Meopar 2015 stakeholder workshop report

41
REPORT: 2015 STRAIT OF GEORGIA MARINE HAZARDS STAKEHOLDER WORKSHOP Report for Stakeholders and Researchers Workshop: May 27, 2015 8:30am-4:00pm Creekside Community Centre 1 Athletes Way, Vancouver BC Report: July 24, 2015

description

On May 27, 2015 the Marine Environmental Observation, Prediction, and Response (MEOPAR) Network hosted its third annual Strait of Georgia Marine Hazards Stakeholder Workshop. Three objectives of the workshop were: (1) Inform and update stakeholders on the progress of the projects; (2) Solicit input and learn from stakeholders about what outcomes they would find useful from the projects; and, (3) Verify some preliminary research results with stakeholders. Researchers received a large amount of constructive input to the projects and, according to the post-workshop survey results, the 61 stakeholders felt positively that they had the opportunity to contribute their insights during the workshop. Stakeholder feedback will be incorporated in ongoing project design and research decisions, and project progress will be reported in next year’s workshop. MEOPAR project members would like to thank the stakeholders who attended the workshop for their participation.

Transcript of Meopar 2015 stakeholder workshop report

Page 1: Meopar 2015 stakeholder workshop report

REPORT: 2015 STRAIT OF GEORGIA MARINE HAZARDS STAKEHOLDER WORKSHOP

Report for Stakeholders and Researchers

Workshop: May 27, 2015 8:30am-4:00pm Creekside Community Centre 1 Athletes Way, Vancouver BC Report: July 24, 2015

Page 2: Meopar 2015 stakeholder workshop report

2

MEOPAR project members involved in workshop and report preparation:

Hazard Vulnerability Indicators for Coastal Communities Stephanie Chang Greg Oulahen Jackie Z. K. Yip Tugce Conger Rebecca Chaster Christopher Carter Michelle Marteleira

Modeling the Salish Sea Susan Allen Doug Latornell Nancy Soontiens Elise Olson Jie Liu Ben Moore-Maley Idalia Machuca Muriel Dunn

Marine Transportation Disruption Hadi Dowlatabadi Stephanie Chang Terje Haukaas Bethany Dobson Allanah Brown

Ocean Observations of Strait of Georgia Rich Pawlowicz Mark Halverson

Developing a Canadian Ocean Acidification Network Ken Denman

Page 3: Meopar 2015 stakeholder workshop report

3

Executive Summary On May 27, 2015 the Marine Environmental Observation, Prediction, and Response (MEOPAR) Network hosted its third annual Strait of Georgia Marine Hazards Stakeholder Workshop. Three objectives of the workshop were: (1) Inform and update stakeholders on the progress of the projects; (2) Solicit input and learn from stakeholders about what outcomes they would find useful from the projects; and, (3) Verify some preliminary research results with stakeholders. Five MEOPAR projects were represented at the workshop: Hazard Vulnerability Indicators for Coastal Communities; Modeling the Salish Sea; Marine Transportation Disruption; Developing a Canadian Ocean Acidification Network, and; Ocean Observations of Strait of Georgia. Stakeholders from the public (including local government, provincial and federal agencies), private, and non-profit sectors were invited to attend the full-day workshop at Creekside Community Centre in Vancouver. In total, 40 stakeholders participated in the workshop, in addition to 21 project members. In order to facilitate knowledge exchange between researchers and stakeholders, the workshop program included presentations from researchers and structured methodologies for gathering stakeholder input through active participation. The program consisted of an opening plenary session, three parallel breakout sessions, a World Café with five thematic tables, and a closing plenary session. Researchers received a large amount of constructive input to the projects and, according to the post-workshop survey results, stakeholders felt positively that they had the opportunity to contribute their insights during the workshop. Stakeholder feedback will be incorporated in ongoing project design and research decisions, and project progress will be reported in next year’s workshop. MEOPAR project members would like to thank the stakeholders who attended the workshop for their participation.

Page 4: Meopar 2015 stakeholder workshop report

4

Table of Contents

Executive Summary ......................................................................................................................... 3

Table of Contents ............................................................................................................................ 4

1. Introduction and workshop overview ..................................................................................... 5

1.1 Opening plenary session .................................................................................................. 6

1.2 Breakout sessions ............................................................................................................. 7

1.3 World Café ........................................................................................................................ 7

1.4 Closing plenary ................................................................................................................. 8

2. Project summaries: Synthesis of stakeholder input ................................................................ 8

2.1 The UBC Salish Sea Ocean Model project ........................................................................ 8

2.2 Marine transportation disruption project...................................................................... 13

2.3 Hazard vulnerability indicators project .......................................................................... 16

3. Notes from Breakout Sessions and World Café tables .......................................................... 20

3.1 Breakout session notes: Strait of Georgia circulation: Ocean currents, particle and contaminant tracking, biology and chemistry .......................................................................... 20

3.2 Breakout session notes: Marine transportation disruption .......................................... 22

3.3 Breakout session notes: Hazard vulnerability indicators ............................................... 25

3.4 World Café notes: Improving the storm surge portal .................................................... 26

3.5 World Café notes: Ocean acidification ........................................................................... 27

3.6 World Café notes: Biological modeling .......................................................................... 28

3.7 World Café notes: Marine transportation disruption .................................................... 30

3.8 World Café notes: Hazard vulnerability platform design............................................... 31

4. Conclusion ............................................................................................................................. 32

Appendix 1: Workshop Agenda .................................................................................................... 33

Appendix 2: Attendees list ............................................................................................................ 34

Appendix 3: World Café table themes and questions .................................................................. 36

Appendix 4: HVSI breakout session polling results ....................................................................... 37

Appendix 5: Post-workshop survey responses ............................................................................. 39

Page 5: Meopar 2015 stakeholder workshop report

5

2015 Strait of Georgia Marine Hazards Workshop

May 27, 2015 8:30am-4:00pm

Creekside Community Centre 1 Athlete’s Way, Vancouver BC

1. Introduction and workshop overview This report summarizes the outcomes of the third annual workshop on Strait of Georgia Marine Hazards convened by the Marine Environmental Observation, Prediction, and Response (MEOPAR) Network. Five MEOPAR projects at the University of British Columbia (UBC) and University of Victoria (UVic) were represented at the workshop: Hazard Vulnerability Indicators for Coastal Communities; Modeling the Salish Sea; Marine Transportation Disruption; Ocean Acidification and Long-term Impacts; and, Ocean Observations of Strait of Georgia. The purpose of this report is to collect and organize in a single document the outcomes of the workshop in order to disseminate them to stakeholders and research project members.

The main objective of the annual workshop is to build connections between local organizations and researchers who share an interest in improving Canada’s ability to manage and respond to risk and change in marine and coastal environments. Three specific objectives of this year’s workshop were to: (1) Inform and update stakeholders on the progress of the projects; (2) Solicit input and learn from stakeholders about what outcomes they would find useful from the projects; and, (3) Verify some preliminary research results with stakeholders. Sections of this report describe the MEOPAR projects and workshop outcomes related to each project.

The 2015 workshop built from a foundation of two previous MEOPAR stakeholder workshops. This year’s workshop was a longer event and had a greater number of attendees than the previous workshops. The full-day workshop was held on Wednesday, May 27 from 8:30 am to 4:00 pm at Creekside Community Centre in Vancouver.1 Stakeholders from the public (including local government, provincial and federal agencies), private, and non-profit sectors were invited to attend the workshop. In total, 40 stakeholders participated in the workshop, in addition to 21 project members2.

The report is organized as follows: Section 1 provides an overview of the workshop and describes how it was conducted. Section 2 summarizes the background and stakeholder input to the three projects that were the primary focus of the workshop. Section 3 presents the detailed notes of stakeholder input collected by researchers at the breakout sessions and World Café,

1 Appendix 1 provides the workshop agenda. 2 Appendix 2 provides the list of workshop participants.

Page 6: Meopar 2015 stakeholder workshop report

6

organized by topic. The fourth and final section provides a brief concluding thought on the workshop. Appendices are included to provide further detail on various aspects of the workshop.

1.1 Opening plenary session

The formal program began at 9:00 am with an introduction to MEOPAR by Dr. Ken Denman, University of Victoria. Following this opening presentation, participants were invited to briefly introduce themselves and say a few words about what they hoped to gain from the workshop and how it relates to their work. This opportunity allowed stakeholders and researchers to learn about each other and facilitated networking and collaboration opportunities. After the introductions were complete, an overview of each project was presented by a principal investigator or researcher. Dr. Ken Denman: Developing a Canadian Ocean Acidification Network

Open ocean surface pH has decreased by about 0.1 units since the preindustrial era due to roughly ¼ of the carbon dioxide released to the atmosphere from the burning of fossil fuels eventually ending up in the oceans. It is estimated that pH could drop by up to another 0.4 units by 2100, representing an increase of about a factor of 3 in the number of hydrogen ions. Earth system models predict that by 2100 most of the Canadian coastal regions will have a surface saturation state for aragonite (the mineral form of calcium carbonate in corals and oyster shells) of less than 1, meaning that the waters would be corrosive to the shells of organisms comprised of aragonite. MEOPAR has recently funded two new projects to start to develop a Canadian Ocean Acidification Program. The two projects headed by Karen Kohfeld (Simon Fraser University) and Helmuth Thomas and Peter Tyedmers (Dalhousie University) consist of about 20 Principal Investigators and 20 Collaborators. The essential elements of this program include:

Developing a 'Climatology' of pH and pCO2 in Canadian coastal waters.

Identifying key species (and ecosystems) at risk and potential impact on coastal communities and industries.

A strong collaboration with the Department of Fisheries and Oceans (research and management), other Canadian research networks, (e.g. Ocean Networks Canada, ArcticNet), and the international community.

Developing tools to predict probable extent and impacts on economically and culturally important marine species in Canada over the next few decades.

Dr. Mark Halverson: General circulation of Strait of Georgia

This project aims to understand how water circulates in the Strait of Georgia using observations. Specifically, the project seeks to identify how and why surface ocean water moves and mixes in the Strait of Georgia. One application of this research is to understand the fate of

Page 7: Meopar 2015 stakeholder workshop report

7

buoyant Fraser River water - under what conditions does it (or something floating in it) exit the Strait through Juan de Fuca? Or north through Johnstone Strait? Dr. Susan Allen: The UBC Salish Sea Ocean Model

This project is constructing an oceanographic model of the Salish Sea to provide hourly estimates of salinity, temperature, currents, sea surface height, nutrients, phytoplankton, zooplankton and pH on a scale of 500 m x 500 m in the horizontal, 1 m (near surface) to 20 m (at depth). Best estimates of these variables will be provided each day and forecasted for one day after. Applications include storm surge forecasting, floating object trajectories and spring phytoplankton bloom timing. Dr. Stephanie Chang: Coastal hazard vulnerability indicators: A similarity approach

This project aims to develop an indicator-based approach to characterize the vulnerability profile of coastal communities and to identify communities that are similarly vulnerable to coastal hazards, so as to facilitate sharing of relevant information on disaster experiences, risk reduction efforts, and planning resources. The approach is piloted for some 50 communities (e.g., municipalities) along the Strait of Georgia, B.C. Dr. Hadi Dowlatabadi: Marine transportation disruption

A new MEOPAR study that aims to develop knowledge and tools to enhance the resilience of B.C.'s island and coastal communities to disruptions in marine transportation. It focuses on three critical sectors: fuel, food, and emergency medical supplies.

1.2 Breakout sessions

Following a coffee break, stakeholders were invited to participate in parallel breakout sessions. Researchers from three projects, Hazard Vulnerability Indicators for Coastal Communities, Modeling the Salish Sea, and Marine Transportation Disruption, each hosted an independent two-part breakout session. Stakeholders were assigned to a specified breakout session based on their professional position and potential for experience-based input. Part one of the breakout session concluded after 45 minutes and stakeholders were then invited to participate in another session of their own choosing for part two, which was another 45 minutes. Each breakout session consisted of a presentation by the project researchers and an interactive method for collecting input from stakeholders.

1.3 World Café

After lunch, project members hosted a World Café. World Café is a structured engagement methodology in which a facilitator seeks the input of participants by asking questions and promoting a dialogue that values their thoughts and insights. Participant input is

Page 8: Meopar 2015 stakeholder workshop report

8

“harvested” by the facilitator by writing summary points on note cards and organizing them around themes or questions. Participants can then observe how their thoughts are being summarized and respond with further input in an iterative process3. The workshop’s World Café consisted of five tables, each focused on a different theme and set of questions4. Recorded outputs of the World Café were kept by the research teams for analysis to guide future project decisions5.

1.4 Closing plenary

After the World Café, all participants were reconvened for a short summary plenary session. Project members reported back to the group on the input they received from the breakout sessions and World Café, which served as a summary of the main take-home messages from the day and allowed a chance for comments on next steps.

2. Project summaries: Synthesis of stakeholder input This section summarizes stakeholder input to the three research projects that were the primary focus of the workshop. A background description of each project is provided and the main themes of stakeholder input are discussed. Input was gathered through the breakout sessions and World Café.

2.1 The UBC Salish Sea Ocean Model project Overview

The dynamic waters of the Salish Sea host a rich ecosystem and directly enhance and impact the surrounding communities. An oceanographic model of the Salish Sea6 is currently being developed by Dr. Susan Allen’s group in the Department of Earth, Ocean and Atmospheric Sciences at the University of British Columbia. The model has the capability to produce a variety of quantities, including salinity, temperature, currents, sea surface height at a resolution of 500 m x 500 m in the horizontal, 1 m (near surface) to 20 m (at depth), and hours in time. The addition of nutrients, phytoplankton, zooplankton and pH is currently underway. In its current configuration, simulations are run each day providing a best estimate for that day and a forecast for tomorrow. Applications are numerous; examples include storm surge forecasting, floating object trajectories, and spring phytoplankton bloom timing.

3 Further information on World Café methodology and design principles can be found on The World Café Community Foundation website at www.theworldcafe.com/method.html 4 See Appendix 3 for detailed World Café table themes and questions 5 Summaries of the World Café tables are in Section 3 6 salishsea.eos.ubc.ca

Page 9: Meopar 2015 stakeholder workshop report

9

The word cloud below highlights some of the key points mentioned during discussions of the applications this model. This report documents the details of these discussions with respect to four topics: storm surge forecasting, ocean currents and particle tracking, biological modeling, and ocean acidification. In addition to these topics, the stakeholders disclosed a variety of data sources that could be used to complement modeling efforts.

The UBC Storm Surge Portal

The UBC Storm Surge Portal7 is a website that provides real-time information about storm surge conditions in the Strait of Georgia. On most days, the website provides a preliminary storm surge forecast for tomorrow by 7am, an updated forecast for tomorrow by 2pm, and a nowcast for today’s conditions by 12pm. The forecasts and nowcasts are generated by the UBC Salish Sea NEMO Model.8 The model has been evaluated through a series of storm surge hindcasts from 2006, 2009, and 2012.9 In addition to water level predictions, the storm surge portal provides information about wind direction and speed and links to other resources about storm surge on the British Columbia coast.

Discussions at the workshop focused on how the storm surge portal could be improved for use by municipalities in response to flooding risk. Some suggestions follow.

7 salishsea.eos.ubc.ca/storm-surge/ 8 salishsea.eos.ubc.ca/nemo/ 9 Soontiens, N., Allen, S., Latornell, D., Le Souef, K., Machuca, I., Paquin, J.-P., Lu, Y., Thompson, K., Korabel, V. (2015). Storm surges in the Strait of Georgia simulated with a regional model. Submitted to Atmosphere-Ocean.

Page 10: Meopar 2015 stakeholder workshop report

10

Push vs Pull

It was emphasized that municipalities use many sources of information when responding to marine risks. While a website is a great resource, it is not a tool that is likely to be used every day. As such, the stakeholders suggested an alert system that would push information to users under conditions of risk. Suggestions included integrating with other alert systems such as the Environment Canada warning system, posting alerts on twitter, incorporating customized alerts, using an RSS feed, and adding textual information in addition to images. Additionally, an alert for the timing of the king tides is also desired. Visualizing Risk

In previous workshops, it was determined that water levels with respect to thresholds are an appropriate way to visualize risk. Currently, these thresholds are determined by the researchers based on the maximum annual tides, the historical extreme water level, and their midpoint. These values are used to define three levels of risk: no risk if predicted water level is below maximum annual tides, moderate risk if the predicted water level is between the maximum annual tides and the midpoint, extreme risk if the predicted water level is above the midpoint. It was acknowledged that the researchers do not necessarily have the expertise to define these thresholds. The stakeholders suggested the following:

● Customizable thresholds set by the user ● Thresholds based on NOAA’s Tsunami warning system ● Maps of inundation/flooding using digital elevation maps ● Thresholds based on historical water levels and percentiles

Geographic Extent

In its current format, the storm surge portal provides threshold based water level predictions for Campbell River, Victoria, and Point Atkinson. It also includes charts of water levels at Friday Harbor, WA, Cherry Point, WA, and Neah Bay, WA but not with respect to threshold levels. Stakeholders made it clear that more locations are needed in order to make the storm surge portal useful to a variety of communities. In particular, the stakeholders have experienced that the water level conditions at Point Atkinson are not representative of other at-risk areas within the Strait of Georgia, such as Boundary Bay. Some additional locations to be considered are:

● Tsawwassen ● Saanich Peninsula ● Sechelt ● Boundary Bay ● Squamish ● Nanaimo

Page 11: Meopar 2015 stakeholder workshop report

11

Other improvements

Some additional areas of improvement and ideas for future directions include: ● A coarse resolution forecast available earlier than 24 hours in advance, for

example, several days to a week ● Low water level predictions ● Including rainfall levels ● Displaying wind speeds in knots as well as m/s ● Including comparisons of water level predictions with observations ● Guidance in determining the placement of new tide gauges that would be of value

to the modelling efforts Ocean Currents and Particle Tracking

Stakeholder interest in particle tracking and ocean currents encompassed several topics including oil spill response, pollution and contaminant tracking, search and rescue, navigation, and fish disease tracking. Although some of these applications are beyond the scope of this project, these discussions are very useful in identifying potential future directions. First, a detailed analysis of model currents is underway.

With regards to oil spill response, stakeholders expressed a need for a customized analysis in the event of an oil spill. In particular, any efforts that could identify the spatial and temporal distribution of oil during a spill would be of value. This topic was of particular interest to the Ministry of Environment, Port Metro Vancouver and several other municipalities. The Raincoast Conservation Foundation conducts surface drift card studies that could be used to inform oil spill response and evaluate model particle tracking methods.

Municipalities including Metro Vancouver, Richmond and Capital Region District showed a strong interest in sewage outflow and pollution tracking with a desire to learn where sewage may be distributed under different release conditions. In addition, questions regarding backtracking the origin of pollutants were raised, although the dispersive nature of pollution and contaminants makes this a difficult question to answer. Other particle tracking applications include debris tracking, aquaculture, and search and rescue. Search and rescue applications would be especially valuable to the Canadian Coast Guard.

Finally, an ocean currents forecast could be useful to marine pilots when deciding where and when to moor. Notifications of extreme currents in some of the narrow passages and straits would be beneficial to marine pilots and the Nanaimo Port Authority. It was also mentioned that ocean currents induced by seismic activity are potentially dangerous and unpredictable, although this is outside of the scope of this model in its present capacity.

Page 12: Meopar 2015 stakeholder workshop report

12

Biological Modeling

Two main areas emerged in which our biological model could advance stakeholders’ interests. These were modelling the abundance of zooplankton and harmful algal species. Zooplankton abundance is of interest primarily as a food source to higher trophic level organisms, including salmon, herring, sand lance, sturgeon, halibut, smelt, prawns, and whales. Knowledge of the distribution of various zooplankton species either in terms of taxonomic or even functional groups could inform studies of food webs, juvenile fish survival, and resource competition. Spatial information, such as locations of hotspots and barrens, could provide insight into fish migration patterns. Historical analysis using a biological model could identify factors leading to sockeye population collapse. Additionally, existing size-fractionated chlorophyll and zooplankton data could be used to evaluate the model.

There is also significant interest in the distribution and abundance of harmful algal species known to affect the region, including members of the genera Pseudo-nitzschia, Dinophysis, Prorocentrum, Alexandrium, and Heterosigma. Harmful algae can impact human health or marine organisms including economically important fish. It is therefore desirable to identify spatial patterns and environmental drivers of harmful algae abundance. Shellfish toxicity data, which could be of use in the development and evaluation of a harmful algal bloom (HAB) model, is archived by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency but not publicly available.

Some further areas of interest were identified but are not amenable to study through an NPZD-type biological model. One example is disease transmission between salmon populations, which could perhaps be addressed through a particle tracking approach. There is also a strong desire for further cell monitoring for harmful algae. Other areas of concern to stakeholders but outside the scope of this project include identification of sources of marine debris and pollutants, coal dust impacts, and health and environmental impacts of sewage outfalls. Ocean Acidification

Interest in ocean acidification centered around three major themes: fisheries resilience, water quality, and long-term change. Fisheries Resilience

This theme concerned both shellfish and migratory finfish. pH, aragonite saturation state, pCO2, and dissolved oxygen are all relevant quantities and locations, times, and scales of interest were organism-dependent for the most part. Baynes Sound and the northern Strait of Georgia were highlighted as critical areas for commercial shellfish, although the Musqueam Nation is also concerned about the traditional harvesting grounds from the Fraser River to Howe Sound. The early stages of shellfish development were mentioned as a critical time to monitor. Finfish migration, including Fraser River salmon stocks, was also mentioned as a concern in spring and fall, although the exact health concerns were not mentioned but could include low pCO2, hypoxia, changes in HAB distribution and timing, and others. Forecasts and extremes from scenarios were

Page 13: Meopar 2015 stakeholder workshop report

13

both mentioned as useful products. Additionally, there was strong interest in existing data and quality control, as well as combining existing data into some central system. Additional products specific to the shellfish industry such as guidelines based on different model predictions were also mentioned. Water Quality

This theme centered primarily around sewage. pH, aragonite saturation state, pCO2, and dissolved oxygen were again all relevant. Water quality interests were generally site-specific, focusing attention in shallow coastal areas near sewage outfalls on timescales of days to seasons. The impact of storm surge and king tides on sewage outfalls was also mentioned as a concern. Ladysmith also expressed interest in dissolved oxygen near their municipality, and the Tsleil-Waututh Nation is interested in carbon chemistry in the interstitial waters of shell midden sites on the north shore of Vancouver. Short-term modeling was mentioned most for this theme. Long-term Change

This theme concerned changes with respect to both ocean acidification and hypoxia. pH, aragonite saturation state, pCO2, and dissolved oxygen were again all relevant. These concerns were expressed by both local municipalities and the BC Ministry of Environment, and their spatial and temporal scales ranged as such. Shorter-term scales on the order of 5 to 10 years were discussed to inform planning in existing communities and developments while longer-term scales were desired to inform new developments down the road. Trends in deep carbon and oxygen associated with external (upwelling and basin-scale change) and local (remineralized carbon and hypoxia) forcing were also mentioned. Modelling using scenarios to determine extremes and hotspots was of the most interest.

2.2 Marine transportation disruption project

This project is researching the effects of a maritime transportation disruption in the Strait of Georgia, and the effect it would have on adjacent communities10. During the MEOPAR workshop, two breakout sessions and a World Café were both opportunities to get feedback from key stakeholders on what they foresee as the fundamental issues and concerns relating to such disruptions.

The breakout sessions each consisted of a discussion with associated groups on the response outcome to two different scenarios. The scenarios, one a capsized ship and the second a large earthquake, created conversation around the chain of events and expected reactions in response. The first breakout was held with key stakeholders who are involved with BC’s marine transportation-related disaster resilience whereas the second was held other members of the MEOPAR workshop who were generally not as familiar with emergency response planning.

10 http://www.resilientcoasts.ubc.ca/marine-transport

Page 14: Meopar 2015 stakeholder workshop report

14

Focus was on identifying the largest concerns at both 72 hours and 2 weeks after the event occurred. Separating the perceived challenges into two time frames allowed for the similarities and contrast in the response progression to be identified. As expected from the discussion, the two conflicting scenarios – the first disrupting the supply chain and the latter having widespread effect on the capabilities of all facilities involved – require vastly different strategies to overcome. The notes from the discussions can be found in section 3.2. Both groups identified issues concerning environmental clean-up, communication, transportation, and long term socio-economic effects.

Although it cannot be seen from the notes, one major difference was the speed of response from the two different groups. The first group of stakeholders were quick to identify technical details in how Metro Vancouver would respond to a sunken ship in the Burrard Inlet. The second group, however, was more hesitant while discussing the first scenario. Both groups had a variety of ideas for the second scenario of a large earthquake.

The dialogue, particularly with Group 1, indicated there has been significant analysis and pre-establishment of response strategies undertaken in large organisations. The preparation is considerable, and there are some longstanding inter-relations between major companies and departments. There is consensus that response coordination and organisation is of considerable concern, and one in which they have all deliberated many plausible results. However, there is some level of disparity in the perceived effectiveness of these currently used procedures. Stakeholders unanimously acknowledge that although they have invested largely in the progression of resilience, there is room for further improvements.

Following the discussion, all members completed a survey. This survey asked each individual to consider the plans and response coordination they expected in these scenarios. Consideration of who was involved, held responsibility, and also who had sufficient resources to complete these demands were some of the questions raised. Further information on what, if any, pre-established premiums or regulation would they wish to see to ensure a fluency in disaster response was also requested.

The results of the survey were compiled and the fundamental themes summarised. Common trends were seen across all respondents, although there were several differences in the responses of Group 1, a group of leading stakeholders with experience in this area, and Group 2, the second group of attendees. Analysing the results of Group 1, the majority of their responses indicated a confidence in the preparedness of the public for emergency response. However, there were some indications of concern as to who would be responsible for the plans and coordination of response in each of the scenarios. The results also indicated concern as to whether the private sector had resources to assist in response, and whether their engagement could be relied upon. The majority of respondents agreed with establishing roles, capacities, and flexibility before a disaster occurs. However, they indicated that contracts might not be the most effective way in which to determine fuel flow and prioritisation, a topic discussed in greater detail during the World Café. There were evident differences in response to Scenario A and Scenario B

Page 15: Meopar 2015 stakeholder workshop report

15

in some instances, as the nature and severity of the scenario would have a large impact on the methodology used.

Following Group 1, Group 2 had more variation within their responses. There was consensus that plans, establishment of roles, trained personnel, and contracts were all necessary parts of any emergency response. They also unanimously agreed that prioritisation of fuels for post disaster events should be established. However, the results displayed an uncertainty to knowing if plans and coordination’s were already in place and whether the private sector would have the resources to assist. In general, Group 2 exhibited a greater level of uncertainty in their answers, and it can be seen that there was little variance in the response from Scenario A to Scenario B. The similarity between scenarios indicates that the response procedures, from the Group 2 perspective, were more generally applicable to all situations.

At the beginning of the World Café, the survey results were displayed, and common trends discussed. Initial feedback from the survey suggested the wording of the questions at times left ambiguity and limited the opportunity for some members to express their desired response. Suggestions on how to improve these difficulties, removing the chance of divergence in the understanding, were noted.

From the discussion during the World Café, it is evident there is a strong network and trust between key players within the local maritime system. Extensive planning has already been undertaken by many stakeholders; nevertheless, there are still areas they wish to see a larger focus. Primarily this would be through the assessment of their current system and strategies; effectively compiling the numerous tools and resources they have, and how these could be utilised in response. This information would verify the common consensus of what they can do, and also align their ideals with academia in where there are lapses that require filling. Majority of these ‘holes’ are due to lack of funding or resource to establish them.

Another key issue they returned to was the complexity of regulation. This was an issue addressed within the survey, suggesting pre-established premiums and enticement could be put in place. The feedback indicated that due to complexities in establishing and approving regulation, this avenue is foreseen to have limited possibility in emergency planning. Moreover, they declared that it is unlikely a government will preauthorize rule-breaking or regulation relaxation in the event of an emergency.

A leading cause of uncertainty in emergency response is authority. Confusion upon who is in control, and how this is determined can have significant hindrance to their progression of their planning and coordination. Participants also indicated that as each scenario is different from any other, so proprietary lists or step by step processes of who is in charge or for a way to prioritise resources are inefficient when applied to real scenarios. Instead the focus should be on providing a criterion or a way in which to calculate importance. This would enable, based on the circumstance, the correct decisions to make with regards to organisation, authority of response, and the efficient distribution of fuel. The general notes from the World Café are in section 3.7.

Page 16: Meopar 2015 stakeholder workshop report

16

Engaging with the stakeholders enabled our research team an in-depth insight into the industry. Discussing their current preparedness and organisation as well as concerns will greatly assist the direction of our research. We hope with collaboration and the knowledge of those that attended, and more, the research will produce findings to benefit all of those involved. The conclusions from this research will assist in our united objective of improving the resilience of these coastal communities in the event of a maritime disruption.

2.3 Hazard vulnerability indicators project

Coastal communities are exposed to natural and human-induced coastal hazards. Globally, the vulnerability of these communities is expected to increase due to climate change impacts, sea-level rise, subsidence, and growing coastal population and asset density. Given that communities are differentially vulnerable, a large number of vulnerability indicator-based approaches have been developed to analyze the relative vulnerability of communities with a common objective of identifying the areas of particularly high vulnerability in order to prioritize resources and efforts to reduce this vulnerability. To complement these studies, this project has developed a novel method called the Hazard Vulnerability Similarity Index (HVSI), to help communities identify and connect with other communities that are similarly vulnerable to them in order to share relevant experiences and lessons-learnt about past-disasters and vulnerability reduction efforts.

The HVSI uses a suite of vulnerability indicators to investigate coastal communities’ economic, social, natural, and built environment factors to identify their vulnerability profiles. The index will be applied to demonstrate the relative similarities of coastal communities in the Strait of Georgia region in terms of their vulnerability to marine hazards. The 50 most populous coastal communities in the Strait of Georgia were selected for a pilot case demonstration. Secondary data for the vulnerability indicators were collected for all 50 communities and applied to the HSVI, using Squamish B.C. as the first case study. The resulting values show how similar the other communities are to Squamish in terms of vulnerability, and are visualized in maps to demonstrate overall similarity as well as capital-specific similarity.

The results of the HVSI draw interesting insights into the relative similarity of different communities. For example, the case study has shown that Squamish is most similar overall to Nanaimo. Based on the capital-specific results, Squamish is most economically similar to Victoria and Parksville. However, though Squamish and Parksville are very similar economically, the two communities shown to not have similar built environments. Identifying this kind of capital variation is important for coastal resilience planning; community officials are better able to assess where to begin building networks based on particular needs. An important next step of the project is direct local engagement with community officials and facilitating knowledge sharing among coastal communities to build collective resilience.

The annual MEOPAR workshop is an important opportunity for the project to engage

with key stakeholders and learn from community representatives about how the index can be made most useful to them. Given that an objective of the index is to help communities

Page 17: Meopar 2015 stakeholder workshop report

17

understand how their vulnerability profiles are similar to and different from other communities, soliciting the input of community stakeholders is a key step in creating an index that they will find useful in their work. Project team members had three main objectives for the workshop: inform stakeholders about the purpose and construction of the index; ask stakeholders for their input on how it can be improved and made more useful to them; and, ask stakeholders for feedback on the preliminary results. These objectives were pursued through the opening plenary session, a two-part breakout session, and a World Café table.

Dr. Stephanie Chang presented an overview of the HVSI project during the opening

plenary session. As not all stakeholders attended the previous workshops and those that did might not remember the details about the project, this presentation served to inform stakeholders about the index, including the research questions it is designed to address, how it is constructed, and how it incorporates indicators of vulnerability. Dr. Chang then presented the results from the first version of the index, using Squamish as a case study. An overview of the project’s proposed online platform was then described. The intent of the online platform is to make the findings of the HVSI available to the public in an accessible, interactive format. Municipal staff and officials from the study communities could consult the web-based platform to learn about the factors that influence their community’s vulnerability to coastal and riverine hazards, and see how their community compares to other communities in the study region. Dr. Chang then described the ongoing and future work of the project, and the plan for how stakeholder input would be solicited during the workshop.

The breakout session hosted by the project was led by Dr. Chang with research team

member Christopher Carter. The breakout session was an opportunity to explain the project in greater detail and ask for stakeholder input on specific questions. A formal presentation on the project had several sections where multiple questions were asked directly to the stakeholders in attendance. Background information about the stakeholders who participated in the breakout session is presented in Figure 1. Stakeholders were able to answer each multiple choice question by using remote “clickers”. Collecting feedback from stakeholders in this manner will help inform research decisions11. The results, contextualized within the qualitative feedback given by stakeholders during discussion periods, can be interpreted through two main themes.

The first theme is centred on what goes into the index, i.e. the indicators of vulnerability

and the organization of indicators around capitals and dimensions. Stakeholder provided valuable specific input as to the type of information used in the index. For example, participants generally felt that certain capitals or specific indicators are not necessarily more important in their community or across communities, but that the ability to see how different capitals or indicators compare is what is most valuable. The second theme is focused on how communities can use the findings of the index in their risk reduction and adaptation efforts. The online platform is proposed as the main tool for interactive use and stakeholders answered several related questions and offered suggestions in creating a useful platform that provides

11 HVSI breakout session questions and results can be found in Appendix 4.

Page 18: Meopar 2015 stakeholder workshop report

18

meaningful information. In addition to these general themes, stakeholders provided input on several topics including their response to the Squamish case study, communication and collaboration strategies, hazards of concern in their communities, and their role in risk reduction and adaptation. Detailed notes of the discussion during the breakout session can be found in Section 3.3. Figure 1. Information about stakeholders

Page 19: Meopar 2015 stakeholder workshop report

19

During the World Café, project team members hosted a table where they facilitated a discussion focused on the project’s proposed online platform. Project member Jackie Yip gave a visual demonstration of the proposed platform to illustrate what the platform would look like and how it would function. Stakeholders reported that this demonstration was useful in understanding more about the platform and allowed them to provide focused input. Stakeholders were widely found to be supportive of the idea of an interactive platform for using the index and they provided valuable, constructive feedback on how to make it usable and meaningful to municipal staff and officials. Figure 2 summarizes some of the stakeholder feedback on the platform. Figure 2. Stakeholder feedback on platform

Page 20: Meopar 2015 stakeholder workshop report

20

The World Café discussion was centred on three questions: (1) How can we make the platform user-friendly? (2) How could the indicator data be shared? (3) What are the benefits of a customizable platform? Detailed stakeholder feedback organized around these questions can be found in the summary notes from the World Café table in Section 3.8. The facilitators also conducted a yes/no sticker voting exercise, or “dotmocracy”, on the question: Would it be useful to customize the indicator information? Stakeholders overwhelmingly agreed that a customizable platform would be most useful.

3. Notes from Breakout Sessions and World Café tables This section provides researchers’ notes from the breakout sessions and World Café tables. The notes are presented in point form in order to maintain detail and original meaning of stakeholder input. The notes are included in the report in order to disseminate the direct input received from stakeholders, as this input is of high importance to each project. The point form notes have been edited for clarity.

3.1 Breakout session notes: Strait of Georgia circulation: Ocean currents, particle and contaminant tracking, biology and chemistry

The following questions were used to guide discussion. Each participant was asked to respond to one question of his/her choice. 1. What use could you make of ocean current information beyond the tidal information already available? Are today’s currents of any use? What about a forecast for tomorrow? What areas and what depths would be useful to you? 2. Would tracked particles trajectories be useful? In what way? Tracked forward or backward and for how long? 3. What would you like to see from a Salish Sea biology and/or chemistry model? Important themes

harmful algal blooms ocean acidification and the aquaculture industry particles going forward and backward in time contaminant dispersal many data sources available

Biology and Chemistry FISH - Farms - Fraser River migration

Page 21: Meopar 2015 stakeholder workshop report

21

- Disease - Particle tracking - Plankton studies for better risk and vulnerability zones and times - Salmon sensitivity to compliment Columbia R. papers - Nested grid in Cowichan Bay to compliment Pac. Salmon Foundation SHELLFISH - N. SoG - Toxicity, domoic acid - Monitoring, US and Nicky Haigh but not DFO - Particles and mortality PLANKTON - Particle tracking - Food web modeling - target functional groups, better for higher trophic levels - Spatial representation - DFO collecting zoos and HABS POLLUTION - Fraser R. sediment and sewage outfalls - Environmental toxins that bioaccumulate OCEAN ACIDIFICATION - Monitoring in Baynes sound to compliment model - Combine physics and biogeochemistry to understand system - Short timescales - Related to climate Physics CURRENTS - Coast guard - Marine traffic - World Class Tanker Program - SAR - Deep inflows - Floating debris for waterfront residents - Back-modeling drifters, at least on shore timescale? - Difficult because of mixing - Due to seismic activity COASTLINES - Coastal development at Roberts Bank, particle tracking - Fraser R. delta stability at extreme low water

Page 22: Meopar 2015 stakeholder workshop report

22

SSH - Long-term sea level rise - Sea-level rise impacts on coastal ecology - Forecast for emergency response in Squamish - Storm-surge would be more useful if pushed to RSS - Info on storm trends unclear - Decadal trends make this difficult - Custom analysis - Difficult at university, but hopefully automation helps - Due to seismic activity - Extreme lows in ports like Nanaimo - Storm surge forecast - Storm drains are flooded and contaminants less predictable Collaboration KNOWLEDGE TRANSLATION - collaborating with consultants? - UVic student working on O2, pH, and sewage (CRD) DATA - EC wants to give us what we need - ONC collects and houses observations - working to fuse datasets, more data the better, but right data - Expanding CODAR to end of Iona - ONC working on surface and subsurface currents - ONC expanding to Campbell R. and Mudge - Planning driftcard study in Cowichan Bay - World class tanker program is paying for phyto and zoo tows - Glen is doing Fraser R. and Roberts Bank sediments studies - Metro Van measures sewage at major outfalls - Boundary Bay mooring for forecast site?

3.2 Breakout session notes: Marine transportation disruption Group 1 – Stakeholders involved in emergency management and disaster resilience Scenario A – Sunken Ship in Burrard Inlet 72 Hours

Pollution – Contamination, shoreline clean up

Coordination of response

Responsibility? o “Unified command response”

Page 23: Meopar 2015 stakeholder workshop report

23

o Federal government

Media/crisis communication (legal issues)

Disrupted traffic

Consider Plan B (Anacortes)

Use ferry across Fraser River o Seaspan Ferries

Organize and divert

Collaboration 2 Weeks

Salvaging (contents, fuel)

Routing

Use other ports (Nanaimo, Duke Point, Cherry Point, Chemainus)

Crisis communication

Legal, criminal investigation

Politics

Insurance

Scenario B – Magnitude 8 Earthquake 72 Hours

Anchor barges with fuel on

Supply emergency services only

Survey “current state” of landings, etc.

Declaration of emergency in place

Use pre-identified response procedures (extra vessels as pre-identified way to move resources)

2 Weeks

Recovery

Restoration of services

Prioritization

Surveys (marine, roads, bridges)

Debris removal

Fuel delegation Group 2 – Other interested parties Scenario A – Sunken Ship in Burrard Inlet 72 Hours

Search and rescue

Determine alternative routes

Page 24: Meopar 2015 stakeholder workshop report

24

Communication

Pollution and minimization of damage

Inter-agency coordination (jurisdiction issues) 2 Weeks

Media campaign

Use alternative ports and routes Scenario B – Magnitude 8 Earthquake 72 Hours

Provincial declaration of emergency

Survival, response

Declare local emergency

Connecting families, etc.

Mobilizing critical respondents

Gathering information, prioritization

Establishing mutual aid and business continuity

Emergency operations centre established

Interagency coordination and communication

Weather (determines ability to rebound and respond)

Public information

Regional claim number, EOC

Establish supplies, resources, needs, communication means available

Mass casualties and injuries 2 Weeks

Restore critical infrastructure

Sanitation (water, sewage, medical)

Safety assessment markings

Recovery plans

Clean up

Transportation logistics

Cascading impacts

Contamination

Volunteer management

Long-term evacuation

Page 25: Meopar 2015 stakeholder workshop report

25

3.3 Breakout session notes: Hazard vulnerability indicators a) Responses to discussion questions12

Which indicators or capitals are most important for your work?

No indicator or capital was suggested as the most important. However, some participants have suggested what aspects of vulnerability or the community would be important to capture (below).

It has been suggested that it is important for the HVSI indicators to capture the following aspects/subtleties of a community:

o The amount of ecosystem services the natural capital provides the community

o Land-use - capture the difference between communities with mostly undevelopable land (e.g. agricultural, floodplains)

o Business sizes – whether a community’s economy is made up of small or large businesses.

o Temporal/seasonal changes in the community’s population – the population of some communities may drastically increase over some seasons, which can change the vulnerability or resilience of the place.

Do you have suggestions for different indicators?

Utilization of vegetation and marine resource dependence – could be a potential indicator to capture ecosystem services

Proportion of floodplain that is developed

Property tax (coastal properties in particular)

Is there a way to deal with day/night temporal differences?

Differentiate between small and large businesses in economic capital – different impact on community

Question about using variables that are correlated How do you envision using such a platform?

May use the platform to identify other communities that has made similar flood risk reduction effort as what we would like to do in order to see how they have implemented/planned the effort

Will platform being kept up-to-date? How can we better capture regional planning collaboration?

No suggestions were provided b) Additional suggestions of how platform/method can be improved

Create a repository of best practices and past disasters within communities.

12 There was very limited amount of time to address each of the discussion questions. However, participants did provide relevant feedback and comments through the presentation.

Page 26: Meopar 2015 stakeholder workshop report

26

It would be useful for communities to identify communities that are similarly to a community that the reference community is striving to become.

Provide HVSI results in smaller bins instead of the fives that were used, to allow more differentiation.

c) Questions and concerns from participants

How often will the results on the platform be revised/updated?

Is it possible to expand the study geographically to across the border?

Some indicators selected to measure the size dimension of the capitals (e.g. population, number of businesses) seems to be highly correlated – concern was indicated about whether this correlation will cause certain communities to unduly shown to be more similar.

While electoral area A is shown to be similar to Squamish, the electoral A comprise of a large area as well as the UBC area, so the participant indicated the it is difficult to know where to start the comparison between electoral area A and Squamish.

The same participant also indicated that the part of electoral A north of North Vancouver is only inhabited by ~100 people while the rest of the population is in the UBC area. This could be something that needs to be explicitly indicated to the user.

The results for HVSI for all capitals can be puzzling at the first instant since it doesn’t provide meaningful information – need to see the HVSI for specific capitals and indicators for more informative results. Also suggested that perhaps the platform can allow user to choose specific indicators and see how the community is similar to others in terms of this indicator.13

3.4 World Café notes: Improving the storm surge portal

1. Is a website the most useful way to communicate storm surge information to you? o push system highly preferable, with website as an additional resource o 24 hours not really enough time, but updated information can be useful. o Is a longer/coarser resolution prediction possible? o customizable alert system o link with Environment Canada or other warning systems o alert for times of risk like King Tides o public vs municipal use o textual information in addition to images o look up NOAA thresholds for tsunamis

2. Visualizing risk - What are the thresholds that should determine warning colours? o customizable thresholds o use of digital elevation maps to determine which communities would be flooded o percentiles based on historical events

3. Visualizing risk - What should the geographical extent of the warning be?

13 This suggestion was made by the same participant but during the platform design world café.

Page 27: Meopar 2015 stakeholder workshop report

27

o guided by local government and region o Boundary Bay is not well represented by Point Atkinson - more stations needed o need to balance between being too specific and being prepared

4. What other locations would you want to see? o Boundary Bay o Sechelt o Saanich Peninsula o Tsawwassen o Squamish

5. Further questions and themes for discussion o Low water predictions o Include wind/rain fall in warnings o Knots as well as m/s o Installing more tide gauges - where? o Comparison of model predictions and what actually happened.

3.5 World Café notes: Ocean acidification

WHAT TO MEASURE - Omega_A, pH, O2, etc. - Extremes to connect mortality w/ seawater chemistry - Species-specific products WHERE/WHEN TO MEASURE - Spring/Fall for fish migration - human health (Summer recreation) - shorelines - shallows - sewage outfalls (with vertical resolution) - 1 m from surface and 1 m from bottom, 5 wks Jul and 5 wks Nov - Chlorophyll addition to effluent - N. SoG for aquaculture - Winter is less important - Beginning of shellfish lifecycle - Characterize deep areas and trends - Traditional harvesting grounds (Fraser, English, Burrard, Howe) - Septic fields in Baynes Sound - O2 in Ladysmith - Interstitial waters at shell midden sites (Tsleil-Waututh, Cates Park) - Long-term hotspots and scenarios - Aquaculture - Impact of king tides and storm surge

Page 28: Meopar 2015 stakeholder workshop report

28

PRODUCTS - Clearing house for data and models - Species-specific products - analysis of existing datasets (how good are they?) - climate change adaptation in N. Van (timescales and scenarios) - Seasonal for existing developments - Long-term for future developments - Guidelines for aquaculture, timing? techniques? COLLABORATION - Citizen science, 9 fishing boats as research platforms

3.6 World Café notes: Biological modeling

Key points for discussions: 1. Organisms of interest 2. Existing knowledge and data 3. What products would be useful 4. Other applications

BCCDC:

o Organisms of interests : Heterosigma Alexandrium Sand lance Pro… More on poster...

o Backtrace illnesses and symptoms to areas where harvested and see if model confirms toxicity.

o Waste water treatment plants: The information could help Walter Hajen’s group make decisions, there is already a lot of modelling done for this.

o POP around Vancouver from lumber plants possibly due to runoff. o BCCDC would be interested in data from sites where shellfish are harvested

Community Mapping Network:

o Things of interest: Persistent Organic Pollutants (POP) Coal dust Mines runoff Miso and microplastics :

Find the source Are the concentrations growing?

o Locations of interest : Burrard Inlet

Page 29: Meopar 2015 stakeholder workshop report

29

Boundary bay o Forecasting for a given discharge locations o Know the distribution of contaminants o Storm runoff

Pacific Salmon Foundation:

o Organisms of interest : Zooplankton Herring larvae

o Interested in Cowichan bay (there is already a lot of data) o Add in harmful larva segment for blooms o Build towards understanding upper trophic level compositions

Musqueam:

o Organism of interest : Pseudo-nitzschia

o First nation eat a lot of shellfish

Parks Canada : o Organisms of interest :

Herring o Spawning locations o Habitats

**Aquarium may be interested in harmful blooms that could affect their species since they intake water from the inlet.

Possible data and knowledge sources: o Citizen Science - Salish Sea MSP o Pacific Salmon Foundation:

Turbidity Nutrients phytoplankton (mostly at surface, some at depths) CTD ...more soon, not only harmful species.

o Harmful species : BC Salmon Farming Association Steven Finnis (VIU) Nicky Haigh (UVIC) CFIA Toxin data

o Constant censoring from Northern Buoy : Edgemont Century Shore Halibut Bank

o Shellfish (Pseudo-nitzschia)

Page 30: Meopar 2015 stakeholder workshop report

30

Possible First Nation health database in Washington Clams collected get tested they may test for Pseudo-nitzschia

o Microplastics

3.7 World Café notes: Marine transportation disruption Key discussion topics

Relations versus regulations

How academia can inform policy and help practitioners

The most effective way for us to frame our research General notes:

Rule breaking, liability – “how far will you stretch?”

Bottleneck of levels of authorities

Survey how BC responds versus best practice

Update the Integrated Maritime Commerce Resilience plan

Disparity of resources for Metro Van versus smaller areas

Clear federal and provincial responsibility: who leads? Who runs?

Consider regional, provincial, federal, local and other perspectives

Prioritization under declaration? Need criteria for decisions

Defining lead agency for different conditions

Performance-based, not prescriptive “how to”

Validation

Access to funding and grants to enable progression

Public versus private: need “carrots” to engage the private sector

Relations versus regulations

Relations of public and private sector

Incentives to drive people to build resiliency

Formalizing legislation in Canada’s regulatory system takes a long time

Dated legislation needs a review

Insurance and industry incentives

Get (our academic) reports to all engaged at local and regional levels

Analyse and identify “tools” of public and private sector

Response is figured out. Resiliency and recovery need work

Obligations of public and private sector – need more carrots and sticks for both

Collaborative governance won’t work in an emergency. Need protocols for all levels of government plus the private sector.

Cost of exercises is prohibitive

Need an understanding of resources and what can be shared

Need increased engagement of public, private, academic, etc.

Lack of communication between sectors leads to the assumption that work isn’t being done

Page 31: Meopar 2015 stakeholder workshop report

31

Gaps are understood, but need mechanisms to implement

Academia could consolidate work and do a gap analysis

Independent arbitrator versus embedded reporting

In the survey: o Public sector responsibility versus joint responsibility. The question should have

been worded, “Who should plan” with “private”, “public”, and “joint” as answers o Consider emergency response versus fuel and marine transportation response o Consult other stakeholders on survey questions

3.8 World Café notes: Hazard vulnerability platform design

• How to improve user-friendliness and relevance ◦ Allow user to identify other communities in terms of what they have done about

CAA/DRR then subsequently show how similar they are to the reference community

◦ Allow user to view similarity for individual indicators ◦ Provide clear guidance about how to use the platform and what is its intention

and purpose ◦ Provide downloadable data in common formats ◦ Printing option for the similarity results ◦ Change the terminologies - esp. name of the capitals and dimensions or

provide better explanation ◦ Differentiate between implemented vs. planned CAA/DRR efforts ◦ Provide date and source of indicator data ◦ Information about communities on their community profile are highly relevant

and should be well curated ◦ Regular update of the results and data

• How can indicator data be shared

◦ Can be shared on the community profiles ◦ Data should be downloadable in formats common for analysis (e.g. excel) ◦ Communities may be willing to share more data for the indicators but has

suggested that they would need prompt from researchers to do so.

• Benefits of having customization options ◦ Provide a way to run different scenarios of weighting and indicators for the

purpose of long-term planning ◦ Option to choose different indicators may allow the user to choose indicators

that are more relevant to the community ◦ It would be useful to have the option to add different weighting to different

indicators and capitals but would need guidance from researchers/platform

• Figure 3 provides further feedback from stakeholders on the platform

Page 32: Meopar 2015 stakeholder workshop report

32

Figure 3. Further stakeholder feedback on platform

4. Conclusion MEOPAR project members would like to thank the stakeholders who attended the workshop for their participation. Their input and feedback are highly valued and have positively influenced the design and execution of the projects. The MEOPAR projects are actively working to go beyond the scope of traditional academic research to co-produce with stakeholders research results that are meaningful and usable in their organizations’ activities. Each of the annual stakeholder workshops has built on the success of previous workshops and it is our intention to continue this trajectory. The knowledge gained through this year’s workshop will be incorporated in each ongoing project and progress will be reported at the 2016 workshop.

Page 33: Meopar 2015 stakeholder workshop report

33

Appendix 1: Workshop Agenda

2015 Strait of Georgia

Marine Hazards Workshop

Objective: The Strait of Georgia marine hazards workshop will build connections between local organizations and researchers who share an interest in improving Canada’s ability to manage and respond to risk and change in the marine environment.

Wednesday May 27th 8:30am-4:00pm 1 Athletes Way, Vancouver, BC V5Y 0B

AGENDA

8:30-9:00am - Registration and breakfast

9:00-9:45am - Opening remarks and self-introductions

9:45-10:45am - Plenary of research project presentations by MEOPAR researchers

10:45-11:00am - Break

11:00am-12:30pm - Discussions: Users' feedback about research needs and priorities

12:30-1:30pm - Lunch provided

1:30-3:00pm - World Café

3:00-3:30pm Closing summary and next steps

3:30-4:00pm - Afternoon coffee and networking

Page 34: Meopar 2015 stakeholder workshop report

34

Appendix 2: Attendees list

Workshop attendee summary: Number of stakeholders: 40 Research team members: 21 Total number of participants: 61

First Name Last Name Affiliation Contact

Susan Allen UBC [email protected]

Mike Andrews North Shore Emergency Management Office

[email protected]

Carrie Baron City of Surrey [email protected]

Lyod Bie City of Richmond [email protected]

Allanah Brown UBC [email protected]

Deborah Carlson West Coast Environmental Law [email protected]

Jessica Carson Musqueam [email protected]

Christopher Carter UBC [email protected]

Stephanie Chang UBC [email protected]

Gregg Clackson BC Ferries [email protected]

Tugce Conger UBC [email protected]

John Davis Ladysmith [email protected]

Ken Denman UVic [email protected]

Bethany Dobson UBC [email protected]

Pat Docking Pdocking Consulting Ltd. [email protected]

Hadi Dowlatabadi UBC [email protected]

Muriel Dunn UBC [email protected]

Nikki Elliott Capital Region District [email protected]

Bill Elsner Sunshine Coast Regional District [email protected]

Mike Foreman Dept. Fisheries and Oceans [email protected]

Allan Galambos R.F. Binnie & Associates [email protected]

Graham Gibson Transport Canada [email protected]

Rodney Grounds Nanaimo Port Authority [email protected]

Mark Halverson UBC [email protected]

Terje Haukaas UBC [email protected]

Brian Hunt UBC

Debby Ianson Dept. Fisheries and Oceans [email protected]

Cindy Jeromin Port Metro Van

Rob Knight Community Mapping Network [email protected]

Page 35: Meopar 2015 stakeholder workshop report

35

Karen Kohfeld SFU [email protected]

Doug Latornell UBC [email protected]

Gwyn Lintern Natural Resources Canada

Jie Liu UBC [email protected]

Julie Lowry City of North Vancouver [email protected]

Idalia Machuca UBC [email protected]

Michelle Marteleira UBC [email protected]

Lorraine McIntyre BCCDC [email protected]

Norma Miller British Columbia Real Estate Association

[email protected]

Teron Moore UVic/Ocean Networks Canada [email protected]

Ben Moore-Maley UBC [email protected]

Sinead Murphy District of North Vancouver [email protected]

Elise Olson UBC [email protected]

Greg Oulahen UBC [email protected]

Marcin Pachcinski Electoral Area and Environment Metro Van

[email protected]

Julie Pavey District of North Vancouver [email protected]

Isobel Pearsal City of Burnaby [email protected]

Charmaigne Pflugrath City of Burnaby [email protected]

Lovel Pratt Mulno Cove Consulting [email protected]

Andy Rosenberger Raincoast Conservation Federation

[email protected]

David Roulston City of Squamish [email protected]

Jessica Shoubridge Thrive Consulting

Emily Sinclair Capital Region District [email protected]

Doug Smith City of Vancouver [email protected]

Nancy Soontiens UBC [email protected]

Terri Sutherland Dept. Fisheries and Oceans

Katie Thomas Gibsons [email protected]

Nathan Vadeboncoeur Vadeboncoeur Consulting Inc. [email protected]

Mike Vance Sechelt

Thomas White BC Ministry of Environment [email protected]

Patricia Wong Environment Canada [email protected]

Jackie Yip UBC [email protected]

Page 36: Meopar 2015 stakeholder workshop report

36

Appendix 3: World Café table themes and questions Researchers Themes Question 1 Question 2 Question 3 Question 4 Question 5

Nancy Soontiens (facilitator) Doug Latornell and Idalia Machuca

Improving the Storm Surge Information Portal (website demonstration)

Is a webpage the most useful way to communicate storm surge information to you?

Visualizing Risk (with 2 cards below) a. What are the thresholds that should determine the warning colours? b. What should the geographical extent of the warning be?

What other locations would you want to see?

Further questions/themes for discussion

N/A

Ben Moore-Maley (facilitator), Debby Ianson and Jie Liu

Acidification and low oxygen in the Strait of Georgia

How could a C02 ocean model be useful to the aquaculture industry?

What are the most important regions/times to model?

What are the applications for an oxygen model?

Are there other concerns?

N/A

Elise Olson (facilitator), Susan Allen and Muriel Dunn

What could a biological(plankton) model of the Salish Sea do for you?

What organisms are of concern to your organization?

What is currently understood about these organisms?

What type of model products would be most useful?

What other applications interest you?

Further questions/ themes for discussion

Jackie Yip and Greg Oulahen (facilitators)

Sealink’D Platform Design (website demonstration)

How can we make the platform more user-friendly?

How could the indicator data be shared?

What are the benefits of a customizable platform?

Would it be useful to customize the indicator information? (2 cards: Yes/No) Use dotmocracy

Further questions/ themes for discussion

Bethany Dobson and Allanah Brown (facilitators)

Marine Transportation Disruption

Relations vs. regulations?

How can academia inform policy and help practitioners?

What is the most effective way for us to frame our research?

Further questions/themes for discussion

N/A

Page 37: Meopar 2015 stakeholder workshop report

37

Appendix 4: HVSI breakout session polling results

2015 Strait of Georgia Stakeholder Workshop Polling Results

Q1. What is your role in risk reduction and/or adaptation to coastal and riverine flood hazards?

A. ResearchB. Emergency

managementC. Planning D. Engineering E. Other Number of Responses

Session 1 2 1 9 2 3 17Session 2 3 2 2 1 0 8

Total 5 3 11 3 3 25

Q2. Do you communicate or collaborate with other communities or organizations in your hazard risk reduction efforts and planning?

A. No, we do the

planning by

ourselves

B. No, we have

consultants to assist

our efforts

C. Yes, we have some

contact with other

communities/organizatio

ns

D. Yes, we are in close

collaboration with

other

communities/organizat

ions

E. Not applicable Number of Responses

Session 1 0 2 8 6 1 17Session 2 0 0 3 4 1 8

Total 0 2 11 10 2 25

Q3. In your work, what marine hazard is of greatest concern?

A. Coastal flooding

and tsunamisB. Riverine flooding

C. Oil spills and

accidentsD. Multiple hazards E. Others Number of Responses

Session 1 5 1 1 9 0 16Session 2 0 1 2 5 0 8

Total 5 2 3 14 0 24

Q4. What is your preferred method of receiving information on hazard reduction issues?

A. In-depth report B. Short policy memo C. Infographic, video

D. Workshop, webinar,

peer-to-peer learning

E. Other

Number of Responses

Session 1 2 4 2 7 1 16

Session 2 2 0 2 6 0 10

Total 4 4 4 13 1 26

Q5. What is your response to the Squamish similarity results? Q5. What is your response to the Squamish similarity results?

A. The results

resonate strongly

with my

expectations

B. The results seem

reasonableC. The results are

puzzling

D. The results seem

wrongE. Other Number of Responses

Session 1 0 8 9 0 0 17

Session 2 0 7 3 0 0 10

Total 0 15 12 0 0 27

Q6. In the platform, how important is it to have more variables to characterize communities’ hazard vulnerability?

A. Extremely

importantB. C. D. E. Not at all important Number of Responses

Session 1 8 3 2 2 1 16

Session 2 0 6 1 2 0 9

Total 8 9 3 4 1 25

Q7. In the platform, how important is it to have geospatial variables? (e.g., number of hospitals within 1m of sea level)

A. Extremely

importantB. C. D. E. Not at all important Number of Responses

Session 1 9 5 2 0 0 16

Session 2 8 2 0 0 0 10

Total 17 7 2 0 0 26

Page 38: Meopar 2015 stakeholder workshop report

38

P SURVEY

Page 39: Meopar 2015 stakeholder workshop report

39

Appendix 5: Post-workshop survey responses

1. On a scale of 1-5, how much has this workshop improved your knowledge of resources and research to support your work in coastal areas?

Very much

1

2 Somewhat

3

4 Not at all

5

# of responses 7 9 3 4 0

2. How did you find the workshop, overall?

Excellent Good Okay Poor

# of responses 9 15 0 0

3. Did you find the MEOPAR speakers engaging?

Yes Somewhat No

# of responses 21 3 0

4. Did you find the workshop relevant for your work?

Yes Somewhat No

# of responses 19 5 0

5. Did you get the opportunity to contribute to the breakout session or a world café?

Yes Somewhat No

# of responses 24 0 0

6. What did you like the most about the workshop?

Varied approaches to marine hazards and ability to link them all together

Overviews of MEOPAR research + interaction/contribution to research

Networking opportunities

Experience/knowledge transfer

Research opportunities

That there was so much diversity in the room

particulate modelling

Learning about MEOPAR research projects and the mix of attendees

The opportunity for direct engagement

World Cafe model worked well

Diverse group of people!

Diversity of ongoing projects, diversity of participants

Page 40: Meopar 2015 stakeholder workshop report

40

Ability to work collaboratively with academics on common issues

Details on the modelling

Opportunity to meet/hear other colleagues working in similar fields/work

Cross & multi thematic conversations/participants

Problem focus workshop that is about applying research

Good discussion, lots of different views, lots of ideas for synergy

Networking

Well organized, good set up

The ability to having diverse communities into contact with each other and promote 2-way dialogue

I liked the focus and the way the students did such an excellent job of organizing the event

Good balance of presentations and consultation

Opportunity to provide input to multiple topics, policy, technology

Student presence -> great to showcase young researchers

Opportunity to learn what academia is working on

Networking

Promote engagement of academia and emergency management practitioners

7. What would you suggest to improve the relevance or quality of the workshop?

Nothing - possible more voting of questions in surveys prior

Validate survey questions by getting input from some stakeholders

Ask stakeholders what they want to get from survey/types of questions; researches to add others"

Thought it was excellent

It was great

When reporting out at the end of the day, just make one report per topic, not two

There was a good focus on applications for the models + data - keep this as priority.

People are looking to make adaptation + mitigation strategies so this should be a main focus of all the work.

Venue wasn't the best - hard to hear (bad acoustics)

More stakeholders - aquaculture industry

More on how to address risk/bridging the gap between hazard and risk assessment and risk reduction/resilience planning

Develop take-away questions/tasks, then report on the progress that's been made at the next meeting

Involve health departments as they get involved with near shore health issues

More involvement from Metro Vancouver who are doing modelling that link with these projects"

Follow up with attendees - info on research projects and - study results

Noisy location (but nice view)

Page 41: Meopar 2015 stakeholder workshop report

41

Maybe some talks by users e.g. emergency notifiers

We could have used more time in the breakout sessions - survey was not completed by some participants

Better room/chairs/tables

Terrific view, but the nearby daycare was noisy

Break workshop into areas of relevance e.g. response workshop 0830-1200 science workshop 1300-1630

8. Additional comments, reflections, etc.

Very well done, would love to attend again

I could assist with additional data for National Capital Indicators in the estuary communities in Coastal Indicators Project

Thank you

Reduce Waste - remind us to bring our own mugs, plates, cutlery etc. Good recycling + composting facilities were provided by the city

I think the academics involved are doing a great job of trying to identify what is important to other stakeholders

Thank you for organizing this valuable workshop

(:

Great projects, great work. Thanks

Indicators linked to actual population/structures/infrastrcuture within the coastal floodplain-not just within 100m

- Need to include agriculture as an industry as food security an issue - Regional plan to ensure strategies linked protection/mitigation looks at bigger

picture -> this helps small communities benefit from experience of large industries into the discussion as traditionally talk is isolated to local governments.

- This discussions evolved @ world cafe table since wrote above

Thank you for this opportunity to participate!

Keep up the good work and the focus on making the research results available and useful to communities and decision-makers

I noticed a difference in attendance and groups represented between 1st year and this one; more people and greater diversity. I think this is a sign of success.

Where will the outcomes of this workshop and the research go? How is it shared with interested stakeholders and all levels of government? Will it be shared? Thank you for organizing and the opportunity to contribute.

Thanks