City of London: Vulnerability of Infrastructure to

Climate Change

Status Report #3

Stakeholder Workshop 1

– Outcome 1 –

October, 2009

i

Prepared by

Dan Sandink

and

Slobodan P. Simonovic

ii

Executive Summary

A workshop was held in September, 2009 to inform stakeholders from the City of

London and provincial departments of the current status and objectives of the study “City

of London: Vulnerability of Infrastructure to Climate Change.” A discussion session was

incorporated into the workshop that allowed workshop participants to discuss possible

climate change impacts and vulnerabilities in the City of London with fellow workshop

participants. The workshop identified a need to clearly communicate objectives and

limitations of the study. During the discussion session, participants identified a wide

variety of climate change impacts and vulnerabilities they believed were important for the

City of London, many of which were beyond the scope of the current study. Thus, the

workshop identified topics for future climate change vulnerability study in the City as

well.

iii

Table of Contents

1 INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................................... 1

2 DISCUSSION SESSION .................................................................................................................... 3

2.1 DISCUSSION THEMES................................................................................................................... 4 2.1 SUMMARY OF MAIN DISCUSSION THEMES ................................................................................... 5

3 CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................................... 8

WORKS CITED ......................................................................................................................................... 14

APPENDIX A: WORKSHOP PRESENTATION ................................................................................... 15

APPENDIX B: DISCUSSION GROUP HANDOUT .............................................................................. 23

1

1 Introduction

A workshop was held in London, Ontario on September, 17 2009, with the primary goals

of informing stakeholders on the current status, objectives and methods of the study “City

of London: Vulnerability of Infrastructure to Climate Change,” and to garner input from

workshop participants. The workshop was divided into two parts: Part 1, which

consisted of a presentation by the study team that provided information on the objectives,

methods and current status of the study (see Appendix A). The presentation was one

hour in length, and a half hour was allotted at the end of the presentation for general

discussion and questions. Part 2 consisted of group and general discussion sessions. A

half hour was allotted for discussions in smaller groups and an hour was allotted for a

general discussion involving all participants after the group discussions. The workshop

occurred too late in the vulnerability study to impact its direction. However, the

workshop provided context for the study, provided information to stakeholders on the

study, and allowed for discussion and identification of possible climate change

vulnerabilities in the City. As well, the workshop provided some background

information for further climate change vulnerability studies in the City.

Workshop participants were selected by the City of London. Participants consisted of

City of London staff, staff from the Upper Thames River Conservation Authority, and

staff from the Ontario Ministry of the Environment. City of London participants included

members of London’s City Council, representatives from transportation and stormwater

management divisions, risk management, wastewater, parks planning and design, and

solid waste divisions. This workshop provided the first opportunity for a wider group of

stakeholders to be informed of and comment on the study. A list of workshop

participants is provided in Table 1.

2

Table 1: Workshop Participants Name Position/Organization

Scott Abernethy Ontario Ministry of the Environment Luis Alperin Delcan Joni Baechler Councillor, City of London Bonnie Bergsma Parks Planning and Design, City of London Nancy Branscombe Councillor, City of London Jeff Brick Upper Thames River Conservation Authority Judy Bryant Councillor, City of London Lois Burgess Division Manager, Engineering Review, City of London Tom Copeland Division Manager, Wastewater and Drainage Engineering, City of London Patrick Donnelly Urban Watershed Program Manager, City of London Billy Haklander Stormwater Management Unit, City of London Berta Krichker Stormwater Management Unit, City of London Ivan Listar Transportation and Roadside Operations, City of London John Lucas Division Manager, Transportation Engineering, City of London Pat McNally General Manager of Environmental and Engineering Services and City

Engineer, City of London Shawna Milanovic Stormwater Management Unit, City of London Jamie Skimming Environmental Programs and Solid Waste, City of London Mark Snowsell Upper Thames River Conservation Authority Ron Standish Director, Wastewater and Environment, City of London Jason Wills Risk Management, City of London

The presentation in Part 1 of the workshop was provided by the University of Western

Ontario (UWO)/Institute for Catastrophic Loss Reduction (ICLR) study team (Hereafter

referred to as the “study team”). As well, an introduction to the workshop was provided

by Ron Standish of the City of London. Members of the study team are listed in Table 2.

Table 2: University of Western Ontario/Institute for Catastrophic Loss

Reduction/University of Waterloo Study Team Name Position/Organization(s)

Slobodan P. Simonovic Professor, UWO & Chair in Engineering, ICLR Donald H. Burn Professor, UW & ICLR Dan Sandink Manager, ICLR Hyung-Il Eum Post-Doctoral Fellow, UWO Angela Peck MESc Candidate, UWO Lisa Bowering MESc Candidate, UWO Dragan Sredojevic MESc Candidate, UWO

3

2 Discussion Session

Part 2 of the workshop consisted of group discussions in which workshop participants

discussed climate change impacts and vulnerabilities in the City of London. The number

of participants at the workshop facilitated the creation of four discussion groups. Groups

were pre-arranged and purposefully mixed based on experience and background to allow

participants from different departments within the City to discuss possible climate change

impacts. Mixed groups also allowed City staff to discuss climate change concerns with

City Councillors and officials from outside of the City.

Each discussion group was assigned a member of the study team to take notes and keep

discussions on topic. Following the discussion session, the study team members made a

short presentation on the main themes discussed within their groups, and time was

allotted (one hour) for a general group discussion in which workshop participants could

verify discussion themes and to make further comments based on the themes discussed in

other groups.

Members of the discussion groups were provided with a handout that included a table of

infrastructure categories and a list of potential climate change impacts relevant to the City

(see Appendix B). The handout was meant to guide the discussions, and workshop

participants were encouraged to discuss any infrastructure or climate change impact they

felt was relevant to the City of London, regardless of whether or not it was included in

the handout. Much of the discussion centred on climate change impact interactions that

were not described in the handout, especially policy, strategy and emergency

management issues. Results of the discussion session are presented in Table 4 (page 10),

the variety and number of themes discussed at the workshop are discussed in section 2.1,

and main discussion themes raised at the workshop are summarized in section 2.2.

4

2.1 Discussion Themes

Table 4 (page 10) summarizes discussion topics and themes identified during the group

discussion session. Topics and themes presented in Table 4 were synthesized from

discussion group notes taken by study team representatives. A review of richness of

themes (i.e., number and variation of themes) (Seal et al., 1998) in Table 3 provides an

indication of which topics received the most attention during the discussion session.

Themes refer to particular aspects of topics that were identified as a concern (e.g.,

vulnerability of sewage treatment plants to changing flood levels). While the

presentation at the workshop focussed on vulnerability of infrastructure to climate change

– particularly vulnerability related to changing magnitudes of riverine flood events –

themes discussed in the groups were extremely varied (Table 3).

Table 3: Topics and Associated Number of Discussion Themes Discussion Topic Number of Themes

Buildings 1 Emergency response, planning and preparedness 8 Erosion issues 3 Flooding 14 Frozen ground, freeze-thaw issues 1 Hazard lands 3 Health and safety 3 Hydro 2 Operational concerns 2 Planning and development issues 2 Policy issues 9 Public risk perceptions and knowledge 5 Recreation infrastructure 1 Sewer system 4 Socioeconomic issues 2 Stormwater management and urban flooding issues 10 Transportation infrastructure 4 Water infrastructure/water issues 6 Other themes* 8 *Other themes incorporated stand-alone issues that were not incorporated into other specific categories. Other themes ranged widely, for example, from climate change impacts on urban forest management to changing timing of outdoor activities. See Table 4 on page 10 for a complete review of topics and themes discussed at the workshop.

As indicated in Table 3, flooding (including flood management infrastructure) and

stormwater management topics received the greatest attention during the discussion

session, as reflected in the number of themes generated for these topics. It was expected

that flood related issues would received the greatest attention during the discussion

5

session, as this was the primary focus of the presentation in Part 1 (see Appendix A).

However, topics that were not discussed in the Part 1 presentation, including emergency

management, policy issues, risk perceptions and water also received significant attention.

The variety of themes discussed at the workshop indicated that workshop participants had

varying concerns related to climate change impacts in the City of London, many of which

will not be addressed in the current study.

2.1.1 Summary of Main Discussion Themes

This section provides an extended summary of main themes discussed at Workshop 1.

Main themes of the discussion session included:

- A need for further analysis of risks and vulnerabilities associated with non-

riverine flooding (i.e., urban flooding and flooding associated with overland

flow routes);

- There was wide and varied discussion associated with non-structural aspects

of climate change and hazard management, including:

o Possible impacts of changing flood levels on evacuation routes;

o The importance of public risk perceptions in flood management and

climate change adaptation;

o Issues surrounding disaster recovery rebuilding; specifically, whether

or not rebuilding should occur in hazard vulnerable areas;

o The role of homeowners in exacerbating/mitigating urban flood risk,

and a need to increase awareness/knowledge of the public in flood

management and climate change adaptation issues;

- Issues surrounding hazard lands, including impacts of freeze-thaw cycles and

increased erosion on slope stability;

- Issues associated with vulnerability of sewage treatment plants to changing

flood levels and impacts of both high water and dry weather on the system;

- Concerns regarding impacts of changing flood levels on water infrastructure

and climate change impacts on water quality;

6

- Issues surrounding the role of private infrastructure owners/managers in

climate change adaptation (i.e., private infrastructure that is not under the

control of the City will have to be adapted as well);

- A need for updated design standards for buildings and evacuation routes;

- A need to educate and involve the development industry in climate change

adaptation issues;

- A need to analyze the vulnerability of hydro infrastructure to climate change

impacts;

- Impacts of climate change and changing flood magnitudes on transportation

infrastructure, including inundation of roads and parking lots, and washout of

roads, and;

- A need to consider vulnerable populations and critical facilities in adaptation

planning, including senior’s residences and critical care facilities.

Flood related issues were broadly discussed at the workshop. Participants suggested that

increased flood levels will create new risks as flooding will affect infrastructure outside

of existing flood lines, and changes in the timing of occurrence of flooding could affect

the City’s flood vulnerability (for example, flood vulnerability is higher in the summer as

large numbers of City staff are on vacation). Participants also indicated that increased

frequency of small and medium sized events could create unforeseen vulnerabilities.

Identification of impacts of debris in flooding, including how debris may impact flood

control structures was identified as a concern. Specific concerns regarding flood

vulnerability were highlighted for the “Coves” area of London, which is particularly

vulnerable to flooding from the Thames River, and has been defined as a potential

Special Policy Area under the City of London’s Official Plan (City of London, 2007).

Participants also cited a need to balance both pressure for development and sound

floodplain management.

The impacts of changing flood hazards on flood control structures was a further topic of

discussion. Participants discussed the possibility that some existing flood control

structures may not be as effective under changing flood hazard scenarios, and that some

7

existing structures may exacerbate flood risk. For example, some areas that were

protected by dykes following the 1937 London flood have since been acquired by the

City and buildings have been removed. However, the flood control structures are still in

place, and may exacerbate flood damages by holding back flood waters. As well, the

changing nature of flooding may cause unintended consequences when floods interact

with the flood control structures. Participants suggested that a dam break analysis may

be necessary for the City to identify potential consequences of structural flood control

failure.

Various other themes were discussed at the workshop, including issues associated with

climate change and urban forest management and increased urban structural fire risk due

to dryer weather. Participants also expressed concerns over the impact of changing flood

lines on property values for those occupying new flood risk areas. Further, participants

indicated that much of London’s recreation infrastructure is located in floodplains, and is

therefore vulnerable to changing flood magnitudes.

Comments were also made about the leading role the City of London was taking in

identifying vulnerabilities to climate change impacts, and the need for higher levels of

government to become involved in climate change adaptation. Specifically, staff from

the City suggested that the province would have a larger role to play in issues associated

with water management and climate change. Participants identified the need to convey

information about the City’s work to the provincial and/or federal government to receive

funding for continued adaptation work.

Discussions also focussed on how to move forward with adaptation planning. While the

presentation at the beginning of the workshop focussed on infrastructure vulnerability to

changing flood magnitudes caused by climate change, there was significant discussion

about many other impacts and vulnerabilities, and participants cited a need to develop a

broad strategy to address climate change adaptation. Participants indicated that the

adaptation strategy should include impacts outside of the current study, including freeze-

thaw cycles, impacts of extreme temperatures and freezing rain. Participants suggested

8

that the strategy should consider the “big picture,” including consideration of

qualitative/operational issues associated with climate change vulnerability. Participants

further suggested that health and safety issues, including air pollution and air quality

issues, should be heavily weighted in climate change adaptation decision making.

Participants also cited a need to keep numerous players up to speed on climate change

adaptation planning, including planning and urban design professionals.

3 Conclusion

Workshop 1 of the “City of London: Vulnerability of Infrastructure to Climate Change”

provided the first opportunity for a wider group of stakeholders to be informed of and

comment on the study. The workshop occurred too late in the study to impact its

direction, however, it provided context for the study, it informed stakeholders on the

current status and objectives of the study, and it allowed for discussion and identification

of possible climate change vulnerabilities in the City. As well, the workshop provided

background information for further climate change vulnerability analyses in the City.

Several climate change vulnerability topics and themes that were outside the scope of the

study were identified at the workshop. For example, concerns over climate change

impacts on urban flooding and overland flow routes, considerations for emergency

management and public risk perceptions were discussed at the workshop. These issues

present further opportunity for the analysis of climate change vulnerability in the City of

London.

Several City of London staff indicated that they were not fully aware of the objectives

and scope of the vulnerability study. Thus, the workshop identified a need to ensure that

limits to the study are clearly communicated. The study team should ensure that

stakeholders are aware of the study’s primary focus on vulnerability of infrastructure to

changing riverine flooding, and that it will not provide information of flood risk

associated with overland flows outside of areas adjacent to water courses.

9

Workshop participants suggested that the current study will have significant policy

implications for the City. For example, staff identified a need to carry out dam break

analyses, identify vulnerabilities of sewage treatment plants to changing flood levels, and

identified a possible need for moving buildings further back from flood lines to

accommodate increasing flood magnitudes caused by climate change. Thus, the

workshop served to highlight the policy implications of the vulnerability study.

Spatial representation of risks created by climate change will be an important output of

the study. Maps have been identified as important risk communication tools (Siegrist &

Gutshcer, 2006). As well, hazard maps have been applied for several decades in

communicating riverine flood hazards in Canada, and hazard maps serve for integration

of hazard risk into land-use planning decisions (Shrubsole, 2007; Watt, 1995). Risk maps

produced through the vulnerability study will serve both as risk communication tools for

affected stakeholders and the public, and will also facilitate integration of study findings

into land-use planning and rezoning of flood risk areas in the City.

Given the richness of themes discussed at the workshop, and the fact that several

workshop participants identified the need to keep other City staff up-to-speed on climate

change vulnerability issues, it may be beneficial to conduct a further workshop outside of

the current study that incorporates participation from a larger group of City of London

staff. As identified above, a bias toward discussion of flood issues was present at the

workshop (see Table 3). This was expected as the presentation in Part 1 of the workshop

focussed on climate change impacts and vulnerabilities associated with riverine flooding.

It may be beneficial, therefore, if a more generalized workshop were conducted that

focussed on a variety of climate change impacts in the City of London. A more

generalized climate change vulnerability workshop may allow for a wider variety of

discussion themes and identification of a broader set of concerns related to climate

change vulnerability in the City.

10

Table 4: Summary of Topics and Themes Discussed at Workshop 1 Discussion Topic Discussion Theme

Buildings How will design standards for both City and private facilities need to be adapted to climate change impacts, including increasing severity and frequency of severe rain? How should a state of emergency be declared? Better establishment of emergency management policies a concern, e.g., who is in charge of different stages of response procedures? Who is in charge of people saying they can go back to their homes after an evacuation event? The health department? Police? Changing flood magnitudes could affect flow thresholds for flood emergency management. Should rebuilding occur in vulnerable areas?

Emergency response, planning and preparedness issues

Issues associated with evacuation • Possible impacts of increased flood levels on evacuation routes. • Issues for design standards of evacuation routes – how will they need to be adapted to climate change?

• Need to change and update evacuation plans – for example, areas where people are evacuated to may be in floodplain (e.g., arenas).

Coal tar in the banks of the river – increased erosion could lead to contamination of river. Changes in erosion risks.

Erosion issues

Erosion could impact sewer siphons. Increased flood levels won’t just amplify existing flood risks, but could create new risks. For example, changing flood levels could affect access to infrastructure (e.g., flooded hospital parking lots); new areas of flooding could affect infrastructure in unforeseen ways. Changes in timing of occurrence/seasonality of flooding (e.g., summer floods to winter floods) – how might this impact how floods are managed? Are winter floods better? Further timing issues: • Changes in length of events and quickness of response. • Vulnerability to floods different at different times of the year (the City is more vulnerable to summer floods).

• In the summer the City may need staff redundancies for flood emergency management, as a large number of staff are on vacation.

Changes in characteristics of flood events – e.g., slow onset, fast onset. Changes in frequency of smaller events will create specific effects; many medium-sized storms back-to-back can have a great effect as well. It may be necessary to move structures back from flood lines. Take a fresh look at subwatershed studies – update hydraulic and hydrologic data.

Flooding

Need to consider debris in flooding and how it affects structures and how it impacts damming; anticipate debris issues at pinch points.

11

Issues associated with flood control structures: • Existing flood control structures may not be as useful. • Dykes prevent flood waters from entering, but they also trap water inside (backwaters, flood waters, rain water, etc.) and water cannot get out.

• Dyke system analysis may be necessary – i.e., to identify if the City should keep them all. Some dykes may be causing more damage than benefits. For example, dykes were built to protect homes in areas that were affected by the 1937 flood, however, the City purchased the land later on and converted it to park space. The dyke is still in place, but the hydraulics are changing, and the dyke may cause undesired effects.

• Dam break analysis – what would the consequences be if some major structures did fail, how would this influence London and what would be the downstream impacts?

Frozen ground, freeze-thaw issues

Impacts of increased number of freeze-thaw cycles; for example, possible impacts on bank stability. Hazard lands a concern – e.g., landslides and erosion risk may change as a result of climate change. Need improved policies on hazardous slopes and setbacks. Hazard lands

A need to consider hazard slopes that aren’t part of the regulated land. Air pollution, air quality issues. Air temperature issues.

Health & safety Health and safety issues need to have a high weight in decision making. Energy consumption issues.

Hydro There is a need to identify how London Hydro may be affected by climate change impacts. How are operations going to be impacted, and how might that evolve over time?

Operational concerns Strategy changes may be necessary – e.g., changes in reservoir management strategy. Development industry should be informed of climate change impacts (e.g., give the plenary presentation to the development industry to help ensure City/Industry are on the same page).

Planning and development issues

There is a need to balance between development pressure and sound floodplain management. Resource allocations – should the City bulk up infrastructure, change policy? • Possible policy change may include prevention of building in the floodplain.

Public vs. private responsibility for climate change adaptation – there is a need for private infrastructure owners to become involved in climate change adaptation planning.

Policy issues

Adaptation strategy issues: • How will the City move from risk identification into practical responses?

• Need a broad adaptation strategy for the future: Strategy needs to include climate factors outside of the current study, including freeze/thaw cycles, extreme temperatures, freezing rain, snow, etc. Strategy needs to look at the big picture including a view from the qualitative, operational standpoint.

Flooding

(cont.)

12

Design standards • Existing infrastructure vs. new infrastructure based on new design standards: Should we retrofit our existing infrastructure or build new infrastructure to these new standards?

• A need to look into new design criteria for new projects and mitigation measures for existing infrastructure.

Risk management issues: • The City is self-insured up to $5 million; the risk is not really considered in losing infrastructure, used more for claims.

• Should there be a time or design where we perhaps allow the loss of certain infrastructure and save the more critical infrastructure?

People are expecting more from the government: They expect more aid, but are less tolerant of risk. Public risk perceptions: Public does not think they are vulnerable to flooding. Will residents accept risk associated with changing floodplain? Risk communication is a big issue. How will public risk perceptions be incorporated into flood emergency management?

Public risk perceptions and knowledge

Community should be made aware of risk and emergency protocol. Recreation infrastructure

Much of London’s recreation infrastructure is located in the floodplain, and may be vulnerable to changing flood levels. Dry weather may impact sewer conveyance. Sewage Treatment Plants are built in low areas and protected by dykes – will dykes be sufficient for protection?

Sewer system Impacts of high water levels: • Some treatment plants are currently unable to operate during spring conditions.

• During large storms and high water level events, gravity flow no longer functions to dispel effluent (plants rely on gravity to pump effluent, if they can’t then they’re out of commission).

Social vulnerability: A need to consider senior’s residences and critical care.

Socioeconomic issues Homeowners and farmers with plans to sell their land could be affected if floodplain changes, as this could impact land values. Overland flow issues – hardest hit areas may be hardest to deal with (because overland flow routes haven’t been defined). • A large portion of the City does not have overland flow routes, especially in areas built between the 1950s and 1980s.

Homeowner level issues associated with urban flooding: • Policies regarding grading of home lots: There are no consequences for people who inappropriately regrade their lots.

• Downspout disconnection – role for public education, and public policy (technical, staging, education and political will).

• Illegal basement apartments an issue • Isolated flooding events have prevented people in the same Forward Sortation Area (FSA) to get sewer backup insurance.

This study is only looking at flood vulnerability in areas immediately adjacent to water courses; future study should investigate flooding beyond the floodplain (overland flow routes).

Stormwater management and urban flooding issues

Consider backflow effects from inundated overflows.

Policy issues

(cont.)

13

Stormwater management infrastructure • Blowout of stormwater management facilities a concern. • Green infrastructure study to be done in the City to review various mitigation factors, and a green infrastructure plan to promote source controls.

Parking should be considered as an additional infrastructure, as access to cars for transportation may be an issue. Road inundation and washout an issue. Rail infrastructure – culverts create backflows.

Transportation infrastructure

Issues surrounding cost for snow melting on the road. Water mains could become uncovered. Possible drinking water distribution failures from Erie and Huron. Is climate change taken into consideration in source water protection? Need for mitigation techniques to better manage water demand; e.g., rain barrels and cisterns may be an option to better manage water.

Water infrastructure/water issues

Water quality: • Sediment movement and water quality issues. • Water quality could get worse. Insect population issues. Climate change and urban forest management issues. Increased urban fire risk due to dry weather. Thames Valley Corridor Study (Dillon Consulting) – may need to widen corridor based on climate change study. Need to keep staff up to speed, including planning and urban design professionals – currently the project is focussed on engineering staff. Timing of activities – e.g., what is a good time to go outside? Timing of recreational outdoor activities may change.

Other themes

Information updating, establishing information baselines: • Updating service works and mapping for baseline data. • Converting drawings to digital.

Stormwater management and urban flooding issues

(cont.)

14

Works Cited

City of London. (2007). Official Plan: Part B, Schedule B – Flood Plain and

Environmental Features. London: City of London.

Seal, D., Bogart, L., & Ehrhardt, A. (1998). Small group dynamics: The utility of focus

group discussions as a research method. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research and

Practice, 2(4), 253-266.

Shrubsole, D. (2007). From structures to sustainability: a history of flood management

strategies in Canada. International Journal of Emergency Management, 4(2), 183-

196.

Siegrist, M., & Gutshcer, H. (2006). Flooding risks: A comparison of lay people’s

perceptions and expert’s assessments in Switzerland. Risk Analysis, 26, 971-979.

Watt, W.E. (1995). The national flood damage reduction program: 1976-1995. Canadian

Water Resources Journal, 20, 237-247.

15

Appendix A: Workshop Presentation

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

Appendix B: Discussion Group Handout

Table B1: Infrastructure Sectors and Categories Infrastructure Sector Category

Arterial Roadway Primary Roadway Collector Roadway Bridges

Roadways and associated structures

Culverts Hospitals Fire stations EMS stations Police stations Elementary schools (public/separate) Secondary schools

Public Buildings - Elements may include: Building envelope, roofs, walkways,

HVAC systems, etc.

Post-secondary schools Bridges Tunnels Pedestrian Infrastructure

Sidewalks Pollution control plants Sanitary sewers Stormwater management infrastructure Outlets

Water & Wastewater Infrastructure

Combined sewers Dams, levees, dykes

Flood Management Infrastructure Reservoirs

Other Infrastructure Electrical system

24

General Climate Change Impacts for the City of London

• Increased frequency of hot spells (e.g., increase in the number of consecutive

‘hot’ days)

• Longer duration of cold spells

• Changes in the current Intensity Duration Frequency (IDF) curves:

o Increased frequency and severity of intense precipitation events (leading

to flooding)

o Increase in the occurrence of drought conditions (or a decrease in the

number of precipitation events)

• Timing shift for seasons (e.g. early onset of spring)

• Snowmelt timing shift (snowmelt occurring earlier)

• Length of snowmelt (either increasing or decreasing)

• Increased flood inundation levels

• Changes in temperature extremes

o Higher daily temperatures

o Lower daily temperatures