events to identify areas that lack the ability to store stormwater;

• Engage private landowners in areas vulnerable to flooding to proactively report beaver dams;

• Consider creating a weather alert system to support operational staff and emergency first responders allowing them to be pro-active in anticipation of severe weather;

• Develop a better system to identify and record historical high-water levels at culvert crossings to support flood risk analysis;

• Anticipate and plan collaborations for high risk weather events, such as interactions with emergency and community services, and third-party utility agencies.

The recommendations above are based on the results of the risk assessment that produced a “high” risk rating through this PIEVC process. However, although the projected increase in short and long duration rainfall intensity did not produce a “high” risk rating, it still deserves extra consideration. It is recommended the design of the Highway 6 and Highway 39 corridor improvements consider these projected increases. Understanding that any increase in design requirements can yield significant construction cost increases, it is recommended the OE Team hydrologists and design engineers further validate these projected precipitation increases and develop appropriate design parameters for inclusion in the Highway 6 and Highway 39 Corridor Improvement Project.

6.2

Climate Change Risk

and Vulnerability

Assessment

Highway 6 and Highway 39

7.0 REFERENCES

Amiro, B., Rawluck, C., and Wittenburg, K. (2014). Moving toward prairie agriculture 2050 (Green paper). Alberta Institute of Agrologists Conference Proceedings, p. 35. Retrieved from http://www.albertaagrologists.ca/site/page_404?url=http://www.albertaagrologists.ca/files/conferences/2014%20aia%20 conference/conference%20handouts/2014%20green%20 paper%20final%20pdf%20for%20web.pdf

Ecological Stratification Working Group. 1995. A National Ecological Framework for Canada. Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Research Branch, Centre for Land and Biological Resources Research and Environment Canada, State of the Environment Directorate, Ecozone Analysis Branch, Ottawa/Hull. Report and national map at 1:7500 000 scale.

Environment and Climate Change Canada. 2017. Weather and Meteorology – Glossary. Date modified: 2017-07-13 https://ec.gc.ca/meteo-weather/default.asp?lang=En&n=B8CD636F-1&def=allShow (accessed August 20, 2018).

Environment Canada. 2013. Bird Conservation Strategy for Bird Conservation Region 11 in the Prairie and Northern Region CWS region: Prairie Potholes. Canadian Wildlife Service, Environment Canada. Saskatoon, Saskatchewan. 107 pp. + appendices.

Government of Saskatchewan (2014). Hydraulic Manual. Department of Highways and Infrastructure.

Government of Saskatchewan. 2017. Prairie Resilience: A Made-in-Saskatchewan Climate Change Strategy. December 4, 2014.

Kelm, R., and Wylie, N. (2008). Which way is it moving? Guidelines for diagnosing heave, subsidence and settlement. Houston, TX: Forensic Engineers Inc. Retrieved from http://www.foundationperformance.org/pastpresentations/Kelm_Pres_ Doc- 9Apr08.pdf

Larrivée, C. and Simonet, G. (2007): Testing the assumptions: assessing infrastructures vulnerability to climate change; Municipal World, v. 117, no. 6, p. 27-28.

North Dakota State Water Commission. 2015. Mouse/Souris River Basin. http://www.swc.nd.gov/basins/mouse_souris_river/mouse_souris_river.html (accessed August 22, 2018)

Prairie Adaptation Research Collaborative. (n.d). SaskAdapt Winter Storms, Snowfall and Freezing Rain. http://www.parc.ca/saskadapt/extreme-events/winterstorms.html [accessed August 22, 2018]

Sauchyn, Dave; Barrow, Elaine; Fang, X., Henderson, Norm; Johnston, Mark; Pomeroy, John; Thorpe, Jeff; Wheaton, Elaine; and Williams, B. 2009. Saskatchewan’s Natural Capital in a Changing Climate: An Assessment of Impacts and Adaptation. Report to Saskatchewan Ministry of Environment from the Prairie Adaptation Research Collaborative, 162 pp.

Sauchyn, D., and S. Kulshreshtha. (2008). Prairies. In D.S. Lemmen, F.J. Warren, J. Lacroix, and E. Bush (Eds.), From impacts to adaptation: Canada in a changing climate 2007 (pp. 275-328). Ottawa, ON: Government of Canada.

Saskatchewan Watershed Authority. (2011). 2010-2011 Annual Report. http://publications.gov.sk.ca/documents/15/101366-oe-SwaAnnualReport20102011.pdf (accessed August 22, 2018).

7.1

Climate Change Risk

and Vulnerability

Assessment

Highway 6 and Highway 39

Statistics Canada. 2017. Estevan [Population centre], Saskatchewan and Saskatchewan [Province] (table). Census Profile. 2016 Census. Statistics Canada Catalogue no. 98-316-X2016001. Ottawa. Released November 29, 2017. https://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2016/dp-pd/prof/index.cfm?Lang=E (accessed August 16, 2018).

Statistics Canada. 2017. Regina [Population centre], Saskatchewan and Saskatchewan [Province] (table). Census Profile. 2016 Census. Statistics Canada Catalogue no. 98-316-X2016001. Ottawa. Released November 29, 2017. https://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2016/dp-pd/prof/index.cfm?Lang=E (accessed August 16, 2018).

Statistics Canada. 2017. Weyburn [Population centre], Saskatchewan and Saskatchewan [Province] (table). Census Profile. 2016 Census. Statistics Canada Catalogue no. 98-316-X2016001. Ottawa. Released November 29, 2017. https://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2016/dp-pd/prof/index.cfm?Lang=E (accessed August 16, 2018).

Transportation Research Board. (2008). Climate change impacts on US transportation infrastructure. Transportation Research Board Special Report 290. Washington, DC: National Research Council of the National Academies.

United States Environmental Protection Agency. 2018. Prairie Potholes. Last Updated July 26, 2018, https://www.epa.gov/wetlands/prairie-potholes (accessed August 16, 2018)

U.S. Census Bureau. 2017. Population Estimates Program (PEP), Updated annually. https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/minneapoliscityminnesota/PST045217#viewtop (accessed August 16, 2018)

U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration. 2015. Climate Change Adaptation for Pavements. Released August 2015. FHWA-HIF-15-015. https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/pavement/sustainability/hif15015.pdf (accessed August 21, 2018)

Wheaton, E., (2004): Major North American Droughts (Map), Saskatchewan Research Council. From Sauchyn, D. (2004): A 330- year Climate and Human History of Prairie Drought (Presentation to Canadian Prairies Drought Workshop - Science, Monitoring and Prediction, Calgary, May 27-28, 2004) PARC

7.2

CLIMATE CHANGE RISK AND VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT

Highway 6 and Highway 39 Coridor Improvements Project

CLIMATE TRENDS AND PROJECTIONS

A.1

STATION DETAILS

MAIN STATION

Station ID Weyburn (4018760) Location Weyburn, SK Coordinates -103.833, 49.65

SUPPORTING STATIONS

Given the overall length of the project is over 200km, weather data was checked with supporting stations to confirm there wasn’t too much variance of climate from one end of this project to the other. This data is presented at the end of the sections for mean temperature and annual precipitation in Figure 12 and Figure 45 respectively.

Station ID Midale 1983-1991 (4018760) & Midale 1992-2012 (4015159) Location Midale, SK Coordinates [-103.4, 49.4] & [-103.3, 49.3833] Distance to Principle Station (km) 41.85 & 48.61

Station ID Merged: Regina Int'L A, Regina Rcs (4016560,4016699) (C000017) Location Regina, SK Coordinates [-104.667, 50.4333) Distance to Principle Station (km) 105.64

TEMPERATURE: MEAN

Table 1: Average Change in Mean Temperature from Baseline

Average Change in Mean Temperature from 1981-2010 Baseline (°C) Season RCP 4.5 RCP 8.5 2020s 2050s 2080s 2020s 2050s 2080s Annual 1.2 2.4 3.0 1.4 3.3 5.6 Winter 1.4 3.0 3.7 1.8 4.0 6.4 Spring 1.2 2.2 2.7 1.2 2.8 4.7 Summer 1.2 2.3 3.0 1.3 3.3 5.7 Autumn 1.2 2.2 2.8 1.3 3.3 5.5

Figure 1: Annual Temporal Average – Mean Daily Temperature (RCP 4.5)

Figure 2: Long-Term Annual Temporal Average - Mean Daily Temperature (RCP 4.5)

Figure 3: Winter Temporal Average – Mean Daily Temperature (RCP 4.5)

Figure 4: Spring Temporal Average – Mean Daily Temperature (RCP 4.5)

Figure 5: Summer Temporal Average – Mean Daily Temperature (RCP 4.5)

Figure 6: Autumn Temporal Average - Mean Daily Temperature (RCP 4.5)

Figure 7: Annual Temporal Average - Mean Daily Temperature (RCP 8.5)

Figure 8: Winter Temporal Average – Mean Daily Temperature (RCP 8.5)

Figure 9: Spring Temporal Average – Mean Daily Temperature (RCP 8.5)

Figure 10: Summer Temporal Average – Mean Daily Temperature (RCP 8.5)

Figure 11: Autumn Temporal Average – Mean Daily Temperature (RCP 8.5)

Figure 12: Annual Temporal Average - Mean Daily Temperature - Weyburn, Midale, Regina (RCP4.5 & RCP 8.5)

TEMPERATURE: MAXIMUM

Table 2: Average Change in Maximum Temperature from Baseline

Average Change in Maximum Temperature from 1981-2010 Baseline (°C) Season RCP 4.5 RCP 8.5 2020s 2050s 2080s 2020s 2050s 2080s Annual 1.2 2.2 2.9 1.4 3.2 5.4 Winter 1.2 2.7 3.3 1.6 3.5 5.7 Spring 1.2 2.2 2.8 1.2 2.8 4.6 Summer 1.2 2.4 3.1 1.3 3.3 5.9 Autumn 1.2 2.2 2.9 1.3 3.3 5.5

Figure 13: Annual Temporal Average – Maximum Daily Temperature (RCP 4.5)

Figure 14: Long-Term Annual Temporal Average – Maximum Daily Temperature (RCP 4.5)

Figure 15: Winter Temporal Average – Maximum Daily Temperature (RCP 4.5)

Figure 16: Spring Temporal Average – Maximum Daily Temperature (RCP 4.5)

Figure 17: Summer Temporal Average – Maximum Daily Temperature (RCP 4.5)

Figure 18: Autumn Temporal Average – Maximum Daily Temperature (RCP 4.5)

Figure 19: Annual Temporal Average – Maximum Daily Temperature (RCP 8.5)

Figure 20: Winter Temporal Average – Maximum Daily Temperature (RCP 8.5)

Figure 21: Spring Temporal Average – Maximum Daily Temperature (RCP 8.5)

Figure 22: Summer Temporal Average – Maximum Daily Temperature (RCP 8.5)

Figure 23: Autumn Temporal Average – Maximum Daily Temperature (RCP 8.5)

Custom reports from CCHIP.ca were also generated to search historical data for days with temperatures >35°C. Results indicate 2.1 days/year current climate; 11.5 days/year RCP8.5 2050s; and 26.7 days/year RCP8.5 2080s

TEMPERATURE: MINIMUM

Table 3: Average Change in Minimum Temperature from Baseline

Average Change in Minimum Temperature from 1981-2010 Baseline (°C) Season RCP 4.5 RCP 8.5 2020s 2050s 2080s 2020s 2050s 2080s Annual 1.3 2.5 3.2 1.5 3.5 5.8 Winter 1.6 3.5 4.2 2.1 4.6 7.5 Spring 1.2 2.3 2.8 1.3 3.0 4.9 Summer 1.1 2.1 2.8 1.3 3.1 5.4 Autumn 1.2 2.2 2.8 1.3 3.3 5.5

Figure 24: Annual Temporal Average – Minimum Daily Temperature (RCP 4.5)

Figure 25: Long-Term Annual Temporal Average – Minimum Daily Temperature (RCP 4.5)

Figure 26: Winter Temporal Average – Minimum Daily Temperature (RCP 4.5)

Figure 27: Spring Temporal Average – Minimum Daily Temperature (RCP 4.5)

Figure 28: Summer Temporal Average – Minimum Daily Temperature (RCP 4.5)

Figure 29: Autumn Temporal Average – Minimum Daily Temperature (RCP 4.5)

Figure 30: Annual Temporal Average – Minimum Daily Temperature (RCP 8.5)

Figure 31: Winter Temporal Average – Minimum Daily Temperature (RCP 8.5)

Figure 32: Spring Temporal Average – Minimum Daily Temperature (RCP 8.5)

Figure 33: Summer Temporal Average – Minimum Daily Temperature (RCP 8.5)

Figure 34: Autumn Temporal Average – Minimum Daily Temperature (RCP 8.5)

Custom reports from CCHIP.ca were also generated to search historical data for days with temperatures <-30°C. Results indicate 8.3 days/year current climate; 2.8 days/year RCP8.5 2050s; and 1 days/year RCP8.5 2080s

PRECIPITATION

Table 4: Average Percent Change in Total Precipitation from Baseline

Average Percent Change in Total Precipitation from 1981-2010 Baseline (%) Season RCP 4.5 RCP 8.5 2020s 2050s 2080s 2020s 2050s 2080s Annual 2.8 5.2 4.9 3.7 6.9 9.8 Winter 4.5 7.8 9.6 4.3 10.6 19.5 Spring 7.2 10.9 14.6 7.4 17.4 26.6 Summer -0.8 -0.2 -2.4 1.4 -0.8 -4.2 Autumn 2.6 7.8 3.3 3.8 4.9 7.9

Figure 35: Annual Precipitation Temporal Total (RCP 4.5)

Figure 36: Winter Precipitation Temporal Total (RCP 4.5)

Figure 37: Spring Precipitation Temporal Total (RCP 4.5)

Figure 38: Summer Precipitation Temporal Total (RCP 4.5)

Figure 39: Autumn Precipitation Temporal Total (RCP 4.5)

Figure 40: Annual Precipitation Temporal Total (RCP 8.5)

Figure 41: Winter Precipitation Temporal Total (RCP 8.5)

Figure 42: Spring Precipitation Temporal Total (RCP 8.5)

Figure 43: Summer Precipitation Temporal Total (RCP 8.5)

Figure 44: Autumn Precipitation Temporal Total (RCP 8.5)

Figure 45: Annual Precipitation Temporal Total – Weyburn, Midale, Regina (RCP 4.5 & RCP 8.5)

DAILY FROST

Table 5: Average Frost Free Days

Period RCP 4.5 RCP 8.5 Baseline (Historical 1983-2012) 168 168 2020s 186 188 2050s 200 211 2080s 207 236

Figure 46: Daily Frost Profile (RCP 4.5)

Figure 47: Daily Frost Profile (RCP 8.5)

PRECIPITATION: INTENSITY-DURATION-FREQUENCY

TOTAL PRECIPITATION

Total precipitation amount (mm) in specific time interval (5 minutes to 24 hours) for various return periods (2 years to 100 years)

Historical (Weyburn; Station ID 4018760; 1962-2004)

2025 – 2075 (RCP 4.5)

2025-2075 (RCP 8.5)

PRECIPITATION INTENSITY

Precipitation intensity (mm/hr) in specific time interval (5 minutes to 24 hours) for various return periods (2 years to 100 years)

Historical (Weyburn; Station ID 4018760; 1962-2004)

2025 – 2075 (RCP 4.5)

2025-2075 (RCP 8.5)

PRECIPITATION: ACCUMULATION

Figure 48: Annual Maximum 3/5/7 days precipitation accumulation

Table 6: Record Maximum 3/5/7 days precipitation accumulation

Record Maximum precipitation accumulation Recent Climate (1982-2012) Historic (1953-2012) 3 day 5 day 7 day 3 day 5 day 7 day Precip.(mm) 127.8 133.2 139 130.3 135.4 141.8 Ended 2-Jul-1990 2-Jul-1990 6-Jul-2007 12-Jun-1976 13-Jun-1976 16-Jun-1976

WIND

Table 7: 1971 to 2000 Canadian Climate Normals – Wind Station: WEYBURN Source: Government of Canada – Environment and Natural Resource

As shown, the Environment Canada data suggest there have only been two months that have experienced sustained hourly winds >80km/h in Weyburn.

Where-as the data from the Regina Airport shows these events have happened in all but 2 months of the year. The airport station also collects wind gust data and should that all months have easily had wind gust events >100km/h.

Daily wind data from Regina International Airport Weather Stations was downloaded and analyzed for find actual number of instances. Results indicated 16 readings of gusts ≥100km/h in 18 years of data. 3 instances of hourly windspeed ≥80km/h in full 30 years of data from 1984-2013.

Then see article regarding wind and climate change in Canada. Our area is W5; hourly wind gusts >90km/h are projected to increase ~200%.

Figure 49: (Modified from Cheng et al. 2014) Projected percentage changes in annual-mean frequency of future hourly wind gust events derived from downscaled eight-GCM ensemble, summarized by regions (four bars in each of the panels: the first two for scenario A2 over the periods 2046–65 and 2081–2100; the last two for scenario B1 over the periods 2046–65 and 2081– 2100). The 95% confidence interval is indicated.

Cheng, C. S., Lopes, E., Fu, C., & Huang, Z. (2014). Possible impacts of climate change on wind gusts under downscaled future climate conditions: Updated for Canada. Journal of Climate, 27(3), 1255–1270. https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/10.1175/JCLI-D-13-00020.1

TORNADOES

Figure 50: Recorded Tornadoes and Fujita Scale Rating. Canadian Tornado Database 1980-2009 *Windspeeds (km/h) F0:64-116; F1:117-180; F2:181-253; F3:254-332; F4:333-418; F5:419-512

FREEZE THAWS

DROUGHT http://www.parc.ca/saskadapt/adaptation-options/theme-assessments/water-drought.html - Saks MOE, U Regina & Prarie Adaptation Research Collaborative

Sauchyn, Dave; Barrow, Elaine; Fang, X., Henderson, Norm; Johnston, Mark; Pomeroy, John; Thorpe, Jeff; Wheaton, Elaine; and Williams, B. 2009. Saskatchewan’s Natural Capital in a Changing Climate: An Assessment Of Impacts And Adaptation. Report to Saskatchewan Ministry of Environment from the Prairie Adaptation Research Collaborative, 162 pp.

“The most plausible climate future for Saskatchewan (see Climate Scenarios) includes a declining net surface and soil water balance in summer, as water loss by evapotranspiration potentially exceeds precipitation to a greater degree. Increased aridity most likely will be realized by more frequent and/or sustained drought.”

Figure 51: Major North American Droughts (PARC, n.d.)

FREEZING RAIN

Figure 52: Freezing Rain occurences per year

“Freezing rain, a currently infrequent event, may become more common with warmer winter temperatures (Figure 3). A single event can have severe impacts, disrupting highway travel “ http://www.parc.ca/saskadapt/extreme-events/winterstorms.html

WINTER STORM/BLIZZARD

Figure 1 shows the prairie area that is most prone to blizzards. The area centred on Swift Current, Moose Jaw and Regina receives, on average, over 25 blizzard hours annually. Saskatoon, Kindersley and Estevan fall in the next zone with between 15 and 25 blizzard hours annually.

Figure 1: Annual Average of Blizzard Hours (Source: Environment Canada)

Figure 2: Average days per year with blowing snow (1971-2000) (Source: Environment Canada) Figure 2, shows the average number of days per year with blowing snow across the prairies for selected sites. As expected the highest number – between 17 and 24 days are located at Swift Current, Regina and Estevan. Under climate change the number of blizzard hours and days may increase. http://www.parc.ca/saskadapt/extreme-events/winterstorms.html

GRASS FIRES https://www.saskatchewan.ca/residents/environment-public-health-and-safety/wildfire-in-saskatchewan/current- wildfire-activity

5 year average of 392 wildfires in Saskatchewan.

41 CLIMATE CHANGE RISK AND VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT

Highway 6 and Highway 39 Coridor Improvements Project

WORKSHOP #1 PRESENTATION

B.1

Highway 5, 6 & 39 Corridor Improvements – Climate Change Risk and Vulnerability Assessment

Guy Félio PhD P.Eng. FCSCE IPR[Climate]

July 10, 2018 / 8:30 AM – 4:15 PM

Safety Moment Time Activity Description/Comments 8:30 – 8:45 Welcome and introductions Agenda 8:45 – 10:00 Overview of Engineers Canada PIEVC G.Felio vulnerability assessment Protocol

Questions and Discussion 10:00 – 10:15 Break 10:15 – 11:45 Defining the project scope and boundaries, and All For highway infrastructure, elements assessed during the infrastructure to be assessed a PIEVC Protocol application are usually categorized x Geography and major features by function since, for the purposes of the risk x Infrastructure elements assessment, various elements of the highway system react differently to weather events. Identify relevant reports and other sources of information The participants, based on a preliminary list, will select the elements of infrastructure to be assessed. Select the time horizons for the assessment: We will identify relevant information (design, current, future (2050s?, 2080s?) condition reports, etc.) available.

The team will select the time horizon for the analysis, normally chosen in function of the life-cycle of the infrastructure. Typical time horizons are 2050’s and 2080’s which correspond to future climate projections produced by climate models.

Time Activity Description/Comments 11:45 – 12:15 Presentation: BC Ministry of Transportation and G. Felio The presentation of a BC-MOTI case study will Agenda Infrastructure case study inform the participants on the application of the PIEVC Protocol for a highway segment, illustrating the process and results. 12:15 – 1:00 Lunch 1:00 – 2:30 Current and future climate projections for the G. Felio The PIEVC Protocol relies of current climate highway segments: presentation of climate data trends and future climate projects. analysis All Stantec will present the climate analysis Discussion: “What climate events have caused (historical, trends, and future projections) service disruptions and/or infrastructure failures conducted using Environment Canada weather in the area?” station data in the area of the projects.

The participants will work in small groups (depending on the number of participants at the workshop) to discuss the climate analysis, and to answer the question “ what climate events have caused service disruptions and/or infrastructure failures in the area?”. This information is used to guide the selection of climate event “thresholds”, the intensity of climate events beyond which the performance of the infrastructure is affected. Time Activity Description/Comments 2:30 – 2:45 Break Agenda 2:45 – 3:45 Preparing for the Risk Assessment: All The assessment is based on the intensity of a x Selection of the infrastructure performance climate event impacting the performance of the considerations asset or its components. The basic performance x Defining the vulnerability (severity of the considerations related to climate impacts are as climate impacts on the infrastructure) scale follows; others can be added as appropriate to the x Relevant available information (who, where, project: when)

x Structural performance: considerations of safety, load carrying capacity, fracture, fatigue, deflection, and permanent deformation, cracking and deterioration, vibrations, and foundations x Functionality: effective capacity of the asset or component to provide the intended function or service, and x Operations and maintenance: occupational safety, access to worksite, equipment performance, maintenance and replacement cycles, electricity demand, and fuel use.

The participants will discuss and confirm the selected infrastructure performance considerations for the risk assessment.

3:45 – 4:15 Recap and next steps G. Felio A summary of the steps conducted during the day and information gathered will be followed by a description of the next steps in the risk assessment.

Community Vulnerability to Climate Change Climate Changes Adaptation 101 From planning to design, financing, operating and maintaining infrastructure

Current Trend

Un-quantified The Past is the Future Risk

Source: Engineers Canada People Infrastructure Threat Buildings (Hazard) Climate Change Facilities Adaptation 101 Environment Exposure?

Impact / Vulnerability? Probability of Consequence occurrence? If event occurs

Risk Probability x Impact

Risk mitigation and Adaptation Measures

Uncertainties in Climate Change Projections Vary Engineers Canada’s PIEVC Protocol

PIEVC Protocol The PIEVC Protocol

y Five step evaluation process y A tool derived from standard risk management methodologies y Intended for use by qualified engineering professionals y Requires contributions from those with pertinent local knowledge and experience y Focused on the principles of vulnerability and resiliency PIEVC Protocol Not a theoretical methodology

Has been or currently applied to 50+ projects in Canada and internationally: Water resources systems Storm & waste water systems Roads & bridges Buildings (residential, ICI) Urban transportation infrastructure Energy Infrastructure Airport infrastructure Hospital Three projects in central America

General description of the PIEVC PIEVC Protocol process PIEVC Protocol Risk

Using Severity and Probability Ratings in a Risk Matrix

Infrastructure Climate Event Asset or Component Interaction? Next Next

No Yes

Infrastructure performance Risk Infrastructure Response considerations (community Considerations defined) Probability of Occurrence Score “How will the Structural X infrastructure be Functional Severity of impact on infrastructure affected?” Operations and if event occurs Maintenance Others Impacts on service and community? Emergency Response Service and/or Community Insurance and Legal No Yes impacts if infrastructure Policy considerations component or asset fails Social Environmental Financial

Risk Mitigation / Adaptation Recommendations Infrastructure Performance Climate Elements

Infrastructure Performance Climate Elements

Highly Unlikely 2 Minor 1 1 in 100 Improbable 3 Moderate 2 Remotely Possible 1 in 20 4 Major Possible 3 1 in 10 5 Catastrophic Occasional

Somewhat Likely 4 1 in 5 Normal

Likely 5 >1 in 2.5 Frequent

Infrastructure Performance (Current) Climate Elements

Components Considerations Temperature Temperature Blizzard Rain Climate event 5 10 consecutive 3 consecutive 5 consecutive > 50cm snow in days with total days with temp. days with 24 hour period temp. < -30 rainfall of > 30 deg. deg. > 100mm (Land) (Water) Structural Environment Environment Environment Operational Functionality Y/N P S R Y/N P S R Y/N P S R Y/N P S R Y/N P S R Water Treatment Plant - Building structure - Building envelope - Roof - Foundations - Process equipment -HVAC system 9 9 Y 1 3 3 Y 3 2 6 N N -SCADA - Communications - Electricity - Site services - Access road - Third party supplies Administration and Operations Risk Matrix Water Supply System Water Island Cornwall WTP - Low Lift Pump WTP -Reservoir WTP - High Lift Pumps Water Treatment Plant WTP - Intake storage) fuel (generator, Back-up power SCADA/Telemetr Communications / Biosolids/sludge disposal Environment (plants, trees, animals) use alternate and/or Storage equipmentProcess Roof Building envelope Backwater disposal Backwater Environment (soil conditions) Foundations HVAC system Building structure Access road Site services The PIEVCRisk Matrix Infrastructure Components .Identifyclimate thresholds: ev 3. 2. Define the time horizon Definethetime for future climate considerations: 2. establishtheboundary Definetheinfrastructure for assessmentthe – 1. Steps toproduce the riskmatrix y malfunctions or failures (P) failures malfunctions or conditions of the project the conditions of Ő Ő Ő Ő Future projections Past occurrence frequency 2080s) projections: typically Future climate Establish current climate riskprofile nfrastructure Response Consideration nfrastructure Mark Relevant Responses with Mark ض ض ض Structural ض ض ض ض ض ض ض ض ض ض ض ض ض ض ض ض ض ض ض ض ض ض ض ض ض ض ض ض ض ض ض ض ض ض ض ض ض ض ض Design Functionality ض ض ض

Serviceability ض Watershed, Surface Water & Groundwater Operations, ض ض ض & Maintenance ض ض ض ض ض ض ض ض ض ض ض ض Materials

Performance ض

Environmental ض Effects s / / / / / / R S P Y/N R S P Y/N R S P Y/N R S P Y/N R S P Y/N R S P Y/N Days (per year) with year) Days (per Max Temps > 36°C > Temps Max Max. DailyMax. Temp. 56 Temps Mean >22.5°C >22.5°C Mean Temps (warmer than August than (warmer Hotest Month (Aug.) (Aug.) Month Hotest Very warm August ents that have caused disruptions, Temp. 2012) 318 318 ~50mm (equal to or WRWDOSUHFLSLWDWLRQ Days with August Low Precipitation Precipitation Low less than August in 30 yearincrements in (i.e., 2050s and 5 ( 2012) A ug 210 525 420 525 . ) Hi Warm Temperatures Temperatures Warm Combination August Combination Aug. - g h T & low rainfalls low & e 4 m p . wi 312 312 624 520 520 t h L o w Fog visibilities below below visibilities Fog ½ statute mile (for statute ½ shipping) 33 o Rain 7dayperiod - Fog > 120 mm rainfall in 7 7 in mm rainfall 120 > days 39 39 13 Risk Matrix Steps to produce the risk matrix

4. Define the performance considerations 5. Establish climate – infrastructure interactions 6. Assess how the infrastructure is affected by the climate events (using performance considerations) 7. Establish severity of impact on infrastructure if the climate event occurs (S) 8. Calculate risk score: R = P x S

Produce matrices for current and future climates

Importance of life- Climate Change Impact of not Adaptation 101 cycle management maintaining infrastructure in a state Impact of of good repair Catastrophic 5 climate 15 changes 4

3 9 3

Impact/consequence on 1

infrastructure if climate event occurs event climate if infrastructure No effect 0 Negligible 0 1 2 3 4 5

Likelyhood/probability of climate event occuring It’s all about managing the risks over the life-cycle of the assets to provide sustainable services to a resilient community.

Thank You

[email protected]

Infrastructure Steps to produce the risk matrix

1. Define the infrastructure for the assessment – establish the boundary conditions of the project 2. Define the time horizon for future climate considerations: Ő Establish current climate risk profile Ő Future climate projections: typically in 30 year increments (i.e., 2050s and 2080s) 3. Identify climate thresholds: events that have caused disruptions, malfunctions or failures (P) Ő Past occurrence frequency Ő Future projections Infrastructure

HWY 5

HWY 6 & 39

Highway 5 Corridor Improvements

Infrastructure

Two sets of passing lanes Widening, grade line, safety improvements Access management Twinning ~ 10 km Highway 6/39 Corridor Improvements - Scope

Infrastructure

16 sets of passing lanes Widening, grade line, safety improvements Repaving Access Consolidation Three sets of twinning (~10 km total)

Spreadsheet – Review,

Infrastructure Validate, Confirm

Project: Highway 5 & Highways 6/39 Corridor Improvements Project#: 111000236 Date: 4-Jul-18 INFRASTRUCTURE COMPONENTS Highway 5 Highway 6 Highway 39 Comments SURFACE Asphalt 999Yes Shoulders (Including Gravel) 999Yes, probably not too many gravel, mostly paved. Pavement Markings 999Yes, repainted every year Curbs - Concrete 8 88Not much, some urban Curbs - Asphalt 888Not much, some urban Sidewalks/ Asphalt Trails 888Not really any within MHI's jurisdiction Ditches 999Yes Time Horizon and Climate Scenarios Steps to produce the risk matrix

1. Define the infrastructure for the assessment – establish the boundary conditions of the project 2. Define the time horizon for future climate considerations: Ő Establish current climate risk profile Ő Future climate projections: typically in 30 year increments (i.e., 2050s and 2080s) 3. Identify climate thresholds:ds: eveventsents thatthat hhaveave ccausedaused disruptions,disruptions, Futuremalfunctions GHG emissions or failures (P)(P) scenarios? Ő Past occurrence frequencyuency Ő FutureIPCC projectionsRCP’s

Recommend: RCP 8.5

Climate Steps to produce the risk matrix

Climate General Climate – Example Data

HWY 5 Climate General Climate – Example Data

HWY 5

Climate General Climate – Example Data

HWY 5 Climate General Climate – Example Data

Average Percent Change in Total Precipitation from 1981-2010 Baseline (%) Season RCP 4.5 RCP 8.5 2020s 2050s 2080s 2020s 2050s 2080s Annual 3.6 5.7 5.4 3.2 8.0 9.9 Winter 6.3 9.4 10.5 5.1 11.0 17.7 Spring 9.5 13.0 14.7 6.5 16.1 25.7 Summer -1.0 -1.1 -2.6 0.6 1.7 -3.4 Autumn 4.6 8.6 7.0 3.2 6.1 11.9

HWY 5

Climate General Climate – Example Data

HWY 5 Climate General Climate – Example Data

HWY 5

Climate General Climate – Example Data

Period RCP 4.5 RCP 8.5 Baseline (Historical 1987-2016) 163 163 2020s 177 179 HWY 5 2050s 190 201 2080s 197 227

Climate General Climate – Example Data Historical

Future 2025-2075 HWY 5

Climate events that have caused disruptions and/or Climate concerns 6-04 Limited issues. Km 20 has significant standing water on both sides of the highway in wet years but has never overtopped. HWY 39-06 No major issues 39-05 (Flooding concerns in June 2011) 6/39 Hwy 35/government road (approx. km 0) river overtopped the highway Km 3, water topped the highway for 300-500 metres in length. Additional culverts were installed in 2013. Km 5, water topped the highway for 400 metres. Additional culverts installed in 2013. Km 11 – water came up to the eastbound shoulder Km 14 – water came up on the shoulder of the highway 39-04 No major issues 39-03 Highway overtopped in 2011. Grade raise was completed from approx. km 31-32 (I am working to confirm exact kms) 39-02 No major issues 39-01 There were concerns that the Roche Percee bridge would overtop (km 18.5) during the 2011 flood event. It didn’t, but it was close. Climate events that have caused disruptions and/or Climate concerns

HWY 6/39

June 2011

Climate events that have

Climate caused disruptions and/or concerns

Other events?

Discussion Performance Considerations Steps to produce the risk matrix

Produce matrices for current and future climates

Performance Considerations Performance considerations

The assessment is based on the intensity of a climate event impacting the performance of the asset or its components. The basic performance considerations related to climate impacts are as follows:

How will the infrastructure be affected if the climate event occurs?

Structural performance: considerations of safety, load carrying capacity, fracture, fatigue, deflection, and permanent deformation, Others? cracking and deterioration, vibrations, and foundations Functionality: effective capacity of the asset or component to provide the intended function or service, and Operations and maintenance: occupational safety, access to worksite, equipment performance, maintenance and replacement cycles, electricity demand, and fuel use. PIEVC Protocol Rating scales Climate Impacts on Infrastructure Score Probability Score Descriptor Provide Example Method A Method B 0 No Effect Negligible 0 < 1 in 1,000 Not Applicable 1 Insignificant

Highly Unlikely 2 Minor 1 1 in 100 Improbable 3 Moderate 2 Remotely Possible 1 in 20 4 Major Possible 3 1 in 10 5 Catastrophic Occasional

Somewhat Likely 4 1 in 5 Normal

Likely 5 >1 in 2.5 Frequent

Risk Matrix Steps to produce the risk matrix

4. Define the performance considerations

WORKSHOP 3 4. EstablishEstablish climate – i infrastructurenfrastructure interactions 55.. Assess how the infrastructure is affected byby the climate events (using(using performanceperformance considerations)considerations) 66.. EstablishEstablish severitseverityy of impact on infrastructure if the climate event occurs (S)(S) 77.. Calculate risk score: R = P x S

ProduceProduce matrices for current and future climates

WORKSHOP 4 8. Recommendations: risk mitigation and adaptation measures CLIMATE CHANGE RISK AND VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT

Highway 6 and Highway 39 Coridor Improvements Project

WORKSHOP #2 PRESENTATION

C.1

Highway 6 & 39 Corridor Improvements – Climate Change Risk and Vulnerability Assessment

Risk Assessment and Mitigation

Guy Félio PhD P.Eng. FCSCE IPR[Climate]

August 01, 2018 / 8:30 AM – 4:15 PM

Safety Moment

1 Time Activity Agenda 8:30 – 8:45 Welcome 8:45 – 10:00 Review of progress to date and G. Felio, all confirmation • Infrastructure components • Climate elements • Infrastructure performance considerations • Time horizon for future climate • Severity rating 10:00 – 10:15 Break 10:15 – 12:00 Risk assessment matrix All • Process to complete the risk matrix • Risk Matrices: current and future climate 12:00 – 1:00 Lunch 1:00 – 3:00 Risk mitigation and adaptation measures All 3:00 – 3:15 Break 3:15 – 4:30 Wrap-up G. Felio Next Steps

Climate Risks Assessment - Process

2 People Infrastructure Threat Buildings (Hazard) Climate Risks Facilities Assessment Environment Exposure?

Impact / Vulnerability? Probability of Consequence occurrence? If event occurs

Risk Probability x Impact

Risk mitigation and Adaptation Measures

Risk Matrix Steps to produce the risk matrix

1. Define the infrastructure for the assessment – establish the boundary conditions of the project 2. Define the time horizon for future climate considerations: ◦ Establish current climate risk profile ◦ Future climate projections: typically in 30 year increments (i.e., 2050s and 2080s) 3. Identify climate thresholds: events that have caused disruptions, malfunctions or failures (P) ◦ Past occurrence frequency ◦ Future projections

3 Risk Matrix Steps to produce the risk matrix 4. Define the performance considerations 5. Establish climate – infrastructure interactions 6. Assess how the infrastructure is affected by the climate events (using performance considerations) 7. Establish severity of impact on infrastructure if the climate event occurs (S) 8. Calculate risk score: R = P x S

• Produce matrices for current and future climates

• Define risk mitigation and adaptation measures

Infrastructure Components Climate Risks Assessment - Process

4 Highway 6 Infrastructure SURFACE Hwy 6 Road Prism (including: Road base, asphalt, shoulders, markings, ditches, embankments/cuts, natural hillsides/slopes) May want to breakdown into Protection Works/ Armouring (Rip-Rap etc.) individual Brtidges and culverts (>3m dia) components in Culverts (<3m) risk matrix Railway railway crossing signals Road Signage - Sheeting Signage - All Types Street Luminaires (incld. Poles) Guard Rails Above Ground 3rd Party Utilities ITS

Infrastructure UNDERGROUND Hwy 6 Drainage Appliances (Oufall/Sewer/MHs etc.)

Catch Basins

Grates MISCELLANEOUS

Bridge End Fill Personnel (O&M Staff)

Below Ground 3rd Party Utilities Semi-closed Basins

Maintenance yards

Salt/material storage yards

5 Infrastructure Highway 39 Highway 39 SURFACE

Road Prism (incld. Road base, asphalt, shoulders, markings, ditches, embankments/cuts, natural hillsides/slopes) Curbs - Concrete (future) May want to Protection Works/ Armouring breakdown into (Rip-Rap etc.) individual Brtidges and culverts (>3m dia) components in Culverts (<3m) risk matrix Railway railway crossing signals Road Signage - All types Street Luminaires (incld. Poles) Guard Rails Above Ground 3rd Party Utilities ITS Estevan weigh scale centre

UNDERGROUND

Infrastructure Highway 39 Drainage Appliances (Oufall/Sewer/MHs etc.)

Catch Basins

Grates

Bridge End Fill MISCELLANEOUS

Below Ground 3rd Party Utilities Personnel (O&M Staff)

Semi-closed Basins

Maintenance yards

Salt/material storage yards

6 Confirm

Structural Functional Operations and Maintenance

Infrastructure Performance Climate Risks Assessment - Process

Infrastructure Performance Performance considerations The assessment is based on the intensity of a climate event impacting the performance of the asset or its components. The basic performance considerations related to climate impacts are as follows:

How will the infrastructure be affected if the climate event occurs?

• Structural performance: considerations of safety, load carrying capacity, fracture, fatigue, deflection, and permanent deformation, Others? cracking and deterioration, vibrations, and foundations Confirm • Functionality: effective capacity of the asset or component to provide the intended function or service, and • Operations and maintenance: occupational safety, access to worksite, equipment performance, maintenance and replacement cycles, electricity demand, and fuel use.

7 Confirm RCP 8.5 GHG emissions scenario

Climate Climate Risks Assessment - Process

Climate Description Comment Climate Event Temperature Maximum Extreme Heat Occurrences of Days with Temp. >35°C temperature Heat Environment Canada South Saskatchewan warning criteria: Issued when 2 or more consecutive days of daytime maximum temperatures are expected to reach 32°C or warmer and nighttime minimum temperatures are expected to fall to 16°C or warmer.

Or, Issued when 2 or more consecutive days of humidex values are expected to reach 38 or higher For this assessment we will consider occurrences of Days with Temp. >30°C

Temp. Seasonal Temp. Variations 1981-2010 Canadian climate normals: cooling days Weburn Station = 178 Variations degree days (with respect to 18°C) Minimum Extreme cold Environment Canada South Saskatchewan warning criteria: Issued when temperature the temperature or wind chill is expected to reach minus 40°C for at least two hours. For this assessment we will consider occurrences of Days with Temp. <-30°C

8 Climate Event Description Comment Precipitation Precipitation Long Duration Rainfall Environment Canada warning criteria: When 50 mm or more of rain is expected within (rain)Climate 24 hours*; or When 75 mm or more of rain is expected within 48 hours. Historical IDF information for Weyburn (1962-2004) suggests this is between a 2 and 5 year return period. For this assessment we will consider an event like the 2-July-1990: 113mm in 24 hours or less. (~50 year retrun period) Short Duration Rainfall Environment Canada Saskatchewan warning criteria: When 50 mm or more of rain is expected within one hour. Historical IDF information for Weyburn (1962-2004) suggests this is about a 1:25 year return period. Winter Rainfall Environment Canada warning criteria: When 25 mm or more of rain is expected within 24 hours. (winter months) Freezing Rain Environment Canada warning criteria: When freezing rain is expected to pose a hazard to transportation or property; Precipitation Snowfall Environment Canada warning criteria: When 10 cm or more of snow falls within 12 (snow) hours or less. For this assessment we will consider >10cm in 24 hour period Snowsquall Environment Canada warning criteria: When there is a brief period (less than one hour) of very poor visibility (400 m or less), caused by heavy snow and blowing snow, and accompanied by strong, gusty winds of 45 km/h or greater, is expected to occur with the passage of a cold front. Winter Storm Environment Canada warning criteria: When severe and potentially dangerous winter weather conditions are expected, including: A major snowfall (25 cm or more within a 24 hour period); and a significant snowfall (snowfall warning criteria amounts) combined with other cold weather precipitation types such as: freezing rain, strong winds, blowing snow and/or extreme cold.

Climate Event Description Comment Flood Climate Flood (River High river flows - Combination of factors such as prolonged heavy rains in upstream flows) combination of factors river basin, and snow melt. ie. June 2011 Flooding "Caused by high precipitation in the summer and fall of 2010 combined with above-average snowfall this past winter.” - Sask. Watershed Authority.

Estimates generally suggest >1:100 year return period for this event. (June2010-May2011, Weyburn Station received approx 57% more precipiation than the 1981-2010 Climate Normals

Wind

Tornado Tornado Environment Canada warning criteria: When a tornado has been reported; or when there is evidence based on radar, or from a reliable spotter that a tornado is imminent.

Wind High Winds Environment Canada warning criteria: 80 km/h or more sustained wind; and/or gusts to 100 km/h or more.

9 Confirm: Current climate + 2050s Bridge -2080s?

Time Horizon Climate Risks Assessment - Process

Severity rating Climate Risks Assessment - Process

10 Others? e.g., impacts on personnel, Severity Rating budget, O&M exenditures, emergency response, etc.

Score Descriptor Example 0 No Effect 1 Insignificant No serious impact from a weather event, routine maintenance will repair any damage. 2 Minor 3 Moderate Lower LOS (slow speed or detour) but still useable just not fully functional. 4 Major 5 Catastrophic Complete loss of the asset after a weather event.

Risk Matrix Climate Risks Assessment - Process

11 Assessment of Climate- Infrastructure Individual Risk Matrix Interactions

Infrastructure Climate Event Asset or Component Interaction? Next Next

No Yes

Risk Mitigation and Adaptation Measures Climate Risks Assessment - Process

12 Infrastructure Climate Event Asset or Component Interaction? Risk Matrix Next Next

No Yes

Infrastructure performance Risk Infrastructure Response considerations (community Considerations defined) Probability of Occurrence Score “How will the • Structural X infrastructure be • Functional Severity of impact on infrastructure affected?” • Operations and if event occurs Maintenance • Others Impacts on service and community? • Emergency Response Service and/or Community • Insurance and Legal No Yes impacts if infrastructure • Policy considerations component or asset fails • Social • Environmental • Financial

Risk Mitigation / Adaptation Recommendations

Wrap – up and Next Steps Climate Risks Assessment - Process

13 Next Steps The PIEVC Risk Matrix

Hotest Month (Aug.) Low Precipitation Combination - Aug. nfrastructure Response Considerations Max. Daily Temp. Fog Rain - 7 day period Temp. (Aug.) High Temp. with Low Days with August Very warm August total precipitation ≤ Combination August Fog visibilities below Infrastructure Components Days (per year) with Temps Mean >22.5°C > 120 mm rainfall in 7

ons, ~50mm (equal to or Warm Temperatures ½ statute mile (for

ti Max Temps > 36°C (warmer than August days less than August & low rainfalls shipping) 2012)

pera 2012) Structural Design Functionality Serviceability Watershed, Surface Water & Groundwater O Maintenance & Materials Performance Environmental Effects

Mark Relevant Responses with ✓ Y/NPSRY/NPSRY/NPSRY/NPSRY/NPSRY/NPSR

Cornwall Island 565 4 33 Water Supply System Water Treatment Plant Building structure ✓✓✓ ✓ Building envelope ✓✓✓ ✓ Roof ✓✓✓ ✓ Process equipment ✓✓ ✓ 420 520 HVAC system ✓✓✓ ✓ 318 312 Foundations ✓ 13 Site services ✓✓✓ ✓ ✓ Storage and/or alternate use ✓✓✓ ✓ 39 Access road ✓✓✓ ✓ 525 Environment (plants, trees, animals) ✓ 318 624 Environment (soil conditions) 210 312 39 Backwater disposal ✓✓✓ ✓ ✓ Biosolids/sludge disposal ✓✓ Communications / ✓✓✓ ✓ SCADA/Telemetry Back-up power (generator, fuel ✓✓✓ ✓ storage) WTP - High Lift Pumps ✓✓✓ ✓ WTP - Reservoir ✓ 525 520 WTP - Intake ✓✓✓ ✓ WTP - Low Lift Pump ✓✓✓ ✓

Impact of not Summary maintaining infrastructure in a state Impact of of good repair Catastrophic 5 climate 15 changes 4

3 9 3

Impact/consequence on 1

infrastructure if climate event occurs No effect 0 Negligible 012345

Likelyhood/probability of climate event occuring

14 It’s all about managing the risks over the life-cycle of the assets to provide sustainable services to a resilient community.

Thank You

[email protected]