Open Collections

UBC Graduate Research

A Disaster Resilience of Place Approach to Integrated Flood Hazard Management Planning in Squamish, British… Carter, Christopher J Sep 30, 2015

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
310-Carter_Christopher_Flood_Management_Squamish_2015.pdf [ 30.62MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 310-1.0305851.json
JSON-LD: 310-1.0305851-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 310-1.0305851-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 310-1.0305851-rdf.json
Turtle: 310-1.0305851-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 310-1.0305851-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 310-1.0305851-source.json
Full Text
310-1.0305851-fulltext.txt
Citation
310-1.0305851.ris

Full Text

	  Mobilizing	  Resilience:	  A	  Disaster	  Resilience	  of	  Place	  Approach	  to	  IFHMP	  in	  Squamish	  British	  Columbia	   1	  	  	   	  08	  Fall	  MOBILIZING RESILIENCE A	  Disaster	  Resilience	  of	  Place	  Approach	  to	  Integrated	  Flood	  Hazard	  Management	  Planning	  in	  Squamish,	  British	  Columbia	  	   Christopher J. Carter  SEPTEMBER	  2015	  	  Mobilizing	  Resilience:	  A	  Disaster	  Resilience	  of	  Place	  Approach	  to	  IFHMP	  in	  Squamish	  British	  Columbia	   2	  	   A	  DISASTER	  RESILIENCE	  OF	  PLACE	  APPROACH	  TO	  INTEGRATED	  FLOOD	  HAZARD	  MANAGEMENT	  PLANNING	  IN	  SQUAMISH	  BRITISH	  COLUMBIA	  	  By	  	  Christopher	  J.	  Carter	  	  B.Sc.	  Directed	  Interdisciplinary	  Studies	  (Hons),	  Montana	  State	  University	  Bozeman,	  2012	  	  A	  PROJECT	  SUBMITTED	  IN	  PARTIAL	  FULFILMENT	  OF	  THE	  REQUIREMENTS	  FOR	  THE	  DEGREE	  OF	  MASTER	  OF	  SCIENCE	  (PLANNING)	  In	  	  THE	  FACULTY	  OF	  GRADUATE	  STUDIES	  School	  of	  Community	  and	  Regional	  Planning	  	  We	  accept	  this	  project	  as	  conforming	  to	  the	  required	  standard	  	  ........................................................................................................................	  Stephanie	  Chang	  Ph.D.-­‐	  School	  of	  Community	  and	  Regional	  Planning	  	  (First	  Reader)	  	  	  ........................................................................................................................	  Jordi	  Honey-­‐Roses	  Ph.D.	  -­‐	  School	  of	  Community	  and	  Regional	  Planning	  (Second	  Reader)	  	  	  ........................................................................................................................	  David	  Roulston	  P.Eng	  -­‐	  District	  Municipality	  of	  Squamish	  British	  Columbia	  (Client)	  	  	  UNIVERSITY	  OF	  BRITISH	  COLUMBIA	  September	  2015	  	  ©	  Christopher	  J.	  Carter,	  2015	  Mobilizing	  Resilience:	  A	  Disaster	  Resilience	  of	  Place	  Approach	  to	  IFHMP	  in	  Squamish	  British	  Columbia	   3	  Acknowledgements	  The	  author	  would	  like	  to	  acknowledge	  the	  following	  people	  and	  organizations	  for	  their	  support	  and	  collaboration	  in	  Masters	  education	  and	  research.	  Without	  their	  guidance	  and	  mentorship	  this	  research	  would	  not	  have	  been	  possible.	  	  	  	  University	  of	  British	  Columbia	  Stephanie	  Chang	  Ph.D.	  Jordi	  Honey	  Roses	  Ph.D.	  Jackie	  Yip	  Lavino	  Chen	  	  District	  of	  Squamish	  David	  Roulston	  Dan	  Griffin	  	  	  Kerr	  Wood	  Leidal	  and	  the	  Arlington	  Group	  David	  Roche	  Dave	  Farstad	  Amir	  Taleghani	  	  	  	  Squamish	  First	  Nation	  Chief	  Bill	  Williams	  	  	  Eco	  Plan	  International	  William	  Trousdale	  Paul	  Siggers	  	  Natural	  Resources	  Canada	  Murray	  Journeay	  	  Organizations	  Marine	  Environmental	  Observation	  Prediction	  and	  Response	  National	  Center	  of	  Excellence	  (MEOPAR)	  	  LightHawk	  International	  	  David	  Suzuki	  Foundation	  	  Individuals	  Pamela	  Burks	  Jim	  Carter	  Heidi	  Hersant	  Bobby	  Jahrig	  	  Bradford	  McArthur	  	  	  Author	  Contact	  	  Christopher	  J.	  Carter	  	  Website:	  cj-­‐carter.com	  Email:	  cj@cj-­‐carter.com	  	  Citation	  Carter,	  C	  (2015).	  	  Mobilizing	  Resilience:	  A	  Disaster	  Resilience	  of	  Place	  Approach	  to	  Integrated	  Flood	  Hazard	  Management	  Planning	  In	  Squamish	  British	  Columbia.	  Professional	  Masters	  Project.	  The	  University	  of	  British	  Columbia,	  Vancouver,	  Canada.	  	  Mobilizing	  Resilience:	  A	  Disaster	  Resilience	  of	  Place	  Approach	  to	  IFHMP	  in	  Squamish	  British	  Columbia	   4	  	  	  	  Opening	  Photographs:	  Cover:	  Squamish	  River	  Delta	  and	  Skwelwil’em	  Squamish	  Estuary	  	  by	  Christopher	  J.	  Carter	  	  (LightHawk	  Conservation	  Flying	  |	  Resilient	  Coasts	  UBC),	  2015	  	  Page	  3:	  Storm	  surge	  and	  seawall	  at	  Nexen	  beach	  	  by	  Christopher	  J.	  Carter	  	  (LightHawk	  Conservation	  Flying	  |	  Resilient	  Coasts	  UBC),	  2015	  	  	  	  Mobilizing	  Resilience:	  A	  Disaster	  Resilience	  of	  Place	  Approach	  to	  IFHMP	  in	  Squamish	  British	  Columbia	   5	  Executive	  Summary	  	  	  The	  District	  Municipality	   	  of	   Squamish	   faces	   severe	  coastal	   flood	   risk.	   However,	   not	   all	   of	   the	   7,477	  residents	   living	   in	   the	   floodplain	   are	   created	   equal	  in	   the	   exposure	   to	   these	   floodwaters.	   In	   creating	  an	  Integrated	  Flood	  Hazard	  Management	  Plan	  (IFHMP)	  it	  is	  critical	   to	   address	   both	   hazard	   and	   vulnerability	  components	  of	  risk.	  While	  the	  strength	  of	  floods	  cannot	  be	   controlled,	   reducing	   existing	   vulnerability	   and	  maintaining	   natural	   services	   that	   provide	   protection	  provides	   for	   long-­‐term	   risk	   reduction	   in	   flood	   hazard	  management.	  	  Today,	  the	  District	  Municipality	  of	  Squamish	  retains	  valuable	  natural	  flood	  management	  assets	  -­‐-­‐	  such	  as	  the	   Skwelwil’em	   Squamish	   Estuary	   -­‐-­‐	   that	   delivers	  an	   estimated	   $284	   million	   in	   flood	   disturbance	  regulation	  services	  to	  the	  District	  yearly.	  Meanwhile,	  the	  most	  vulnerable	  people	  in	  Squamish	  live	  adjacent	  to	  the	   estuary	   in	   the	  downtown	   core	   	   -­‐	   the	  most	   exposed	  area	  to	  coastal	  flood	  events	  and	  sea	  level	  rise.	  While	  the	  strength	   of	   flooding	   (Hazard)	   cannot	   be	   reduced,	   the	  everyday	   conditions	   of	   people	   and	   the	   environment	  (Vulnerability)	  can	  be	  addressed	  in	  local	  risk-­‐based	  land	  use	  planning	  and	  community	  development.	  	  	  	  Reducing	   vulnerability	   has	   many	   co-­‐benefits,	  including	   all	   hazards	   planning,	   poverty	   reduction,	  social	   equity,	   economic	   development,	   ecosystem-­‐based	   adaptation	   and	   integrated	   resource	  management.	   This	   is	   the	   first	   step	   to	   disaster	   risk	  reduction	   and	   risk-­‐based	   planning	   in	   coastal	   British	  Columbia.	  Failing	   to	  address	   these	  conditions	  will	   result	  in	  unchanged	  or	  increased	  vulnerability	  and	  sensitivity	  to	  flood	  risk.	  	  	  Using	  the	  Disaster	  Resilience	  of	  Place	  approach,	   this	  report	  contains	  3	  major	  analyses	  and	  illustrates	  how	  the	   local	   government	   	   -­‐-­‐	   in	   collaboration	   with	   the	  Squamish	  First	  Nation	  and	  citizens	   -­‐–	  can	  effectively	  build	  a	  more	  flood	  resilient	  community	  and	  innovate	  in	   IFHMP	   practice.	   	   Tools	   to	   assist	   in	   quantifying	  vulnerability	   and	   resilience	   and	   to	   improve	   the	  performance	  of	  public	  engagement	  are	  also	  offered	  in	  the	  Appendix	   section	  of	   this	   report.	   Flood	  Management	   and	  Official	  Community	  Plans	  are	  identified	  as	  key	  platforms	  to	   reduce	   vulnerability	   with	   strong	   ties	   to	   local	   level	  emergency	  management	  planning	  and	  long-­‐term	  climate	  adaptation	   to	   coastal	   flood	   hazard.	   	   These	   are	   the	  primary	   policy	   and	   environmental	   management	  pathways	   identified	   for	   implementing	   a	  DROP	  approach	  in	   Squamish.	   The	   following	   table	   presents	   key	  findings	  by	  major	  analysis	  area:	  	  	  	  	  	  Mobilizing	  Resilience:	  A	  Disaster	  Resilience	  of	  Place	  Approach	  to	  IFHMP	  in	  Squamish	  British	  Columbia	   6	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	   	  	  Key	  Findings	  	  	  Risk	  	  Assessment	  	  • The	  highest	  concentrations	  of	  social	  vulnerability	  and	  greatest	  exposure	  to	  coastal	  flood	  hazard	  (surge	  and	  sea	  level	  rise)	  are	  located	  in	  the	  downtown	  area	  -­‐-­‐	  notably	  Dissemination	  Areas	  59310202	  and	  59310201.	  • Waters	  during	  a	  200-­‐year	  coastal	  flood	  event	  may	  reach	  0.5m	  to	  3m	  across	  the	  flood	  plain	  in	  a	  current	  diking	  or	  future	  dike	  failure	  scenario.	  	  	  • At	  least	  2%	  of	  	  District’s	  land	  is	  subject	  to	  1	  meter	  of	  sea	  level	  rise.	  • Future	  upland	  extent	  of	  the	  Squamish	  estuary,	  a	  major	  ecosystem	  flood	  management	  service,	  must	  be	  considered	  in	  land	  use	  planning.	  	  	  OCP	  and	  Existing	  Flood	  Management	  Plan	  Evaluation	   	  	  • The	  existing	  flood	  hazard	  management	  plan	  from	  1994	  was	  never	  legislated	  and	  it	  is	  unclear	  how	  much	  was	  implemented	  ad	  hoc	  in	  the	  past	  20	  years.	  • The	  current	  Official	  Community	  Plan	  met	  63%	  of	  evaluation	  protocol	  for	  coastal	  risk	  planning	  –	  successfully	  identifying	  	  governance	  arrangements	  and	  coordination,	  social	  participation	  and	  legal	  requirements.	  • The	  biggest	  area	  for	  improvement	  in	  OCP	  revision	  is	  goal	  setting	  for	  coastal	  hazards	  risk-­‐reduction	  	  and	  strengthening	  policy	  linkages	  between	  hazard	  lands,	  resource	  management,	  community	  and	  social	  development	  	  around	  poverty	  and	  vulnerability	  reduction.	  	  	  	  Public	  Participation	  	  • It	  remains	  unclear	  how	  this	  the	  $2.95	  million	  CAD	  earmarked	  by	  the	  District	  Municipality	  for	  flood	  risk	  management	  activities	  will	  be	  used	  to	  reduce	  vulnerability	  and	  how	  citizens	  will	  meaningfully	  participate	  in	  hazard	  management	  and	  risk-­‐reduction	  planning.	  	  • Areas	  of	  high	  social	  vulnerability	  and	  low	  engagement,	  notably	  the	  downtown	  area	  neighborhoods,	  Punjabi	  community	  and	  non-­‐official	  language	  speakers,	  should	  be	  the	  focus	  of	  participatory	  engagement	  in	  flood	  hazard	  and	  emergency	  management	  planning.	  	  • A	  citizen	  seat	  on	  the	  IFHMP	  steering	  committee	  and	  the	  creation	  of	  an	  IFHMP	  implementation	  committee	  with	  strong	  community	  organization	  representation	  is	  recommended	  immediately.	  • Participatory	  and	  deliberative	  activities	  including	  allocating	  up	  to	  $100,000	  for	  “resilience	  activities”	  are	  recommended	  to	  improve	  IFHMP	  implementation	  and	  vulnerability	  reduction	  efforts.	  	  	  	  	  Mobilizing	  Resilience:	  A	  Disaster	  Resilience	  of	  Place	  Approach	  to	  IFHMP	  in	  Squamish	  British	  Columbia	   7	  	  	  	  Image	  1:	  The	  Squamish	  Yacht	  Club	  at	  2.15	  Meter	  total	  water	  level	  during	  a	  surge	  event	  by	  Christopher	  J.	  Carter	  	  	  (LightHawk	  Conservation	  Flying	  |	  Resilient	  Coasts	  UBC),	  2015	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  Mobilizing	  Resilience:	  A	  Disaster	  Resilience	  of	  Place	  Approach	  to	  IFHMP	  in	  Squamish	  British	  Columbia	   8	  Contents	  1.0	  List	  of	  Figures,	  Images	  and	  Tables	  ..........................................................................................................................	  10	  2.0	  Terms	  Used	  .....................................................................................................................................................................	  13	  3.0	  Introduction	  and	  Problem	  Statement	  ....................................................................................................................	  16	  4.0	  The	  Squamish	  Context	  .................................................................................................................................................	  18	  	   4.1	  Indigenous	  Territories	  .........................................................................................................................................................................................................	  19	  4.2	  Social	  and	  Economic	  ..............................................................................................................................................................................................................	  22	  4.3	  Ecological	  Condition	  ..............................................................................................................................................................................................................	  28	  4.4	  Geography	  of	  Coastal	  Flood	  Risk	  .....................................................................................................................................................................................	  34	  4.5	  Institutional	  ...............................................................................................................................................................................................................................	  40	  	  5.0	  Approach	  	  .........................................................................................................................................................................	  47	  5.1	  Building	  a	  Disaster	  Resilience	  of	  Place	  ...............................................................................................................................................	  48	  5.2	  Social	  Vulnerability	  ...............................................................................................................................................................................................................	  50	  5.3	  Social	  and	  Ecological	  Resilience	  ......................................................................................................................................................................................	  52	  	  6.0	  Methodology	  ...................................................................................................................................................................	  54	  	   6.1Strategic	  and	  Value-­‐Focused	  Planning	  ...........................................................................................................................................................................	  55	  6.2	  Risk	  Assessment	  ......................................................................................................................................................................................................................	  60	  6.3	  Plan	  Evaluation	  ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................	  70	  6.4	  Public	  Participation	  &	  IFHMP	  Implementation	  .........................................................................................................................................................	  72	  	  	  	  	  	  Mobilizing	  Resilience:	  A	  Disaster	  Resilience	  of	  Place	  Approach	  to	  IFHMP	  in	  Squamish	  British	  Columbia	   9	  7.0	  Risk	  Assessment	  	  ...........................................................................................................................................................	  80	  	   	  7.1	  Social	  Vulnerability	  Indicators	  (SOVI)	  ...........................................................................................................................................................................	  79	  	  7.2	  Social	  Vulnerability	  and	  AEP	  200	  Coastal	  Flooding	  .................................................................................................................................................	  89	  	  7.3	  Sea	  Level	  Rise	  and	  New	  Natural	  Boundaries	  ..............................................................................................................................................................	  93	  	  7.4	  Towards	  Risk-­‐Based	  Planning	  in	  Squamish	  ................................................................................................................................................................	  98	  	  	  Risk	  Assessment:	  Synthesis	  of	  Recommendations	  .....................................................................................................................................	  99	  	  8.0	  Plan	  Evaluation	  ............................................................................................................................................................	  101	  	  8.1	  	  1994	  Flood	  Hazard	  Management	  Plan	  .............................................................................................................................................	  104	  	   Public	  Education	  and	  Engagement	  ..................................................................................................................................................................................	  108	  Regulatory	  Requirements	  ...................................................................................................................................................................................................	  109	  Dyking	  and	  Structural	  Improvements	  ...........................................................................................................................................................................	  110	  Implementation	  .......................................................................................................................................................................................................................	  111	  Monitoring	  and	  Evaluation	  .................................................................................................................................................................................................	  112	  	  8.2	  	  2009	  Official	  Community	  Plan	  Evaluation	  ......................................................................................................................................	  113	  	   Plan	  Element	  1:	  Evidence	  Base	  .........................................................................................................................................................................................	  117	  Plan	  Element	  2:	  Participation	  ............................................................................................................................................................................................	  118	  Plan	  Element	  3:	  Governance	  and	  Coordination	  .........................................................................................................................................................	  119	  Plan	  Element	  4:	  Goals	  ............................................................................................................................................................................................................	  120	  Plan	  Element	  5:	  Legal	  and	  Local	  Government	  Requirements	  .............................................................................................................................	  121	  Plan	  Element	  6:	  Policy	  ..........................................................................................................................................................................................................	  122	  Plan	  Element	  7:	  Implementation,	  Monitoring	  and	  Evaluation	  ............................................................................................................................	  124	  Plan	  Element	  8:	  Organization	  and	  Communication	  .................................................................................................................................................	  125	  	  	  	  	  	  Plan	  Quality:	  Synthesis	  of	  Recommendations	  ..........................................................................................................................................	  127	  	  	  Mobilizing	  Resilience:	  A	  Disaster	  Resilience	  of	  Place	  Approach	  to	  IFHMP	  in	  Squamish	  British	  Columbia	   10	  	  9.0	  Public	  Participation	  in	  IFHMP	  implementation	  ...............................................................................................	  130	  	  9.1	   Findings	  ....................................................................................................................................................................................................	  131	  9.2	   Recommendations	  ................................................................................................................................................................................	  139	  	  Public	  Participation	  and	  IFHMP	  Implementation:	  Synthesis	  of	  Recommendations	  ....................................................................	  148	  	  10.0	  Future	  Work	  &	  Closing	  ...........................................................................................................................................	  150	  	  11.0	  Bibliography	  ...............................................................................................................................................................	  154	  	  12.0	  Appendix	  .....................................................................................................................................................................	  163	  	  	   	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  Mobilizing	  Resilience:	  A	  Disaster	  Resilience	  of	  Place	  Approach	  to	  IFHMP	  in	  Squamish	  British	  Columbia	   11	  1.0	  List	  of	  Figures,	  Images	  and	  Tables	  	  	  Figures	  	  Figure	  1:	  Squamish	  and	  The	  Strait	  of	  Georgia	  Region	  ____________________________________________________________________________________18	  Figure	  2:	  Indigenous	  Land	  Reserves	  and	  Flood	  Infrastructure	  in	  the	  Squamish	  Valley	  ____________________________________________________________21	  Figure	  3:Income	  Distribution	  By	  Income	  Group	  and	  Gender	  ______________________________________________________________________________22	  Figure	  4:	  Household	  Income	  Distribution	  ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________23	  Figure	  5:	  Population	  Distribution	  in	  Squamish__________________________________________________________________________________________________________	  24	  Figure	  6:Ethnic	  Origins	  ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________26	  Figure	  7:Religious	  Affiliation	  _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________26	  Figure	  8.	  Coastal	  Ecosystem	  Benefits	  Valuation	  in	  the	  Howe	  Sound	  By	  Land/Water	  Feature________________________________________________________229	  Figure	  9:	  Environmental	  Remediation	  Sites	  in	  the	  Skwelwil’em	  Squamish	  Estuary	  Management	  Area	  _____________________________________________30	  Figure	  10:	  Flood	  Risks	  In	  Squamish	  BC	  __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________33	  Figure	  11:	  Monthly	  Average	  River	  Flows	  and	  Tidal	  Level	  in	  Squamish	  1991-­‐2012________________________________________________________________	  35	  Figure	  12	  :	  Timeline	  of	  Coastal	  and	  Intertidal	  Flooding	  Eventsand	  Hazard	  Management	  Planning_____________________________________________________37	  Figure	  13.	  Squamish	  Sea	  Level	  Rise	  Estimations	  and	  the	  Human	  Scale_________________________________________________________________________39	  Figure	  14:	  The	  Squamish	  Watershed	  and	  Institutional	  Boundaries	  _____________________________________________________________________________________26	  Figure	  15:	  IFHMP	  	  Planning	  Timeline_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________43	  Figure	  16:	  District	  Municipality	  of	  Squamish	  	  Infrastructure	  Inventory_______________________________________________________________________________45	  Figure	  17:	  Waterways,	  Flood	  Infrastructure	  and	  Management	  in	  Squamish	  in	  2015_______________________________________________________________________46	  Figure	  18:	  The	  Disaster	  Risk	  Cycle	  ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________26	  Figure	  19:	  IPCC	  Illustration	  of	  Risk	  &	  Climate_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________53	  Figure	  20:	  Methodology	  by	  Strategic	  Planning	  Theme________________________________________________________________________________________________56	  Figure	  21:	  A	  Strategic	  Planning	  Approach	  to	  Climate	  Adaptation______________________________________________________________________________________________________58	  Figure	  22:	  Selected	  Variables	  of	  Social	  Vulnerability	  in	  Squamish	  _______________________________________________________________________________________________63	  Figure	  23:	  Base	  Risk	  Equation___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________26	  Figure	  24:	  Squamish	  	  Emergency	  Planning	  Risk	  Matrix__________________________________________________________________________________________________77	  Figure	  25:	  Selected	  Social	  Vulnerability	  Indicators_______________________________________________________________________________________________________83	  Figure	  26:	  Social	  Vulnerability	  in	  Squamish	  Valley:	  ____________________________________________________________________________________________________	  80	  Figure	  27:	  Social	  Vulnerability	  on	  the	  Squamish	  River	  Delta	  ____________________________________________________________________________________________26	  Figure	  28:	  Social	  Vulnerability	  Factors	  in	  Squamish____________________________________________________________________________________________________	  85	  Figure	  29:	  SoVI	  Scores	  of	  Squamish	  Dissemination	  Areas_______________________________________________________________________________26	  Figure	  30:	  200	  Year	  Coastal	  Flood	  Event	  in	  the	  Squamish	  Valley_________________________________________________________________________________________91	  Figure	  31:	  200	  Year	  Coastal	  Flood	  Event	  and	  Social	  Vulnerability	  in	  the	  Squamish	  Valley_____________________________________________________________________	  	  91	  Figure	  32	  :	  200	  Year	  Coastal	  Flood	  Depths	  and	  Social	  Vulnerabilit	  on	  the	  Squamish	  River	  Delta_____________________________________________________________	  	  92	  Figure	  33	  :	  1	  Meter	  of	  Sea	  Level	  Rise	  in	  the	  District	  of	  Squamish________________________________________________________________________________________________	   94	  Figure	  34	  :	  1	  Meter	  of	  Sea	  Level	  Rise	  on	  the	  Squamish	  River	  Delta_______________________________________________________________________________________________	  95	  Figure	  35:	  Sea	  Level	  Rise	  Planning	  Opportunities	  in	  Squamish_______________________________________________________________________________________________	  97	  	  Mobilizing	  Resilience:	  A	  Disaster	  Resilience	  of	  Place	  Approach	  to	  IFHMP	  in	  Squamish	  British	  Columbia	   12	  Figure	  36:	  District	  Municipality	  of	  Squamish	  Zoning	  Designations	  and	  Planning	  Areas	  __________________________________________________________107	  Figure	  37:	  2009	  Squamish	  Official	  Community	  Plan	  and	  Coastal	  Flood	  Risk	  Planning_________________________________________________________________________	  116	  Figure	  38:	  Waterfront	  Development	  Guidelines	  for	  the	  Mamquam	  Blind	  Channel	  Area_______________________________________________________________________	   125	  Figure	  39:	  The	  Spectrum	  of	  Public	  Participation	  __________________________________________________________________________________________135	  Figure	  40:	  Current	  IFHMP	  Technical	  Steering	  Committee_______________________________________________________________________________________________132	  Figure	  41:	  Flood	  Related	  Items	  2015	  –	  2019	  Special	  Project	  Operations	  and	  Capital	  Budgets	  ________________________________________________________________	  134	  Figure	  42:	  Steps	  to	  Implementing	  Resilience	  Activites	  __________________________________________________________________________________________________	  145	  Figure	  43:	  Steps	  of	  Risk	  Based	  Land	  Use	  Planning	  ______________________________________________________________________________________________________	  168	  	  Images	  	  	  Image	  1:	  Aerial	  of	  	  Skwelwil’em	  Squamish	  Estuaty	  and	  the	  Downtown	  Area	  Looking	  South________________________________________________________32	  Image	  2:	  Development	  Proposal	  in	  the	  Downtown	  Peninsula	  Area	  during	  a	  Summer	  Storm	  Surge,	  2015_________________________________________100	  Image	  3:	  Erosion	  and	  surge	  during	  high	  tide	  at	  Nexen	  beach	  -­‐	  Squamish	  Downtown	  Peninsula___________________________________________________128	  Image	  4:	  Mamquam	  Blind	  Channel,	  Central	  Channel,	  	  the	  Squamish	  Estuary	  and	  Squamish	  River	  Delta__________________________________________149	  	  	  Tables	  	  Table	  1:	  Housing	  Vacancy	  Rate	  Trends	  for	  Private	  Townhouses	  and	  Apartments_____________________________________________________________________	  26	  Table	  2:	  Neighborhood	  SoVI	  Key__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________	  84	  Table	  3:	  1994	  Flood	  Management	  Plan	  Evaluation	  Variables__________________________________________________________________________________________	  106	  Table	  4:	  Overview	  of	  Plan	  Quality	  Variables	  and	  Element	  Performance________________________________________________________________________________115	  	  	   	  	  Mobilizing	  Resilience:	  A	  Disaster	  Resilience	  of	  Place	  Approach	  to	  IFHMP	  in	  Squamish	  British	  Columbia	   13	  2.0	  Terms	  Used	  	  Where	   not	   noted,	  major	   terms	   used	   in	   this	   report	   are	  from	   the	   Intergovernmental	   Panel	   on	   Climate	  Change(IPCC).	   However,	   a	   few	   terms	   are	   grounded	   in	  academic	   literature,	   international	   best	   practices	   and	  Canadian	  Federal	  and	  Provincial	  law.	  	  Biodiversity	   is	   the	  variability	   among	   living	  organisms	  from	  all	  sources	  including,	  inter	  alia,	  terrestrial,	  marine	  and	   other	   aquatic	   ecosystems	   and	   the	   ecological	  complexes	   of	   which	   they	   are	   part;	   this	   includes	  diversity	   within	   species,	   between	   species	   and	   of	  ecosystems.	  	  	  	  	  Dissemination	  Area	  is	  the	  smallest	  level	  of	  census	  data	  collection	   in	   Canada	   at	   400-­‐700	   people	   each	   and	  remains	   stable	   over	   time.	   These	   areas	   follow	   roads,	  railways,	   waterways	   and	   other	   major	   human	   made	  boundary.	   	   	   While	   not	   exactly	   aligned	   with	  neighborhood	   and	   social	   relations	   they	   are	   the	   most	  detailed	  unit	  of	  analysis	  using	  Canadian	  census	  data	  and	  have	   been	   used	   for	   this	   report	   as	   the	   level	   of	   analysis	  (Census	  Canada,	  2015).	  	  	  Ecosystem	   services	   are	   the	   conditions	   and	   processes	  through	  which	  natural	  ecosystems,	  and	  the	  species	  that	  make	  them	  up,	  sustain	  and	  fulfill	  human	  life.	  Ecosystem	  goods	   (such	   as	   food)	   and	   services	   (such	   as	   waste	  assimilation)	  represent	  the	  benefits	  human	  populations	  derive,	  directly	  or	  indirectly,	  from	  ecosystem	  functions,	  most	   notably,	   regulating	   services	   including	   water	  regulating,	   erosion	   control	   and	   water	   purification	  ecosystem	  services	  that	  provide	  flood	  hazard	  mitigation	  services.	  (Costanza	  et	  al.	  1997:253).	  	  These	  are	  the	  basis	  for	  ecosystem-­‐based	  adaptation.	  	  Empowerment	   an	   iterative	   process	   involving	   popular	  participation	   of	   individuals	   in	   decision-­‐making	   that	  affect	   community	   development	   outcomes	   such	   as	   like	  poverty	   eradication,	   social	   integration	   and	   livelihoods	  and	  risk	  reduction	  (Wisner,	  2006).	  	  	  Floodplain	   is	   relatively	   flat	   lowland	   that	   borders	   a	  river,	  usually	  dry	  but	  subject	  to	  flooding	  and	  built	  upon	  river	  sediment	  and	  past	  flood	  deposits	  .	  	  	  Hazard	   is	   the	   potential	   occurrence	   of	   a	   natural	   or	  human-­‐induced	   physical	   event	   that	   may	   cause	   loss	   of	  life,	   injury,	   or	   other	  health	   impacts,	   as	  well	   as	   damage	  and	  loss	  to	  property,	  infrastructure,	  livelihoods,	  service	  provision,	   and	   environmental	   resources	   (UNISDR,	  2009).	  	  	  	  Integrated	   Flood	   Risk	   Management	   Plan	   (IFHMP):	  	  integrates	   watershed	   level	   planning,	   disaster	  management,	   community	   development	   	   through	   a	  multi-­‐stakeholder	  approach	  towards	  sustainable	  hazard	  mitigation	  (Green,	  2003).	  	  	  Natural	  Boundary	  Any	  formation	  or	  product	  of	  nature	  which	  may	   serve	   to	   define	   and	   fix	   one	   or	  more	   of	   the	  	  Mobilizing	  Resilience:	  A	  Disaster	  Resilience	  of	  Place	  Approach	  to	  IFHMP	  in	  Squamish	  British	  Columbia	   14	  lines	  inclosing	  an	  estate	  or	  piece	  of	  property,	  such	  as	  a	  watercourse	   or	   coast.	   This	   is	   determined	   by	   a	   mean	  high	  water	  mark	  not	  affected	  by	  construction	  activities	  such	   as	   a	   dam	   or	   diking	   structure	   (BC	   Ministry	   of	  Forests	  and	  Lands,	  1987).	  	  	  	  Neighborhood	  is	  a	  place-­‐based	  social	  construction	  that	  reflects	  social	  and	  familial	  and	  environmental	  relations,	  networks	  and	  residential	  areas	  and	  housing	  systems	  -­‐	  often	  expressed	  as	  a	  familiar	  place	  name	  (i.e.	  Dentville,	  Brackendale	  etc.)	  	  	  Official	   Community	   Plan	   (OCP)	   is	   a	   statement	   of	  objectives	  and	  policies	   that	  guide	  decisions	  on	  growth,	  planning,	   land	  use,	  and	  provision	  of	  municipal	  services	  in	  the	  community.	   	  The	  document	  is	  reviewed	  annually	  and	   completely	   revised	   every	   5	   to	   10	   years.	   As	   an	  official	  bylaw	  it	  regulates	  property	  development	  such	  as	  through	   zoning	   and	   designated	   permit	   areas.	   Al	   other	  bylaws	  must	   remain	  consistent	  with	   the	  aims	  set	   forth	  in	  an	  OCP.	  (Local	  Government	  Act,	  2009)	  	  	  Participatory	   Budgeting	   (PB)	   will	   be	   defined	   as	   a	  democratic	   process	   in	   which	   community	   members	  directly	  decide	  how	  to	  spend	  part	  of	  a	  public	  budget.	  It	  enables	   taxpayers	   to	   work	   with	   government	   to	   make	  the	  budget	  decisions	  that	  affect	  their	  lives	  (Dias,	  2014).	  	  This	  activity	  will	  be	  referred	  to	  in	  proposed	  “Resilience	  Activities”.	  	  	  	  	  Proper	   Functioning	   Condition	   (PFC)	   is	   a	  method	   to	  better	   understand	   the	   health	   of	   estuaries	   and	   riparian	  areas	   that	   provide	   flood	   mitigation	   services.	   PFC	  provides	  a	  practical	  way	  of	   classifying	   the	  condition	  of	  these	  riparian	  and	  intertidal	  ecosystem	  services.	  	  This	  is	  based	  on	  studying	  the	  physical	  function	  of	  riparian-­‐and	  coastal	   wetland	   areas	   -­‐-­‐	   	   accounting	   for	   hydrology,	  vegetation,	   and	   soil/landform	  attributes.	  This	  provides	  an	   assessment	   for	   prioritizing	   reclamation	   actions	   and	  monitoring	  the	  long-­‐term	  condition	  of	  local	  ecosystems	  at	  the	  watershed	  scale	  (U.S.	  Department	  of	  the	  Interior	  -­‐	  BLM,	  1998).	  	  Recurrence	  Rate	  is	  the	  probability	  of	  the	  occurrence	  of	  a	  given	  flooding	  event.	  The	  recurrence	  interval	  is	  based	  on	   the	  probability	   that	   the	  given	  event	  will	  be	  equaled	  or	   exceeded	   in	   any	   given	   year.	   In	   this	   case	   intertidal	  riverine	   flooding	  and	  coastal	  surge	  events.	  Also	  known	  as	  a	  return	  rate	  (Ministry	  of	  the	  Environment,	  2011)	  .	  	  	  	  Resilience	  is	  defined	  as	  the	  ability	  of	  a	  socio-­‐ecological	  system	   and	   its	   component	   parts	   to	   anticipate,	   absorb,	  accommodate,	   or	   recover	   from	   the	   effects	   of	   a	  potentially	   hazardous	   event	   in	   a	   timely	   and	   efficient	  manner,	   including	   the	   preservation,	   restoration,	   or	  improvement	   of	   its	   essential	   basic	   structures	   and	  functions	  (UNISDR,	  2009).	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  Mobilizing	  Resilience:	  A	  Disaster	  Resilience	  of	  Place	  Approach	  to	  IFHMP	  in	  Squamish	  British	  Columbia	   15	  Resilience	   Activities	   are	   small	   infrastructure,	  programs	   and	   ecosystem	   improvements	   that	   improve	  the	   overall	   disaster	   resilience	   of	   the	   community,	  integrating	   risk	   reduction	   efforts	   with	   community	  development	  and	  environmental	  planning.	  	  Risk	   is	   the	   ‘combination	  of	   the	  probability	  of	  an	  event,	  existing	  conditions	  and	  its	  consequences.	  1	  	  Vulnerability	   is	   a	   region’s	   total	   exposure	   to	   hazard	  (including	   people,	   economy	   and	   environment)	   and	   its	  existing	  sensitivities,	  while	  taking	  into	  consideration	  its	  capacity	  to	  adapt.	  	  Social	  Vulnerability	   is	  a	  concept	  that	  helps	  to	  identify	  indicators,	   characteristics	   and	   experiences	   of	   commu-­‐nities	  (and	  individuals)	  that	  enable	  them	  to	  respond	  to	  and	  recover	  from	  environmental	  hazards	  Social	   Vulnerability	   Index	   (SoVI)	   a	   collection	   of	  quantitative	   measures,	   or	   indicators,	   that	   assist	   in	  understanding	   existing	   social	   conditions	   spatially	   and	  over	  time	  (Cutter,	  S.	  L.,	  L.	  Barnes,	  M.	  Berry,	  &	  C.	  Burton,	  E.	   Evans,	   E.	   Tate,	   and	   J.	   Webb,	   2008).	  	  	  Total	  Water	  Level	  is	  the	  sum	  of	  storm	  surge,	  tide	  level,	  wave	  action	  and	  fresh	  water	  inputs	  in	  a	  specific	  coastal	  location	  (NOAA,	  2012)	   	  	  Mobilizing	  Resilience:	  A	  Disaster	  Resilience	  of	  Place	  Approach	  to	  IFHMP	  in	  Squamish	  British	  Columbia	   16	  3.0	  Introduction	  and	  Problem	  Statement	  	  First	  peoples,	   residents,	   business	  owners	   and	   the	   local	  government	  of	  Squamish,	  British	  Columbia	  face	  serious	  exposure	   to	   coastal	   and	   upland	   flood	   hazard.	   As	   the	  population	   of	   this	   coastal	   community	   is	   expected	   to	  double	  over	  the	  next	  twenty	  years,	   local	  planning	  must	  accommodate	  urban	  development	  while	  managing	  risk	  with	  citizens.	  	  Currently,	  the	  District,	  the	  Squamish	  First	  Nation,	   Provincial	   Agencies	   and	   community	   members	  are	   creating	   an	   Integrated	   Flood	   Hazard	   Management	  Plan	   (IFHMP)	   to	  meet	   these	   challenges.	   This	   plan	  will	  account	   for	   coastal	   flood	   risk	   for	   the	   first	   time	   in	   that	  community,	   identifying	   structural	   upgrades	   and	   non-­‐structural	   approaches	   to	   guide	   safe	   development	   of	  human	  settlement	  on	  the	  river	  delta.	  	  	  	  Under	   provincial	   Bill	   27,	   local	   governments	   in	   British	  Columbia	  are	  mandated	  to	  do	  climate	  change	  mitigation	  planning	   through	   GHG	   target	   setting	   but	   coastal	  municipalities	  lag	  behind	  in	  adaptation	  planning.	  	  	  Connecting	   sound	   climate	   science	  with	   land	  use	  policy	  is	   difficult.	   	   Today	   it	   is	   unclear	   if	   local	   planning	  institutions	   operate	   using	   evidence-­‐based	   policy	  making.	  	  The	   District	   of	   Squamish	   is	   a	   coastal	   community	   with	  unique	   geography	   and	   extensive	   flood	  hazard.	   Located	  at	   the	  head	  of	  a	   fjord	   in	   the	  North	  Salish	  Sea	  of	  British	  Columbia,	  human	  settlement	  also	   rests	   at	   the	   foot	  of	  6	  mountain	  river	  systems.	   	  To	  date,	   the	  District	  has	  been	  equipped	  with	  an	  aging	  flood	  management	  plan,	  limited	  dyke	  infrastructure,	  little	  legislated	  risk-­‐based	  land	  use	  guidelines	   and	   a	   lack	   of	   focus	   on	   the	   social	   and	  ecological	   determinants	   of	   flood	   risk	   vulnerability.	   To	  plan	   for	   disaster	   resilience,	   the	   District	   alongside	   the	  Squamish	  First	  Nation,	  civil	  society	  and	  businesses	  must	  meet	   risk	   complexity	   and	   new	   climate	   realities	   with	  innovative	   and	   collaborative	   solutions	   that	   effectively	  mitigate,	   prepare,	   respond	   to	   and	   recover	   from	   flood	  events.	  	  	  In	   beginning	   othis	   research,	   the	   following	   hypotheses	  were	  made	  to	  critically	  guide	  analysis:	  	   A. Certain	   people	   in	   Squamish	   BC	   are	  disproportionately	   vulnerable	   to	   coastal	  flooding	  events.	  B. The	   District	   of	   Squamish	   accounts	   for	   current	  and	  future	  coastal	  flood	  hazards	  in	  its	  planning.	  C. The	   District	   of	   Squamish	   protects	   ecosystem	  services	  that	  provide	  coastal	  flood	  protection.	  D. The	   District	   of	   Squamish	   engages	   in	   evidence-­‐based	  planning	  to	  reduce	  exposure	  of	  vulnerable	  people	  and	  lands.	  E. The	   District	   of	   Squamish	   has	   created	   inclusive	  and	   participative	   processes	   to	   engage	  vulnerable	   populations	   and	   industries	   in	  adaptation	  planning.	  	  	  	  	  	  Mobilizing	  Resilience:	  A	  Disaster	  Resilience	  of	  Place	  Approach	  to	  IFHMP	  in	  Squamish	  British	  Columbia	   17	  To	   investigate	   these	   hypotheses,	   the	   following	  analyses	  were	  conducted:	  	  	  1)	  An	  analysis	  of	  social	  vulnerability	  to	  coastal	  flood	  risk	  spatially	  using	  a	  suite	  of	  vulnerability	  indicators	  and	  coastal	  flood	  modeling.	  	  	  2)	  Plan	  evaluation	  of	  the	  current	  official	  community	  and	  flood	  management	  plans.	  	  	  3)	  Evaluation	  of	  public	  participation	  in	  the	  creation	  and	  implementation	  of	  an	  IFHMP.	  	  	  Recommendations	   are	   synthesized	   at	   the	   end	   of	  each	   finding	   section.	   These	   include	   actions	   to	  reduce	   vulnerability	   through	   land	   use	   planning,	  community	   development	   policy	   and	   participatory	  planning	   approaches.	   	   Lastly,	   tools	   are	   offered	   in	  the	  Appendix	   to	   support	   the	  District	  Municipality	  in	  reducing	  vulnerability	  and	  building	  resilience	  to	  coastal	  flood	  risk.	  	  	   This	  case	  study	  offers	  a	   timely	   illustration	  of	  how	  planners,	   risk	   managers,	   engineers	   and	  community	   organizers	   in	   British	   Columbia	   can	  better	   create	   and	   Implement	   an	   Integrated	   Flood	  Hazard	  Management	  Plan	  (IFHMP)	  through	  robust	  vulnerability	   assessment,	   land	   use	   policy	  instruments	   and	   public	   participation.	   However,	  relevant	  IFHMP	  planning	  must	  begin	  with	  a	  robust	  understanding	  of	  the	  planning	  context.	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  Mobilizing	  Resilience:	  A	  Disaster	  Resilience	  of	  Place	  Approach	  to	  IFHMP	  in	  Squamish	  British	  Columbia	   18	  4.0 The	  Squamish	  Context	  	  Many	   historical	   and	   place-­‐based	   factors	   influence	  the	   capacity	   of	   the	   Squamish	   environment,	   local	  government	  and	   residents	   to	   face	   coastal	   risk	  and	  disaster	  resilience.	  This	  section	  offers	  an	  overview	  of	   the	   Squamish	   setting	   including	   historically	  relevant	   flood	   information,	   environmental	  observation,	   social,	   geographic	   and	   institutional	  conditions	  which	  interact	  to	  produce	  vulnerability.	  	  	  The	  main	  sections	  include:	  	  1. Indigenous	  Territories	  2. Social	  and	  Economic	  Conditions	  3. Ecological	  Condition	  4. Planning	  Institutions	  5. Physical	  Geography	  and	  Flooding	  Hazard	  	  These	   factors	   -­‐-­‐	  belonging	   to	  major	  human,	   earth	  and	   constructed	   systems	   -­‐-­‐	   present	   relevant	  historical	   and	   societal	   conditions.	   These	   inform	  the	   translation	   of	   knowledge	   into	   action	   in	   flood	  hazard	  planning.	  As	  these	  systems	  interact	  during	  hazard	  events,	  each	  system	  plays	  a	  unique	  role	  in	  increasing	  or	  reducing	  human	  loss	  and	  damage	  to	  property	   (Mileti,	   1999).	   By	   understanding	   each	  aspect	   individually,	   their	   interaction	  and	  complex	  relationship	   can	   be	   understood	   and	   addressed	  strategically.	  	  	  For	   the	   creation	  of	   flood	  hazard	  management	  plans,	  these	   details	   inform	   the	   creation	   of	   plans	   that	   are	  socio-­‐culturally	  and	  environmentally	  relevant.	  	  	  Figure	  1:	  Squamish	  and	  The	  Strait	  of	  Georgia	  Region	  	  	  	  	  	  Mobilizing	  Resilience:	  A	  Disaster	  Resilience	  of	  Place	  Approach	  to	  IFHMP	  in	  Squamish	  British	  Columbia	   19	  	   The	   District	   of	   Squamish	   is	   located	   within	   the	  unceded	  traditional	  territory	  of	  the	  Skwxwú7mesh	  	  Úxwumixw	   (Squamish	   Nation).	   	   Since	   time	  immemorial	   that	   nation	   made	   extensive	   used	   of	  the	   flood	   plain	   and	   coastal	   areas	   for	   subsistence,	  ceremonial	   and	   settlement	   uses	   -­‐-­‐	   often	   shifting	  locations	   with	   changing	   flood	   profiles	  (Skwxwú7mesh	   Úxwumixw,	   2013)(Kerr	   Wood	  Leidal,	  2015a)	  .	  	  	  Today,	   ten	   Squamish	   Nation	   reserves	   are	   located	  throughout	   the	   Squamish	   Valley	   and	   river	   delta	  and	  the	  nation	  has	  a	  registered	  population	  of	  3,500	  including	  those	  living	  off	  settlement	  lands	  (Muckle,	  2014).	   These	   lands,	   a	   small	   fraction	   of	   the	  traditional	   territory,	   are	   illustrated	   in	   Figure	   2.	  These	  areas	  are	  adjacent	  to	  District	  dissemination	  areas	   and	   share	   coastlines	   on	   the	   coast	   and	  Squamish	  River.	  	  Today	  the	  First	  Nation	  is	  engaged	  in	   joint	   planning	  with	   the	  District	  Municipality	   in	  for	   land	   use,	   economic	   development,	   and	  infrastructure	   and	   community	   development	  initiatives	   is	   guided	   by	   the	   2008	   protocol	  agreement.	  	  	  	  Shared	   exposure	   to	   coastal	   flooding	   creates	  further	   shared	   value	   in	   flood	   management	  between	   the	   District	   of	   Squamish	   and	   the	  Squamish	   Nation.	   Plan	   creation	   and	  implementation	  of	  the	  District’s	  IFHMP	  follows	  the	  2008	   protocol	   agreement	   and	   will	   be	   a	   joint	  planning	   initiative	   with	   the	   First	   Nation	  participating	  as	  an	  equal	  party	  member.	  	  	   The	   Squamish	   Nation	   government	   has	   been	  recognized	   federally	   under	   the	   Indian	   Act	   with	   a	  chief	   and	   council	   system	   structured	   using	   the	  Indian	  and	  Northern	  Affairs	  Canada	  model.	  Today	  as	  a	  planning	  institution	  retain	  their	  own	  land	  use	  planning	  and	  GIS	  departments	  and	  actively	  engage	  traditional	   forms	   of	   governance	   including	   siyam	  (matriarchs	   and	   patriarchs)	   are	   engaged	   in	   core	  community	   events,	   community	   decision-­‐making	  and	   resource	   management	   activities	   (Muckle,	  2014)	  (Dodds,	  Williams,	  &	  Bleck,	  2013).	  	  	  It	   is	   important	   to	   note	   that	   the	   First	   Nation,	   like	  many	  in	  the	  Province,	  are	  seeking	  long	  outstanding	  claim	   to	   their	   traditional	   territories.	   This	   is	   done	  through	  a	  formal	  treaty	  negotiations	  and	  currently	  the	  nation	  is	  at	  stage	  3	  of	  6	  in	  negotiations	  British	  Columbia	   Treaty	   Commission	   (Skwxwú7mesh	  Úxwumixw,	  2013).	  	  The	   valley	   name,	   “Sko-­‐mish”	   translates	   “strong	  wind”	   or	   “birthplace	   of	   the	   winds”	   in	   the	  sqʷχʷuʔməʃ	   snit,ʃim	   (Skwomesh)	   Language.	  	  Traditional	   Ecological	   Knowledge	   of	   a	   changing	  land	   and	   environment	   by	   these	   first	   peoples	  provide	  critical	  insight	  into	  the	  nature	  and	  history	  of	   coastal	   flood	   risk	   -­‐	   most	   notably	   major	   wind	  (aiyum-­‐spaiyum)	   and	   flood	   events	   beyond	   data	  record,	   natural	   boundaries,	   of	   water	   courses	   and	  socio-­‐culturally	   relevant	   adaptation	   and	   risk	  management	   of	   coastal	   flood	   hazard	   in	   the	  4.1 Indigenous	  Territories	  	  	  Mobilizing	  Resilience:	  A	  Disaster	  Resilience	  of	  Place	  Approach	  to	  IFHMP	  in	  Squamish	  British	  Columbia	   20	  Squamish	   valley.	   Much	   of	   this	   knowledge	   is	   held	  and	  transferred	  in	  oral	  tradition	  and	  origin	  stories.	  	  	  The	   legend	   “The	   Great	   Flood”	   	   -­‐-­‐	   an	   event	   that	  came	  when	  people	  stopped	  listening	  to	  elders	  and	  lost	  touch	  with	  traditional	  ways	  –	  is	  a	  fundamental	  flood	   history	   which	   predates	   newcomer	  settlement	   on	   the	   river	   valley.	   A	   traditional	   story	  told	   by	   an	   Skwxwú7mesh	   Úxwumixw	   elder	   to	  Canadian	  writer	  E.	  Pauline	  Johnson-­‐Tekahionwake	  in	  1911	  recounts	  the	  intergenerational	  story:	  	  	  For,	   one	   time,	   there	   was	   no	   land	   here	   at	   all;	  everywhere	  there	  was	  just	  water.	  It	  was	  after	  a	  long,	   long	   time	   of	   this	   -­‐	   this	   rain.	   It	   rained	   for	  weeks	   and	   weeks,	   while	   the	  mountain-­‐torrents	  roared	   thunderingly	   down,	   and	   the	   sea	   crept	  silently	  up.	  The	  level	   lands	  were	  first	  to	  float	   in	  seawater,	   then	   to	   disappear.	   The	   slopes	   were	  next	   to	   slip	   into	   the	   sea.	   The	  world	  was	   slowly	  being	   flooded.	   Hurriedly	   the	   Indian	   tribes	  gathered	  in	  one	  spot,	  a	  place	  of	  safety	  far	  above	  the	  reach	  of	  the	  on-­‐creeping	  sea.	  	  	  	  A	   giant	   tree	   was	   felled,	   and	   day	   and	   night	   the	  men	   toiled	   over	   its	   construction	   into	   the	   most	  stupendous	   canoe	   the	   world	   has	   ever	   known.	  Not	   an	   hour,	   not	   a	  moment,	   but	  many	  worked,	  while	  the	  toil-­‐wearied	  ones	  slept,	  only	  to	  awake	  to	   renewed	   toil.	   Meanwhile,	   the	   women	   also	  worked	  at	  a	  cable	  -­‐	  the	  largest,	  the	  longest,	  and	  the	   strongest	   that	   Indian	   hands	   and	   teeth	   had	  ever	   made.	   Scores	   of	   them	   gathered	   and	  prepared	  the	  cedar-­‐fibre;	  scores	  of	  them	  plaited,	  rolled,	   and	   seasoned	   it;	   scores	   of	   them	   chewed	  upon	  it	  inch	  by	  inch	  to	  make	  it	  pliable;	  scores	  of	  them	  oiled	  and	  worked,	  oiled	  and	  worked,	  oiled	  and	  worked	  it	  into	  a	  sea-­‐resisting	  fabric.	  	  	  And	  still	  the	  seas	  crept	  up,	  and	  up,	  and	  up.	  It	  was	  the	  last	  day;	  hope	  of	  life	  for	  the	  tribes,	  of	  land	  for	  the	  world,	  was	  doomed.	   	  Then,	  with	  the	  bravest	  hearts	   that	   ever	   beat,	   noble	   hands	   lifted	   every	  child	   of	   the	   tribes	   into	   this	   vast	   canoe;	   not	   one	  single	  baby	  was	  overlooked.	   For	  days	  and	  days	  there	   was	   no	   land	   -­‐	   just	   the	   rush	   of	   swirling,	  snarling	   sea;	   but	   the	   canoe	   rode	   safely	   at	  anchor	  in	  to	  the	  top	  of	  Nch’kay	  (Mt.	  Garibaldi).	  	  	  	  But	   one	  morning	  at	   sunrise,	   far	   to	   the	   south,	   a	  speck	   floated	   on	   the	   breast	   of	   the	   waters;	   at	  midday	   it	   was	   larger;	   at	   evening	   it	   was	   yet	  larger.	   The	  moon	   arose,	   and	   in	   its	  magic	   light	  the	  man	  at	  the	  stern	  saw	  it	  was	  a	  patch	  of	  land.	  All	   night	   he	   watched	   it	   grow,	   and	   at	   daybreak	  looked	  with	  glad	  eyes	  upon	  the	  summit	  of	  Mount	  Baker.	   	  He	   cut	   the	   cable,	   grasped	  his	   paddle	   in	  his	   strong	   young	   hands,	   and	   steered	   for	   the	  south.	  	  When	  they	  landed,	  the	  waters	  were	  sunken	  half	  down	  the	  mountainside.	  The	  children	  were	  lifted	  out;	   the	   beautiful	   young	   mother,	   the	   stalwart	  young	   brave,	   turned	   to	   each	   other,	   clasped	  hands,	   looked	   into	   each	   other’s	   eyes	   -­‐	   and	  smiled.	  	  	  When	   the	   waters	   receded,	   the	   people	   who	  survived	   came	   to	   their	   senses	   and	   listened	   to	  their	  elders.	  Then	  the	  game	  and	  the	  fish	  and	  the	  berries	  returned	  in	  abundance.	  	  Mobilizing	  Resilience:	  A	  Disaster	  Resilience	  of	  Place	  Approach	  to	  IFHMP	  in	  Squamish	  British	  Columbia	   21	  	  (Johnson,	  1911)	  	  Managing	   flood	  risk	   today	  must	  deal	  with	  climate	  uncertainties	  and	  must	  work	  with	   local	   level	  data	  and	  knowledge	  to	  guide	  successful	  adaptation	  and	  risk	  reduction.	  As	  downscaled	  climate	  modeling	  is	  incomplete	  and	  hydrographic	  data	  records	  a	  mere	  past	   thirty	   years	   of	   the	   Squamish	   watershed	  comprehensively,	   traditional	   knowledge	   of	  successful	  adaptation,	  	  land	  and	  water	  systems	  can	  reveal	  a	  more	  comprehensive	  understanding	  of	  life	  and	  risk	  management	  on	  the	  coastal	  flood	  plain.	  As	  partners	   in	   Integrated	  Flood	  Hazard	  Management	  Planning	   and	   in	   other	   joint	   planning	   initiatives,	  there	   are	   significant	   opportunities	   to	   privilege	  indigenous	  knowledge	  of	  the	  Squamish	  watershed	  -­‐-­‐	   engaging	   elders	   and	   traditional	   knowledge	  holders	   in	   policy	   creation,	   resource	   managers	   in	  environmental	   monitoring	   and	   collaboration	   to	  reduce	  vulnerability	  for	  present	  and	  future	  coastal	  flood	   risk.	  	  	  	  	  	  	  Figure	  2:	  Indigenous	  Land	  Reserves	  and	  Flood	  Infrastructure	  in	  the	  Squamish	  Valley	  	  	  	   	  	  	  	  	  	  	   	  	  Mobilizing	  Resilience:	  A	  Disaster	  Resilience	  of	  Place	  Approach	  to	  IFHMP	  in	  Squamish	  British	  Columbia	   22	  	  Historically	   the	   territory	   of	   Skwxwú7mesh	   Úxwumixw	  (Squamish	  Nation),	  the	  population	  size	  and	  composition	  have	  changed	  significantly	  over	  the	  past	  hundred	  years	  of	   settler	   migration	   into	   the	   Squamish	   Valley.	   	   	   The	  District	  Municipality	  of	  Squamish	  reported	  a	  population	  of	   17,674	  people	   (incorporating	   census	   undercount)	   in	  the	  2011	  Census	  and	  has	  grown	  to	  an	  estimated	  19,294	  since1.	  (Statistics	  Canada,	  2015)(BC	  Stats,	  2015).	  	  	  The	  rate	  of	  change	  in	  the	  area	  in	  the	  past	  few	  years	  has	  been	   unprecedented	  with	   a	   reported	   14%	   growth	   rate	  since	  2006	  -­‐-­‐	  2.7%	  alone	  in	  2014.	  This	  makes	  Squamish	  one	   of	   the	   fasting	   growing	   coastal	   communities	   in	   the	  Straight	   of	   Georgia	   and	   higher	   than	   the	   rest	   of	   the	  Squamish	  Lillooet	  Regional	  District	  (13%	  growth)	  in	  the	  past	   decade.	   Over	   the	   next	   20	   yrs	   the	   community	   is	  expected	  to	  double	  in	  size.	  At	  the	  provincial	  level	  it	  is	  the	  7th	   fastest	   growing	  municipalities	   in	   the	   province	   (BC	  Stats,	  2015)	  (Statistics	  Canada,	  2015).	  	  The	  median	  individual	  income	  in	  Squamish	  in	  2011	  was	  $33,022	   CAD	   -­‐-­‐	   higher	   than	   provincial	   and	   national	  averages.	   However,	   4,265	   (32%)	   of	   the	   citizens	   live	  below	  the	  federally	  defined	  poverty	  line,	  defined	  as	  60%	  of	   the	   municipality’s	   median	   income.	   Of	   those	  experiencing	   poverty,	   more	   than	   1,000	   Squamish	  residents	  experience	  extreme	  poverty,	  earning	  less	  than	  $5,000	   a	   year	   -­‐-­‐	   a	   social	   condition	   disproportionately	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  1	  Province of British Columbia generalized estimations	  experienced	   by	   women	   in	   a	   majority	   of	   Dissemination	  Areas.	   A	   distribution	   of	   incomes	   by	   tax	   bracket	   and	  binary	  gender	  distribution	  is	  offered	  in	  Figure	  3.	  	  	  	  	  The	  median	  household	  income	  (after	  taxes)	  reported	  in	  2011	  was	  $69,171.	  According	  to	  the	  Census	  designation	  for	   a	   semi-­‐urban	   community	   the	   size	   of	   Squamish,	  families	   earning	   less	   than	   $44,340	   after	   taxes	   for	   a	  family	  of	  4	  would	  be	  considered	  of	  Low	  Income	  Cut-­‐Off	  (LICO)	   status.	   Given	   this	   definition,	   over	   2,500	  households	  in	  Squamish	  are	  low-­‐income	  households	  and	  195	  households	   live	   in	   extreme	  poverty	   -­‐-­‐	   earning	   less	  than	  $5,000	  a	  year	  after	  taxes	  	  	  Squamish	   residents	   find	   a	   majority	   of	   employment	   in	  the	   public	   sector	   (18%)	   while	   Tourism	   (11%)	   and	  Construction	   (10%)	   remain	   other	   dominant	   sectors.	  Squamish	   is	   predominately	   young,	   with	   a	   median	   age	  36.8	   years	  old	  with	   a	  majority	  of	   the	  population	   in	   the	  25-­‐44-­‐age	   cohort.	   However,	   over	   the	   past	   decade,	   the	  proportion	  of	  the	  population	  under	  24	  has	  shrunk	  while	  those	  above	  45	  and	  65	  years	  old	  have	  grown,	  becoming	  a	   larger	   portion	   of	   the	   population.	   Looking	   forward	   to	  2031	  the	  trend	  of	  population	  cohorts	  is	  set	  to	  increase	  in	  the	  size	  of	  the	  population	  aged	  55-­‐64	  and	  over	  65	  years	  old	  (Statistics	  Canada,	  2011).	  	  	  4.2	  Social	  and	  Economic	  	  Mobilizing	  Resilience:	  A	  Disaster	  Resilience	  of	  Place	  Approach	  to	  IFHMP	  in	  Squamish	  British	  Columbia	   23	  	  	   	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  Source:	  2011	  NHS	  Census	  Data	  (Statistics	  Canada,	  2015)	  	  545	  375	  415	  425	  645	   865	  615	  515	  1,115	  470	  645	  345	  300	  465	  485	  860	  565	  1,050	   1,105	  700	  375	  450	  160	  115	  80	  35	  0	   200	   400	   600	   800	   1000	   1200	   1400	   1600	   1800	   2000	  Under	  $5,000	  $5,000	  to	  $9,999	  $10,000	  to	  $14,999	  $15,000	  to	  $19,999	  $20,000	  to	  $29,999	  $30,000	  to	  $39,999	  $40,000	  to	  $49,999	  $50,000	  to	  $59,999	  $60,000	  to	  $79,999	  $80,000	  to	  $99,999	  $100,000	  and	  over	  $100,000	  to	  $124,999	  $125,000	  and	  over	  Number	  of	  Persons	  Income	  Group	  Figure	  3:	  Income	  Distribution	  By	  Income	  Group	  and	  Gender	  	  Males	  Females	  	  Mobilizing	  Resilience:	  A	  Disaster	  Resilience	  of	  Place	  Approach	  to	  IFHMP	  in	  Squamish	  British	  Columbia	   24	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  Source:	  2011	  NHS	  Census	  Data	  (Statistics	  Canada,	  2015)	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  195	  100	  275	  320	  415	   715	  645	  530	  1,015	  950	  1,470	  660	  810	  0	   200	   400	   600	   800	   1000	   1200	   1400	   1600	  Under	  $5,000	  $5,000	  to	  $9,999	  $10,000	  to	  $14,999	  $15,000	  to	  $19,999	  $20,000	  to	  $29,999	  $30,000	  to	  $39,999	  $40,000	  to	  $49,999	  $50,000	  to	  $59,999	  $60,000	  to	  $79,999	  $80,000	  to	  $99,999	  $100,000	  and	  over	  $100,000	  to	  $124,999	  $125,000	  and	  over	  Number	  Of	  Households	  Income	  Group	  Figure	  4:	  Household	  Income	  Distribution	  	  Mobilizing	  Resilience:	  A	  Disaster	  Resilience	  of	  Place	  Approach	  to	  IFHMP	  in	  Squamish	  British	  Columbia	   25	  	  	  	  Source:	  Assembled	  from	  2011	  NHS	  Census	  Data	  	  	  	  	  	  	  (Statistics	  Canada,	  2015)	  	  	  A	   majority	   of	   Squamish	   residents	   own	   their	   homes.	  However,	   42%	   of	   Squamish	   residents	   rent.	   Of	   these,	  54.3%	  of	  them	  spend	  more	  than	  30%	  of	  their	  household	  income	   on	   housing.	   	   Affordable	   housing	   in	   British	  Columbia	  is	  defined	  as	  “rent	  costing	  no	  more	  than	  30%	  of	  a	   household’s	   total	   gross	   monthly	   income,	   subject	   to	   a	  minimum	  rent	  that	  tenants	  will	  be	  asked	  to	  pay	  based	  on	  the	  number	  of	  persons	   living	   in	   the	  home”	  (BC	  Housing,	  2015)	  	  In	   2014,	   Squamish	   reported	   a	   0.3%	   rental	   vacancy	   rate	  (Canada	  Mortgage	  and	  Housing	  Corporation,	  2014).	  Low	  vacancy	   rates	   have	   been	   shown	   to	   correlate	   with	   a	  difficulty	   for	   communities	   to	   recover	   from	   floods	   and	  other	   natural	   disaster	   events	   as	   the	   availability	   of	  temporary	   and	   permanent	   housing	   generally	   is	   limited	  by	  their	  pre-­‐impact	  supply	  in	  and	  near	  the	  impact	  area	  of	  a	  disaster	  flood	  event	  (National	  Research	  Council,	  2006).	  Such	  problems	  may	  be	  more	  prevalent	   in	   lower-­‐income	  groups	   that	   have	   few	   alternative	   resources	   and	   when	  most	   members	   of	   an	   extended	   family	   live	   in	   the	   same	  affected	   community	   (Sen,	   1981)(National	   Research	  Council,	   2006).	   Squamish	   is	   currently	   experiencing	   a	  near	   zero	   percent	   vacancy	   rate	   and	   there	   was	   no	  recorded	  increase	  in	  housing	  rental	  stock	  between	  2013	  and	   2014	   (Canada	   Mortgage	   and	   Housing	   Corporation,	  2014).	  This	  data	  is	  collected	  at	  the	  municipal	  scale	  rather	  than	   Dissemination	   Area	   level,	   but	   has	   implications	   for	  those	   impacted	   and	   displaced	   by	   a	   flood	   hazard	   event.	  This	  is	  a	  key	  factor	  to	  monitor	  mitigation	  and	  recovery	  in	  disaster	   resilience	   and	   emergency	   planning.	   	   Table	   1	  illustrates	   Squamish	   vacancy	   rates	   by	   housing	   type	   in	  relation	  to	  provincial	  averages.	  	  5.0000	  	   3.0000	  	   1.0000	  	   1.0000	  	   3.0000	  	   5.0000	  	  95-­‐99	  94-­‐90	  85-­‐89	  80-­‐84	  75-­‐79	  70-­‐74	  65-­‐69	  60-­‐64	  55-­‐59	  50-­‐54	  45-­‐49	  40-­‐44	  35-­‐39	  30-­‐34	  25-­‐39	  20-­‐24	  15-­‐19	  10-­‐14	  5-­‐9	  0-­‐4	  Percentage	  of	  Population	  Age	  Group	  Figure	  5:	  Population	  Distribution	  in	  Squamish	  %	  Male	   %	  Female	  	  Mobilizing	  Resilience:	  A	  Disaster	  Resilience	  of	  Place	  Approach	  to	  IFHMP	  in	  Squamish	  British	  Columbia	   26	  Table	  1.	  Housing	  Vacancy	  Rate	  Trends	  for	  Private	  Townhouses	  and	  Apartments	  	  Housing	  Type	  Vacancy	  Rates	  (%)	  in	  2013	  	  Vacancy	  Rates	  (%)	  in	  2014	  	  Squamish	  	   	  	  5.6	  	  	  	  0.3	  	  	  British	  Columbia	  Average	  	  	  3.5	  	   	  2.5	  	  (Canada	  Mortgage	  and	  Housing	  Corporation,	  2014)	  	  While	   rental	   housing	   can	   be	   difficult	   to	   secure,	   some	  Squamish	   residents	   remain	   without	   any	   housing	  arrangements,	   living	   in	  undeveloped	  plots	   of	   land	  near	  watercourses,	   on	   boats	   and	   in	   vehicles	   (Carter,	   2015).	  Local	   NGO	   Squamish	   Helping	   Hands	   Society	   reported	  more	   than	   200	   homeless	   persons	   during	   an	   annual	  count	  in	  2014	  -­‐	  1.13%	  of	  the	  total	  population.	  	  	  	  Squamish	   is	   an	   increasingly	   diverse	   society.	   While	  original	   settlers	   came	   from	   Europe	   during	   westward	  expansion,	   newcomers	   today	   are	   increasingly	   from	  other	  world	  regions	  with	  diverse	   linguistic	  and	  cultural	  backgrounds.	   While	   internal	   migration	   from	   other	  regions	   of	   Canada	   to	   is	   also	   common,	   over	   the	   past	  decade	   1,000	  migrants	   have	   arrived	   to	   the	   valley	   from	  overseas	   -­‐-­‐	  most	   notably	   South	  Asia.	   A	  majority	   of	   this	  migration	   has	   occurred	   in	   the	   past	   5	   years.	  Communication,	   integration	   and	   social	   connectivity	   of	  these	   new	   residents	   -­‐-­‐	   in	   an	   area	   of	   predominately	  English	   and	   French	   speakers	   –	   may	   prove	   difficult,	  especially	   for	   the	   147	   people	   (8	   %	   of	   the	   population)	  who	  do	  not	  speak	  an	  official	  Canadian	  language	  at	  home	  (Statistics	  Canada,	  2015).	   	  This	  has	   real	   implications	   in	  flood	   risk	   management	   and	   emergency	   management	  communications.	  	  	  Ethnic	  backgrounds	  and	  religious	  affiliations	  provide	  an	  unique	   understanding	   of	   household	   worldviews	   of	  natural	   hazards,	   environmental	   management	   and	  climatic	   change(Norris,	   Stevens,	  Pfefferbaum,	  Wyche,	  &	  Pfefferbaum,	   2008)	   (Oliver-­‐Smith	   &	   Hoffman,	   2002).	  	  Figures	  6	  and	  7	  offer	  a	  composition	  of	  these	  elements.	  While	   the	   European	   ethnic	   descent	   remains	   dominant,	  recent	  trends	  in	  South	  Asian	  populations	  (Punjab	  Region	  of	   India	   and	   the	  Philippines)	  must	  be	  noted.	   Further,	   a	  significant	   number	   of	   Squamish	   residents	   do	   not	  subscribe	   to	   a	   major	   religion	   while	   Christian	   and	   Sikh	  retain	   the	   two	   largest	   groups	   of	   religious	   followers.	  	  	  These	   social,	   cultural,	   religious	   and	   linguistic	  characteristics	   are	   critical	   to	   recognize	   and	   address	   in	  plan	   creation,	   public	   engagement	   and	   implementation	  that	  meets	  resident	  values	  perception	  and	  worldview	  of	  risk	  and	  flood	  hazard	  management.	  	  	  Mobilizing	  Resilience:	  A	  Disaster	  Resilience	  of	  Place	  Approach	  to	  IFHMP	  in	  Squamish	  British	  Columbia	   27	  	  Figure	  6:	  Ethnic	  Origins	  British	  Isles	  Western	  European	  West	  Central	  Asian	  and	  Middle	  Eastern	  Asia	  Eastern	  European	  French	  Southern	  European	  Northern	  European	  South	  Asian	  East	  and	  Southeast	  Asian	  First	  Nations	  Metis	  Other	  European	  	  Latin	  Japan	  Oceania	  Chinese	  South	  and	  East	  Africa	  North	  African	  Caribbean	  Figure	  7:	  Religious	  Afiiliation	  No	  religious	  afiiliation	  Christian	  Catholic	  Other	  Christian	  Anglican	  Sikh	  United	  Church	  Baptist	  Buddhist	  Lutheran	  Jewish	  Pentecostal	  Hindu	  Presbyterian	  Other	  religions	  Muslim	  Christian	  Orthodox	  Traditional	  (Aboriginal)	  Spirituality	  Source:	  Assembled	  from	  2011	  NHS	  Census	  Data	  (	  Statistics	  Canada,	  2015)	  	  	  Mobilizing	  Resilience:	  A	  Disaster	  Resilience	  of	  Place	  Approach	  to	  IFHMP	  in	  Squamish	  British	  Columbia	   28	  	  Estuaries	   in	   the	   Howe	   sound	   region	   are	   key	   green	  infrastructure	  assets	  -­‐-­‐	  providing	  up	  to	  	  $84,000	  CAD	  per	  hectare	   yearly	   2 	  in	   disturbance	   regulation	   to	   flood	  events	   (Molnar,	   2015).	   The	   935-­‐acre	   Skwelwil’em	  Squamish	   Estuary	   and	   Management	   Area	   provides	  critical	   riverine	   and	   coastal	   flood	   disturbance	   services.	  As	  a	  largely	  intact	  estuarine	  salt	  marsh	  and	  forest	  is	  the	  primary	   existing	   ecosystem	   service	   to	   coastal	   flooding	  for	   the	   District	   of	   Squamish.	   	   Containing	   aquatic,	  estuarine	  and	  terrestrial	  environs	  it	  accounts	  for	  96	  per	  cent	   of	   estuarine	   habitat	   in	   the	   Howe	   sound	   area	   –	  providing	   spawning	   habitat	   and	   food	   for	   the	  migrating	  anadromous	   (fresh	   water	   spawning)	   fish	   populations	  and	   is	   the	   biodiversity	   “hot	   spot”	   in	   the	   District	   (BC	  Ministry	   of	   Environment,	   2007)	   (Molnar,	   2015).	  	  	  Half	  of	  the	  extent	  of	  the	  Skwelwil’em	  Squamish	  Estuary	  is	   protected	   from	   development	   as	   part	   of	   a	   wildlife	  management	   planning	   area.	   Land	   use	   in	   this	   area	   is	  restricted	   to	   preserving	   habitat	   and	   biodiversity	   and	  recreational	  uses.	  Land	  use	  is	  guided	  by	  a	  2007	  plan	  and	  is	  co-­‐implemented	  between	  the	  District	  of	  Squamish	  and	  the	  Squamish	  First	  Nation	  (BC	  Ministry	  of	  Environment,	  2007).	  	  Outside	  of	  this	  area,	  urban	  settlement,	  industrial	  development,	   deforestation	   has	   reduced	   the	   extent	   of	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  2	  A	  benefit transfer valuation approach was used using avoided cost, replacement cost and hedonic pricing methods  	  the	   forest,	   altering	   the	   form,	   function	   and	   protection	  that	  the	  estuary	  provides	  the	  downtown	  area.	  	  Estuaries	   and	   bays,	   coastal	   wetlands,	   headlands,	   sea	  grass	   beds,	   rock	   reefs	   and	   kelp	   forests	   provide	  protection	   from	   storms,	   storm	   surges,	   tsunamis	   and	  other	  disturbances.	  These	  ecosystems	  are	  able	  to	  absorb	  and	   store	   large	   amounts	   of	   rainwater	   or	   flood	   runoff	  during	   a	   storm	   event.	   	   Further,	   in	   studies	   of	   estuary	  function	   in	   flood	   events,	   the	   debris	   and	   salt	   marsh	  canopies	  has	  been	  observed	  to	  reduce	  wave	  height	  of	  up	  to	  50%	  over	  the	  first	  10–20	  m	  (Möller,	  2006).	  Estuarine	  ecosystems	  with	   intact	   vegetation	   -­‐-­‐	   as	   in	  much	   of	   the	  Squamish	   estuary	   -­‐-­‐	  are	   also	   important	   for	   absorbing	  floodwaters	   during	   storm	   surge	   and	   are	   especially	  important	   in	   smaller	   more	   frequent	   flood	   events	   (L.A.	  Leonard	  &	  Reed,	  2012).	  	  	  Estuarine	  environments	  play	  a	  key	  role	  in	  protecting	  the	  most	  vulnerable	  populations	  in	  local	  society.	  Across	  the	  north	   American	   continent,	   intact	   coastal	   ecosystems	  adjacent	  to	  socially	  vulnerable	  neighborhoods	  have	  been	  found	   to	   reduce	   the	   exposure	   of	   populations	   by	   up	   to	  50%	   (Arkema,	   2013).	   Using	   these	   regional	   estimations	  for	   ecosystem	   services	   that	   regulate	   flood	   disturbance	  and	   its	   current	   extent,	   the	   Skwelwil’em	   Squamish	  Estuary	   Management	   Area	   delivers	   up	   to	   $284	  million	   in	   disturbance	   regulation	   services	   to	   the	  District	  yearly.	  	  The	   Skwelwil’em	   Squamish	   estuary	   management	   area	  includes	   all	   major	   coastal	   and	   intertidal	   ecosystems.	  However,	   estuary,	   salt	   marsh	   wetlands	   and	   estuarine	  forest	  are	  dominant.	  	  	  	  	  4.3	  Ecological	  Condition	  	  Mobilizing	  Resilience:	  A	  Disaster	  Resilience	  of	  Place	  Approach	  to	  IFHMP	  in	  Squamish	  British	  Columbia	   29	  	  	  Source:	   Reprinted	   unmodified	   under	   the	   permission	   of	   the	   David	  Suzuki	   Foundation	   (David	   Suzuki	   Foundation,	   2015)	  	  	  	  A	   complete	   table	   of	   ecosystem	   benefits	   in	   the	   Howe	  Sound	   by	   coastal	   asset	   area	   and	  monetary	   valuation	   is	  offered	   in	   Figure	   8.	   Knowing	   the	   market	   value	   of	  natural	   assets	   provides	   a	   useful	   in	   asserting	   accurate	  values	  of	  ecosystem	  function	  in	  flood	  hazard	  mitigation,	  ecosystem-­‐based	  adaptation	  and	  in	  making	  transparent	  decisions	  and	  tradeoffs	  in	  urban	  development.	  	  The	  Skwelwil’em	  Squamish	  Estuary	  contains	  a	  number	  of	  human	   alterations	   that	   have	   changed	   its	   function	   over	  time.	  An	   intact	   coastal	  estuary	  system	   	   -­‐-­‐	  with	  adequate	  vegetation,	   forest	   and	   large	   woody	   debris	   -­‐-­‐	   	   reduces	  coastal	   energy	   associated	   with	   surge,	   higher	   sea	   levels	  and	  intertidal	  flooding	  during	  mountain	  freshets	  from	  the	  Squamish	   River,	   reduces	   erosion	   and	   	   serve	   as	   buffer	  from	   storm	   surge	   from	   the	   Southern	   waters	   of	   Howe	  Sound.	  	  	  To	  date	   a	   detailed	   inventory	  of	   land/water	   cover	   at	   the	  hectare	   level	  and	  an	  ecosystem	  function	  assessment	  has	  not	   been	   completed	   for	   the	   estuary.	   This	   has	   been	  posited	   as	   a	   core	   monitoring	   and	   evaluation	   activity	   in	  the	   2007	   Skwelwil’em	   Squamish	   Estuary	   management	  area	  plan.	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  3	  Amounts	  are	  in	  Canadian	  Dollars	  for	  the	  year	  2014	  calculated	  using	  replacement	  values.	  	  	  	  	  	  Figure	  8.	  Coastal	  Ecosystem	  Benefits	  Valuation	  in	  the	  Howe	  Sound	  By	  Land/Water	  Feature	  	  	  	   	  Total	  value/year	  ($/yr)	  	  	  Value	  per	  hectare	  per	  year	  ($/ha/yr)	  	  Land/water	  	  cover	  type	  	  Low	   High	   Low	   High	  Beach	  	  $100,457	  	   $32,640,226	  	   $693	  	   $225,105	  	  Estuary	  	  $179,370	  	   $462,600	  	   $685	  	   $1,766	  	  Forest	  	  $682,526,262	  	   $1,599,254,118	  	   $5,045	  	   $11,820	  	  Lakes	  and	  	  Rivers	  	  $3,271,323	  	   $117,643,415	  	   $1,925	  	   $69,243	  	  Marine	  	  $102,005,609	  	   $2,811,105,944	  	   $715	  	   $19,712	  	  Riparian	  	  Buffer	  	  $3,979,334	  	   $156,128,608	  	   $945	  	   $37,085	  	  Wetlands	   $329,165	  	   $22,482,905	  	   $2,532	  	   $172,946	  	  	  Total	  3	   	  $792,544,295	   	  $4,740,284,637	  	  	  $36,044	  	  	  $624,880	  	  	  Mobilizing	  Resilience:	  A	  Disaster	  Resilience	  of	  Place	  Approach	  to	  IFHMP	  in	  Squamish	  British	  Columbia	   30	  	  While	   a	   complete	   inventory,	   ecological	   function	  assessment	   or	   its	   equivalent	   has	   not	   been	   completed,	   a	  few	  observations	  can	  be	  made	  using	  Proper	  Functioning	  Condition	  methodology	  and	  criteria	  developed	  by	  the	  US	  Department	   of	   Interior	   of	   the	  United	   States	   for	   riparian	  and	   intertidal	   watercourses.	   This	   offers	   a	   quantitative	  approach	  to	  gauge	  the	  quality	  of	  estuary	  function	  and	  can	  inform	  a	  more	  comprehensive	  analysis	  and	  inventory.	  	  	  Given	  the	  major	  reduction	  in	  the	  total	  area	  and	  notable	  industrial	   use	   and	   alteration	   historically	   the	  Skwelwil’em	   Squamish	   Estuary	   and	   surrounding	  unprotected	   areas	   contain	   some	   	   “at	   risk”	   areas	   in	  ecosystem	   function	   including	   areas	   of	   historical	  pollution,	   impediment	   and	   ongoing	   remediation	   (BC	  Ministry	   of	   Environment,	   2007).	   These	   are	   further	  outlines	  in	  Figure	  9.	  	  	  	  	  	  Mobilizing	  Resilience:	  A	  Disaster	  Resilience	  of	  Place	  Approach	  to	  IFHMP	  in	  Squamish	  British	  Columbia	   31	  	   	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  Sites:  1) Former garbage dump adjacent to Site A;  2) Mercury contamination site: a) Southeast portion of the WMA; b) Site A;  3) Old Dredge spoils pile in the Central Delta;  4) Log sort tenure in the Central Channel;  5) Squamish River training dyke. 1 KM  Squamish Downtown Core Figure	  9:	  Environmental	  Remediation	  Sites	  in	  the	  Skwelwil’em	  Squamish	  Estuary	  Management	  Area	  Satellite Imagery: Province of British Columbia, 2009	  	  Mobilizing	  Resilience:	  A	  Disaster	  Resilience	  of	  Place	  Approach	  to	  IFHMP	  in	  Squamish	  British	  Columbia	   32	  	  Image	  1:	  Aerial	  of	  	  Skwelwil’em	  Squamish	  Estuary	  and	  the	  Downtown	  Area	  Looking	  South	  	  	  	  Photo:	  Christopher	  J.	  Carter	  	  -­‐	  LightHawk	  Conservation	  Flying	  |	  Resilient	  Coasts	  UBC	  	  Mobilizing	  Resilience:	  A	  Disaster	  Resilience	  of	  Place	  Approach	  to	  IFHMP	  in	  Squamish	  British	  Columbia	   33	  	  	   Given	  the	  largest	  population	  and	  the	  highest	  population	  growth	   in	   the	   regional	   district	   and	   Howe	   Sound,	   the	  pressures	   of	   urbanization	   and	   industrial	   development	  on	  these	  ecosystem	  services	  is	  and	  will	  remain	  palpable.	  However,	   the	   long-­‐term	  value	   and	   irreplaceable	  nature	  of	   estuary	   areas	   will	   become	   more	   critical	   given	  expected	   increases	   in	   coastal	   flood	   events	   in	   Squamish	  (Kerr	  Wood	  Leidal,	  2015a).	  	  	  As	   the	   estuary	   has	   seen	   a	   recovery	   from	   the	   industrial	  activities	   of	   the	   early	   20th	   century,	   with	   schools	   of	  herring	   and	   the	   re-­‐opening	   of	   the	   commercial	   salmon	  fishery,	   the	   estuary	   remains	   only	   50	   percent	   of	   its	  original	  habitat	  extent	  (Molnar,	  2015).	  Looking	  forward	  there	   is	   opportunity	   to	   complete	   estuary	   reclamation	  using	   	  “Living	   shoreline”	   restorations	   or	   artificial	  structures	   that	   reduce	   erosion,	   promote	   native	   species	  and	  ecosystem	  functions	  that	  reduce	  flood	  impacts.	  This	  can	   compliment	   traditional	   grey	   infrastructure	   flood	  mitigation	   approaches	   and	   which	   has	   demonstrated	  lower	   environmental	   impacts,	   lifecycle	   costs	   and	  improved	   ecosystem	   services	   in	   global	   studies	   (United	  Nations	   Environment	   Programme,	   2014)	   .	   Preserving	  and	  improving	  the	  condition	  of	  these	  estuarine	  systems,	  which	   have	   evolved	   with	   the	   human	   settlement,	   will	  build	   socio-­‐ecological	   resilience	   to	   coastal	   flood	   risk	   in	  Squamish.	  	  Mobilizing	  Resilience:	  A	  Disaster	  Resilience	  of	  Place	  Approach	  to	  IFHMP	  in	  Squamish	  British	  Columbia	   34	  	  Figure	  10:	  Flood	  Risks	  In	  the	  Squamish	  	  Valley	  	   	  	  The total land area of the District of Squamish is 11,730 hectares (29,000 acres). At the head of Howe Sound, a steep fjord, Squamish is at sea level and terrain within the District boundaries rises to elevations of over 900 meters. At the confluence of major 6 mountain river systems (the Squamish, Mamquam, Cheakamus, Elaho, Ashlu and Stawamus), the Squamish Valley watershed is largest watershed originating in the Straight of Georgia region. As the IFHMP process must create both riverine and coastal flood risk management solutions -- illustrated in Figure 10 -- This analysis will focus solely on coastal flooding.  	  	   As	   human	   settlement	   in	   Squamish	   is	   prone	   to	   riverine	  flooding,	   coastal	   flooding,	   earthquakes,	   tsunami,	  liquefaction,	   landslide	   and	   debris	   flows,	   Squamish	   is	  often	   referred	   to	   as	   the	   “natural	   hazard	   capital”	   of	  Canada.	   The	   interaction	   between	   this	   geography	   of	  hazard	   and	   human	   exposure	   is	   tangible.	   	   In	   2003,	  Squamish	   experienced	   riverine	   and	   intertidal	   flooding	  that	  cost	  approximately	  $40	  million	  ($70	  million	  in	  2014	  dollars)	   to	   properties	   and	   displacing	   800	   people,	   no	  fatalities	  were	  reported	  (Gardner,	  2011).	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  Source:	  Reprinted	  unmodified	  with	  permission	  of	  the	  District	  Municipality	  of	  Squamish	  (District	  of	  Squamish,	  2014)	  	  4.4	  Geography	  of	  Coastal	  Flood	  Risk	  	  	  Mobilizing	  Resilience:	  A	  Disaster	  Resilience	  of	  Place	  Approach	  to	  IFHMP	  in	  Squamish	  British	  Columbia	   35	  	  The	   District	   faces	   probable	   and	   consequential	   coastal	  flood	  hazards.	  As	  200-­‐year	  flood	  events	  are	  the	  baseline	  for	   flood	   risk	  management	   planning	   and	   infrastructure	  design,	   recent	   KWL	  modeling	   of	   1:50	   year	   flood	   show	  considerable	   inundation	   (up	   to	   3	   m)	   to	   the	   largely	  unprotected	  down	  town.	  In	  December	  2014,	  recordings	  	  of	  tidal	  gates	  noted	  that	  coastal	  waters	  were	  0.1	  meters	  of	   topping	   Loggers	   Lane	   during	   a	   storm	   surge	   (Kerr	  Wood	  Leidal,	  20 15b.).	  	  	   A	  majority	  of	  human	  settlement	  today	  sits	  on	  the	  valley	  on	  a	   river	  delta,	  an	  area	  subject	   to	   freshet	   flood	  events	  fed	   by	   heavy	   rain,	  mountain	   runoff	   and	   glaciers.	  While	  settlement	   in	   flood	  prone	  areas	  has	  decreased	  over	   the	  past	  15	  years,	  7,440	  residents	  today	  remain	  living	  on	  the	  flood	  plain,	  exposed	  to	  riverine	  and	  coastal	  flood	  hazard	  (Ebbwater,	  2015;	  Journeay,	  M.	  J.,	  2011)	  .	  Smaller,	  lower-­‐elevation	  watersheds	   create	   precipitation-­‐based	   floods,	  while	   snowmelt	   and	   glacial	   runoff	   plays	   a	   more	  significant	   role	   for	   the	   larger,	   higher-­‐elevation	  watersheds.	  	  	  All	   historical	   coastal	   inundation	   events	   to	   date	   have	  occurred	   during	   September	   to	   December	   period	   when	  some	   of	   the	   largest	   storm	   surges	   and	   when	  temperatures	   are	  warm	   enough	   that	   precipitation	   falls	  as	  rain	  throughout	  the	  elevation	  in	  the	  five	  watersheds.	  	  The	   Cheakamus	   and	   Mamquam	   rivers,	   mostly	   fed	   by	  snowmelt	  runoff	  are	  the	  largest	  of	  the	  5	  rivers	  draining	  an	  area	  3700	  km2.	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  The	   Squamish	   river	   system	   reaches	   a	   maximum	  discharge	  of	  760	  m3/s	   in	   the	  early	  summer.	  Figure	   11	  illustrates	   hydrographs	   of	   the	   three	   gauged	   rivers	  (Squamish,	  Stawamus	  and	  Cheakamus)	  individually	  and	  median	   high	   water	   levels	   observed	   at	   Point	   Atkinson.	  The	  highest	  recorded	  peak	  flows	  in	  this	  watershed	  were	  2100	  m3/s.	  	  	   During	   these	   events	   river	   freshets	   due	   to	   early	   thaws	  have	  interacted	  with	  high	  tides	  to	  create	  major	  intertidal	  flood	   events,	   inundating	   the	   downtown	   area	   with	   1.5	  meters	   of	   water	   about	   every	   16	   years.	   Figure	   12	  provides	   an	   overview	   of	   historic	   flooding	   and	   flood	  planning	  events.	  Driven	  by	  these	  major	  river	  flows	  from	  the	   Squamish	   watershed,	   the	   Howe	   Sound	   has	   an	  “estuarine-­‐type”	   surface	   circulation,	   first	   creating	   an	  eddy	   at	   the	  mouth	   of	   Squamish	   river	   before	  making	   a	  major	  push	  south	  towards	  the	  Straight	  of	  Georgia,	  their	  rate	   greatly	   impacted	   by	   local	   diurnal	   and	   inlet	   wind	  currents	  (Department	  of	  Fisheries	  and	  Oceans,	  2014).	  	  	  	  	  Mobilizing	  Resilience:	  A	  Disaster	  Resilience	  of	  Place	  Approach	  to	  IFHMP	  in	  Squamish	  British	  Columbia	   36	  	  	  Source:	  Assembled	  from	  Department	  of	  	  Fisheries	  and	  Oceans	  hydrographic	  and	  tidal	  monitoring	  data.	  4	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  4	  1991	  to	  2012	  timeframe	  reflects	  data	  availability	  of	  all	  sources	  for	  a	  shared	  timeframe	  	  	  2.60	  2.70	  2.80	  2.90	  3.00	  3.10	  3.20	  3.30	  3.40	  3.50	  3.60	  0	  50	  100	  150	  200	  250	  300	  350	  400	  450	  500	  January	  	   February	  	   March	  	   April	  	   May	  	   June	  	   July	  	   August	  	   September	  	  October	  	   November	  December	  Meters	  Cubic	  Meters	  	  Per	  Second	  Figure	  11:	  Monthly	  Average	  River	  Flows	  and	  Tidal	  Level	  in	  Squamish	  1991-­‐2012	  	  	  Squamish	  River	  	   Cheakamus	  River	   Stawamus	  River	   Howe	  Sound	  	  Mobilizing	  Resilience:	  A	  Disaster	  Resilience	  of	  Place	  Approach	  to	  IFHMP	  in	  Squamish	  British	  Columbia	   37	  (Department	  of	  Fisheries	  and	  Oceans,	  2014)	  	   	   	  Figure	  12	  :	  Timeline	  of	  Coastal	  and	  Intertidal	  Flooding	  Events	  and	  Hazard	  Management	  Planning	  	  December	  1932	  Howe	  Sound	  coastal	  vlooing	  overtops	  the	  sea	  dike	  vlooding	  Downtown	  Squamish	  	  October	  1940	  Squamish	  River	  vloods	  causing	  evacuations	  in	  Brackendale	  and	  Downtown	  December	  1951	  Overtopping	  of	  the	  seadike	  in	  Downtown	  December	  1967	  	  Sea	  dike	  was	  overtopped	  and	  Downtown	  Squamish	  Floods	  August	  1991	  Flooding	  of	  Squamish	  Chekamus	  and	  Cheekye	  Rivers	  vlood	  15	  houses	  on	  Chekamus	  I.R.	  No.11	  and	  wash	  out	  access	  road	  to	  Paradise	  Valley	  October	  1994	  Flood	  Hazard	  Management	  Plan	  Written	  but	  not	  legislated	  October	  2003	  50	  year	  vlood	  in	  the	  Cheakamus	  (369	  mm	  in	  4	  days)	  cause	  district	  evacuations	  and	  damage	  BC	  rail	  line.	  Dikes	  were	  not	  overtopped.	  	  September	  2014	  Integrated	  Flood	   Hazard	  Management	  Planning	  begins	  	  Mobilizing	  Resilience:	  A	  Disaster	  Resilience	  of	  Place	  Approach	  to	  IFHMP	  in	  Squamish	  British	  Columbia	   38	  Source:	  Assembled	  from	  Journeay,	  M.	  J.,	  2011;	  Kerr	  Wood	  Leidal,	  2015a	  	  	  Industrial,	  commercial	  and	  residential	  development	  has	  taken	   place	   largely	   on	   the	   valley	   floor	   and	   it	   has	   been	  estimated	   that	   historically,	   75%	   of	   the	   population	   has	  lived	  in	  flood	  hazard	  prone	  areas	  (District	  of	  Squamish,	  1994).	  While	  settlement	  in	  these	  areas	  has	  decreased	  in	  the	   past	   40	   years,	   to	   upland	   areas	   such	   as	   Garibaldi	  heights	   and	   Valleycliffe,	   in	   2011	   an	   estimated	   7,477	  people	   remain	   living	   in	   the	   floodplain	   (Journeay,	   M.	   J.,	  2011)	  (Ebbwater,	  2015).	  	  	  	  Two-­‐thirds	   of	   the	   world’s	   coastal	   disasters	   every	   year	  are	   associated	   with	   extreme	   weather	   events,	   such	   as	  storms	   and	   flooding.	   Given	   climate	   modeling	  synthesized	   in	   5	   IPCC	   reports	   we	   understand	   that	  coastal	   hazard	   and	   disasters	   will	   become	   more	  pervasive	  due	  to	  anthropogenic	  shifts	  in	  Earth’s	  climate	  and	   sea	   level	   rise	   (Adger,	   Hughes,	   Folke,	   Carpenter,	   &	  Rockström,	   2005).	   Historical	   accounts	   of	   natural	  hazards	   in	   the	   Squamish	   Valley	   reveal	   that	   the	   most	  frequent	   threats	  are	   those	   triggered	  by	  severe	  weather	  events	  most	  notably	  four	  coastal	  flood	  events	  caused	  by	  high	  wind	  and	  storm	  surge	  from	  the	  Howe	  sound	  which	  led	  to	  inundation	  of	  the	  downtown	  area.	  Situated	  at	  the	  mouth	   these	   five	   rivers	   delta,	   river	   sediments	   advance	  the	   Squamish	   River	   Delta	   into	   the	   head	   of	   the	   fjord	   -­‐-­‐	  advancing	  as	  much	  as	  front	  as	  much	  as	  7	  meters	  yearly.	  This	  creates	  a	  steep	  bottom	  slope	  seaward	  into	  the	  steep	  fjord	   which	   may	   effect	   wave	   height	   run	   up	   in	   storm	  surge	   or	   tsunami	   events(Department	   of	   Fisheries	   and	  Oceans,	  2013).	  	  Due	   to	   its	   location	   at	   the	   head	   of	   Howe	   sound,	   strong	  winds	  or	  “Squamishes”	  can	  interact	  with	  coastal	  flooding,	  lasting	   for	   3	   -­‐	   5	   days	   with	   wind	   speeds	   frequently	  reaching	   15-­‐30	   m/s	   (30	   to	   60	   knots).	   This	   effect	   can	  amplify	  wave	  action	  and	  total	  water	   level	  during	  coastal	  flooding.	   Further,	   Squamish	   experiences	   some	   of	   the	  strongest	  diurnal	  winds	  in	  the	  Georgia	  Strait,	  most	  often	  during	  high-­‐pressure	  systems.	  This	  is	  dominated	  half	  the	  time	  by	  a	  powerful	  southern	  sea	  breezes	  blowing	  up	  the	  Squamish	  Valley.	  This	  is	  caused	  by	  the	  heating	  of	  the	  land	  and	  water	  during	  the	  day	  with	  wind	  speeds	  recorded	  20	  m/s.	   Less	   powerful	   land	   breezes	   occur	   from	   the	   north	  during	   the	   night	   as	   mountain	   land	   masses	   cool	  (Department	  of	  Fisheries	  and	  Oceans,	  2013.)	  	  	  Given	   a	   warming	   of	   global	   temperatures	   and	   relative	  rise	  in	  seas,	  the	  Strait	  of	  Georgia	  is	  already	  experiencing	  a	   1.7mm	   rise	   yearly	   (Fisheries	   and	   Oceans	   Canada.	  2008).	  As	  local	  effects	  such	  as	  land	  subsidence	  effect	  the	  local	   effects	   of	   mean	   Sea	   Level	   Rise,	   Squamish	   is	  expected	  to	  experience	  between	  a	  rise	  of	   .38	  to	   .59m	  in	  High	   High	   Water	   Levels	   by	   2100	   depending	   on	   global	  climate	  scenarios	  (James	  et	  al.,	  2014).	  This	  is	  illustrated	  at	   the	   human	   scale	   in	   Figure	   13.	   	   Further,	   flooding	  regimes	   will	   experience	   a	   shift	   towards	   higher	   water	  levels	  and	  sharper	  peak	  flows	  during	  storms	  and	  earlier	  spring	   freshet	   events,	   storm	   surge	   events	   traditionally	  experienced	   during	   the	  winter	  months	   are	   expected	   to	  intensify	   (The	   Arlington	   Group,	   2010).	   	   The	   tides	   in	  Squamish	   are	   very	   similar	   in	   size	   and	   timing	   to	   the	  Vancouver	  area	  with	  mean	  range	  of	  3.2	  m	  and	  the	  large	  tide	  range	  of	  4.9m	  (Department	  of	  Fisheries	  and	  Oceans,	  2015).	  	  	  	  Mobilizing	  Resilience:	  A	  Disaster	  Resilience	  of	  Place	  Approach	  to	  IFHMP	  in	  Squamish	  British	  Columbia	   39	  	  	  	  Figure	  13.	  Squamish	  Sea	  Level	  Rise	  Estimations	  and	  the	  Human	  Scale	  	  	   	  	  	  	  100	  Cm	  (1m)	  -­‐	  Provincial	  Build	  Guidelines	  58	  Cm	  –	  Relative	  SLR	  Prediction	  in	  Vancouver	  Area	  in	  high	  emission	  scenario	  	  	  Mobilizing	  Resilience:	  A	  Disaster	  Resilience	  of	  Place	  Approach	  to	  IFHMP	  in	  Squamish	  British	  Columbia	   40	  	   	  4.5	  Institutional	  	  Given	   the	   risk	  management,	   public	   safety	   and	   land	  use	  impact	   of	   a	   flood	   management	   plan,	   Federal	   and	  Provincial	   legislation	   including	   the	   Local	   Government	  Act,	   Community	   Charter,	   Land	   Title	   Act,	   Dike	  Maintenance	  Act	  and	  Emergency	  Management	  Act	  apply.	  	  	  	  It	  is	  important	  to	  recognize	  that	  the	  District	  Municipality	  has	   been	   handed	   down	   the	   statutory	   obligation	   to	  consider	  appeals	  to	  any	  flood-­‐proofing	  requirement.	  As	  such	  the	  District	   is	  responsible	  with	  the	  preparation	  of	  plans	  and	  strategies	   to	  meet	   complex	  hazards	   in	   the	  Squamish	   Valley.	   How	   local	   planning	   and	   political	  institutions	  deal	  with	  the	  complexity	  and social context	  of	  flood	   risk	   is	   a	   critical	   capacity	   consideration	   in	   risk	  management	   and	   must	   be	   accounted	   for	   in	   IFHMP	  creation	  (Kasperson	  &	  Kasperson,	  1996).	  	  	  Currently	  the	  existing	  flood	  risk	  plan,	  written	  in	  1994,	  is	  being	  updated	  as	  part	  of	   the	  district’s	   Integrated	  Flood	  Hazard	  Management	  Plan	  (IFHMP)	  process.	  Much	  as	  the	  1994	  plan	  chose	  to	  “protect”	  human	  settlement	  to	  river	  and	   coastal	   flooding,	   the	   current	   IFHMP	   continues	   to	  pursue	   this	   same	   paradigm	   of	   coastal	   adaptation,	  especially	   in	   the	   downtown	   area.	   Accommodation	   of	  sea-­‐level	   rise	   has	   been	   considered	   and	   certain	   core	  services	  (including	  city	  hall)	  have	  been	  recommended	  to	  be	   moved	   upland,	   given	   coastal	   flood	   concerns	   (Kerr	  Wood	  Leidal,	  2015b).	  	  	  The	  current	  Squamish	  OCP	  and	  IFHMP	  planning	  process	  aims	  to	  manage	  water	  resources	  at	  the	  watershed	  scale	  in	   partnership	   with	   indigenous	   and	   other	   regional	  districts	   and	   municipalities	   guided	   by	   protocol	  agreements	  and	  regional	  planning	  principles.	  Figure	  14	  illustrates	   the	  extent	  of	   the	  Squamish	  Valley	  watershed	  in	  relation	  to	  political	  boundaries.	  To	  date	  there	  has	  not	  been	  a	  sea	  level	  rise	  strategy,	  or	  climate	  adaptation	  plan	  completed.	   However	   a	   Hazard	   Vulnerability	   Risk	  Assessment	   (HVRA)	   and	   Comprehensive	   Community	  Emergency	  Plan	  are	  underway.	  	  While	   the	   1994	   flood	   hazard	   management	   plan	   in	   the	  following	   analyses	   presents	   non-­‐structural	   provisions	  such	  as	  restrictive	  covenants	  and	  zoning	  provisions	  the	  plan	   itself	   was	   not	   ratified	   and	   Flood	   Construction	  Levels	  (FCL)	  are	  out	  of	  date	  (District	  of	  Squamish,	  2014).	  	  Further,	  the	  2031	  Official	  Community	  Plan	  lacks	  natural	  hazards	   or	   adaptation	   strategies	   for	   coastal	   flood	  risks(District	  Municipality	  of	  Squamish,	  2009).	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  Mobilizing	  Resilience:	  A	  Disaster	  Resilience	  of	  Place	  Approach	  to	  IFHMP	  in	  Squamish	  British	  Columbia	   41	  	  Figure	  14:	  	  The	  Squamish	  Watershed	  and	  Institutional	  Boundaries	  	  	  Mobilizing	  Resilience:	  A	  Disaster	  Resilience	  of	  Place	  Approach	  to	  IFHMP	  in	  Squamish	  British	  Columbia	   42	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  Today,	   the	   District	   Municipality	   of	   Squamish	   does	   not	  have	   a	   floodplain	   bylaw	   or	   stand	   alone	   Development	  Permit	   Area	   designation	   for	   areas	   prone	   to	   coastal	  flooding	   (District	   Municipality	   of	   Squamish,	   2009)	   .	  Zoning	   setbacks	   from	   rivers	   and	   sensitive	   areas	   have	  been	   implemented	   but	   are	   not	   consistent	   across	  properties.	   Flood	   hazard	   management	   activities	   of	   the	  district	  have	  been	  exclusively	  structural.	  	  	  Since	   1994,	   the	   District	   Municipality	   has	   completed	  upgrades	  on	  all	  dikes,	  including	  construction/upgrade	  of	  sea	   dikes	   and	   drainage	   infrastructure	   and	   currently	  maintains	  19km	  of	  dikes	  with	  a	  dike	  volume	  of	  670,000	  cubic	   meters,	   4	   pump	   stations,	   9	   flood	   boxes	   and	   50	  gates	   (Public	   Works	   Asset	   Management	   Plan,	   2010).	  Current	  dyke	   infrastructure,	  mostly	   for	   riverine	  events,	  was	  built	   for	   a	  1	   in	  200-­‐year	   event	   (Kerr	  Wood	  Leidal,	  2015a).	  	  IFHMPs	   are	   typically	   updated	   every	   15	   years	   in	   the	  province	   of	   British	   Columbia.	   Their	   project	   scope	  includes	   a	   public	   engagement	   framework,	   intensive	  technical	   work	   program	   for	   river	   and	   coastal	   floods,	  technical	   working	   group	   workshops,	   presentations	   to	  District	  council,	  and	  three	  public	  open	  houses.	  A	  website	  [http://www.squamish.ca/yourgovernment/	   projects-­‐and-­‐initiatives/floodhazard/]	   is	   available	   as	   an	  electronic	   clearinghouse	   of	   storyboards,	   event	   records	  and	   current	   analyses	   (District	   of	   Squamish,	   2014c).Integrated	  Flood	  Hazard	  Management	  Planning:	  	  	  	  IFHMP	  manages	  risk	  and	  engages	  multiple	  stakeholders	  at	  watershed	  level.	  	  In	  line	  with	  international	  definitions	  of	  	  IFHMP	  best	  practice	  the	  District	  Municipality	  of	  Squamish	  should:	  	  1)	  Cooperate	  and	  coordinate	  across	  disciplinary	  and	  jurisdictional	  boundaries.	  	  2)	  Focus	  on	  participatory	  and	  transparent	  approaches	  to	  decision-­‐making;	  3)	  Manage	  water	  and	  land	  across	  the	  catchment	  as	  a	  whole	  and;	  4)	  Capture	  the	  range	  of	  perturbation	  including	  cycle,	  trend	  and	  unexplained	  variation.	  	  (Green,	  2003;	  Rasch,	  Ipsen,	  Malmgren-­‐Hansen,	  &	  Mogensen,	  2005).	  	  	  Mobilizing	  Resilience:	  A	  Disaster	  Resilience	  of	  Place	  Approach	  to	  IFHMP	  in	  Squamish	  British	  Columbia	   43	  	  	  Figure	  15:	  IFHMP	  	  Planning	  Timeline	  	  	  	   	   (District	  of	  Squamish,	  2014)	  Mobilizing	  Resilience:	  A	  Disaster	  Resilience	  of	  Place	  Approach	  to	  IFHMP	  in	  Squamish	  British	  Columbia	   44	  New	   flood	   infrastructure	   protection	   under	   the	   current	  "protect"	   strategy	  will	  mean	  major	   capital	   investments	  including	   dike	   upgrading,	   additional	   coastal	   dike	  alignments	   and	   operational	   costing	   to	   cover	  maintenance.	   These	   provisions	   address	   the	   likelihood	  but	  not	  consequences	  of	  flood	  hazard	  events.	  To	  reduce	  risk,	  structural	  hazard	  mitigation	  must	  be	  accompanied	  by	   reducing	   vulnerability	   of	   populations	   living	   behind	  said	  protective	   coastal	   infrastructure.	   	  This	   is	  based	  on	  an	  understanding	  that	  flood	  protection	  engineering	  is	  an	  inexact	  science	  that	  cannot	  completely	  eliminate	  the	  risk	  of	   structural	   failure	   and	   is	   dependent	   on	   continual	  inspection,	   performance	   monitoring	   in	   advance	   of	   and	  during	   large	   flow	  events	   (Ministry	   of	   the	  Environment,	  2011).	   Examples	   of	   dyke	   infrastructure	   failure	   during	  Hurricane	   Katrina	   in	   the	   US	   and	   previously	   unseen	  storm	   strength	   during	   Typhoon	   Haiyan	   in	   the	  Philippines	   further	   support	   planning	   institutions	   to	  address	   both	   hazard	   mitigation	   and	   vulnerability	  reduction	  in	  natural	  hazard	  mitigation	  planning.	  	  	  Flood	  mitigation	  activities	  in	  the	  past	  5	  years	  include:	  	  	  • Squamish	   River	   dike	   raising	   downstream	   of	   BC	  Rail	  bridge	  • Stability	  assessment	  of	  the	  Squamish	  River	  dike	  • Upper	   Squamish	   River	   Dike	   Erosion	   protection	  works	  • Sediment	   management	   at	   Cheekye	   River	   and	  Mamquam	  River	  • Repair	  of	  Squamish	  River	  dike	  sinkhole	  	  	  	  	  Today	   the	   District	   of	   Squamish	   finances	   and	   manages	  the	   infrastructure	   that	   must	   be	   considered	   in	   coastal	  flood	  hazard	  planning.	  	  In	  urbanizing	  coastal	  areas,	  flood	  loss	   and	   damage	   from	   dyke	   failure	   is	   amplified	   due	   to	  the	   accumulated	   value	   of	   adjacent	   property	   and	   the	  density	   of	   human	   settlement	   (Ramesh,	   2012).	   While	  providing	   efficient	   protection	   against	   low	   magnitude	  flooding,	  river	  and	  coastal	  dykes	  may	  fail	  under	  extreme	  water	   levels	   and	   long	   floods,	   future	   climatic	   change	   in	  precipitation,	  in	  mountain	  river	  peak	  flows	  and	  sea-­‐level	  rise	   (Ramesh,	   2012).	   	   Figure	   16	   below	   illustrates	  current	   flood	   infrastructure	   inventory	  while	  Figure	   17	  notes	   flood	   related	   infrastructure	   and	   land	   use	  designations	  in	  the	  District	  as	  of	  2015.	  	  	  Mobilizing	  Resilience:	  A	  Disaster	  Resilience	  of	  Place	  Approach	  to	  IFHMP	  in	  Squamish	  British	  Columbia	   45	  	  	  	  Figure	  16:	  District	  Municipality	  of	  Squamish	  	  Infrastructure	  Inventory	  	   Water	   Sanitary	   Waste	  Water	  Treatment	   Roads	   Drainage	   Flood	   Parks	  	  	  122	  km	  water	  mains	  	  24	  million/liters/day	  capacity	  	  105	  km	  sewer	  mains	  	  18	  lift	  stations	  	  21	  Million	  liters/day	  capacity	  	  137	  km	  paved	  road	   	  31	  km	  of	  storm	  sewer	  	  19	  km	  dykes	   	  244	  ha	  parkland	  	  	  Source:	  Public	  Works	  Asset	  Management	  Plan,	  2010	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  Mobilizing	  Resilience:	  A	  Disaster	  Resilience	  of	  Place	  Approach	  to	  IFHMP	  in	  Squamish	  British	  Columbia	   46	  Figure	  17:	  Waterways,	  Flood	  Infrastructure	  and	  Management	  in	  Squamish	  in	  2015	  	  Public Map ViewerThis map is a user generated static output from an Internet mapping site andis for reference only. Data layers that appear on this map may or may not beaccurate, current, or otherwise reliable.25,0001,250.0THIS MAP IS NOT TO BE USED FOR NAVIGATION1:NAD_1983_UTM_Zone_10NMeters0 625.00NotesEstuary, Coastal/Stormwater Pro and Settlement, HillShadeLegend1,250.0© District of SquamishEstuary OperationalSquamish EstuaryRemediation AreasManagement AreasWildlife Management AreaWildlife Management Covenant AreaSite B - Squamish NationPlanning AreasConservation Area Industrial / Commercial AreaPlanning Assesment AreaTransportation CorridorDitchStorm MainMainCBWatercourseDike CenterlineRip RapCrushEarthGravel 	  Mobilizing	  Resilience:	  A	  Disaster	  Resilience	  of	  Place	  Approach	  to	  IFHMP	  in	  Squamish	  British	  Columbia	   47	  	  	  5.0	  Approach	  //	   	  	  Mobilizing	  Resilience:	  A	  Disaster	  Resilience	  of	  Place	  Approach	  to	  IFHMP	  in	  Squamish	  British	  Columbia	   48	  5.1	  Building	  a	  Disaster	  Resilience	  of	  Place	  	  	  A	  Disaster	  Resilience	  of	  Place	  (DROP)	  is	  grounded	  in	  the	  core	  concept	   that	  social	  systems,	   the	  built	  environment	  and	   natural	   systems	   interact	   to	   create	   current	  conditions	   of	   vulnerability	   and	   resilience	   (Cutter,	   S.,	  Boruff,	  &	  Shirley,	  2003;	  Mileti,	  1999).	  	  	  	  The	   DROP	   concept	   has	   emerged	   in	   the	   work	   of	  vulnerability	   scholar	   Susan	   Cutter	   and	   other	   resilience	  planning	   practitioners	   -­‐-­‐	   informed	   by	   a	   shift	   in	  international	   disaster	   risk	   reduction	   away	   from	  response	   and	   towards	   reducing	   existing	   vulnerability	  (United	   Nations,	   2005)	   (Cutter,	   S.	   	   et.	   al	   2008).	   	   To	  reduce	   risk	   in	   Squamish,	   this	   analysis	   adopts	   the	   view	  that	   disaster	   resilience	   of	   place	   begins	   not	   only	   by	  addressing	  hazard	  events	  but	  also	  their	  interaction	  with	  social	  vulnerability	  –	  existing	  conditions	  -­‐-­‐	  and	  how	  well	  local	  government	  is	  engaged	  with	  reducing	  total	  risk.	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  Core	  concepts	  of	  DROP	  include:	  	  • Watershed	  scale	  planning	  • Ecosystem	  Service	  recognition	  • A	  Focus	  on	  Social	  Capital	  Focused	  • Transparent	  risk	  reduction	  • Institutional	  Networks	  and	  Social	  Learning	  • Diversified	  and	  Equitable	  Economies	  • Community	  Competence	  • Infrastructure	  Status	  	   Root	   causes	   of	   vulnerability	   interact	   with	   dynamic	  forces	   (i.e.	   decentralized	   risk	   management,	   urban	  development	   pressure	   etc.)	   and	   unsafe	   conditions	   (i.e.	  poverty	  and/or	  exposed	  old	  residential	  housing	  etc.)	   to	  produce	  community	  vulnerability.	  These	  vulnerabilities	  converge	  with	  flood	  hazard	  events	  to	  produce	  total	  risk,	  loss	  and	  damage	  across	  the	  disaster	  cycle	  (Figure	  18).	  	  	  The	   dynamic	   of	   progressive	   vulnerability	   and	   its	  interaction	   with	   coastal	   flood	   hazard	   is	   illustrated	   in	  detail	   as	   a	   Pressure	   and	   Release	   Model	   located	   in	  Appendix	  Item	  12.3.	  If	  the	  end	  goal	  is	  to	  build	  DROP,	  it	  is	   critical	   to	   address	   the	   underlying	   causes	   of	  vulnerability	   rather	   than	   allowing	   vulnerability	   to	  increase	   -­‐-­‐	   relying	   solely	   on	   proposed	   future	   flood	  protection	  works.	  	  	  To	  illustrate	  areas	  where	  Disaster	  Resilience	  of	  Place	  to	  coastal	   flood	   hazards	   can	   be	   built	   in	   Squamish,	   this	  report:	  	  	  1)	  Accounts	  for	  current	  social	  vulnerability	  spatially	  	  	  	  Mobilizing	  Resilience:	  A	  Disaster	  Resilience	  of	  Place	  Approach	  to	  IFHMP	  in	  Squamish	  British	  Columbia	   49	  2)	  Examines	  the	  interaction	  of	  social	  vulnerability	  with	  coastal	  flood	  events	  	  	  3)	  Examines	  the	  interaction	  of	  environmental	  buffers,	  human	  settlement	  and	  sea	  level	  rise;	  	  4)	  Evaluates	  the	  strength	  of	  current	  plans	  	  	  5)	  Illustrates	  how	  society	  can	  be	  better	  engaged	  in	  flood	  hazard	  planning	  and	  management.	  	  	  	  In	  choosing	  DROP	  is	  a	  desired	  outcome	  for	  flood	  hazard	  management	  and	  risk-­‐based	  planning,	  the	  District	  of	  Squamish	  must	  address	  the	  root	  conditions	  of	  vulnerability	  to	  hazard	  -­‐-­‐	  focusing	  on	  reducing	  vulnerability	  across	  the	  disaster	  cycle	  (Figure	  18).	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  Figure	  18.	  The	  Disaster	  Risk	  Cycle	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  Mitigation	  Preparation	  Event	  Emergency	  Response	  Recovery	  	  Mobilizing	  Resilience:	  A	  Disaster	  Resilience	  of	  Place	  Approach	  to	  IFHMP	  in	  Squamish	  British	  Columbia	   50	  	  Not	   all	   citizens	   or	   neighborhoods	   are	   created	   equal	   in	  exposure	  to	  coastal	  flood	  risk.	  This	  is	  strongly	  connected	  to	   existing	   and	   historical	   inequity,	   access	   to	   resources	  and	  other	  forms	  of	  social	  capital	  which	  alter	  the	  level	  of	  exposure	   to	   hazard	   (Cutter,	   S.	   et	   al.,	   2003).	   With	   this	  understanding,	   this	   analysis	   will	   define	   and	   assess	  vulnerability	   in	   Squamish	   as	   a	   condition	   actively	  produced	   and	   refined	   by	   socio-­‐political	   processes	   –	  which	  interact	  with	  flood	  hazard	  to	  produce	  risk.	  	  	  A	   social	   vulnerability	   approach	   often	   does	   not	   always	  account	   for	   physical	   flood	   risks	   but	   aims	   at	   addressing	  the	   root	   causes	  of	   inequity	   in	   exposure	  and	  propensity	  for	  loss.	  This	  approach	  recognizes	  power	  disparity,	  aims	  for	   citizen	  empowerment	   and	   is	   a	   valuable	   tool	   for	   the	  District	   of	   Squamish	   to	   involve	   citizen	   expertise,	  creativity	   and	   empowerment	   to	   make	   strategic	  decisions	   and	  more	   successfully	   implement	   flood	  plans	  (Burby,	   1999).	   Ultimately,	   reducing	   vulnerability	   will	  reduce	   loss	   and	   damage	   -­‐-­‐	   especially	   for	   those	   most	  exposed	   to	   coastal	   flooding.	   For	   the	   purpose	   of	   this	  assessment,	   social	   vulnerability	   was	   assessed	   as	   a	  linchpin	   to	   reducing	   loss	   across	   the	   disaster	   cycle.	   As	  Bolin	   (1993a:	   13)	   observes,	   the	   household	   and	  neighborhood	  scale	  is	  productive	  unit	  of	  analysis:	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  In	   line	   vulnerability	   study	   at	   small	   scales,	   quantitative	  	  	  Approaches	   to	   measures	   of	   Social	   Vulnerability	   offer	  repeatable	  and	  long-­‐term	  observation	  of	  risk	  reduction.	  This	   can	   improve	   planning	   effectiveness	   and	   increase	  transparency	  in	  the	  governance	  of	  risk.	  For	  this	  analysis	  a	   suite	   of	   statistical	   indicators	   at	   the	   Dissemination	  Areas	   level	  –-­‐	   the	   lowest	   level	  of	  census	  data	  collection	  in	   Squamish	   –	   were	   selected	   to	   offer	   spatial	  understanding	   of	   existing	   vulnerability	   before	   a	   flood	  event.	   Social	   Vulnerability	   does	   interact	   with	   physical	  flood	   hazard	   and	   for	   this	   analyses	   the	   interaction	   of	  social	  vulnerability	  and	  a	  200-­‐year	  storm	  surge	  are	  also	  offered	  to	  illustrate	  total	  risk	  and	  inundation.	  	  Social	   processes,	   perception	   and	   worldviews	   of	   the	  environmental	   hazard	   also	  produce	   social	   vulnerability	  –	   most	   notably	   influencing	   individual	   acceptance	   of	  exposure	   as	   well	   as	   action	   to	   warning	   signals	   (Oliver-­‐Smith	   &	   Hoffman,	   2002;	   Slovic,	   Kunreuther,	   &	   White,	  2000)(Gaillard	   et.	   al,	   2008).	   The	   dominant	   view	   of	  5.2	  Social	  Vulnerability	   [d]isasters can have a multiplicity of effects on a household, including physical losses to property, injury and/or death, loss of job or livelihood, disruption of social and personal relations, relocation of some or all members of a family, physical disruption or transformation of community and neighborhood, and increased household indebtedness. 	  	  Mobilizing	  Resilience:	  A	  Disaster	  Resilience	  of	  Place	  Approach	  to	  IFHMP	  in	  Squamish	  British	  Columbia	   51	  natural	   hazard	   frames	   floods	   and	   disasters	   as	   external	  forces,	  or	  “acts	  of	  god”	  that	  originate	  elsewhere,	  “out	  of	  the	   blue”	   and	   with	   equitable	   social	   impact.	   	   Such	  ideologies	  of	  disasters	  as	  external	  sources	  of	  destruction	  -­‐-­‐	   and	   a	   belief	   that	   the	   hazards	   can	   be	   controlled	   and	  settlement	  protected	  by	  human	   intervention-­‐-­‐	   lead	   to	  a	  perception	   of	   safety	   but	   often	   little	   risk	   reduction.	   The	  devastation	   experienced	   in	   “Natural”	   hazards	   often	  not	  natural	  at	  all,	  but	  rather	  the	  condition	  of	  the	  community,	  economy,	   infrastructure	   and	   environment	   before	   the	  event	  (Mileti,	  1999).	  	  	  	  While	   total	   risk	   is	   widely	   accepted	   as	   a	   function	   of	  hazard	  and	  vulnerability,	  governments	  worldwide	  often	  seek	   expensive	   geotechnical	   solutions	   to	   “protect”	  settlement	  from	  hazard	  while	  not	  effectively	  studying	  or	  addressing	   current	   vulnerability	   in	   natural	   hazards	  management	   planning	   -­‐	   institutions	   failing	   to	   do	   so	  ignore	  and	  exacerbate	  risk.	  This	  is	  often	  a	  ‘root	  cause’	  of	  social	   and	   physical	   vulnerability	   (Hewitt,	   1983).	   These	  beliefs	   alongside	   a	   popular	   narrative	   of	   a	   settler	  community	   battling	   for	   “Protection”	   in	   a	   flood	   prone	  areas	   reify	   hazard	   focused	   planning	   over	   vulnerability	  reduction.	   	   A	   complete	   dynamic	   model	   of	   progressive	  vulnerability	   with	   Squamish	   institutional	   and	   social	  considerations	  in	  is	  illustrated	  as	  a	  Pressure	  and	  Release	  (PAR)	  model	  in	  Appendix	  Item	  12.3.	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  Mobilizing	  Resilience:	  A	  Disaster	  Resilience	  of	  Place	  Approach	  to	  IFHMP	  in	  Squamish	  British	  Columbia	   52	  	  A	   term	  founded	   in	   the	   field	  of	  physics,	   resilience	  refers	  to	  the	  capacity	  of	  a	  material	  or	  medium	  to	  bounce	  back	  to	  its	  initial	  form.	  In	  the	  context	  of	  flood	  risk	  and	  climate	  adaptation,	   the	   resilience	   of	   environments	   and	   human	  settlements	   indicates	   the	   capacity	   to	   “bounce	   back	  better”	   from	   hazard	   events	   and	   effectively	   deal	   with	  surprises.	   Resilience	   in	   systems	   and	   settlement	   is	   best	  built	  from	  the	  beginning	  (United	  Nations,	  2005).	  	  	  However,	  given	  that	  much	  of	  western	  human	  settlement	  was	  not	  founded	  by	  disaster	  resilience	  or	  environmental	  preservation	  principles	  today	  resilience	  planning	  works	  to	   “retrofit”	   or	   “recover”	   or	   create	   resilience	   in	   social	  ecological	   systems	   –	   the	   complex	   interaction	   between	  people	   and	   the	   natural	   environment.	   Resilience	   in	   this	  analysis	   will	   be	   understood	   as	   a	   set	   of	   adaptive	  capacities	   that	   institutions	   and	   individuals	   in	   a	   human	  settlement	   have	   which	   can	   effectively	   reduce	   physical	  risk	   and	   resource	   inequalities	   in	   the	   flood	   prone	  Squamish	  Valley	  floor	  (Norris	  et	  al.,	  2008).	  	  	  	  	  	  In	   defining	   this	   approach,	   a	   few	   key	   concepts	   guide	  evaluation	   of	   vulnerability	   and	   local	   planning	   efforts.	  Local	  land	  use	  planning	  can	  affect	  -­‐-­‐	  both	  positively	  and	  negatively	   -­‐-­‐	  ecosystem	  services	  at	   the	  watershed	  scale	  that	   reduce	   flood	   disturbance	   in	   flood	   prone	  communities.	   (Adger	   et	   al.,	   2005).	   Societies	   and	   the	  health	  of	  ecosystems	  are	  interactive,	  creating	  a	  complex	  and	   adaptive	   relationship	   controlled	   by	   local	   land	   use	  planning	  and	  environmental	  management	  values.	  	  	  Understanding	   the	   preexisting	   conditions	   of	   human	  settlement,	   notably	   social	   conditions,	   ecological	   health	  and	  their	  interaction	  can	  prove	  a	  productive	  at	  reducing	  total	   loss	   and	   damages,	   especially	   for	   those	   most	  vulnerable.	  This	   is	  a	   founding	  principle	  of	  vulnerability	  reduction	   in	   an	   era	   of	   environmental	   and	   climate	  change.	  Resilience	  planning	  is	  a	  response	  to	  heightened	  environmental	   pressure	   and	   new	   risks	   given	   human	  induced	  climatic	  change.	   	  Connections	  climate,	   risk	  and	  socioeconomic	  pathways	  are	  well	  illustrated	  by	  working	  group	  II	  of	  the	  IPCC	  on	  adaptation	  offered	  in	  Figure	  19.	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  5.3	  Social	  and	  Ecological	  Resilience	  	  Mobilizing	  Resilience:	  A	  Disaster	  Resilience	  of	  Place	  Approach	  to	  IFHMP	  in	  Squamish	  British	  Columbia	   53	  	  	  	  Figure	  19:	  IPCC	  Illustration	  of	  Risk	  &	  Climate	  	  	  	  (IPCC,	  2014)5	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  5	  Reprinted unmodified and cited under an IPCC Creative Commons License 	  	  Mobilizing	  Resilience:	  A	  Disaster	  Resilience	  of	  Place	  Approach	  to	  IFHMP	  in	  Squamish	  British	  Columbia	   54	  	  	  6.0	  Methodology	  //	  Mobilizing	  Resilience:	  A	  Disaster	  Resilience	  of	  Place	  Approach	  to	  IFHMP	  in	  Squamish	  British	  Columbia	   55	  	  	  To	  structure	  analysis	  and	  planning	  recommendations	  in	  this	   report	   the	   Climate	   Adaptation	   Guide	   for	   Urban	  Planners,	   developed	   by	   EcoPlan	   international	   and	  Compass	   Resource	   Management	   for	   UNHABITAT	   was	  deployed.	  Taking	  a	  value-­‐focused	  and	  strategic	  approach	  the	  guide	  places	  vulnerability	  at	  the	  core	  of	  planning	  and	  climate	   adaptation	   and	   is	   structured	   around	   strong	  stakeholder	   participation,	   new	   information	   and	  identifying	  vulnerable	  populations	  and	  lands.	  Four	  core	  themes	  guide	  the	  approach:	  Where	  are	  we	  now?	  Where	  do	  we	  want	   to	  go?	  How	  do	  we	  get	   there?	  And	  have	  we	  arrived?	   Each	   of	   the	   four	   strategic	   planning	   themes	   is	  presented	   with	   relevant	   analyses	   in	   Figure	   20.	   A	  complete	   overview	   of	   the	   strategic	   and	   value-­‐focused	  approach	  to	  planning	  for	  climate	  change	  is	  presented	  in	  Figure	  21.	  	  	   Today,	   the	   field	   of	   urban	   planning	   has	   evolved	   to	  represent	   more	   than	   the	   designation	   of	   land,	  engineering	  and	  efficient	  delivery	  of	  services	  but	  rather	  connecting forms of knowledge with forms of action in the public domain – engaging	  with	  an	  organized	  civil	  society	  and	  human	  values	  at	  the	  local	  and	  regional	  level	  to	  guide	  land	   use	   and	   community	   development	   beyond	  (Friedmann,	  1993)	  .	  	  	  	  Given	   uncertainties	   of	   climate	   change,	   limited	   or	   poor	  quality	  data	  and	  often-­‐scarce	  financial	  resources	  in	  local	  coastal	  planning	  institution,	  items	  must	  be	  prioritized	  if	  they	  are	  to	  be	  completed.	  	  In	  doing	  so,	  complex	  tradeoffs	  between	   alternatives	   must	   be	   faced	   –	   individual	  performances	   evaluated	   based	   on	   what	   and	   where	  matters	   the	   most	   in	   relation	   to	   coastal	   flood	   risk	   (R	  Keeney	  &	  Raiffa,	  1993;	  Merkhofer	  &	  Keeney,	  1987).	   	  As	  institutional	   and	   community	   values	   guide	   the	   creation	  and	   implementation	   of	   plan	   making,	   transparent	  decision-­‐making	   for	   coastal	   risk	   reduction	   is	   an	   act	   of	  good	   governance.	   	   Further,	   taking	   a	   values-­‐based	  approach	  allows	  an	  understanding	  why	  and	  how	  people	  act,	   offering	   a	   broader	   range	   of	   alternatives	   and	  more	  creativity	   in	   decision-­‐making.	   (RL	   Keeney,	   1996)(R	  Keeney	  &	  Raiffa,	  1993).	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  6.1 Strategic	  and	  Value-­‐Focused	  Planning	  	  Mobilizing	  Resilience:	  A	  Disaster	  Resilience	  of	  Place	  Approach	  to	  IFHMP	  in	  Squamish	  British	  Columbia	   56	  	  Figure	  20:	  Methodology	  by	  Strategic	  Planning	  Theme	  	  What	  is	  Happening?	  	  	  Getting	  Started,	  Stakeholders	  and	  Participation	  and	  Vulnerability	  Assessment	  	  	  The	  Squamish	  Context	  Watershed,	  Indigenous	  Lands	  and	  Regional	  Mapping.	  Social	  Vulnerability,	  Social	  Vulnerability	  and	  AEP	  200	  Coastal	  Flood	  inundation	  and	  Sea	  Level	  Rise	  Mapping.	  (Findings	  Area	  1)	  Plan	  Evaluation	  of	  1994	  and	  Current	  Ofiicial	  Community	  Plan.	  (Findings	  Area	  2)	  Evaluation	  of	  public	  participation	  in	  IFHMP	  creation.	  (Findings	  Area	  3)	  Where	  do	  we	  want	  to	  go?	  	  	  Issues	  and	  Objectives	  	  Document	  analysis	  of	  all	  land	  use,	  sub	  area,	  management	  and	  risk	  management	  plans.	  (Findings	  Area	  2)	  Plan	  Evaluation	  of	  Current	  Ofiicial	  Comminity	  Plan.	  	  (Findings	  Area	  2)	  How	  do	  we	  get	  there?	  	  	  Option	  Identivication,	  Option	  Assessment	  and	  Implementation	  	  The	  Squamish	  Context.	  Syntheses	  of	  Recommendations	  for	  each	  iinding	  area.	  Public	  Participation	  and	  IFHMP	  Implementation	  	  (Findings	  Area	  3)	  	  Have	  we	  arrived?	  	  	  Monitoring	  and	  Evaluation,	  Adjust	  and	  Modify	  	  SoVI	  composite	  scoring	  for	  2011	  Census	  Reporting.	  (Findings	  Area	  1)	  Descriptive	  Statistic	  tables	  for	  individual	  SoVI	  variables	  and	  vulnerability	  factors	  for	  each	  Dissemination	  Area.	  (Appendix)	  Social	  Vulnerability	  Indicators	  and	  Monitoring	  Sheet.	  (Appendix)	  	  Mobilizing	  Resilience:	  A	  Disaster	  Resilience	  of	  Place	  Approach	  to	  IFHMP	  in	  Squamish	  British	  Columbia	   57	  	  	  For	  each	  of	  the	  three	  findings	  areas,	  a	  synthesis	  of	  policy	  recommendations	   is	   at	   short,	   medium	   and	   long-­‐term	  timeframes.	   These	   recommendations	   are	   meant	   to	  implement	   the	   DROP	   approach	   guided	   by	   community	  values	   formally	   articulated	   in	   the	   Official	   Community	  Plan.	   These	   values,	   noted	   in	   the	   vision	   for	   community	  development	  read	  as	  follows:	  	   	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  Given	   this	   vision	   statement,	   a	   suite	   of	   values	   that	   can	  guide	   vulnerability	   reduction	   policy,	   evaluation	   and	  decision-­‐making	  at	  the	  District	  were	  noted:	  	  • Environmental	  Appreciation	  and	  Ethic	  • Collaboration	  and	  Partnerships	  • Social	  Equity	  and	  Inclusion	  • Economic	  Prosperity	  • In	  Pursuit	  of	  Sustainable	  Development	  	  Further,	   values	   around	   risk	   and	   prioritization	   of	  vulnerable	  persons	  in	  Squamish	  has	  been	  elicited	  from	  a	  sample	  of	  Squamish	  residents	  during	  working	  groups	  in	  previous	   NRCAN	   studies	   (see	   Journeay,	   M.	   J.,	   2011).	  From	   these	   studies	   there	   is	   a	   noted	   importance	   in	   the	  community	   that	   prioritizes	   elders,	   the	   very	   young	   and	  other	  mobility	  challenged	  persons	  in	  risk	  planning.	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  We are a spectacular seaside mountain community where people come to live, learn, work and play in harmony. We are multicultural, compassionate, vibrant and diverse. We are leaders in fostering social integrity, economic development, and environmental sustainability.  - Official Community Plan (2009) 	  	  Mobilizing	  Resilience:	  A	  Disaster	  Resilience	  of	  Place	  Approach	  to	  IFHMP	  in	  Squamish	  British	  Columbia	   58	  	  	  Figure	  21:	  A	  Strategic	  Planning	  Approach	  to	  Climate	  Adaptation	  	  	  Source:	  (UNHABITAT,	  2014)6	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  6	  Reproduced unmodified and cited with the permission of the authors 	  Mobilizing	  Resilience:	  A	  Disaster	  Resilience	  of	  Place	  Approach	  to	  IFHMP	  in	  Squamish	  British	  Columbia	   59	  	  Methodology	  for	  each	  Analysis	  used	  international	  best	  practices	  in	  vulnerability	  assessment,	  policy	  analysis	  and	  critical	  theory.	  	  	  The	  following	  section	  offers	  methodology	  for	  each	  of	  the	  reports	  major	  three	  areas	  of	  analysis.	  Findings	  for	  each	  of	  the	  major	  areas	  are	  available	  in	  the	  following	  chapter.	  Methodology	  use	  in	  each	  analysis	  include:	  	  	  p Risk	  Assessment	   o Social	  Vulnerability	  Assessment	  using	  SoVI	  component	  score	  and	  spatial	  analysis	  to	  isolate	  social	  vulnerability.	   o Social	  Vulnerability	  and	  AEP	  200	  year	  coastal	  flooding	  to	  look	  at	  physical	  hazard	  of	  waters	  and	  produced	  risk	  when	  interacting	  with	  social	  conditions.	   o Sea	  Level	  Rise	  of	  1	  meter	  to	  understand	  future	  new	  natural	  boundaries	  on	  human	  settlement	  planning	  and	  ecosystem	  service	  management.	    p Plan	  Evaluation	  	  	  o 1994	  Flood	  Hazard	  Management	  Plan	  using	  a	  SWOT	  approach.	  	  o 2009	  Official	  Community	  Plan	  using	  plan	  content	  evaluation.	  	  	  p Social	  Participation	  and	  Implementation	  in	  IFHMP	  	  	  o Evaluation	  of	  current	  levels	  of	  participation	  o Recommendations	  for	  more	  effective	  participation	  and	  IFHMP	  implementation	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  Mobilizing	  Resilience:	  A	  Disaster	  Resilience	  of	  Place	  Approach	  to	  IFHMP	  in	  Squamish	  British	  Columbia	   60	  	   	  	  6.2.1	  Social	  Vulnerability	  Assessment	  	  	  To	  assess	  social	  vulnerability	  in	  Squamish	  a	  quantitative	  indicator-­‐based	   approach	   was	   taken.	   The	   Social	  Vulnerability	   Index	   (SoVI)	   offers	   a	   transparent	   and	  repeatable	   planning	   tool	   that	   identifies	   and	   visualizes	  local	  patterns	  of	  vulnerability	  (Cutter,	  S.	  L.	  et	  al.,	  2008).	  This	   is	  based	  on	  identifying	   local	  data	  that	  best	  reflects	  determinants	   of	   risk.	   	   The	   aim	   is	   to	   increase	   the	  understanding	   of	   local	   vulnerability	   to	   inform	   bottom-­‐up	   and	   vulnerability	   focused	   sustained	   risk-­‐reduction	  planning	  (Khan,	  2012)	  (Lee,	  2014).	  In	  the	  assessment	  of	  social	   vulnerability	   assessment	   high-­‐quality	   scientific	  and	  geotechnical	  inputs	  must	  be	  balanced	  with	  rigorous	  analysis	   of	   social	   conditions,	   participatory	   and	   ground	  truthing	   (Van	   Aalst	   et	   al,	   2012)	   .	   Baseline	   conditions	  captured	  in	  SoVI	  allow	  for	  adequate	  action	  planning	  and	  preparedness	  to	  reduce	  vulnerability.	  	  	  Further,	   assessments	   need	   to	   keep	   the	   process	   simple,	  participatory,	   and	   implementable	   at	   the	   local	   planning	  scale.	   The	   SoVI	   approach,	   which	   tailors	   indicators	   to	  context	   and	   maximizes	   available	   data	   offers	   such	   a	  pragmatic	   approach	   –	   offering	   a	   beginning	   step	   to	  quantitatively	   and	   spatially	   address	   who,	   where	   is	  socially	  vulnerable	  today	  prior	  to	  a	  flood	  hazard	  event.	  	   In	   the	  selection	  of	   indicators	  a	  review	  of	   literature	  was	  completed	   to	   select	   variables	   that	   reflect	   determinants	  of	   risk	   given	   the	   Squamish	   context	   and	   available	   data.	  Cornerstone	  literature	  on	  quantifying	  vulnerability	  note	  the	   importance	   of	   variables	   that	   reflect	   race/ethnicity	  (Cutter,	   S.	   L.	   et	   al.,	   2008),	   socioeconomic	   class),	   	   age(	  very	   old	   and	   very	   young)	   (McGuire,	   2007)(Peek	   &	  Stough,	   2010),	   gender	   (Sen,	   1981),	   migration,	   and	  housing	   tenure	   (renters	   and	   owners),	   as	   among	   the	  most	  common	  social	  vulnerability	  characteristics	  group	  living	  facilities,	  ethnic	  minorities	  (by	  language	  capacity);	  recent	   migrants	   (including	   immigrants);	   tourists	   and	  transients;	   physically	   or	   mentally	   disabled	   (Wisner,	  2006);	   large	   households;	   renters;	   large	   concentrations	  of	   children	   and	   youth;	   poor	   households;	   the	   homeless	  and	   single	   parent	   households	   (Wisner,	   1998);.	   Social	  vulnerability	   indices	   and	   maps	   offer	   the	   state	   of	  vulnerability	  and	  while	  often	  completed	  at	  larger	  census	  tract	   areas	   are	   most	   meaningful	   at	   the	   downscaled	  neighborhood	  level	  (Adger	  and	  Kelly,	  1999).	  	  	  In	  Canada	   the	   smallest	   level	   of	  data	   collection	   is	   at	   the	  Dissemination	  Area	   scale	   –	   this	   is	   the	   level	   of	   analyses	  that	  was	  chosen	  for	  this	  social	  vulnerability	  assessment	  using	  2011	  NHS	  census	  data.	  It	  is	  important	  to	  note	  that	  this	  was	  a	  voluntary	  rather	  than	  compulsory	  social	  data	  collection	  and	   its	  quality	   reflected	  by	  a	   lower	   response	  rate	  and	  level	  of	  population	  representativeness.	  	  	  A	  set	  of	  variables	  used	  in	  a	  2011	  NRCAN	  pathways	  study	  in	  Squamish	  –-­‐	  the	  first	  application	  of	  SoVI	   in	  Canada	  –	  informed	   the	   development	   of	   a	   suite	   of	   indicators	   and	  was	   ultimately	   matched	   for	   continuity.	   These	   original	  indicators	   were	   based	   off	   of	   values	   elicited	   from	   the	  Squamish	   community	   groups	   and	   available	   census	  statistics.	   As	   that	   study	   used	   2006	   Census	   data	   to	  riverine	   flood	   risk	  was	   adopted	   (Journeay,	  M.	   J.,	   2011)	  using	   these	   indicators	   allows	   for	   longitudinal	  6.2	  Risk	  Assessment	  	  Mobilizing	  Resilience:	  A	  Disaster	  Resilience	  of	  Place	  Approach	  to	  IFHMP	  in	  Squamish	  British	  Columbia	   61	  observation.	   The	   suite	   of	   indicators	   and	   their	  justification	  are	  listed	  in	  Figure	  22.	  	  	  	  To	  date	  the	  district	  has	  identified	  the	  following	  populations	  as	  vulnerable	  in	  emergency	  planning.	  	  These	  include	  the	  following:	  	  • People	  living	  with	  disabilities,	  The	  seriously	  ill	  • Those	  less	  then	  5	  years	  of	  age	  • Seniors	  living	  alone	  • Single	  parent-­‐families	  • First	  Nation	  communities,	  	  • Low	  Income	  families	  • English	  as	  a	  second	  language	  speaking	  families	  	  	  However,	   the	  District	  Municipality	  has	  not	  completed	  a	  spatial	   analyses	   or	   public	   engagement	   to	   engage	  vulnerable	   populations	   meaningfully	   in	   planning.	   The	  United	  Nations	  Hyogo	  Framework	   for	  Action	   (HFA)	   for	  the	  period	  2005-­‐2015	  notes	  how	  critical	  it	  is	  to	  develop	  high	   quality	   vulnerability	   indicators	   in	   order	   to	   enable	  decision-­‐makers	   to	   assess	   the	   impact	   of	   disasters	   (UN,	  2005).	  The	  Hyogo	  framework	  underlines	  that	   impact	  of	  disasters	   on	   (1)	   social,	   (2)	   economic,	   and	   (3)	  environmental	   conditions	   should	   be	   examined	   through	  necessary	   indicators.	   As	   per	   the	   strategies	   adopted	   by	  the	   Hyogo	   framework,	   respective	   countries	   need	   to	  develop	  vulnerability	   indicators	   that	  capture	   local	   level	  risk	  as	  a	  key	  activity.	  Canada	  is	  a	  participating	  country	  in	  the	  Hyogo	  framework,	  delivering	  a	  National	  Platform	  for	  disaster	  risk	  reduction.	  	  Given	  the	  value	  of	  having	  quantitative	  and	  repeatable	  study	  of	  vulnerability	  in	  Canadian	  coastal	  communities	  a	  Social	  Vulnerability	  Index	  statistical	  calculation	  methodology,	  developed	  by	  the	  Hazards	  and	  Vulnerability	  Research	  Institute	  at	  the	  University	  of	  South	  Carolina,	  was	  utilized.	  For	  a	  local	  level	  data	  set	  at	  the	  lowest	  possible	  scale,	  Dissemination	  Area,	  the	  2011	  Canadian	  Census	  National	  Household	  Survey	  data	  was	  used	  for	  the	  District	  Municipality	  of	  Squamish	  to	  create	  a	  map	  of	  social	  vulnerability	  (SoVI).	  	  	  The	  following	  are	  steps	  taken	  to	  create	  a	  SoVI	  composite	  score	  and	  spatial	  visualization.	  	  1. Selection	  of	  social	  vulnerability	  variables.	  This	  was	  preceded	  by	  a	  literature	  review	  of	  quantitative	  and	  qualitative	  studies	  from	  coastal	  British	  Columbia.	  	  	  2. Indicators	  were	  given	  equal	  weight	  and	  non-­‐percentage	  indicators	  were	  normalized	  	  	  3. Dataset	  accuracy	  was	  reviewed	  using	  descriptive	  statistics.	  	  	  4. Any	  missing	  values,	  notably	  in	  the	  Average	  Rent	  Variable,	  were	  replaced	  by	  substituting	  the	  variable’s	  mean	  value	  for	  each	  enumeration	  unit.	  	  	  Census	  Dissemination	  Area	  59310194	  was	  omitted	  due	  to	  major	  incomplete	  population	  data	  sets.	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  Mobilizing	  Resilience:	  A	  Disaster	  Resilience	  of	  Place	  Approach	  to	  IFHMP	  in	  Squamish	  British	  Columbia	   62	  	  	  	  5. Input	  variables	  were	  standardized	  using	  a	  z-­‐score	  standardization	  based	  on	  a	  standard	  deviation	  and	  is	  as	  follows:	  	  	  z	  =	   χ	  −µ	  σ	  	  Where:	  	  	   z	  is	  a	  standardized	  unadjusted	  score	  χ	  is	  the	  social	  variable	  value	  (expressed	  as	  %	  or	  $)	  µ	  is	  mean	  of	  variable	  set	  σ	  is	  the	  standard	  deviation	  	  This	  generated	  variables	  across	  the	  data	  set	  with	  a	  mean	  of	  	  0	  and	  standard	  deviation	  of	  	  1.	  5.	  	  	  	  	  	  6. A	  principal	  components	  analysis	  (PCA)	  was	  completed	  in	  SPSS	  software	  using	  the	  dimension	  reduction	  factor	  analysis.	  Correlation	  was	  analyzed	  using	  coefficients,	  reproduced,	  Anti-­‐image	  and	  KMO	  &	  Bartlett’s	  test	  of	  sphericity.	  Principle	  components	  were	  extracted	  based	  on	  eigenvalues	  greater	  than	  1	  with	  25	  maximum	  iterations	  for	  convergence.	  A	  varimax	  rotation	  and	  Kaiser	  criterion	  were	  used	  for	  component	  selection	  	  7. The	  amount	  that	  the	  individual	  variables	  had	  on	  the	  total	  data,	  or	  factors,	  was	  noted	  and	  adjustments	  were	  made.	  	  8. An	  average	  of	  each	  attribute	  was	  used	  to	  create	  a	  composite	  standard	  deviation	  score.	  	  	  	  9. This	  score	  was	  prepared	  as	  an	  attribute	  table	  and	  assigned	  to	  Dissemination	  Area	  polygon	  shapes	  and	  mapped	  in	  ArcGIS.	  	  	  Population	  and	  demographic	  variables	  were	  selected	  on	  the	  basis	  of	  their	  capacity	  to	  describe	  patterns	  of	  social	  disadvantage	  at	  a	  local	  scale	  (Cutter	  et	  al.,	  2003;	  Andrey	  and	  Jones,	  2008)	  and	  to	  be	  assessed	  at	  the	  neighborhood	  level	   (census	  dissemination	  areas).	   	  Sparsely	  populated	  neighborhoods	   were	   excluded	   from	   the	   analysis,	   as	  Statistics	  Canada	  does	  not	  distribute	  community	  profile	  data	   for	   dissemination	   areas	   in	   which	   there	   are	   fewer	  than	   40	   people	   to	   ensure	   individual	   privacy	   rights.	  Figure	   22	   summarizes	   selected	   socio-­‐economic	  variables	  for	  use	  in	  vulnerability	  assessment.	  	  Limitations	  	  While	   the	   SoVI	   approach	   offers	   a	   quantitative	  assessment	   of	   vulnerability	   there	   are	   limitations.	   First	  the	   extent	   and	   quality	   of	   analysis	   is	   directly	   related	   to	  local	  data	  availability.	  Also,	  the	  quantitative	  approach,	  -­‐-­‐while	  repeatable	  -­‐-­‐	  captures	  the	  amount	  and	  location	  of	  vulnerable	   populations	   rather	   than	   why	   and	   how	   the	  conditions	   came	  about.	  With	   these	   limitations	   on	  mind	  SoVI	   and	   its	   interactive	   with	   physical	   hazard	   models	  offer	  a	  baseline	  in	  vulnerability	  reduction	  and	  a	  resource	  for	  participatory	  planning	  –	  making	  inequity	  in	  exposure	  tangible	  at	  the	  community	  level	  and	  on	  the	  land.	  	  	  	  Mobilizing	  Resilience:	  A	  Disaster	  Resilience	  of	  Place	  Approach	  to	  IFHMP	  in	  Squamish	  British	  Columbia	   63	  Figure	  22:	  Selected	  Variables	  of	  Social	  Vulnerability	  in	  Squamish	  	  Variable	  Number	  Variable	  Label	   Description	  	   Justification	  	  	   	  Social	  Disadvantage	  	  	  	  Hazard	  Vulnerability	  	  	  	  	  1. 	   P_SEN_ALON	   %	  of	  population	  that	  lives	  alone	  Low	  social	  support	  systems	  cohesiveness	  and	  poor	  pathways	  to	  communication	  	  Difficulty	  in	  evacuation	  communications	  and	  recovery	  from	  a	  loss	  and	  damage	  to	  property.	  	  2. 	   P_MIG_E	   %	  of	  population	  that	  has	  migrated	  from	  elsewhere	  in	  Canada	  	  Low	  level	  of	  social	  cohesion	  with	  broader	  community	  Limited	  connectivity	  to	  risk	  information	  and	  emergency	  resources.	  3. 	   IN_NO_VEH	   %	  population	  without	  access	  to	  a	  vehicle	  Lack	  of	  access	  to	  livelihoods	  and	  broader	  community	  (in	  a	  semi-­‐rural	  community	  with	  limited	  transit).	  	  Lack	  of	  transportation	  in	  a	  flood	  hazard	  event	  evacuation.	  4. 	   P_AGE_GT_65	   %	  of	  population	  greater	  than	  65	  years	  old	  A	  locally	  determined	  prioritized	  vulnerable	  population.	  Older	  adults	  often	  face	  mobility	  issue,	  require	  assistance	  in	  evacuation	  and	  may	  be	  dependent	  on	  special	  medical	  equipment.	  	  5. 	   P_MOB_LT1	   %	  Population	  that	  has	  moved	  within	  the	  last	  year	  Low	  social	  connectivity	  and	  trust	  to	  greater	  community	  and	  participation	  in	  planning	  	  Lack	  of	  knowledge	  about	  risk	  mitigation	  measures,	  evacuation,	  and	  low	  social	  connectivity	  in	  recovery.	  	  	  Mobilizing	  Resilience:	  A	  Disaster	  Resilience	  of	  Place	  Approach	  to	  IFHMP	  in	  Squamish	  British	  Columbia	   64	  	  	  	  	  Variable	  Number	  Variable	  Label	  Description	  	   Justification	  	  	   	  Social	  Disadvantage	  	  	  	  Hazard	  Vulnerability	  	  	  6. 	   P_MOB	  LT5	   %	  Population	  that	  has	  moved	  within	  the	  last	  5	  year	  Medium-­‐low	  social	  connectivity	  and	  trust	  to	  greater	  community	  and	  participation	  in	  planning.	  	  Low	  level	  of	  knowledge	  about	  risk	  mitigation	  measures,	  evacuation,	  and	  low	  social	  connectivity	  in	  recovery.	  7. 	   P_LFP	   %	  lone	  female	  parent	  households	   Lower	  financial	  resources,	  children	  may	  be	  left	  alone	  more	  frequently.	  	  Difficulty	  in	  coordinating	  flood	  risk	  planning	  engagement	  and	  evacuation	  during	  flood	  events.	  	  8. 	   P_ABORIGINAL	   %	  Aboriginal	  community	   Historic	  dispossession	  from	  land.	  Historic	  socio-­‐cultural	  trauma	  from	  boarding	  schools	  and	  settler	  occupation	  with	  associated	  psychosocial	  and	  physical	  health	  impacts.	  	  	  Lack	  of	  flood	  insurance	  due	  to	  land	  tenure	  restrictions	  under	  the	  Indian	  Act.	  Statistically	  lower	  access	  to	  transportation	  for	  evacuation.	  	  	  	  Mobilizing	  Resilience:	  A	  Disaster	  Resilience	  of	  Place	  Approach	  to	  IFHMP	  in	  Squamish	  British	  Columbia	   65	  Variable	  Number	  Variable	  Label	  Description	  	   Justification	  	  	   	  Social	  Disadvantage	  	  	  	  Hazard	  Vulnerability	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  9. 	   P_L_INC_F	   %	  low-­‐income	  families	   Lack	  of	  access	  to	  financial	  resources	  in	  mitigation	  and	  recovery.	  	  	  Lower	  cost	  residential	  areas	  tend	  to	  be	  more	  subject	  to	  natural	  hazards	  globally.	  	  10. 	   P_SEN_GT10	   %	  Families	  spending	  >	  10	  hrs.	  of	  unpaid	  care	  to	  seniors	  	  Caregivers	  shoulder	  the	  costs	  of	  care	  but	  provide	  valuable	  support.	  	  	  Higher	  connectivity	  to	  support	  systems	  in	  flood	  hazard	  preparedness	  and	  transportation	  in	  evacuation.	  	  11. 	   P_TEN_GT30	   %	  Tenant	  occupied	  households	  spending	  >	  30%	  on	  shelter	  	  Low	  residual	  income	  beyond	  core	  housing	  needs.	  High	  cost	  housing	  systems	  leave	  fewer	  funds	  available	  for	  mitigation.	  Coupled	  with	  District	  low	  vacancy	  rates	  recovery	  from	  a	  coastal	  flood	  event	  can	  prove	  difficult.	  	  12. 	   P_OWN_GT30	   %	  Owner-­‐occupied	  households	  spending	  >	  30%	  on	  shelter	  	  Low	  residual	  income	  beyond	  core	  housing	  needs.	  Opportunity	  to	  purchase	  flood	  insurance	  to	  cover	  loss	  and	  damage.	  	  13. 	   A_RENT_TEN	   Average	  Rent	  of	  tenant-­‐occupied	  dwelling	  	  No	  equity	  or	  agency	  in	  property	   A	  majority	  of	  renters	  in	  Canada	  are	  not	  insured	  for	  flood	  damage.	  14. 	   P_VIZ_MIN	   %	  Visible	  minority	   Historical	  marginalization	  and	  structural	  inequality.	  	  Low	  connectivity	  to	  local	  planning	  institution	  and	  communication	  systems	  in	  evacuation.	  	  	  Mobilizing	  Resilience:	  A	  Disaster	  Resilience	  of	  Place	  Approach	  to	  IFHMP	  in	  Squamish	  British	  Columbia	   66	  Variable	  Number	  Variable	  Label	  Description	  	   Justification	  	  	   	  Social	  Disadvantage	  	  	  	  Hazard	  Vulnerability	  	  	  15. 	   P_LANG_N	   %	  population	  without	  knowledge	  of	  official	  language	  	  Lack	  of	  access	  to	  social	  support	  systems,	  communications	  and	  greater	  community.	  	  	  Isolation	  in	  flood	  hazard	  planning	  information.	  Language	  barrier	  in	  evacuation.	  Difficulty	  in	  receiving	  risk	  and	  emergency	  communications.	  	  Exclusion	  d	  from	  numerous	  relief	  and	  recovery	  services.	  16. 	   P_BSER_CCC	   %	  employed	  in	  basic	  service	  industries	  High	  sector	  dependence	  makes	  for	  livelihood	  volatility.	  	  	  Lack	  of	  economic	  diversity	  can	  lead	  to	  difficult	  livelihood	  recovery.	  17. 	   P_IMMIGRANT	   %	  recent	  immigrant	  (within	  5	  years)	  	  Low	  connectivity	  and	  trust	  to	  other	  residents	  and	  livelihoods.	  	  	  Low	  connectivity	  to	  local	  planning	  institution	  and	  communication	  systems	  in	  evacuation.	  	  Difficulty	  in	  receiving	  risk	  and	  emergency	  communications.	  	  Exclusion	  	  from	  numerous	  relief	  and	  recovery	  services.	  	  18. 	   P_SEC_N	   %	  population	  with	  no	  post-­‐secondary	  education.	  	  Lower	  levels	  of	  education	  have	  been	  found	  to	  directly	  influence	  risk	  perception,	  skills	  and	  knowledge	  and	  indirectly	  reduce	  poverty.	  	  Educated	  individuals	  are	  reported	  to	  have	  better	  preparedness	  and	  response	  to	  the	  disasters,	  suffered	  lower	  negative	  impacts,	  and	  are	  able	  to	  recover	  faster.	  	  However,	  contextual,	  traditional	  	  and	  non-­‐formal	  education	  must	  be	  considered	  in	  weighting	  this	  variable.	  	  	  	  	  Mobilizing	  Resilience:	  A	  Disaster	  Resilience	  of	  Place	  Approach	  to	  IFHMP	  in	  Squamish	  British	  Columbia	   67	  	  Variable	  Number	  Variable	  Label	  Description	  	   Justification	  	  	   	  Social	  Disadvantage	  	  	  	  Hazard	  Vulnerability	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  19. 	   P_SOC_OC_N	   %	  population	  not	  participating	  in	  social	  service	  occupations	  	  Low	  connectivity	  to	  health	  care,	  education	  community	  development	  services.	  	  	  	  Difficulty	   interacting	   with	  emergency	   management,	  warning	   systems	   and	  recovery	  efforts.	  	  20. 	   P_SERVICE	   %	  employed	  in	  service	  industries	  	  High	  sector	  dependence	  makes	  for	  livelihood	  volatility.	  	  	  Lack	   of	   economic	   diversity	  can	   lead	  to	  difficult	   livelihood	  recovery.	  21. 	   P_AGE_LT6	   %	  population	  under	  6	  years	  of	  age	   A	  locally	  determined	  prioritized	  vulnerable	  population.	  	  	  Young	   children	   lack	   mobility	  in	   evacuation,	   require	  caregivers	   and	   may	   undergo	  unique	  psychological	  trauma.	  	  	  22. 	   P_PARTIC_N	   %	  population	  not	  	  participating	  in	  labor	  force	  High	  unemployment	  is	  considered	  a	  social	  and	  economic	  disaster.	  	  	  Unemployment	  can	  reduce	  access	  to	  financial	  resources,	  and	  is	  experienced	  disproportionately	  by	  minority	  populations	  and	  those	  with	  lower	  education.	  	  Lack	   of	   access	   to	   risk	  mitigation	   resources	   and	  disaster	   unemployment	  assistance	  in	  recovery.	  	  	  Mobilizing	  Resilience:	  A	  Disaster	  Resilience	  of	  Place	  Approach	  to	  IFHMP	  in	  Squamish	  British	  Columbia	   68	  	  Variable	  Number	  Variable	  Label	  Description	  	   Justification	  	  	   	  Social	  Disadvantage	  	  	  	  Hazard	  Vulnerability	  	  	  23. 	   P_TTANC	   %	  employed	  in	  transport,	  communication	  and	  public	  utility	  High	  sector	  dependence	  /	  lack	  of	  economic	  diversity	  can	  lead	  to	  difficult	  livelihood	  recovery.	  	  Increased	   knowledge	   of	   services,	  emergency	   communication	   and	  transportation	  in	  evacuation.	  	  	  24. 	   P_CHD_GT30	   %	  families	  spending	  >30	  hours	  of	  unpaid	  childcare	  Caregivers,	  often	  women,	  shoulder	  the	  burden	  of	  unpaid	  childcare.	  And	  the	  gender-­‐poverty	  gap.	  Often	  an	  indicator	  of	  large	  families.	  	  Women’s	  opportunity	  for	  paid	  labor	  may	  be	  reduced	   by	   hazard	   events	   and	   increase	   in	  already	   unpaid	   work	   given	   tasks	   of	  recovery.	  	  25. 	   P_DU_MAJOR	   %	  housing	  units	  in	  need	  of	  major	  repairs	   Low	  quality	  housing	  can	  exacerbate	  social	  and	  health	  inequities.	  Poor	   housing	   stock	   conditions	   and	  inadequate	   building	   codes	   leads	   to	   higher	  loss	   and	   damage	   to	   property	   and	   higher	  mortality	  in	  flood	  hazard	  events.	  	  26. 	   P_IND_OCC	   %	  employees	  working	  in	  industrial	  sector	  (construction	  etc.)	  High	  sector	  dependence	  increases	  livelihood	  volatility.	  	  Lack	   of	   economic	   diversity	   can	   lead	   to	  difficult	  livelihood	  recovery.	  27. 	   P_CON_LT85	   %	  housing	  units	  constructed	  before	  1985	   Aging	  housing	  conditions	  can	  exacerbate	  social	  inequity	  and	  health	  outcomes.	  	  Older	   housing	   may	   not	   be	   constructed	   to	  adequate	   Flood	   Construction	   Levels	   and	  may	  be	  located	  closer	  to	  watercourses.	  	  28. 	  	  	  	  P_RESOURCE	   %	  population	  working	  in	  primary	  resource	  extraction	  industries	  High	  sector	  dependence	  makes	  for	  livelihood	  volatility.	  	  Lack	   of	   economic	   diversity	   can	   lead	   to	  difficult	  livelihood	  recovery.	  	  Mobilizing	  Resilience:	  A	  Disaster	  Resilience	  of	  Place	  Approach	  to	  IFHMP	  in	  Squamish	  British	  Columbia	   69	  6.2.2	  Coastal	  Flooding	  Scenarios	  	  Planning	   long-­‐term	   for	   coastal	   flood	   risk	   in	   Squamish	  coast	   deals	   with	   uncertainty	   and	   the	   reality	   of	  environmental	  change.	  Past	  data	  cannot	  inform	  planning	  comprehensively	   given	   projected	   changes	   in	  meteorological	   and	   hydrographic	   conditions.	   While	   a	  “feedback”	   approach	   to	   planning,	   or	   reviewing	   and	  adjusting	   is	   a	   traditional	   approach,	   “feed	   forward”	   or	  scenario	   planning	   is	   useful	   to	   prepare	   for	   future	   flood	  conditions.	   This	   approach	   is	   grounded	   in	   determining	  potential	   inundation	   and	   future	   desired	   conditions	   of	  human	  settlement.	  To	  offer	  scenarios	  of	  coastal	  flooding,	  two	   models	   were	   created	   in	   GIS	   using	   district	   LIDAR	  elevation	  data.	  The	  first	  is	  meant	  to	  offer	  the	  impact	  of	  a	  200-­‐year	   storm	   event	   and	   the	   second	   is	   to	   give	   a	   long-­‐term	   scenario	   planning	   for	   sea	   level	   rise.	   These	   two	  exercises	   offer	   future	   “worst	   case”	   scenarios	   that	   the	  District	  and	  its	  partners	  can	  use	  to	  work	  backwards	  from	  –	   to	   identify	   key	   uncertainties,	   generate	   strategies	   and	  action	   plans	   to	   reduce	   vulnerabilities	   to	   people	   and	  lands.	  	  	  	  AEP	  200	  Coastal	  Inundation	  and	  SoVI	  	  	  Guided	  by	  the	  2012	  NOAA	  primer	  for	  modeling	  a	  1/200	  return	  rate	  for	  a	  storm	  surge	  event,	  a	  single	  value	  water	  surface	   approach	   was	   used.	   This	   approach	   is	   also	  referred	   to	   as	   the	   linear	   superposition	   or	   "bathtub"	  analysis.	  	   A	   flood	   depth	   grid	   was	   created	   using	   LIDAR	  elevation	  data	  and	  exported	  as	  a	  shape	  file	  in	  Arc	  GIS.	  	  	  Parameters	  for	  the	  flood	  depth	  grid	  creation	  were	  based	  off	   of	   Kerr	  Wood	   Leidal	   background	   study	   and	   Canada	  Department	   of	   Fisheries	   and	   Oceans	   records	   at	   Point	  Atkinson	   Station.	   A	   NAVD	   88	   vertical	   tide	   datum	   was	  used.	   Parameters	   used	   in	   creation	   of	   the	   inundation	  raster	  included.	  	  	  • High	  Higher	  Water	  Level:	  2.07m	  (200	  year	  storm	  event)	  • External	  Storm	  Surge:	  1.25m	  • Local	  Effects	  of	  Skwelwil’em	  Squamish	  Estuary:	  0.35m	  	  	  Sea	  Level	  Rise	  Analysis	  	  To	   understand	   the	   future	   extent	   of	   high	   tides	   and	  Skwelwil’em	  Squamish	  Estuary	  reach	  upland	  given	  IPCC	  and	   provincial	   projected	   1	   meter	   of	   Sea	   Level	   Rise	   a	  series	  of	  two	  raster	  files	  were	  created.	  The	  current	  High	  High	  Water	   Level	   of	   1.03	  meters	  was	   used	   to	   create	   a	  base	  raster	  layer.	  A	  secondary	  layer	  was	  created	  adding	  1m	  of	  Sea	  level	  rise.	  	  	  A	  flood	  depth	  grid	  for	  1	  meter	  of	  sea	  levels	  was	  created	  using	   the	   same	   methodology	   as	   AEP	   200	   coastal	  inundation	  modeling.	  To	  understand	  how	  much	  land	  on	  the	   river	   delta	   would	   be	   impacted	   by	   long-­‐term	  inundation	   by	   the	   sea,	   a	   raster	   calculation	   function	   in	  GIS	  was	  used	  to	  calculate	  total	  hectares	  of	  land	  affected.	  	  	  	  Limitations	  	  There	   are	   major	   constraints	   to	   a	   single	   value	   water	  surface	   approach	   to	   inundation	   modeling	   used	   in	   AEP	  200	  event	  and	  1	  meter	  of	  SLR	  inundation	  surfaces	  used.	  	  Computer	  modeled	  and	  interpolated	  water	  surfaces	  are	  	  Mobilizing	  Resilience:	  A	  Disaster	  Resilience	  of	  Place	  Approach	  to	  IFHMP	  in	  Squamish	  British	  Columbia	   70	  preferred,	   namely	   for	   sophistication	   in	   subarea	  floodplain	   dynamics.	   	   However,	   this approach is pragmatic for local GIS study and is commonly used for mapping sea level rise for local areas such as Squamish where only basic tide gauge or water level gauge is available (NOAA, 2012). 	  	  	  To	   evaluate	   current	   flood	   management	   and	   official	  community	   plans;	   two	   structured	   approaches	   were	  taken	   to	   ensure	   that	   the	   analysis	   was	   transparent	   and	  replicable.	   These	   two	   different	   approaches	   offer	   policy	  analysis	   of	   two	   planning	   documents	   to	   generate	   a	   gap	  analysis	  of	  where	  a	  DROP	  approach	  can	  be	  strengthened	  or	  adopted.	  	  	  	  1994	  Flood	  Plan	  	  No	  national	  or	  international	  standard	  currently	  exists	  in	  the	   evaluation	   of	   flood	  plans.	   To	   evaluate	   the	  District’s	  existing	   flood	   plan,	   a	   series	   of	   social	   vulnerability	   and	  ecological	   resilience	   variables	   were	   used	   to	   structure	  document	   analysis.	   To	   offer	   pragmatic	   evaluation	   and	  policy	  actions	  for	   local	  planners,	   findings	  are	  presented	  in	   a	   Strengths	   Weakness	   and	   Opportunities	   (SWO)	  format.	   	   Variables	   of	   social	   vulnerability	   and	   ecological	  resilience	  used	  in	  1994	  Flood	  Hazard	  Management	  Plan	  evaluation	  are	  available	  in	  Table	  3	  of	  Section	  8.0:	  Plan	  Evaluation.	  	  	  	  2009	  Official	  Community	  Plan	  	  Evaluating	   the	   quality	   of	   Official	   Community	   Plans	   for	  flood	   risk	  management	  has	  not	  been	  widely	   completed	  in	   Province	   of	   British	   Columbia	   to	   date	   (Baynam,	  2011)(Stevens,	   2013).	   	   None	   have	   been	   completed	   for	  coastal	   flood	   hazard	   and	   social	   vulnerability	   alone.	   	   To	  illustrate	   current	   performance	   and	   areas	   for	  improvement	  plan	  content	  evaluation	  was	  used.	   Plan	  content	  evaluation	  is	  based	  on	  a	  set	  of	  protocol,	  or	  questions,	   that	   are	   asked	   to	   the	   planning	   document	   to	  study	  the	  presence	  of	  content.	  The	  output	  of	  this	  type	  of	  research	  is	  meant	  to	  be	  highly	  relevant	  to	  local	  planners	  and	  policy-­‐makers,	  who	  are	  able	  to	  derive	  a	  framework	  or	  glean	  important	  plan	  elements	  when	  developing	  their	  own	  high	  quality	  planning	  policy	  documents	  (Kaiser,	  E	  J.	  &	  Davies,	  1999)	  (Baer,	  W	  C.,	  1997).	  	  Protocol	  creation	   in	  evaluating	  risk	   in	  an	  era	  of	  climate	  change	  aims	  to	  be	  as	  exhaustive	  as	  possible.	  Protocols	  in	  this	   analyses	   drew	   off	   established	   criteria	   in	   flood	  management	   climate	   adaptation	   in	   Canadian	  municipalities	   (Baynam,	   2011)	   (Stevens,	   2013;	   Stevens	  &	  Hanschka,	  2014)	   ,	   sustainable	  development	  (Berke	  &	  Manta	   Conroy,	   2000)	   ecosystem	   management	   (Brody,	  2003),	  and	  natural	  disaster	  mitigation	  (Nelson	  &	  French,	  2002)	  and	  social	  vulnerability	  reduction	  (Cutter,	  2003).	  Moving	   forward	   this	   set	   of	   protocol	   (offered	   in	  Appendix	  Item	  12.8)	  can	  be	  used	  to	  evaluate	  other	  land	  use	   and	   flood	  management	   plans	   across	  watersheds	   of	  Howe	   Sound	   and	   other	   Straight	   of	   Georgia	   coastal	  communities.	   In	   doing	   so	   the	   performance	   of	   plans	   to	  address	  coastal	   flood	  risk	  can	  be	  evaluated	  and	   lessons	  in	  management	  shared	  across	  a	  shared	  coastline.	   	  6.3	  Plan	  Evaluation	  	  Mobilizing	  Resilience:	  A	  Disaster	  Resilience	  of	  Place	  Approach	  to	  IFHMP	  in	  Squamish	  British	  Columbia	   71	  To	   adapt	   content	   evaluation	   to	   coastal	   hazards	   in	  Squamish	   the	   following	   methodology	   followed	   in	   the	  evaluation	  of	   the	   current	   Squamish	  Official	   Community	  Plan:	  	  1. First,	  best	  practices	  in	  climate	  adaptation,	  coastal	  flood	  risk	  planning	  and	  prior	  plan	  evaluations	  were	  reviewed	  to	  establish	  elements	  of	  an	  official	  community	  plan	  that	  best	  integrates	  coastal	  flood	  risk	  reduction.	  	  2. These	  elements	  were	  turned	  into	  a	  series	  of	  64	  protocols,	  or	  questions	  -­‐-­‐	  organized	  by	  8	  major	  plan	  elements	  (Evidence	  Base,	  Policy	  and	  so	  forth).	  These	  are	  offered	  in	  Appendix	  Item	  12.8	  	  with	  findings.	  	  	  	  3. Then,	  the	  entirety	  of	  the	  2009	  Official	  Community	  Plan,	  its	  schedules	  including	  the	  Squamish	  Oceanfront	  Peninsula	  Sub	  Area	  Plan	  was	  coded	  using	  Atlas.Ti	  software	  Evaluations	  were	  made	  from	  the	  coded	  plan	  using	  binary	  (0/1)	  scoring,	  creating	  a	  sub-­‐score	  by	  variable.	  	  	  4. A	  cumulative	  score	  was	  then	  calculated	  from	  these	  sub-­‐scores.	  A	  second	  coder	  was	  then	  asked	  to	  re-­‐evaluate	  the	  planning	  document	  to	  ensure	  that	  protocols	  produced	  similar	  and	  repeatable	  results.	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  Limitations	  	  While	   this	   plan	   evaluation	   offers	   detailed	   insight	   into	  where	  upcoming	  OCP	  revisions	  can	  focus	  to	  direct	   land	  use	   policy	   towards	   disaster	   resilience	   to	   coastal	   flood	  risk,	   the	   method	   has	   its	   constraints.	   First	   this	   type	   of	  evaluation	   only	   assesses	   the	   presence	   and	   quantity	   of	  indicators	   selected	   -­‐-­‐	   not	   the	   quality	   of	   the	   policy	  language.	  While	  the	  indicators	  have	  made	  an	  attempt	  to	  be	   robust,	   comprehensive	   and	   informed	   by	   leading	  literature	   they	   are	   not	   guaranteed	   to	   be	   exhaustive.	  Lastly,	   as	   only	   one	   plan	   was	   evaluated	   with	   this	  customized	  protocol,	  there	  are	  no	  available	  comparisons	  to	  other	  plans	  to	  understand	  variance	  in	  variables.	  This	  means	  that	   the	  score	  given	  only	  determines	   the	  quality	  of	   the	  Squamish	  OCP	   independently	  based	  on	  protocol,	  not	   the	  quality	  of	   the	  protocol	   compared	   to	   a	   standard	  set	  by	  other	  similar	  plans	  in	  the	  region.	  	  	  	  	  	  Mobilizing	  Resilience:	  A	  Disaster	  Resilience	  of	  Place	  Approach	  to	  IFHMP	  in	  Squamish	  British	  Columbia	   72	  	  	  Findings	  	  To	   evaluate	   the	   current	   performance	   of	   the	   District	   in	  creating	   opportunities	   for	   public	   participation	   and	  partnerships	   in	   plan	   creation	   this	   section	   drew	   from	  structured	   analyses	   completed	   in	   the	   evaluation	   of	   the	  1994	  Flood	  Hazard	  Management	  Plan	  and	  Current	  2009	  Official	   community	   plan	   and	   review	   of	   the	   IFHMP	  engagement	   strategy.	   To	   offer	   a	   metric	   and	   widely	  recognized	   definition	   of	   participation	   the	   International	  Association	  of	  Public	  Participation	  (IAP2)	  spectrum	  was	  used	   to	   evaluate	   planning	   efforts	   thus	   far.	   The	   IAP2	  spectrum	  of	  public	  engagement	   is	  based	  on	  core	  values	  in	  the	  practice	  of	  public	  participation	  which	  establishes	  that:	  	  1	  Public	  participation	  is	  based	  on	  the	  belief	  that	  those	  who	  are	  affected	  by	  a	  decision	  have	  a	  right	  to	  be	  involved	  in	  the	  decision-­‐making	  process.	  	  2	  Public	  participation	  includes	  the	  promise	  that	  the	  public’s	  contribution	  will	  influence	  the	  decision.	  	  	  3	  Public	  participation	  promotes	  sustainable	  decisions	  by	  recognizing	  and	  communicating	  the	  needs	  and	  interests	  of	  all	  participants,	  including	  decision	  makers.	  	  	  4	  Public	  participation	  seeks	  out	  and	  facilitates	  the	  involvement	  of	  those	  potentially	  affected	  by	  or	  interested	  in	  a	  decision.	  	  	  5	  	  Public	  participation	  seeks	  input	  from	  participants	  in	  designing	  how	  they	  participate.	  	  	  6.	  Public	  participation	  provides	  participants	  with	  the	  information	  they	  need	  to	  participate	  in	  a	  meaningful	  way.	  	  	  7.	  Public	  participation	  communicates	  to	  participants	  how	  their	  input	  affected	  the	  decision.	  	  	  The	   IAP2	   spectrum	  varies	   from	   “Inform”	   and	   “Consult”	  (Low	   sharing	   of	   power)	   to	   Collaboration	   and	  Empowerment	   (High	   sharing	   of	   power).	   The	   spectrum	  offers	   an	   internationally	   recognized	   reference	   for	  planning	   institutions	   to	   for	   goals,	   commitments	   and	  techniques	   in	   public	   engagement	   	   (International	  Association	   of	   Public	   Participation,	   2009).	   This	  spectrum	   provides	   a	   conceptual	   frame	   and	  measurement	   for	   public	   participation	   findings	   and	  grounding	  in	  IFHMP	  implementation	  recommendations.	  	  	  	  6.4	  Public	  Participation	  &	  IFHMP	  Implementation	  	  	  Mobilizing	  Resilience:	  A	  Disaster	  Resilience	  of	  Place	  Approach	  to	  IFHMP	  in	  Squamish	  British	  Columbia	   73	  Recommendations	  	  Drawing	   from	   multi-­‐stakeholder	   governance,	  participatory	   and	   critical	   social	   theory	   a	   series	   of	  recommended	   engagement	   activities	   were	   generated.	  Further	   informed	   by	   literature	   in	   community-­‐based	  action	  planning	  the	  aim	  of	  these	  recommendations	  were	  to	   fulfill	   both	   process	   and	   substantive	   outcomes	   of	  participation	   in	   flood	   risk	   planning	   –	   improving	  opportunities	   for	   meaningful	   social	   participation,	   plan	  implementation	  and	  measurable	  vulnerability	  reduction.	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  Limitations	  	  Evaluating	   the	  quantity	  of	  public	  participation	  (amount	  of	   persons	   in	   attendance	   at	   open	   houses,	   newsletters	  sent,	  groups	  contacted	  etc.)	  can	  be	  straightforward,	  but	  capturing	   the	  quality	  of	  participatory	  process,	   outcome	  and	   human	   empowerment	   can	   be	   more	   difficult.	   A	  constant	   dialog	   with	   core	   stakeholders	   to	   gather	  feedback	   and	   feed-­‐forward	   future	   participation	   is	  critical	   in	  defining	  the	  successful	  public	  participation	  in	  IFHMP.	  	  Mobilizing	  Resilience:	  A	  Disaster	  Resilience	  of	  Place	  Approach	  to	  IFHMP	  in	  Squamish	  British	  Columbia	   74	  Findings	  //	  Mobilizing	  Resilience:	  A	  Disaster	  Resilience	  of	  Place	  Approach	  to	  IFHMP	  in	  Squamish	  British	  Columbia	   75	  7.0	  Risk	  Assessment	  	  Introduction	  	  	  Taking	   a	   resilience	   of	   place	   approach	   puts	   the	   most	  vulnerable	   people	   at	   the	   center	   of	   Integrated	   Flood	  Hazard	  Management	   planning.	   This	   section	  will	   offer	   a	  spatial	   understanding	   of	   social	   conditions,	   the	  interaction	   with	   physical	   exposure	   to	   coastal	   flood	  inundation	  and	  ways	  to	  improve	  flood	  risk	  management	  through	  public	  participation.	  	  	  Detailed	   and	   quantifiable	   assessments	   of	   vulnerability	  are	  increasingly	  used	  disaster	  risk	  reduction	  planning	  to	  better	  understand	   risk	  more	  comprehensively.	  Further,	  study	   of	   disaster	   planning	   performance	   suggest	   a	  “paradigm	   shift”	   in	   resources	   and	   research	   away	   from	  disaster	   relief	   and	   response	   to	   disaster	   risk	   and	  vulnerability	   reduction	   (Birkmann,	   2006;	   Yodmani,	  2001).	   However,	   a	   lack	   of	   formal	   provincial	   or	   federal	  guidance	   on	   assessing	   existing	   conditions	   which	  produce	   vulnerability,	   Hazard	   Risk	   Vulnerability	  Assessment	   toolkits	   and	   flood	   hazard	   management	  plans	   in	   British	   Columbia	   do	   not	   account	   for	   existing	  social	   and	   environmental	   conditions	   -­‐	   focusing	   on	   the	  frequency	   and	   consequences	   of	   natural	   hazards	   rather	  than	   addressing	   the	   root	   causes	   of	   exposure	   in	   local	  populations.	  	  	  Risk	   and	   vulnerability	   assessments	   provide	   baseline	  observations	   of	   community	   resilience	   and	   interactions	  with	  coastal	   flood	  risk	   -­‐-­‐	  both	  current	  and	   future.	   	  This	  can	  best	  be	  understood	  as	  accounting	  for	  all	  components	  of	   a	   base	   risk	   equation.	   This	   conceptual	   equation	   is	  offered	   in	   Figure	   23	   Planning	   documents	   and	   local	  legislation	   provides	   vision	   and	   legal	   instruments	   to	  effectively	  manage	  risk	  at	  the	  local	  level.	  Effective	  social	  participation	   in	   the	   creation	   and	   implementation	   of	  flood	   management	   plans	   has	   found	   to	   lead	   to	   more	  effective	  risk-­‐reduction	  and	  flood	  risk	  planning	  globally	  (Oulahen	  &	  Doberstein,	  2010;	  Wisner,	  2006).	   	  Risk	  has	  been	   widely	   understood	   as	   a	   function	   of	   hazard	   and	  vulnerability	  (Ropeik,	  2002).	  	  	  Figure	  23:	  Base	  Risk	  Equation	  	  R	  =	  H	  x	  V	  	  Where:	  	  R	  is	  Risk	  H	  is	  Hazard	  frequency	  	  V	  is	  Vulnerability	  of	  the	  population	  living	  in	  exposed	  area	  and	  socioeconomic	  condition	  	  	  Taking	  a	  DROP	  approach	  to	  risk	  assessment	  recognizes	  that	   local	   planning	   platy	   a	   major	   role	   in	   reducing	   the	  vulnerability	   portion	   of	   the	   risk	   equation.	   This	   begins	  with	   understanding	   current	   vulnerability	   and	   potential	  future	   hazard	   scenarios	   that	   will	   interact	   with	  vulnerability.	  	  	  To	  inform	  risk-­‐based	  planning	  a	  series	  of	  analyses	  were	  undertaken	  to	  illustrate	  current	  conditions	  of	  social	  and	  land	  use	  vulnerability,	   land	  use	  planning	  policy	  and	  the	  level	   of	   participation	   of	   local	   residents	   in	   flood	  	  Mobilizing	  Resilience:	  A	  Disaster	  Resilience	  of	  Place	  Approach	  to	  IFHMP	  in	  Squamish	  British	  Columbia	   76	  management.	   Under	   these	   major	   areas	   this	   section	  offers	  the	  following	  analyses:	  	  Mapping	  	  p Social	   Vulnerability	   Assessment	   using	   SoVI	  indicators	  p 200	   year	   coastal	   flood	   event	   interacting	   with	  Social	  Vulnerability	  p 1	  meter	  in	  Sea	  Level	  Rise	  	  Plan	  Evaluation	  	  	  p 1994	  Flood	  Management	  Plan	  Document	  Analysis	  p 2009	  Official	  Community	  Plan	  Content	  Evaluation	  	  Public	   Participation	   and	   IFHMP	   Implementation	  	  p Evaluation	  of	  public	  participation	  p Discussion	  of	   strategies	  and	  activities	   to	   improve	  plan	  creation	  and	  implementation.	  	  	  Combined	  with	  coastal	   flood	  hazard	   impact	   risk	  can	  be	  calculated	   in	   quantitative	   and	   repeatable	   ways.	  However,	   combining	   qualitative	   and	   quantitative	  approaches	   are	   critical	   to	   create	   accurate	   and	   relevant	  flood	   risk	   assessment	   (Oliver-­‐Smith	  &	  Hoffman,	   2002).	  Risk	   assessment	   and	   management	   must	   also	   deal	  effectively	  with	   public	   perception	   and	   values	   of	   risk	   in	  the	   determine	   of	   what	   is	   tolerable	   in	   exposure	   and	  consequence.	  This	  is	  often	  expressed	  as	  mortal	  risk.	  	  These	   three	  assessments	  with	  accompanying	   syntheses	  of	   recommendations	   inform	   efforts	   by	   the	   District	   to	  practice	   risk-­‐based	   land	   use	   planning	   and	   community	  development	   policy	   –	   an	   approach	   best	   informed	  with	  an	  intimate	  understanding	  of	  existing	  vulnerability.	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  Mobilizing	  Resilience:	  A	  Disaster	  Resilience	  of	  Place	  Approach	  to	  IFHMP	  in	  Squamish	  British	  Columbia	   77	  	  HRVA	  and	  Acceptable	  Risk	  in	  Squamish	  	   Tolerable	   risks	   are	   risks	   within	   a	   range	   that	   society	  accepts	   to	   secure	   certain	   benefits.	   The	   evaluation	  criteria	  for	  individual	  and	  societal	  risk	  are	  different,	  but	  some	  common	  general	  principles	   can	  be	  applied	   (Leroi	  et	  al.,	  2005).	  These	  risks	  are	  tolerated	  in	  order	  to	  realize	  some	  benefit,	   and	   should	  be	   reduced	   if	   possible	  by	   the	  local	  government	  and	  geotechnical	  professionals,	  guided	  by	  a	  legal	  responsibility	  to	  identify	  hazard	  lands.	  It	  is	  the	  risk	   owner’s	   responsibility	   to	   define	   tolerable	   risk	   and	  the	   process	   that	   local	   governments	   and	   citizens	   must	  establish	  “ALARP”	  –	  As	  Low	  As	  Reasonably	  Practicable,	  a	  “sweet	  spot”	  based	  on	  community	  perception	  and	  values	  based	   on	   frequency	   and	   fatalities.	   Current	   provincial	  Hazard	   Risk	   and	   Vulnerability	   Assessment	   (HRVA)	  toolkits	   elicit	   these	   observations	   of	   likelihood	   and	  probability	  but	  not	  existing	  conditions	  that	  amplify	  risk.	  	  	  The	   Squamish	   Emergency	   Management	   Planning	  process	   has	   begun	   and	   has	   elicited	   perceived	   impacts.	  	  These	   are	   offered	   in	   Figure	   24	   where	   Moderate	   and	  Severe	   flood	   events	   are	   at	   the	   High	   to	   Very	   High	   in	  likelihood	  and	  impact.	  As	  hazards	  are	  often	  experienced	  by	  many	  people	  at	  once,	  group	  risk	  equations	  that	  factor	  in	   time	   of	   the	   event	   and	   existing	   sensitivities	   (such	   as	  high	  social	  vulnerability)	  are	  useful	  in	  HRVA	  assessment	  and	   flood	   hazard	   scenario	   planning.	   These	   quantify	  hazards	   and	   vulnerabilities	   to	   better	   understand	   the	  severity	   of	   exposure	   to	   risk	   (to	   society,	   sectors	   and	  infrastructure)	   –	   or	   social	   consequence	   -­‐-­‐	   considering	  wide	  spectrum	  of	  disaster	  event	  scenarios	  in	  flood	  prone	  coastal	   communities.	   	   They	   also	   provide	   a	   repeatable	  approach	  as	  vulnerability	  changes	  over	  time.	  	  Risk	  assessments	  offered	  in	  this	  report	  focus	  mainly	  on	  the	   existing	   conditions	   of	   vulnerability	   in	   Squamish	   	   -­‐-­‐	  one	   element	   in	   the	   total	   risk	   equation.	   However,	  quantitative	   measures	   of	   vulnerability,	   like	   the	   SoVI	  composite	   score	   can	   be	   integrated	   into	   HRVA	   and	  IFHMP	  social	  consequence	  mapping.	  	  Figure	  24:	  	  Emergency	  Planning	  	  Risk	  Matrix	  	  	   (Squamish	  Emergency	  Program,	  2015)	  Mobilizing	  Resilience:	  A	  Disaster	  Resilience	  of	  Place	  Approach	  to	  IFHMP	  in	  Squamish	  British	  Columbia	   78	  	  The	   following	   3	   analyses	   offer	   insight	   into	   current	  conditions	   of	   vulnerability,	   land	   use	   and	   community	  development	   policy	   instruments	   and	   ways	   to	   improve	  public	   participation	   to	  meet	   current	   and	   future	   coastal	  flood	   hazards.	   To	   keep	   recommendations	   concise	   and	  actionable	   and	   a	   synthesis	   of	   short,	   medium	   and	   long	  term	   policy	   recommendations	   with	   relevant	  stakeholders	  in	  implementation	  are	  offered	  at	  the	  end	  of	  each	   major	   analysis	   area	  Mobilizing	  Resilience:	  A	  Disaster	  Resilience	  of	  Place	  Approach	  to	  IFHMP	  in	  Squamish	  British	  Columbia	   79	  	  	   	  	  7.1 Social	  Vulnerability	  Indicators	  (SOVI)	  	  	   Vulnerability	   can	   be	   understood	   as	   both	   a	   biophysical	  risk	  and	  a	  social	  risk.	  This	  means	  that	  ‘vulnerability’	  can	  be	   considered	   a	   geographical	   space	   where	   vulnerable	  people	   are	   located,	   or	   a	   social	   space	   that	   is	   vulnerable	  regardless	   of	   its	   location.	   Social	   vulnerability	   is	   a	  multidimensional	   concept	   that	   helps	   to	   identify	   those	  characteristics	   and	   experiences	   of	   communities	   (and	  individuals)	  that	  enable	  them	  to	  respond	  to	  and	  recover	  from	   environmental	   hazards.	   In	   order	   to	   mitigate	   or	  respond	   to	   coastal	   flooding	   hazard	   it	   is	   necessary	   to	  understand	   the	   complex	   spatial	   patterns	   of	   social	  vulnerability	   within	   Squamish	   and	   how	   they	   change	  over	  time.	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  Social	   structures,	   composition	   spatial	   pattern,	   and	  underlying	   dynamics	   of	   social	   vulnerability	   can	   change	  rapidly	   over	   the	   course	   time	   in	   response	   to	   growth	  pressures	  and	  urban	  development.	  While	   these	  patterns	  cannot	  necessarily	  be	  assumed	  on	  the	  basis	  of	  prevailing	  theories	  of	  social	  disadvantage	  and	  behavioral	  change,	  it	  is	  important	  for	  social	  vulnerability	  maps	  to	  use	  the	  most	  recent	   social	   data,	   often	   found	   in	   Federal	   censuses.	   A	  selected	   suite	   of	   indicators,	   tailored	   to	   Squamish	   and	  consistent	   with	   some	   previous	   social	   vulnerability	  assessment	   in	   the	   region	   is	   available	   in	   Figure	   25.	   A	  more	   complete	   rationale	   behind	   indicator	   selection	   is	  offered	  in	  the	  Methodology	  section	  of	  this	  report.	  	  	  	  	  	  	  Mobilizing	  Resilience:	  A	  Disaster	  Resilience	  of	  Place	  Approach	  to	  IFHMP	  in	  Squamish	  British	  Columbia	   80	  	  Figure	  25:	  Selected	  Social	  Vulnerability	  Indicators	  	  	   	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  %	  of	  population	  that	  has	  migrated	  from	  elsewhere	  in	  Canada	  %	  of	  population	  living	  alone	  %	  of	  population	  without	  access	  to	  a	  vehicle	  %	  of	  population	  greater	  than	  65	  y/o	  %	  population	  that	  has	  moved	  within	  the	  last	  year	  %	  population	  that	  has	  moved	  within	  the	  last	  5	  year	  %	  lone	  female	  parent	  households	  %	  Aboriginal	  identity	  %	  low-­‐income	  families	  	  %	  population	  spending	  >	  10	  hrs.	  care	  to	  seniors	  %	  tenant	  occupied	  households	  spending	  >	  30%	  on	  shelter	  %	  owner-­‐occupied	  households	  spending	  >	  30%	  on	  shelter	  %	  visible	  minority	  %	  population	  without	  knowledge	  of	  official	  language	  %	  employed	  in	  basic	  service	  industries	  %	  recent	  immigrant(within	  5	  years)	  %	  population	  with	  no	  post	  secondary	  degree	  %	  population	  not	  participating	  in	  social	  service	  occupations	  %	  employed	  in	  service	  industries	  %	  population	  under	  5	  years	  of	  age	  %	  population	  not	  participating	  in	  labor	  force	  over	  15	  y/o	  -­‐	  unemployed	  %	  employed	  in	  transport,	  communication	  and	  public	  utility	  %	  families	  spending	  >30	  hours	  of	  unpaid	  childcare	  %	  working	  in	  industrial	  sector(construction	  etc.)	  %	  housing	  units	  constructed	  before	  1985	  %	  population	  working	  in	  natural	  resource	  industries	  	  Average	  Rent	  of	  tenant-­‐occupied	  dwelling	  	  	  Mobilizing	  Resilience:	  A	  Disaster	  Resilience	  of	  Place	  Approach	  to	  IFHMP	  in	  Squamish	  British	  Columbia	   81	  	  	  	  Social	   vulnerability	   indicators	   offer	   a	   quantitative	  spatial	   assessment	   of	   socio-­‐economic	   and	   physical	  vulnerability	  and	  aims	  to	  offer	  a	  background	  analysis	  of	  social	   exposure	   to	   risk	   in	   HRVA,	   IFHMP	   and	   OCP	  creation.	   Observations	   here	   are	   offered	   at	   the	   smallest	  level	   of	   analysis	   available	   from	   Canadian	   Census	   Data	  (Dissemination	   Areas)	   of	   500	   to	   1000	   people	   and	  attempts	  to	  locate	  social	  groups	  with	  the	  greatest	  social	  vulnerability	   in	   the	   face	   of	   coastal	   flood	   hazard.	  Background	   of	   creating	   the	   SoVI	   composite	   score	   and	  maps	   can	   be	   found	   in	   the	  Methodology	   Section	   of	   this	  analysis.	  	  	  The	   purpose	   of	   these	   maps	   is	   to	   inform	   the	   District	  Municipality	   of	   Squamish,	   a	   current	   view	   of	   social	  vulnerability	   so	   that	  planning	  and	  strategies	   can	  better	  address	   vulnerability.	   Further,	   spatial	   overlays	   of	  physical	  hazards	  (such	  as	  200	  year	  surge	  event	  and	  sea	  level	   rise)	   and	   emergency	   management	   planning	   in	  relation	  to	  	  social	  conditions	  is	  emerging	  as	  best	  practice	  in	  addressing	  vulnerability	   in	  disaster	  planning	  (Cutter,	  S.	  et	  al.,	  2003)	  (Cutter,	  Mitchell,	  &	  Scott,	  2000).	  As	   vulnerability	   assessment	   is	   offered	   at	   the	  Dissemination	   Area	   level	   which	   does	   not	   align	   exactly	  with	   sub-­‐areas	   or	   place-­‐based	   neighborhood	   names,	  Table	   2	   groups	   DAs	   by	   common	   neighborhood	   name.	  These	   are	   meant	   to	   guide	   the	   interpretation	   of	   SoVI	  findings	   throughout	   Squamish,	   which	   are	   offered	   in	  Figures	  26	  and	  27.	  Higher	  scores	  (deeper	  colors	  of	  red)	  represent	  a	  higher	  total	  composite	  level	  of	  vulnerability.	  Table	  2:	  Neighborhood	  	  SoVI	  Key	   Neighborhood Dissemination Areas  Brackendale (BR) 59310188, 59310189, 59310190, 59310191, 59310215, 59310217  Downtown Core (DC) 59310201,  59310202, 59310203,   Dentville (DE) 59310200  Eastern Squamish (ES) 59310211  Industrial park (IP) 59310200  Garibaldi Estates (GE) 59310216  Garibaldi Highlands (GH) 59310212, 59310213,  59310214  Loggers Lane (LL) 59310203, 59310204   North Squamish (NS) 59310187  North Yards (NY) 59310200  South Squamish (SS) 59310205  Valleycliffe (VC) 59310207, 59310209, 59310208, 5931010  West Bank (WB) 59310198 	  	  Mobilizing	  Resilience:	  A	  Disaster	  Resilience	  of	  Place	  Approach	  to	  IFHMP	  in	  Squamish	  British	  Columbia	   82	  	  	  	   	  	  	  	  	  	  Figure	  26:	  Social	  Vulnerability	  in	  Squamish	  Valley	  	  Mobilizing	  Resilience:	  A	  Disaster	  Resilience	  of	  Place	  Approach	  to	  IFHMP	  in	  Squamish	  British	  Columbia	   83	  	  	  	  Figure	  27:	  Social	  Vulnerability	  on	  the	  Squamish	  River	  Delta	  	  	  Mobilizing	  Resilience:	  A	  Disaster	  Resilience	  of	  Place	  Approach	  to	  IFHMP	  in	  Squamish	  British	  Columbia	   84	  	  7.1.1	  	  Discussion	  	  	  Strongest	  Influence	  on	  The	  SoVI	  Composite	  Score	  	  Across	   all	   areas	   of	   Squamish	   certain	   individual	  vulnerability	  variables	  influenced	  the	  total	  calculation	  of	  social	  vulnerability.	  These	  heavy	  influencing	  variables	  	  7	  included:	  	  1. Population	  Migrating	  From	  Elsewhere	  in	  Canada	  2. Population	  Living	  Alone	  3. Population	  with	  No	  Access	  to	  Vehicle	  4. Percentage	   of	   Population	   greater	   than	   85	   years	  old	  	  	  It	  is	  important	  to	  note	  that	  these	  vulnerability	  variables	  influenced	   scoring	   in	   all	   Dissemination	   Areas,	   with	  “Population	  Migrating	   From	   Elsewhere	   in	   Canada”	   and	  “Population	   Living	   Alone”	   influencing	   vulnerability	  nearly	   twice	   as	   much	   as	   other	   heavily	   influencing	  variables.	   While	   the	   final	   SoVI	   composite	   score	   was	  ultimately	  adjusted	  for	  these	  loadings,	  the	  level	  of	  social	  connectivity	   experienced	   in	   all	   of	   these	   heavy	  influencing	  variables	  is	  of	  concern	  when	  planning	  for	  all	  hazards	  across	  the	  disaster	  cycle	  in	  Squamish.	  	  Correlation	  	  There	   is	   an	   interactive	   nature	   to	   social	   vulnerability	   in	  Squamish	   households	   and	   neighborhood.	  Most	   notably,	  there	   is	   a	   high	   correlation	   across	   Dissemination	   Areas	  between	  1)	  Populations	  without	  a	  secondary	  degree	  and	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  7	  Eigenvalues	  greater	  than	  2	  2)	   Visible	   minorities.	   This	   may	   illustrate	   a	   deeper	  structural	   societal	   inequality	   in	   access	   to	   education	   in	  Canadian	  society,	  demonstrated	  in	  this	  Canadian	  coastal	  community.	   Further,	   there	   is	   a	   strong	   correlation	  between	   1)	   New	   international	   immigrants	   and	   2)	  Populations	   that	  have	  arrived	   in	   the	  past	  5	  years.	   	  This	  may	  illustrate	  that	  while	  many	  of	  those	  who	  are	  new	  to	  Squamish	  in	  the	  past	  half	  decade	  are	  from	  other	  nations,	  they	   are	   also	   experiencing	   lower	   levels	   of	   social	  cohesiveness	   to	   the	   broader	   social	   structure	   of	   the	  community.	  	  Factor	  Analysis	  	  Not	   all	   social	   vulnerability	   variables	   have	   the	   same	  impact	   on	   major	   vulnerability	   factors,	   some	   are	   more	  dominant	   across	   the	   dataset	   and	   must	   be	   noted.	  Seventeen	   of	   the	   original	   twenty-­‐eight	   variables	   made	  noticeable	  increases	  to	  total	  vulnerability	  scores.	  	  These	  are	  illustrated	  in	  Figure	  29.	  Most	  notably	  residents	  new	  to	  Squamish	  in	  the	  last	  5	  years,	  low-­‐income	  households	  and	   residents	   (tenants	   and	   home	   owners)	   who	   spend	  more	   than	   30%	   of	   their	   income	   on	   housing	   all	   had	  significant	  impacts	  on	  vulnerability	  factors.	  	  In	   statistical	   analysis	   across	   DAs	   in	   Squamish,	   certain	  variables	   clustered	   into	   “Factors”	   depending	   on	   how	  much	  they	  impacted	  the	  data	  set	  and	  how	  well	  they	  are	  correlated	   to	   each	   other.	   The	   highest	   scoring	   variables	  in	   these	   clusters	   offer	   insight	   into	   what	   variables	  impacts	  social	  vulnerability	  at	  the	  DA	  level	  in	  Squamish.	  A	  complete	  table	  of	  factor	  strength	  across	  dissemination	  areas	  is	  offered	  in	  Appendix	  Item	  28.	  Factors	  are	  listed	  in	  their	  order	  of	  impact	  (1	  being	  the	  highest).	  	  	  Mobilizing	  Resilience:	  A	  Disaster	  Resilience	  of	  Place	  Approach	  to	  IFHMP	  in	  Squamish	  British	  Columbia	   85	  Figure	  28:	  Social	  Vulnerability	  Factors	  in	  Squamish	  	   	  Factor	  1	  	  Social	  Connectivity	  and	  Homeowners	  	  Residents	  who	  have	  moved	  to	  Squamish	  in	  the	  last	  5	  years	  those	  who	  are	  not	  connected	  to	  social	  service	  sector	  and	  homeowners	  paying	  more	  than	  30%	  on	  their	  mortgage	  have	  a	  positive	  impact	  on	  vulnerability.	  	  	  Factor	  2	  	  Housing	  Security	  	  Renters	  paying	  more	  than	  30%	  of	  their	  income	  to	  rent,	  residents	  who	  are	  over	  sixty-­‐vive	  years	  old,	  residents	  who	  have	  been	  in	  Squamish	  less	  than	  5	  years	  and	  Low	  income	  households	  have	  a	  positive	  impact	  on	  housing	  security	  vulnerability	  Factor	  3	  Family	  and	  Livelihood	  	  Families	  spending	  more	  than	  thirty	  hours	  on	  unpaid	  childcare,	  those	  unemployed	  and	  those	  employed	  in	  public	  services	  have	  a	  positive	  impact	  on	  this	  vulnerability	  factor.	  Factor	  5	  Regional	  Migrants	  	  New	  recent	  internal	  Canadian	  migrants,	  those	  who	  are	  low	  income	  and	  those	  without	  a	  vehicle	  positively	  impact	  area	  social	  vulnerability.	  While	  those	  who	  are	  newcomers	  to	  Squamish	  dominate	  this,	  these	  populations	  in	  neighborhoods	  may	  experience	  lower	  social	  connectivity	  making	  evacuation	  and	  recovery	  from	  vlood	  events	  difvicult.	  	  Factor	  4	  Employment	  and	  Mobility	  Those	  working	  basic	  service	  industry	  jobs,	  who	  do	  not	  speak	  ofvicial	  Canadian	  languages,	  have	  no	  vehicle	  access	  and	  do	  not	  have	  a	  secondary	  degree	  have	  a	  very	  positive	  impact	  on	  vulnerability.	  This	  interaction	  of	  factors	  leads	  to	  a	  condition	  of	  marginality	  in	  employment	  in	  the	  Squamish	  economy	  and	  a	  lack	  of	  equity	  to	  private	  transport	  in	  case	  of	  vlood	  event	  evacuation.	  Factor	  6	  Work	  Type	  	  Those	  working	  in	  transport,	  communication	  and	  public	  utility	  had	  a	  moderately	  high	  positive	  effect	  on	  vulnerability	  while	  those	  working	  in	  the	  industrial	  sector	  have	  a	  strong	  negative	  invluence.	  	  Factor	  7	  Housing	  Quality	  	  	  Those	  living	  in	  older	  housing	  stock	  and	  those	  working	  in	  the	  service	  sector	  positively	  impacted	  this	  factor.	  Those	  semi-­‐recent	  immigrants	  to	  Squamish	  working	  in	  the	  service	  industry	  disproportionately	  experience	  further,	  poor	  housing	  quality.	  	  Factor	  8	  	  Newcomers	  	  Those	  who	  moved	  to	  Squamish	  in	  the	  past	  vive	  years	  and	  those	  who	  were	  international	  immigrants	  had	  a	  somewhat	  positive	  impact	  on	  vulnerability	  scoring.	  Factor	  9	  Renters	  and	  Caregivers	  	  Those	  tenets	  paying	  high	  rents	  had	  a	  very	  high	  impact	  on	  vulnerability	  scoring	  while	  those	  spending	  more	  than	  10	  hours	  weekly	  with	  seniors	  had	  a	  moderately	  negative	  impact	  on	  vulnerability.	  	  Mobilizing	  Resilience:	  A	  Disaster	  Resilience	  of	  Place	  Approach	  to	  IFHMP	  in	  Squamish	  British	  Columbia	   86	  	   	  0.0	   1.0	   2.0	   3.0	   4.0	   5.0	   6.0	   7.0	   8.0	   9.0	  59310202	  59310201	  59310212	  59310207	  59310209	  59310204	  59310206	  59310203	  59310189	  59310193	  59310200	  59310208	  59310187	  59310215	  59310197	  59310198	  59310217	  59310210	  59310213	  59310214	  59310192	  SoVI	  Score	  Dissemination	  Area	  Figure	  29:	  SoVI	  Scores	  of	  Squamish	  Dissemination	  Areas	  	  	  Mobilizing	  Resilience:	  A	  Disaster	  Resilience	  of	  Place	  Approach	  to	  IFHMP	  in	  Squamish	  British	  Columbia	   87	  	  Ares	  of	  Interest	  In	  Vulnerability	  Reduction	  	  Certain	  Dissemination	  Areas	  demonstrate	   a	  heightened	  vulnerability	   and	   considerably	   higher	   level	   of	   existing	  social	   vulnerability	   and	   are	   of	   considerable	   interest	   in	  flood	  risk	  reduction	  planning	  efforts.	  	  	  In	  order	  of	  vulnerability	  scores	  (Highest	  to	  Lowest)	  with	  key	  quantitative	  observations:	  	  	  59310201	  (Downtown	  Core)	  	  o Highest	  level	  (38%)	  of	  people	  living	  alone	  o Highest	  amount	  of	  lone	  parent	  households	  (33%)	  o Highest	  population	  without	  a	  secondary	  degree	  (31%)	  o A	  moderate	  amount	  (10%)	  of	  the	  population	  does	  not	  have	  knowledge	  of	  an	  official	  Canadian	  language.	  	  o High	  population	  of	  those	  without	  a	  secondary	  degree	  o 72%	  of	  houses	  were	  constructed	  before	  1989	  	  59310202	  (Downtown	  Core)	  	  o Highest	  population	  without	  access	  to	  a	  vehicle	  o Highest	  household	  poverty	  rate	  	  o Highest	  amount	  of	  people	  employed	  in	  basic	  service	  industries	  o Very	  low	  connectivity	  to	  social	  services	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  59310203	  (Downtown	  Core)	  	  o All	  (100%	  reported)	  have	  moved	  to	  the	  area	  in	  the	  past	  5	  years	  o Highest	  concentration	  of	  those	  spending	  more	  than	  30%	  of	  their	  income	  on	  rent	  o 27%	  of	  the	  population	  is	  over	  65	  years	  old	  	  	  59310189	  (Upper	  Brackendale	  including	  IR	  Cheakamus	  11	  and	  Waiwakum	  15)8	  	  o Highest	  population	  of	  aboriginal	  peoples	  	  o Highest	  population	  of	  visible	  minorities	  	  o High	  unemployment	  rate	  	  o High	  level	  of	  lone	  parent	  households	  o High	  level	  of	  caregiving	  to	  elders	  and	  unpaid	  childcare	  	  	  59310206	  	  o 100%	   of	   housing	   units	   were	   constructed	   before	  1985	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  8	  While	  prone	  to	  intertidal/riverine	  rather	  than	  coastal	  	  flood	  risk,	  this	  area	  is	  of	  concern	  in	  flood	  risk	  management	  due	  to	  considerable	  levels	  of	  	  social	  vulnerability	  	  	  Mobilizing	  Resilience:	  A	  Disaster	  Resilience	  of	  Place	  Approach	  to	  IFHMP	  in	  Squamish	  British	  Columbia	   88	  	  Social	  Vulnerability	  Trends	  in	  Squamish	  	  	  The	   first	   application	   of	   the	   SoVI	   in	   Canada	   was	   in	  Squamish	   during	   a	  Natural	   Resources	   Canada	   research	  project	  and	  use	  2006	  census	  data	  (Journeay,	  M.	  J.,	  2011).	  As	   these	   updates	   analysis	   used	   the	   same	   indicators	   -­‐-­‐	  with	   2011	   Census	   NHS	   data	   however	   -­‐-­‐	   patterns	   of	  social	   vulnerability	   in	   Squamish	   valley	   can	   be	  identified.	   	  The	   Downtown	   Core	   of	   Squamish	   remains	  the	   highest	   concentration	   of	   people	   experiencing	  heightened	   vulnerability.	   In	   this	   area	   vulnerability	   has	  increased	   since	   2006,	   most	   notably	   in	   Dissemination	  area	   59310202	   -­‐-­‐	   areas,	   which	   are	   most	   subject	   to	  coastal	   flood	   hazard	   [See	   Section	   SoVI	   and	   Physical	  Hazard].	   Cumulatively,	   social	   vulnerability	   composite	  scores	  have	   increased	   in	   the	  majority	   of	  Dissemination	  Areas.	  	   	  	  	  Mobilizing	  Resilience:	  A	  Disaster	  Resilience	  of	  Place	  Approach	  to	  IFHMP	  in	  Squamish	  British	  Columbia	   89	  	  	  	  As	   of	   2011	   the	   areas	   of	   potential	   flood	   inundation	  encompassed	  3,235	   residential	  buildings,	  nearly	  60%	  of	  the	   total	   building	   stock	   (Journeay,	  M.	   J.,	   2011)	   and	   it	   is	  estimated	   that	   7,477	  9 	  	   Squamish	   residents	   live	   in	   a	  designated	  floodplain	  area	  (Ebbwater,	  2015)	  .	  	  The	   coastal	   floodplain	   of	   Squamish	   supports	   many	  services	   and	   businesses	   critical	   to	   the	   economy	   of	   the	  town.	   These	   are	   relied	   on	   by	   residents	   living	   both	   on	  and	  outside	  the	  floodplain.	  	  	  Key	  community	  infrastructure	  include:	  	  	  • Municipal	  Hall	  • Municipal	  emergency	  response	  service.	  	  • Squamish	  Elementary	  School	  • Howe	  Sound	  Secondary	  School	  • Squamish	  Public	  Library	  • BC	  Hydro’s	  Squamish	  substation	  	  • Commercial	  and	  industrial	  facilities	  	  • Commercial	  services	  and	  small	  businesses	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  9	  Analysis	  was	  conducted	  using	  2011	  Census	  Data	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  7.	  2	  Social	  Vulnerability	  and	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  AEP	  200	  Coastal	  Flooding	  	  Mobilizing	  Resilience:	  A	  Disaster	  Resilience	  of	  Place	  Approach	  to	  IFHMP	  in	  Squamish	  British	  Columbia	   90	  	  	  This	   analysis	   examines	   the	   effects	   of	   a	   200-­‐year	   coastal	  flood,	   likely	   a	   combination	  of	   a	   strong	   surge	   interacting	  with	  a	  mountain	  freshet	  in	  the	  winter	  months,	  to	  offer	  a	  scenario	  of	  the	  extent	  of	  inundation	  and	  related	  loss	  and	  damage	  it	  may	  have	  on	  human	  settlement.	  A	  district	  wide	  perspective	   is	   offered	   in	   Figure	   30.	   Further,	   the	   Social	  Vulnerability	  mapping	  completed	  in	  the	  previous	  section	  is	   overlaid	   to	   see	  where	   levels	   of	   200-­‐year	   floodwaters	  and	   social	   vulnerability	   interact	   to	   produce	   total	   risk.	  These	  are	  offered	  in	  Figure	  31.	  	  	  	  Coastal	   flood	   events	   have	   the	   highest	   impact	   on	   the	  most	   vulnerable	   populations	   in	   Squamish	   living	   in	  the	  coastal	  floodplain	  of	  the	  Downtown	  Core.	  	  Modeled	   coastal	   inundation	   ranging	   from	  0.54	   to	   2.52	  m	   here	   impacts	   the	   most	   socially	   vulnerable	   people	   in	  Squamish	   with	   the	   highest	   flood	   depths	   and	   extent.	  Further,	   this	   area	   also	   retains	   a	   high	   concentration	   of	  homes	  built	   prior	   to	  1985	   and	   flood	   construction	   levels	  (FCLs)	  established	   in	   the	  1994	   flood	  plan.	  These	  homes,	  located	  in	  low-­‐lying	  areas	  of	  a	  connected	  flood	  plain	  will	  experience	   the	   greatest	   impact,	   loss	   and	   damage	   in	   a	  coastal	   flood	   event.	   A	   more	   detailed	   map	   of	   the	  interaction	  between	  flood	  hazard	  and	  social	  vulnerability	  for	  the	  Squamish	  Downtown	  Core	  is	  offered	  in	  Figure	  32.	  As	   this	   flood	   model	   does	   not	   account	   for	   structural	  upgrades	   to	   dykes	   or	   proposed	   sea	   dyking	   in	   the	  downtown	   area,	   these	   maps	   offer	   insight	   into	   how	  current	  social	  conditions	  may	  interact	  with	  a	  dyke	  breach	  most	  notably	   in	   the	  highest	   levels	  of	   social	  vulnerability	  and	  in	  the	  downtown	  area.	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  Observations	   of	   water	   depth	   from	   coastal	   flood	   event	  across	  the	  river	  delta	  include:	  	  p 0.48m	  to	  0.95m	  in	  Dentville	  p 0.50m	  in	  areas	  of	  Stawamus	  24	  	  Vulnerable	   neighborhoods	   include	   North	   Yards,	  Squamish	   Business	   Park,	   Dentville,	   and	   Downtown	  Squamish.	  In	  addition	  to	  Squamish	  Nation	  Stawamus	  I.R.	  No.	   24,	   other	   areas	   at	   risk	   to	   coastal	   flooding	   hazard	  include	   Squamish	   Nation	   Yekwaupsum	   I.R.	   No.	   18	   and	  Squamish	   Nation	   Yekwaupsum	   I.R.	   No.19	   (Largely	  Undeveloped).	  	  	  	  Nearly	  all	  industrial	  and	  commercial	  lands	  are	  subject	  to	  flood	  hazards	  (District	  Municipality	  of	  Squamish,	  2009),	  	  however	   coastal	   inundation	   may	   also	   impact	   major	  regional	   transit	   infrastructure	   along	   the	   Mamquam	  Blind	  Channel	   (Highway	  99)	   and	  Squamish	  Estuary(CN	  Rail).	  	  7.2.1	  Discussion	  	  Mobilizing	  Resilience:	  A	  Disaster	  Resilience	  of	  Place	  Approach	  to	  IFHMP	  in	  Squamish	  British	  Columbia	   91	  	  Figure	  30:	  200	  Year	  Coastal	  Flood	  Event	  in	  the	  Squamish	  Valley	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  Figure	  31:	  200	  Year	  Coastal	  Flood	  Event	  and	  	  	  Social	  Vulnerability	  in	  the	  Squamish	  Valley	  	   	  	  	  	  Mobilizing	  Resilience:	  A	  Disaster	  Resilience	  of	  Place	  Approach	  to	  IFHMP	  in	  Squamish	  British	  Columbia	   92	  Figure	  32	  :	  200	  Year	  Coastal	  Flood	  Depths	  and	  Social	  Vulnerability	  on	  the	  Squamish	  River	  Delta	  	  2.52	  m	  .95	  m	  0.50	  m	  	  Mobilizing	  Resilience:	  A	  Disaster	  Resilience	  of	  Place	  Approach	  to	  IFHMP	  in	  Squamish	  British	  Columbia	   93	  	  	  	  Introduction	  Long-­‐term	   vulnerability	   reduction,	   sustainability	   and	  coastal	   adaptation	   planning	   in	   Squamish	  must	   account	  for	   risks	   associated	   with	   current	   and	   future	   climatic	  change	  (Fussel,	  2007).	  Addressing	  global	  climate	  change	  in	   local	   flood	   hazard	   and	   land	   use	   planning	   is	   ground	  zero	   for	   human	   adaptation	   to	   climate	   change.	   Here	  planning	  policy	  must	  deal	  with	  uncertainty.	  However,	  to	  present	  a	  future	  “Worst	  Case”	  scenario	  of	  a	  1	  meter	  Sea	  Level	  Rise	  (SLR)	  inundation	  bathtub	  model	  was	  created	  for	  the	  Squamish	  River	  Delta	  using	  the	  nineteen	  years	  of	  Higher	   High	   Water	   Level	   (HHWLT)	   tide	   data	   in	   Howe	  sound	   -­‐-­‐	   with	   1	  meter	   of	   additional	   water	   added.	   This	  model	  does	  not	  account	  for	  current	  or	  future	  sea	  diking	  or	  small-­‐scale	  tidal	  effects	  on	  the	  flood	  plain	  but	  rather	  offers	   preliminary	   analyses	   of	   sea	   level	   rise	   using	  district	  high-­‐resolution	  elevation	  modeling.	  	  	  	  This	   modeling	   and	   preliminary	   visualization	   offer	   an	  early	   adaptation	   assessment	   for	   sea	   level	   rise	   in	  Squamish	  and	  may	  assist	  in	  creating	  a	  prioritized	  policy	  and	   infrastructure	   strategy	   for	   meeting	   coastal	   flood	  risks	  given	  projected	  climate	  scenarios.	  	  	  However,	   today	   there	   is	   opportunity	   to	   identify	   “no-­‐regret”	   or	   “low	   regret”	   actions	   on	   behalf	   of	   the	  municipality	  today,	  considering	  the	  timeline	  of	  sea	  level	  and	   how	   adaptation	   options	   perform	   the	   most	   robust	  across	   expert	   and	   community	   generated	   evaluation	  criteria.	  	  	   A	   DROP	   approach	   to	   integrated	   flood	   hazard	  management	   considers	   natural	   boundaries	   of	  waterways	   and	   coasts	   in	   efforts	   to	   maintain	   and	  enhance	   natural	   buffer	   areas	   and	   account	   for	   future	  extent	  of	  ecosystem	  services	  providing	  flood	  protection	  such	   as	   the	   Skwelwil’em	   Squamish	   Estuary.	   Further,	  understanding	  new	  natural	  boundaries	  may	   inform	   the	  designation	  of	  hazardous	  areas	  for	  habitation	  and	  other	  land	   uses	   in	   long	   range	   sustainability	   planning	   and	  revisions	   to	   climate	   change	   policy	   in	   the	   Official	  Community	  Plan.	  	  	  Figure	  33	  illustrates	  the	  extent	  and	  depth	  of	  inundation	  given	  a	  1-­‐meter	  sea	  level	  rise	  and	  offers	  three	  spot	  depth	  measurements	  of	  standing	  water	  across	  current	  human	  settlement	   on	   the	   Squamish	   River	   delta.	   Figure	   34	  offers	  a	  more	  detailed	  map	  of	  the	  downtown	  core.	  	  	  7.3	  Sea	  Level	  Rise	  and	  New	  Natural	  Boundaries	  	  Mobilizing	  Resilience:	  A	  Disaster	  Resilience	  of	  Place	  Approach	  to	  IFHMP	  in	  Squamish	  British	  Columbia	   94	  	  Figure	  33	  :	  1	  Meter	  of	  Sea	  Level	  Rise	  in	  the	  District	  of	  Squamish	  	  	  	  Mobilizing	  Resilience:	  A	  Disaster	  Resilience	  of	  Place	  Approach	  to	  IFHMP	  in	  Squamish	  British	  Columbia	   95	  Figure	  34	  :	  1	  Meter	  of	  Sea	  Level	  Rise	  on	  the	  Squamish	  River	  Delta	  	  1.82	  m	  0.35	  m	  .15	  m	  	  Mobilizing	  Resilience:	  A	  Disaster	  Resilience	  of	  Place	  Approach	  to	  IFHMP	  in	  Squamish	  British	  Columbia	   96	  7.3.1	  Discussion	  	  A	   1-­‐meter	   rise	   in	   sea	   level	   without	   a	   storm	   surge	  will	  impact	   at	   least	   2.88	   km²/	   289	   Hectares	   or	   3%	   of	   the	  District’s	   land	  10.	   	   A	   majority	   of	   this	   inundation	   will	  occur	  in	  the	  most	  socially	  vulnerable,	  densely	  populated	  and	  economically	  active	  downtown	  area.	  	  	  The	   deepest	   inundation	  would	   occur	   in	   the	   downtown	  core	   (1.82m	   at	   2nd	   and	   Main	   and	   1m	   at	   Eaglewind	  Drive),	   the	   Ocean	   Front	   Peninsula	   (1.27m).	   	   Squamish	  Reserve	   Stawamus	   24	   may	   experience	   up	   to	   .35m	  Dentville	  while	  upland	  areas	  in	  Dentville	  will	  experience	  lesser	   but	   notable	   effects	   (0.15m	   at	   Madill	   and	  Britannia).	  	  	  	  Recognizing	   existing	   vulnerabilities	   in	   these	   social,	  environmental	   and	   built	   systems	   assists	   in	   prioritizing	  coastal	   adaptation	   activities(Fussel,	   2007).	   To	  successfully	  adapt	  to	  these	  new	  boundaries	  the	  complex	  interaction	  between	  social	  and	  ecological	  systems	  must	  be	   engaged	   in	   an	   elicitation	   of	   community	   values	   -­‐-­‐	  based	   on	   ecological	   and	   social	   memory	   -­‐-­‐	   to	   assist	   in	  successful	   reduction	   of	   vulnerability	   given	   current	   and	  expected	  coastal	  change	  (Adger	  et	  al.,	  2005).	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  10	  A	  raster	  calculation	  using	  a	  single	  water	  surface	  and	  existing	  District	  of	  Squamish	  LIDAR	  Digital	  Elevation	  Model.	  	  	  	  	  Sea	   level	  rise	  has	  major	   land	  use	  planning	  implications.	  	  Taking	  a	  DROP	  approach	  to	  adaptation,	   there	  are	   three	  areas	   of	   opportunity	   to	   recognize	   new	   natural	  boundaries	   in	   coastlines	   and	   intertidal	  waterways	   that	  include:	  	   1. Land	  Use	  Zoning	  	  2. Waterway	  Setbacks	  and	  	  3. Skwelwil’em	  Squamish	  Estuary	  Upland	  Migration	  	  These	   are	   further	   illustrated	   with	   relevant	   areas	  identified	  in	  Figure	  35.	  	  	  	  Understanding	   where	   future	   high	   tides	   is	   valuable	   in	  addressing	   both	   short	   term	   flood	   risk	   and	   long	   term	  climate	   adaptation	   in	   this	   coastal	   setting.	   However,	  successful	  adaptation	  to	  SLR	  and	  planning	  policy	  will	  be	  through	  engaging	  citizens	  and	  local	  values.	  	  	  	  Simple	  Sea	  Level	  Rise	  visualizations	  out	  in	  the	  landscape	  where	  residents	  can	  see	   the	   impacts	  on	  neighborhoods	  and	   built	   environment	   can	   assist	   in	   connecting	  community	   actions	   and	   flood	   risk	   with	   global	   climate	  change(Sheppard,	   2012).	   Visualizations	   of	   existing	  community	  vulnerability,	  200-­‐year	  surge	  events	  and	  Sea	  Level	   Rise	   are	   valuable	   beyond	   planning	   reports	   in	  translating	   knowledge	   into	   action.	   Examples	   of	  “Resilience	  Activities”	  including	  SLR	  visualization	  can	  be	  found	   in	   Section	   9.0	   on	   Public	   Participation	   and	  IFHMP	   implementation.	  	  Mobilizing	  Resilience:	  A	  Disaster	  Resilience	  of	  Place	  Approach	  to	  IFHMP	  in	  Squamish	  British	  Columbia	   97	  Figure	  35:	  Sea	  Level	  Rise	  Planning	  Opportunities	  in	  Squamish	  	  	  	  	   	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  1.	  	  Land	  Use	  	  	  Areas	  Impacted:	  Downtown	  Core,	  Stawamus	  IR	  24,	  Oceanfront	  Peninsula,	  	  	  Rationale:	  Creating	  a	  Sea	  Level	  Rise	  Development	  Permit	  Area(DPA)	  in	  areas	  identivied	  beyond	  tolerable	  risk	  	  can	  	  clear	  guidelines	  for	  use	  and	  building	  form	  can	  ensure	  that	  areas	  of	  inundation	  do	  not	  subject	  residents	  to	  coastal	  vlood	  risk,.	  	  Flood	  Construction	  Levels	  for	  future	  development	  must	  revlect	  expected	  SLR.	  Areas	  with	  existing	  low	  FCL	  buildings	  (often	  built	  1985)	  subject	  to	  SLR	  demand	  attention	  in	  vulnerability	  reduction	  and	  zoning	  efforts.	  	  	  2.	  Waterway	  Setbacks	  	  	  Areas	  Impacted:	  Dentville,	  Business	  and	  Industrial	  Parks,	  Stawamus	  IR	  24,	  Yekwaupsum	  18,	  North	  Yards	  	  Rationale:	  Given	  higher	  stream	  vlows,	  tides	  and	  vlood	  events	  that	  are	  impacted	  from	  higher	  seas,	  revisiting	  current	  setbacks	  for	  future	  development	  will	  ensure	  that	  sensitive	  environmental	  areas	  that	  provide	  vlood	  management	  services	  and	  resident	  exposure	  to	  vlood	  waters	  at	  higher	  natural	  boundaries	  are	  addressed.	  	  3.	  Skwelwil’em	  Squamish	  Estuary	  Upland	  Migration	  	  Areas	  Impacted:	  Downtown	  Core	  (Village	  Green	  Way,	  Wilson	  Slough,	  )	  Business	  and	  Industrial	  Parks	  	  Rationale:	  As	  tides	  move	  upland	  so	  do	  intertidal	  environments	  that	  estuarine	  forests	  systems	  need	  to	  thrive.	  Expanding	  current	  estuary	  management	  boundaries	  and	  designating	  future	  lands	  that	  will	  become	  intertidal	  zones	  can	  ensure	  continued	  ecosystem	  services	  for	  vlood	  management.	  	  	  Mobilizing	  Resilience:	  A	  Disaster	  Resilience	  of	  Place	  Approach	  to	  IFHMP	  in	  Squamish	  British	  Columbia	   98	  	  Innovations	   in	   planning	   research	   offer	   guidance	   to	  coastal	   communities	   like	   Squamish	   to	   set	   protocols	   for	  risk-­‐based	   decisions	   for	   human	   use	   of	   hazardous	   lands.	  	  The	  Risk-­‐Based	  Land-­‐use	  Guide,	  released	  by	  the	  Geological	  Survey	  of	  Canada	  in	  2014,	  structures	  such	  an	  approach	  to	  land	   use	   planning.	   The	   guide	   defines	   risk	   as	   the	  probability	   of	   consequence	   which	   differs	   slightly	   from	  the	   Risk	   =	   Hazard	   x	   Vulnerability	   approach	   taken	   here.	  However,	   consequence	   is	   based	   in	   social	   and	  environmental	   vulnerability	   and	   the	   exposure	   to	   risk	  (Struik,	   L	   C	   et	   al.,	   2015).	   Understanding	   existing	  vulnerabilities	   feeds	   into	   Step	   3	   of	   the	   proposed	  approach	   illustrated	   in	   Appendix	   Item	   12.	   5.	   A	   risk-­‐based	   approach	   can	  be	  mainstreamed	   into	   the	  planning	  at	   the	   municipal	   level	   across	   departments	   and	   plans.	  Some	  of	  these	  formal	  documents	  may	  include:	  	  	  1. Regional	  Growth	  Strategies	  2. Official	  Community	  Plans	  3. Development	  Permit	  Areas	  4. Design	  Guidelines	  	  5. Subdivision	  Bylaws	  6. Transportation	  Plans	  7. Capital	  Plans	  8. Emergency	  Plans	  9. Flood	  hazard	  management	  plans	  	  Informed	   by	   baseline	   DROP	   analyses	   in	   this	   report,	  IFHMP	   study	   and	   emerging	   best	   practices,	   the	   District	  can	   demonstrate	   leadership	   and	   innovation	   in	   risk-­‐based	  planning	  in	  Howe	  Sound	  and	  the	  Strait	  of	  Georgia.	  	  	  	  	  The	  highest	  concentrations	  of	  social	  vulnerability	  and	  greatest	  exposure	  to	  coastal	  flood	  hazard	  (surge	  and	  sea	  level	  rise)	  are	  located	  in	  the	  downtown	  area	  -­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐	  most	  notably	  Dissemination	  Areas	  59310202	  and	  59310201.	  •	  Waters	  during	  a	  200-­‐year	  coastal	  flood	  event	  may	  reach	  0.5m	  to	  3m	  across	  the	  flood	  plain	  in	  a	  current	  diking	  or	  future	  dike	  failure	  scenario.	  	  	  Given	  a	  1-­‐meter	  rise	  in	  sea	  levels,	  at	  least	  2%	  of	  the	  District’s	  lands	  are	  subject	  to	  1	  meter	  of	  sea	  level	  rise,	  which	  will	  also	  be	  accompanied	  by	  an	  upland	  migration	  of	  the	  Squamish	  estuary.	  These	  findings	  suggest	  that	  there	  is	  much	  work	  to	  be	  done	  to	  address	  vulnerability	  and	  future	  water	  levels	  in	  planning.	  	  	  The	  following	  synthesis	  of	  recommendations	  offers	  more	  comprehensive,	  time	  sensitive	  and	  party	  specific	  insights.	  	  	  	  	  7.4	  Towards	  Risk-­‐Based	  Planning	  in	  Squamish	   7.5	  	  From	  Findings	  To	  Action:	  Risk	  Assessment	  	  Mobilizing	  Resilience:	  A	  Disaster	  Resilience	  of	  Place	  Approach	  to	  IFHMP	  in	  Squamish	  British	  Columbia	   99	  	   	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  Risk	  Assessment	  Synthesis	  of	  Recommendations	  	   	  Short	  Term	   Parties	  Involved	  1. Complete	  Emergency	  Evacuation	  plan	  for	  downtown	  area	  with	  heightened	  engagement	  for	  Squamish	  residents	  in	  downtown	  Dissemination	  Areas.	  	   District	  of	  Squamish	  Engineering	  and	  Planning,	  Emergency	  Manager,	  Community	  Organizations	  2. Integrate	  SOVI	  	  and	  SOVI	  +	  AEP	  200	  Coastal	  Flood	  	  mapping	  	  into	  current	  IFHMP	  social	  consequence	  mapping	   KWL,	  Arlington	  Group,	  District	  of	  Squamish	  Engineering	  and	  Planning,	  Community	  Organizations	  3. Identify	  community	  organizations	  representing	  the	  downtown	  area	  in	  IFHMP	  implementation	  	   KWL,	  Arlington,	  District	  of	  Squamish	  Engineering	  and	  Planning,	  Community	  Organizations	  4. Review	  indicator	  weights	  of	  social	  vulnerability	  indicators	   IFHMP	  Implementation	  Committee,	  KWL,	  Arlington	  Group,	  District	  of	  Squamish	  Engineering	  and	  Planning,	  Community	  Organizations	  5. Complete	  community	  emergency	  management	  plan	  including	  provisions	  for	  coastal	  flood	  evacuation.	  	   District	  of	  Squamish	  Engineering	  and	  Planning,	  Emergency	  Manager,	  Community	  Organizations	  6. 	  	  	  	  Complete	  Proper	  Functioning	  Condition	  evaluation	  of	  Squamish	  waterways	  	   IFHMP	  Implementation	  Committee,	  District	  of	  Squamish	  Engineering	  and	  Planning,	  Community	  Organizations	  Medium	  Term	  	   	  1. Integrate	  SOVI	  +	  Coastal	  Flood	  mapping	  and	  new	  natural	  boundary	  estimates	  in	  2016	  OCP	  updates	   District	  of	  Squamish	  Engineering	  and	  Planning	  2. Create	  a	  Sea	  Level	  Rise	  or	  Coastal	  Flood	  Zoning	  Bylaw	  Designation	  [LTA	  Chapter	  323	  –Section	  903	  ]	  with	  restrictive	  use,	  and	  design	  guidelines	  for	  any	  allowed	  structures	  	  District	  of	  Squamish	  Engineering	  and	  Planning,	  Municipal	  Council	  3. Create	  community	  hazard	  vulnerability	  and	  risk	  monitoring	  and	  evaluation	  program.	  	   District	  of	  Squamish	  Engineering	  and	  Planning,	  Squamish	  Emergency	  Planning,	  Community	  Organizations	  4. Designate	  lands	  subject	  to	  high	  coastal	  flood	  risk	  as	  restrictive	  use	  [LTA	  Chapter	  250	  Section	  	  85,	  86,	  2019]	  .	   District	  of	  Squamish	  Engineering	  and	  Planning,	  	  Mayor	  and	  Council,	  Approving	  Officers	  Long	  Term	   	  1. Make	  land	  use	  planning	  policy	  and	  decisions	  based	  on	  social	  consequence	  of	  exposing	  vulnerable	  populations.	  [LTA	  Chapter	  250	  Section	  	  85,	  86,	  2019]	   District	  of	  Squamish	  Engineering	  and	  Planning,	  Approving	  Officers	  2. Monitor	  community	  resilience	  based	  on	  vulnerability	  indicators	  (See	  Appendix	  Item	  12.17)	   District	  of	  Squamish	  Engineering	  and	  Planning,	  Community	  Organizations	  	  Mobilizing	  Resilience:	  A	  Disaster	  Resilience	  of	  Place	  Approach	  to	  IFHMP	  in	  Squamish	  British	  Columbia	   100	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  Image	  2:	  Development	  Proposal	  in	  the	  Downtown	  Peninsula	  Area	  during	  a	  Summer	  Storm	  Surge,	  2015	  	  	  	  	  	  Photo:	  Christopher	  J.	  Carter	  (Lighthawk	  Conservation	  Flying	  |	  Resilient	  Coasts	  UBC),	  2015	  Mobilizing	  Resilience:	  A	  Disaster	  Resilience	  of	  Place	  Approach	  to	  IFHMP	  in	  Squamish	  British	  Columbia	   101	  8.0 Plan	  Evaluation	  	  To	   understand	   where	   Disaster	   Resilience	   of	   Place	  (DROP)	   to	  coastal	   flooding	  could	  be	  mainstreamed	   into	  land	   use	   and	   flood	   hazard	   management	   plans,	   this	  analyses	  identified	  the	  following	  planning	  documents	  as	  highly	   relevant	   for	   review:	  	  	  1. Flood	  Hazard	  Management	  Plan	  (1994)	  2. Official	  Community	  Plan	  (2009)	  Including	  Peninsula	  Area	  appendix	  3. Downtown	  Neighborhood	  Plan	  (2008)	  4. Upper	  Mamquam	  Blind	  Channel	  Policy	  Statement	  5. Skwelwil'em	  Squamish	  Estuary	  Wildlife	  Management	  Plan	  (2007)	  	  While	  all	  documents	  were	  read,	  the	  existing	  1994	  Flood	  Hazard	  Management	  Plan	  and	  Official	  Community	  Plans	  were	   chosen	   for	   a	   structured	   and	   in	   depth	   analysis.	  	  These	  two	  documents	  are	  the	  focus	  of	  this	  section.	  These	  analyses	   illustrate	   gaps	   and	   opportunities	   where	   a	  DROP	  approach	  can	  be	  taken	  to	  reduce	  vulnerability	   to	  coastal	   flooding	   through	   local	   land	   use	   and	   planning	  policy.	  Current	  land	  use	  regulation	  in	  Squamish	  is	  done	  using	  12	  zoning	  designations	  and	  development	  permits	  areas.	  Figure	  36.	  Illustrates	  current	  zoning	  designations	  in	  relation	  to	  coasts,	  watercourses	  and	  the	  Skwelwil'em	  Squamish	   Estuary.	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  Mobilizing	  Resilience:	  A	  Disaster	  Resilience	  of	  Place	  Approach	  to	  IFHMP	  in	  Squamish	  British	  Columbia	   102	  	  (District	  of	  Squamish,	  2014)	  Public Map ViewerThis map is a user generated static output from an Internet mapping site andis for reference only. Data layers that appear on this map may or may not beaccurate, current, or otherwise reliable.25,0001,250.0THIS MAP IS NOT TO BE USED FOR NAVIGATION1:NAD_1983_UTM_Zone_10NMeters0 625.00NotesEstuary, Coastal Pro and Settlement, HillShadeLegend1,250.0© District of SquamishZoning ClassificationCommercial (C)Comprehensive DevelopmentIndustrial (I)Resource  (RE)Residential (RS, RL)Multi-Unit Residential (RM) Residential Mobile Home (RMH)Park & Public Use (P-3)Institutional (P-1,P-2)Land Use Contract (LUC)University Campus (UC)University Housing (UH)Estuary OperationalSquamish EstuaryRemediation AreasManagement AreasWildlife Management AreaWildlife Management Covenant AreaSite B - Squamish NationPlanning AreasConservation Area Industrial / Commercial AreaPlanning Assesment AreaTransportation CorridorDitchWatercourseDike CenterlineRip RapCrushE rthGravelFigure	  36:	  Land	  Use	  Zoning	  and	  Management	  Areas	  in	  2015	  	  	  Mobilizing	  Resilience:	  A	  Disaster	  Resilience	  of	  Place	  Approach	  to	  IFHMP	  in	  Squamish	  British	  Columbia	   103	  	  Urban	   development	   in	   Squamish	   is	   confined	   by	   water,	  steep	  topography	  and	  a	  multitude	  of	  hazards,	  this	  leads	  to	  hyper-­‐focused	  urban	  development	  on	  the	  valley	  floor,	  much	  of	  which	  is	  subject	  to	  riverine	  and	  coastal	  flooding.	  The	   Squamish	   Valley	   floor	   contains	   	   acceptable,	  negotiable	   and	   non-­‐negotiable	   growth	   management	  areas	  established	  by	  the	  District	  (Journeay,	  M.	  J.,	  2011).	  	  Given	  a	  two-­‐fold	  increase	  in	  population	  over	  the	  next	  30	  years	  local	  planning	  policy	  can	  adopt	  a	  DROP	  approach	  to	  ensure	   	   	   a	   risk-­‐based	   use	   of	   land.	   Areas	   such	   as	   of	   the	  Squamish	  Downtown	  Core	  that	  are	  noted	  as	  “acceptable”	  in	   current	   growth	   management	   must	   be	   given	  consideration.	  	  	  Guided	   by	   the	   current	   land	   use	   bylaw	   (No.	   1324)	   and	  2009	  Official	  Community	  Plan,	  future	  densities	  of	  human	  settlement	   are	   directed	   away	   from	   coastal	   areas	  (Journeay,	  M.	   J.,	   2011).	   In	   efforts	   of	   risk-­‐based	   land	   use	  policy,	  tradeoffs	  in	  development	  placement	  in	  relation	  to	  current	   and	   future	   risk	   must	   be	   made.	   Coastal	   hazards	  being	   are	   noted	   of	  moderate-­‐high	   concern	   in	   Squamish	  HRVA	   study	   (Squamish	   Emergency	   Program,	   2015).	  	  	   	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	   	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	   	  	  Mobilizing	  Resilience:	  A	  Disaster	  Resilience	  of	  Place	  Approach	  to	  IFHMP	  in	  Squamish	  British	  Columbia	   104	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  8.1	  1994	  Flood	  Hazard	  Management	  Plan	  	  	  Mobilizing	  Resilience:	  A	  Disaster	  Resilience	  of	  Place	  Approach	  to	  IFHMP	  in	  Squamish	  British	  Columbia	   105	  Introduction	  	  Flood	   hazard	   management	   plans	   typically	   are	   updates	  every	   15-­‐20	   years	   by	   municipalities.	   The	   1994	   Flood	  Hazard	   remains	   the	   most	   recent	   iteration	   of	   a	   flood	  hazard	  management	   plan	   and	  must	   be	   updated	   to	  meet	  new	   understandings	   of	   climate,	   coastal	   hazards	   and	  innovations	   in	   community	   disasters	   resilience	   planning.	  	  	  A	   social	   vulnerability	   and	   ecological	   resilience	  framework	   was	   developed	   to	   structure	   the	   Strengths	  Weaknesses	   and	   Opportunities	   (SWO).	   This	   framework	  captures	   major	   themes	   in	   those	   two	   .	   Evaluation	  variables	  and	  results	  can	  be	  found	  in	  the	  Table	  3	  below.	  	  Based	  on	  these	  core	  concepts	  strengths,	  weaknesses	  and	  opportunities	   are	   offered	   by	   section	   and	   can	   inform	  updates	  to	  flood	  planning	  in	  current	  IFHMP	  creation.	  As	  the	  plan	  was	  never	  formally	  institutionalized,	  it	  remains	  unclear	   if	   the	   policies,	   structural	   suggestions	   and	   legal	  tools	   set	   forth	   were	   put	   into	   action.	   However,	   lessons	  and	  successful	  policy	  can	  	  be	  drawn	  from	  in	  the	  creation	  of	  a	  revised	  IFHMP.	  	  This	  SWO	  plan	  evaluation	  follows	  the	  original	  structure	  of	  the	  1994	  flood	  management	  plan,	  offering	  analyses	  by	  the	  plans	  major	  five	  sections.	  These	  include:	  	  1. Public	  Education	  and	  Engagement	  2. Regulatory	  Requirements	  3. Dyking	  and	  Structural	  Improvements	  4. Implementation	  5. Monitoring	  and	  Evaluation	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  Mobilizing	  Resilience:	  A	  Disaster	  Resilience	  of	  Place	  Approach	  to	  IFHMP	  in	  Squamish	  British	  Columbia	   106	  	  Table	  3:	  1994	  Flood	  Management	  Plan	  Evaluation	  Variables	  	   	  	   	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  KEY:	  Addressed	  in	  Plan	  (Green),	  Not	  Addressed	  in	  Plan(Red)	  	   Variables	   Provision	   Notes	  Socio-­‐Ecological	  Resilience	  1. Address	  Climate	  Change	  and	  Sea	  Level	  Rise	  Plans	  for	  3m-­‐flood	  event.	  No	  strategy	  for	  SLR	  or	  climate	  change	  impacts.	   -­‐-­‐	  2. Takes	  a	  watershed	  approach	   No	  mention	  of	  watershed	  level,	  	  multi-­‐stakeholder	  governance	  or	  Squamish	  First	  Nation	  	   Must	  consider	  institutional	  arrangements	  and	  	  regulation	  of	  ground	  and	  surface	  water	  under	  2014	  BC	  Water	  Sustainability	  Act	  3. Non-­‐structural	  approach	  considered	   Section	  215	  Covenants	  and	  969	  zoning	  bylaws(not	  passed	  by	  council)	  .	  1994	  plan	  influenced	  OCP	  land	  use	  designations	  and	  policy	  for	  landslide	  hazards	  but	  lacks	  	  a	  natural	  hazards	  Development	  Permit	  Area	  Focus	  on	  dyke	  setbacks	  and	  limiting	  unfinished	  basements.	  FCLs	  are	  out	  of	  date	  4. Promotes	  Ecological	  Buffers	   Protection	  of	  Squamish	  estuary	   Recognizing	  citizen	  connection	  to	  dyke	  trail	  system	  is	  a	  great	  start	  for	  engagement	  5. Acknowledges	  social	  capital	  	  -­‐-­‐	   -­‐-­‐	  6. Promotes	  Networks	  and	  	  7. Social	  Learning	  	  -­‐-­‐	   -­‐-­‐	  	  Mobilizing	  Resilience:	  A	  Disaster	  Resilience	  of	  Place	  Approach	  to	  IFHMP	  in	  Squamish	  British	  Columbia	   107	  	  	  Variables	   Provision	   Notes	  Social	  Vulnerability	  and	  the	  Disaster	  Cycle	  1. Mitigation	   Housing	  quality	  ,	  resources	  or	  provisions	  for	  	  upgrades	  and	  insurance	  are	  entirely	  absent.	   -­‐-­‐	  2. Preparedness	   Limited	  to	  emergency	  communications	  plan	  and	  identification	  of	  neighborhoods.	  No	  discussion	  of	  warning	  system.	  Limited	  to	  8	  Page	  community	  brochure	  with	  flood	  maps	  No	  languages	  identified	  3. Response	   -­‐-­‐	   -­‐-­‐	  4. Recovery	   Some	  discussion	  of	  finance	  schemes	  for	  dyke	  upgrades.	  No	  focus	  on	  housing,	  social	  deprivation	  or	  inequity,	  political	  will,	  resource	  sharing	  with	  fellow	  district,	  impacts	  of	  flooding	  event	  or	  post-­‐disaster	  planning	  	  -­‐-­‐	  	  Mobilizing	  Resilience:	  A	  Disaster	  Resilience	  of	  Place	  Approach	  to	  IFHMP	  in	  Squamish	  British	  Columbia	   108	  	  Discussion	  	  	  Public	  Education	  and	  Engagement	  	  Assessment	  	  	  From	   the	   outset	   the	   1994	   flood	   plan	   identifies	   “public	  education”	   as	   the	   linchpin	   of	   successful	   hazard	  management	   and	   risk	   reduction	   planning	   process	   and	  recognizes	   that	   this	   will	   be	   more	   effective	   than	   dyke	  infrastructure	   upgrades	   and	   land	   use	   regulation.	   The	  description	   of	   flood	   risks	   and	   location	   was	  communicated	   through	   three	   four-­‐page	   brochures	   that	  described	   flood	   risk	   and	   areas	   of	   concern	   with	   a	  circulation	   of	   5,000	   (population	   of	   Squamish	   in	   1994	  was	   13,779).	   This	   brochure	   was	   in	   addition	   to	   local	  public	   radio	   announcements	   and	   two	   public	   open	  houses.	  The	  plan	  also	  recognizes	  Section	  215	   covenants	  as	  an	  indirect	  form	  of	  flood	  risk	  education.	  	  	  	  	  Weakness	  From	   a	   participatory	   theory	   perspective	   this	   plan	   took	  an	  additive	   (participation	  when	  possible)	   rather	   than	  a	  subtractive	  (participation	  as	  a	  core	  objective)	  approach.	  The	   result	   is	   an	   “inform	   and	   consult”	   rather	   than	  “empower”	   approach.	   These	   two	   approaches	   are	   at	  opposite	   ends	   of	   the	   Internationally	   Recognized	   IAP2	  spectrum	  of	  public	  participation.	  	  	  	  	  It	   is	  unclear	  why	  a	  brochure	  was	  chosen	  as	  an	  effective	  risk	   communication	   medium	   and	   there	   are	   no	  references	   to	  other	   languages	   the	  8-­‐page	  brochure	  will	  be	  produced	  in.	  As	  a	  multitude	  of	  regulations	  and	  design	  suggestions	   are	   made	   there	   was	   no	   mention	   of	   public	  consultation	  in	  this	  drafting	  and	  this	  may	  cause	  conflict	  in	  implementation	  and	  ineffective	  enforcement.	  Further,	  public	   education	   and	   engagement	   aim	   to	   “solicit	  cooperation”	  rather	  than	  share	  decisions	  and	   joint	  plan	  with	  the	  Squamish	  Nation.	  	  	  Opportunity	  This	   area	   of	   the	   1994	   plan	   and	   participatory	   planning	  practice	   offers	   the	   largest	   opportunities	   in	   addressing	  social	   vulnerability	   by	   putting	   the	   most	   vulnerable	  people	  and	  businesses	  at	   the	   center	  of	  planning	  efforts	  and	   privileging	   indigenous	   knowledge.	   Given	   recent	  decisions	   such	   as	   Tsilhqot’in	   FN	   v.	   Province	   of	   British	  Columbia	   and	   Lil’Wat	   FN	   v.	   Resort	   Municipality	   of	  Whistler	   that	  have	  recognized	   indigenous	   lands	  beyond	  areas	  of	  intensive	  use,	   land	  or	  water	  use	  planning	  must	  engage	   indigenous	   governments	   as	   institutions	   in	   the	  name	  of	  reconciliation	  in	  good	  faith,	  this	  collaboration	  is	  also	   good	   planning	   practice	   for	   Districts(Province	   of	  British	   Columbia,	   2012).	   	   Further,	   Site	   A.	   of	   the	  Squamish	   Estuary,	   three	   Indian	   Reserves	   and	   the	   co-­‐managed	  Skwelwil’em	  Squamish	  Estuary	  are	  integral	  to	  IFHMP	  protection	  schemes(BC	  Ministry	  of	  Environment,	  2007).	  	  Drawing	  from	  traditional	  knowledge	  holders	  and	  elders	  with	   the	   Squamish	   First	   Nation	   can	   achieve	   intricate	  flood	   histories	   and	   place-­‐based	   knowledge	   that	   can	  inform	   analyses,	   coastal	   and	   riverine	   assessment	   and	  policy	   translation.	   Further	   partnering	   in	   education	   and	  plan	   implementation	   with	   an	   effective	   cross-­‐section	   of	  Squamish	   civil	   society,	   especially	   youth,	   migrant,	  historically	  marginalized	  populations,	  impoverished	  and	  	  Mobilizing	  Resilience:	  A	  Disaster	  Resilience	  of	  Place	  Approach	  to	  IFHMP	  in	  Squamish	  British	  Columbia	   109	  renters	   can	   grant	   a	   better	   sense	   of	   who	   may	   be	  impacted.	  	  	  A	  stakeholder	  map	  of	  relevant	  civil	  society	  organizations	  in	  Squamish	  not	   identified	   in	  current	   IFHMP	  process	   is	  available	   in	   Appendix	   Item	   12.10.	   Granted	   that	   the	  District	   is	   now	   home	   to	   a	   multitude	   of	   languages	   and	  cultural	   backgrounds,	   namely	   1,195	   Punjabi	   and	   190	  Tagalog	   speakers,	   there	   are	   opportunities	   to	   meet	  citizens	   on	   their	   own	   terms	   (Statistics	   Canada,	   2015).	  Emphasizing	   flood	   risk	   planning	   at	   the	   neighborhood	  level	   through	   participatory	   planning	   events,	   flood	  visualization,	   interpretive	   signage	   and	   estuary	  vegetation	  programs	  can	  build	  social	  capital	  and	  discuss	  topics	   like	   flood	   memory,	   traditional	   knowledge	   and	  place	  attachment.	  	  	  Regulatory	  Requirements	  	  Strength	  	  The	  plan	  makes	  many	  productive	  provisions	  for	  leaving	  the	   natural	   environment	   untouched,	   protecting	   river	  floodways	  and	  sensitive	  areas	  (i.e.	  wetlands	  and	  coastal	  estuaries),	   buying	   out	   hazardous	   areas	   that	   may	   be	  subdivided	   and	  a	   focus	  on	  urban	  densification	   in	   areas	  of	   low	   hazard.	   This	   is	   achieved	   through	   a	   proposed	  Official	   Community	   Plan	   category	   for	   conservation	   and	  protection	   alongside	   zoning	   bylaws	   to	   preserve	  conservation	   along	   river	   channels.	   A	   Development	  Permit	   Area	   4	   –	   District	  Watercourses	   with	   guidelines	  for	   two	   inland	   channels	   effectively	   identifies	  watercourse	   setbacks	   (19.69	   feet),	   restoration	   of	  biological	   function	   after	   any	   development.	   These	  measures	  carry	  tangible	  impacts	  for	  resilience	  planning	  by	  protecting	  and	  expanding	  ecosystem	  buffers.	  	  	  Flood	   hazard	   areas	   are	   also	   proposed	   through	   the	  creation	   of	   bylaws	   (751)	   under	   Section	   989	   of	   the	  Municipal	   Act.	   This	   plan	   created	   Flood	   Construction	  Levels	   of	   2.5m	   and	   guidance	   for	   urban	   development	  within	  the	  reaches	  of	  the	  Squamish	  and	  Mamquam	  river	  floodplains.	   Managing	   future	   development	   away	   from	  high	  flood	  hazard	  areas	  is	  recommended	  under	  the	  Land	  Title	   Act	   Section	   215	   and	   219	   covenants.	   These	  covenants	  are	  effective	  at	  mandating	  Flood	  Construction	  Levels	   and	   if	   applied	   to	   a	   title,	  waive	   local	   government	  liability	   for	   flood	   loss	   and	   damages.	   A	   full	   table	   of	  regulatory	  provisions	  is	  illustrated	  in	  Appendix	  Item	  4.	  	  	  	  Weakness	  Drafting,	   legislating	  and	  attempting	   to	  enforce	   land	  use	  regulation	  and	  Official	  Community	  Plan	  updates	  without	  early	  and	  often	  public	  participation	  can	  prove	  politically	  problematic	   and	   do	   not	   address	   existing	   social	  vulnerability.	  While	   ensuring	   conservation	  of	   buffers,	   a	  majority	   of	   these	   regulations	   focus	   on	   new	   building	  guidelines	  and	  structural	  upgrades	  rather	  than	  investing	  in	  the	  resilience	  of	  local	  businesses	  and	  people.	  Allowing	  covenants	  to	  serve	  as	  a	  form	  of	  public	  education	  is	  novel	  but	   does	   not	   actively	   reduce	   the	   risk	   of	   residences	   or	  businesses	  that	  cannot	  invest	  elsewhere.	  	  	  Opportunity	  A	   focus	   away	   from	   buildings	   to	   environmental	   buffer	  enhancement,	   people	   impacted	   and	   public	   agency	   in	  flood	   risk	   planning	   can	   ensure	   that	   natural	   and	   social	  capital	   is	   at	   the	   core	   of	   flood-­‐risk	   planning.	   Actively	  engaging	   businesses	   and	   residents	   in	   the	   creation	   of	  regulation,	  other	  non-­‐structural	  land	  use	  and	  “resilience	  	  Mobilizing	  Resilience:	  A	  Disaster	  Resilience	  of	  Place	  Approach	  to	  IFHMP	  in	  Squamish	  British	  Columbia	   110	  activities”	  can	  garner	  support	  and	  ensure	  the	  relevance	  of	   land	   use	   designation	   and	   covenants.	   Identifying	  opportunities	   to	   expand	   the	   extent	   of	   the	   Squamish	  estuary	  through	  zoning	  designations	  and	  land	  trusts	  can	  enhance	  a	  green	  infrastructure	  approach	  to	  flood	  hazard	  management	  and	  higher	  sea	  levels.	  	  	  	  Fellow	  communities	  in	  the	  Strait	  of	  Georgia	  have	  begun	  to	   integrate	   1m	   of	   sea	   level	   rise	   into	   land	   use	   zoning	  provisions.	   Namely	   in	   Parksville	   BC	   where	  vulnerabilities	   to	   Sea	   Level	   Rise	   have	   been	   addressed	  through	   a	   zoning	   designation	   for	   Estuary	   preservation	  to	   protect	   the	   145	   ha	   (358	   acre)	   Englishman	   River	  estuary.	   Additional	   development	   permit	   areas	   and	  guidelines	   have	   been	   slated	   to	   meet	   the	   land	   use	   and	  social	  vulnerability	  realities	  as	  part	  of	  the	  municipality’s	  sustainability	   and	   climate	   adaptation	   plans.	   A	   zoning	  bylaw	   is	   currently	   being	   planned	   for	   designated	  inundation	   areas	   surrounding	   the	   popular	   Parksville	  Beach	   and	   Community	   Park.	   	   Further	   estuary	   and	  historic	  preservation	  designations	  may	  be	  of	  use	  in	  flood	  risk	  coastal	  adaptation	  planning	  efforts.	  	  	  As	   densification	   and	   clustering	   remains	   an	   important	  activity	   in	   this	   urbanizing	   district,	   adopting	   a	   Green	  Density	   model	   in	   low	   hazard	   areas	   that	   effectively	  designs	   for	   flood	   waters,	   neutralizes	   impacts	   to	  wetlands	   and	   promotes	   social	   connectivity	   can	   garner	  co-­‐benefits	   such	   as	   aging	   in	   place,	   poverty	   and	  homelessness	  reduction	  planning	  efforts.	  	  Dyking	  and	  Structural	  Improvements	  	  Strength	  	  From	  the	  outset,	  the	  plan	  identifies	  that	  dykes	  are	  only	  a	  partial	   solution	   for	   flood	   protection.	   Further	   socio-­‐ecological	  interactions	  are	  recognized	  as	  the	  plan	  makes	  provisions	   for	   “public	   appreciation”	   of	   wetlands	   and	  high	   interactions	   with	   dyke	   systems	   through	   running	  paths.	  	  	  Weakness	  Firstly	   this	   plan	   and	   section	   focuses	   heavily	   on	   flood	  proofing	   and	   Flood	   Construction	   Levels	   and	   does	   not	  address	   Proper	   Functioning	   Condition	   (PFC)	   of	  watersheds	   and	   riparian	   zones.	   Not	   only	   do	   these	   not	  address	  the	  upgrade	  of	  current	  properties	  but	  the	  dyke	  systems	   in	   this	   analyses	   are	   based	   on	   protection	   from	  flood	  events	   that	  occur	  1	   in	  200	  years,	  and	   is	  based	  on	  flood	   assessments	   from	   the	   1970s,	   this	   does	   not	  represent	   a	   change	   in	   flood	   regimes	   and	   updated	   sea	  level	   rise	   and	   regional	   climate	   study.	  Ongoing	   analyses	  consider	   1	   in	   200	   years	   given	   new	   climate	   projections	  and	   a	   1m	   rise	   in	   sea	   level.	   Further,	   hybrid	   varieties	   of	  dyking	  and	  non-­‐structural	  soft	  armouring	  is	  often	  much	  less	   expensive	   and	   can	   reduce	   total	   water	   level	   by	  dissipating	  flood	  energy	  and	  retaining	  water	  if	  estuarine	  and	   riparian	   systems	   are	   in	   Proper	   Functioning	  Condition.	  These	  are	  not	  considered.	  	  	  Opportunity	  Ongoing	  diking	   options	   can	   focus	   on	  protecting	   critical	  infrastructure	   and	   identifying	   green	   infrastructure	  hybrids	  and	  wave	  break	  options	  and	  retaining	  the	  fiction	  of	   the	   Squamish	   Estuary.	   The	   ‘Green	   Shores’	   program,	  which	   takes	   ecosystems,	   focused	   approach	   to	   reduce	  erosion.	   This	   approach	   to	   shoreline	   design,	   	   illustrated	  further	   in	  Appendix	   Item	   12.4,	   	   aims	   to	   limit	   erosion,	  urban	   encroachment,	   conservation	   of	   estuaries	   and	  restore	   riparian	   vegetation.	   There	   is	   opportunity	   to	  prevent	   the	   erosion	   of	   wetlands,	   wave	   breaking	   green	  infrastructure	   and	   other	   ecosystem	   buffers	   for	   coastal	  	  Mobilizing	  Resilience:	  A	  Disaster	  Resilience	  of	  Place	  Approach	  to	  IFHMP	  in	  Squamish	  British	  Columbia	   111	  flooding.	   	   	  Current	   IFHMP	  planning	   identifies	  a	   suite	  of	  protection	   strategies	   and	   include	   few	   hybrid	   dyke	  options	  (District	  of	  Squamish,	  2014).	  	  	  	  	  Implementation	  	  Strength	  	  A	   simple	   implementation	   program	   schedule	   for	  implementing	   strategic	   actions	   of	   Flood	   Hazard	  Management	  plan	  is	   included	  in	  the	  plan.	  This	   included	  the	  OCP	  Amendment	  Bylaw,	  969	  bylaw,	  adoption	  of	  the	  flood	   hazard	   management	   plan	   and	   creation	   of	   maps	  and	   public	   education	   materials.	   The	   need	   for	   an	  implementation	  steering	  committee	  made	  up	  of	  agencies	  was	   identified	  to	  oversee	  public	  education	  and	  transfer	  of	  regulatory	  authority	  is	  also	  identified.	  	  Financing	   dyking,	   flood	   management	   activities	   is	  recommended	   through	   general	   taxation	   development	  cost	  charges	  improvement	  programs,	  Federal	  grants	  and	  Public	   to	   Public	   Partnerships	   with	   the	   Ministry	   of	  Environment	  Lands	  and	  Parks	  are	  proposed	  	  Weakness	  Implementation	   is	   the	   linchpin	   to	   disaster	   resilience	  planning.	   This	   plan	   falls	   short	   on	   many	   fronts.	   Clear	  responsibilities,	   timelines,	   earmarked	   funding	   and	  evaluation	   criteria	   and	   schedules	   are	   all	   missing.	  Interviews	   with	   staff	   note	   that	   land	   use	   designations	  were	  changed	   in	   the	  Official	  Community	  Plan	   following	  the	   1994	   flood	   management	   plan	   as	   well	   as	   policy	  recommendations	   for	   development	   in	   Cheekeye	   Fan.	  Today,	   20	   years	   later	   and	   lacking	   documentation	   it	   is	  unclear	  how	  the	  plan	  was	  implemented.	  	  Opportunity	  It	   is	   widely	   recognized	   that	   engagement	   and	  participation	   of	   civil	   society	   as	   collaborative	   partners	  can	  assist	  in	  the	  effective	  implementation	  of	  disaster	  and	  risk	  reduction	  plans	  complex	  hazard	   interactions	  and	  a	  climate	  uncertainty	  (Oulahen	  &	  Doberstein,	  2010)(Head	  &	   Alford,	   2013).	   However,	   this	   must	   begin	   in	   early	  planning	   stages.	   Further	   opportunities	   are	   outlined	   in	  the	  Public	  Participation	  and	  IFHMP	  Implementation	  Section	  of	  this	  report.	  	  	  Provincial	  guidelines	  for	  flood	  hazard	  management	  from	  2004	   call	   for	  1m	  of	   Sea	  Level	  Rise.	   	  According	   to	  more	  recent	  downscaled	  relative	  sea	  levels	  in	  the	  Howe	  Sound	  area,	   any	   structural	   upgrades	   and	   flood	   construction	  levels	  can	  account	  for	  38.5	  to	  51.6cm	  in	  relative	  sea	  level	  rise	   in	  Howe	  Sound	  by	  2100,	  these	  estimates	  are	  based	  on	   a	   range	   of	   relative	   carbon	   emissions	   or	  Representative	   Concentration	   Pathways	  (James	   et	   al.,	  2014).	   There	   are	   opportunities	   to	   use	   downscaled	  climate	   modeling	   provided	   by	   Pacific	   Climate	   Impacts	  Consortium	  and	  the	  current	  district	  Flood	  Construction	  Levels	   of	   4.59m	  +	  wave	   effects	   to	   guide	   non-­‐structural	  planning	  initiatives.	  This	  can	  include	  the	  creation	  of	  	  sea	  level	   rise	   planning	   areas,	   setbacks,	   investment	   in	  environmental	   flood	  buffers	  and	  identifying	  where	  new	  maximum	  natural	  boundaries	  of	  the	  ocean	  and	  intertidal	  areas	  coincide	  with	  social	  deprivation	  and	  vulnerability.	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  Mobilizing	  Resilience:	  A	  Disaster	  Resilience	  of	  Place	  Approach	  to	  IFHMP	  in	  Squamish	  British	  Columbia	   112	  Monitoring	  and	  Evaluation	  	  Opportunity	  As	  the	  1994	  Flood	  Hazard	  Plan	  made	  no	  provisions	   for	  monitoring	   the	   status	   of	   vulnerability	   of	   society	   in	  Squamish	   it	   is	   advised	   to	   adopt	   a	   disaster	   resilience	   of	  place	  (DROP)	  model.	  In	  this	  approach	  risk	  (an	  objective	  measure	   of	   the	   likelihood	   of	   a	   hazard	   event)	   interacts	  with	  mitigation	  (measures	  to	  lessen	  risks	  or	  reduce	  their	  impact)	   to	   produce	   the	   hazard	   potential.	   The	   hazard	  potential	   is	   either	   moderated	   or	   enhanced	   by	   a	  geographic	   filter	   (site	   and	   situation	   of	   the	   place,	  proximity)	   as	   well	   as	   the	   social	   fabric	   of	   the	   place.	  Indicators	   increase	   transparency	   and	   assist	   in	  monitoring	  vulnerability	   reduction	  efforts	   (Cutter	   et	   al.	  2008).	   	   This	   can	   be	   readily	   be	   adapted	   to	   the	   unique	  context	   of	   Squamish,	   acknowledging	   that	   not	   all	   are	  equal	   in	   exposure	   and	  would	   include	   ecological,	   social,	  economic,	   institutional,	   infrastructure,	   and	   community	  competence	  indicators.	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  Mobilizing	  Resilience:	  A	  Disaster	  Resilience	  of	  Place	  Approach	  to	  IFHMP	  in	  Squamish	  British	  Columbia	   113	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  8.2 2009	  Official	  Community	  Plan	  Evaluation	  	  Mobilizing	  Resilience:	  A	  Disaster	  Resilience	  of	  Place	  Approach	  to	  IFHMP	  in	  Squamish	  British	  Columbia	   114	  Introduction	  	  The	  Official	  Community	  Plan	  of	  Squamish	  can	  provide	  a	  guiding	  land	  use	  bylaw,	  which	  mainstreams	  disaster	  risk	  reduction	   and	   community	   values	   around	   risk	   –	  providing	  a	  valuable	  opportunity	  to	  integrate	  a	  disaster	  resilience	  of	  place	  approach.	  The	  Local	  Government	  Act	  of	  Canada	  Section	  323	  –	  Sections	  875,	  876,	  877	  and	  878	  make	   previsions	   for	   local	   governments	   to	   integrate	  these	   core	   concepts	   in	   management	   of	   resources,	  restriction	  of	  land	  use	  in	  hazardous	  areas	  and	  by	  setting	  objectives	  and	  policies	  that	  guide	  planning	  and	  land	  use	  decisions.	  	  	  Using	   plan	   evaluation	   methodology	   (see	   methodology	  section)the	  current	  Official	  Community	  Plan	  2009	  Bylaw	  2011	   was	   evaluated	   to	   assess	   gaps	   in	   planning	   policy	  and	   land	   use	   regulation	   for	   coastal	   flood	   risk	   -­‐	  specifically	   in	   taking	   a	   disaster	   resilience	   of	   place	  approach.	   Protocols	   for	   evaluation	   and	   results	   are	  shared	  in	  Appendix	  Item	  12.8.	  	  	  An	  assessment	  of	  strengths	  and	  opportunities	  is	  offered	  by	  the	  8	  plan	  elements	  addressed:	  	  1) Evidence	  Base	  2) Participation	  3) Governance	  and	  Coordination	  4) Goals	  5) Legal	  and	  Local	  Government	  Requirements	  6) Policy	  7) Implementation,	  Monitoring	  and	  Evaluation	  8) Organization	  and	  Communication	  	  	  	  Discussion	  	  Overall	   the	   plan	   met	   63%	   of	   the	   plan	   evaluation	  protocols.	  	  The	  major	  strength	  of	  the	  OCP	  was	  in	  its	  Plan	  Organization	   and	   Communication,	   meeting	   100%	   of	  protocols.	   Legal	   and	   Local	   Government	   Requirements,	  Public	   Participation	   and	   Governance	   and	   Coordination	  were	   also	   string	   all	   met	   80%	   of	   the	   plan	   protocols.	   A	  visual	  of	  plan	  performance	  by	  element	  offered	   is	  Figure	  37.	  	  	  	  An	  area	  of	  concern	  in	  the	  OCP	  were	  overarching	  goals	  for	  risk	  reduction	  to	  coastal	  flooding	  which	  met	  a	  mere	  14%	  of	   plan	   protocols	   –	   providing	   opportunity	   for	   major	  improvements	   in	   2016	   OCP	   revisions.	   These	   goals	  represent	   leadership	   by	   the	  Municipality	   to	   reduce	   risk	  and	   allocate	   resources	   to	   do.	   This	   area	   deserves	   major	  work	  in	  2015	  OCP	  revisions.	  The	  following	  analysis	  offers	  a	   detailed	   description	   of	   where	   the	   current	   Official	  Community	  Plan	  and	  areas	  where	  it	  can	  be	  strengthened,	  organized	  by	  major	  plan	  element.	  	  	  	  	  Mobilizing	  Resilience:	  A	  Disaster	  Resilience	  of	  Place	  Approach	  to	  IFHMP	  in	  Squamish	  British	  Columbia	   115	  Table	  4:	  Overview	  of	  Plan	  Quality	  Variables	  and	  Element	  Performance	  Plan	  Element	  	   	  	   	  	   Individual	  Variables	  	  	   Mean	  Score	  	  Evidence	  Base	   	  	   	  	   12	   67%	  Participation	   	  	   	  	   	  	   5	   80%	  Governance	  and	  Coordination	   	  	   5	   80%	  Goals	   	  	   	  	   	  	   7	   14%	  Legal	  and	  Local	  Government	  Requirements	   5	   80%	  Policy	   	  	   	  	   	  	   14	   64%	  Implementation,	  M&E	   	  	   	  	   9	   22%	  Organization	  &	  Communication	   	  	   7	   100%	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  Mobilizing	  Resilience:	  A	  Disaster	  Resilience	  of	  Place	  Approach	  to	  IFHMP	  in	  Squamish	  British	  Columbia	   116	  	  Figure	  37:	  2009	  Squamish	  Official	  Community	  Plan	  and	  Coastal	  Flood	  Risk	  Planning	  	  0.67	  0.80	  0.80	  0.14	  0.80	  0.64	  0.22	  1	  0.00	  0.10	  0.20	  0.30	  0.40	  0.50	  0.60	  0.70	  0.80	  0.90	  1.00	  Evidence	  Base	  Participation	  Governance	  and	  Coordination	  Goals	  Legal	  and	  Local	  Government	  Requirements	  Policy	  Implementation,	  M&E	  	  Organization	  &	  Communication	  	  Mobilizing	  Resilience:	  A	  Disaster	  Resilience	  of	  Place	  Approach	  to	  IFHMP	  in	  Squamish	  British	  Columbia	   117	  	  Plan	  Element	  1:	  Evidence	  Base	  	  Score:	  67%	  	  Strengths	  	  • Climate	  change	  is	  addressed	  in	  Energy	  &	  Air	  Quality	  and	  Hazard	  Lands	  sections.	  	  • Sea	  level	  rise	  and	  coastal	  flood	  risk	  was	  addressed	  in	  Hazard	  Lands	  (Section	  25),	  Background	  Oceanfront	  Peninsula	  Sub	  Area	  Plan	  	  • Acknowledges	  designated	  flood	  hazard	  areas	  as	  those	  existing	  in	  the	  200-­‐year	  floodplain	  for	  watercourses	  and	  the	  Howe	  Sound	  (Section	  25).	  • Current	  population	  size	  and	  composition	  was	  included	  in	  section	  6	  Community	  Profile.	  	  • Describes	  adjacent	  watercourses	  and	  coastline	  characteristics	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  Weaknesses	  	  • Policy	  and	  evidence	  in	  surrounding	  climate	  change	  and	  hazard	  lands	  is	  weak	  and	  does	  not	  define	  vulnerability	  as	  persons,	  areas,	  businesses	  etc.	  	  • Coastal	  characteristic	  description	  is	  limited	  to	  the	  Oceanfront	  Peninsula	  Plan.	  No	  coastal	  depth	  description	  or	  map	  of	  coastal	  topography	  map	  is.	  	  • Provincial	  Sea	  Level	  Rise	  estimates	  (2014)	  of	  1m	  were	  not	  cited	  • Did	  not	  note	  the	  extent	  in	  hectares,	  change	  or	  inventory	  of	  vegetation	  or	  forests	  in	  the	  valley.	  This	  is	  especially	  relevant	  riparian	  areas	  and	  the	  estuarine	  forest	  as	  flood	  management	  services.	  	  • Does	  not	  include	  future	  population	  composition	  forecast.	  	  • Local	  downscaled	  climate	  modeling	  not	  referenced	  • Environmental	  and	  hydrological	  monitoring	  data	  was	  not	  cited	  or	  referenced	  in	  resource	  management.	  	  	  Opportunities	  	  There	   are	   many	   opportunities	   to	   strengthen	   policy	  linkages	   between	   Hazard	   Lands	   and	   Natural	   Resource	  management	   given	   the	   overlap	   in	   flood	   management	  activities.	  Further	  clear	  connections	  between	  sources	  of	  environmental	  monitoring	  data	  (notably	  water	  and	  PICS	  downscaled	  climate	  models)	  and	  local	  decision-­‐making.	  	  	  In BC, climate change is anticipated to result in increased temperatures, increased precipitation, more extreme precipitation events, sea level rise, glacial retreat, and changes in estuary salinity and ecology.   With Squamish being located at sea level, at the mouth of an estuary, and home to glaciers, Squamish may experience all of these manifestations of climate change.  -Hazard Lands P. 112 OCP(2009) 	  Mobilizing	  Resilience:	  A	  Disaster	  Resilience	  of	  Place	  Approach	  to	  IFHMP	  in	  Squamish	  British	  Columbia	   118	  Plan	  Element	  2:	  Participation	  	  Score:	  80%	  	  Strengths	  	  • Strong	  recognition	  of	  collaboration	  with	  the	  Squamish	  First	  Nation.	  Most	  notably	  in	  a	  stand-­‐alone	  section	  on	  First	  Nations	  (Section	  13)	  and	  citation	  of	  the	  2008	  Protocol	  Agreement..	  	  • Strong	  recognition	  of	  community	  consultation	  and	  involvement	  in	  decision	  making	  integrated	  throughout	  the	  plan	  including	  Sustainability	  Commitment	  (Section	  	  9),	  Area	  Planning(Section	  11)	  ,	  Community	  Services	  and	  Facilities	  (Section	  14),	  Residential	  Neighborhood(Section	  17)	  and	  Implementation	  &	  Monitoring	  (Section	  27)	  • Moderate	  recognition	  of	  community	  involvement	  in	  decision-­‐making.	  Namely	  in	  Guiding	  Principles	  (Section	  8),	  Residential	  Neighborhoods	  (Section	  17),	  Implementation	  &	  Monitoring	  (Section	  27)	  however	  it	  is	  unclear	  as	  to	  the	  degree	  of	  deliberative	  practices	  or	  direct	  decision-­‐making.	  	  	  Weaknesses	  	  • Traditional	  flood	  knowledge	  and	  ways	  of	  knowing	  are	  not	  recognized	  in	  resource	  management	  or	  hazards	  planning.	  	  	  	  • Community	  NGOs	  related	  to	  social	  development,	  are	  not	  identified.	  • Community	  environmental	  NGOs	  BC	  Federation	  of	  Naturalists	  and	  Squamish	  ecosystem-­‐mapping	  project	  are	  referenced	  but	  not	  in	  relation	  to	  hazard	  lands	  collaboration.	   	  	  • The	  level	  of	  citizen	  impact	  on	  decision-­‐making	  is	  unclear.	  	  Opportunities	  	  While	   the	   plan	   identified	   relevant	   partner	   NGO(s)	   in	  community	   development	   for	   Parks	   and	   Recreation,	  Natural	  Environment	  and	  Economic	  development	   there	  is	   an	   opportunity	   to	   identify	   relevant	   organizations	   in	  vulnerability	   reduction.	   This	   can	   begin	   at	   the	   IFHMP	  implementation	   committee	   level	   and	   relevant	  organizations	  are	  illustrated	  in	  Appendix	  Item	  12.10	  of	  this	   analysis.Principle	  10	  -­‐	  Citizen	  Engagement	  	  The	  District	  is	  committed	  to	  providing	  opportunities	  for	  its	  citizens	  to	  engage	  in	  meaningful	  participation	  in	  the	  community	  decision-­‐making	  process.	  	  -  Guiding Principles  OCP(2009) 	  	  	  Mobilizing	  Resilience:	  A	  Disaster	  Resilience	  of	  Place	  Approach	  to	  IFHMP	  in	  Squamish	  British	  Columbia	   119	  Plan	  Element	  3:	  Governance	  and	  Coordination	  	  Score:	  80%	  	  Strengths	  	  	  • Extensive	  collaboration	  and	  formal	  2008	  Protocol	  Agreement	  with	  the	  Squamish	  First	  Nation	  are	  mentioned	  extensively	  throughout	  the	  document	  -­‐	  appearing	  in	  ten	  of	  the	  fourteen	  policy	  and	  objective	  areas.	  • The	  Squamish-­‐Lilooet	  Regional	  District	  is	  identified	  as	  a	  key	  party	  in	  OCP	  review,	  regional	  governance	  and	  growth	  management.	  • The	  document	  identifies	  the	  role	  of	  a	  watershed-­‐based	  approach	  to	  natural	  environment	  policy	  planning.	  • A	  regional	  growth	  strategy	  is	  recognized	  as	  a	  major	  coordinating	  factor	  in	  strategic	  direction	  and	  shared	  objective	  sin	  the	  SLRD.	  • Clear	  policy	  statements	  noting	  that	  the	  District	  will	  consider	  undertaking	  the	  identification	  and	  assessment	  of	  disaster	  risk	  reduction	  strategies	  in	  conjunction	  with	  federal	  and	  provincial	  agencies	  (Section	  25-­‐10).	  	  	  Weaknesses	  	  • The	  plan	  does	  not	  reference	  the	  BC	  Water	  Act	  or	  multi-­‐stakeholder	  approaches	  to	  managing	  risk	  or	  water	  resources.	  	  • No	  clear	  strategy	  for	  engagement	  of	  non-­‐governmental	  and	  business	  stakeholders.	  	  	  Opportunities	  	  New	  opportunities	  for	  multi-­‐stakeholder	  approaches	  to	  watershed	  governance	  are	  set	  forth	  in	  the	  recently	  adopted	  BC	  Water	  Sustainability	  and	  there	  are	  opportunities	  to	  integrate	  watershed	  management	  and	  planning	  initiatives	  with	  integrated	  flood	  hazard	  management	  planning.	  This	  is	  especially	  relevant	  to	  joint	  planning	  with	  the	  Squamish	  First	  Nation.16	  -­‐	  23	  When	  considering	  impacts	  on	  streams	  and	  riparian	  areas,	  the	  District	  encourages	  a	  watershed	  approach	  to	  riparian	  area	  protection,	  with	  the	  aim	  of	  preserving	  the	  health	  of	  the	  entire	  watershed.	  	  16	  -­‐	  25	  In	  coastal	  areas	  that	  are	  identified	  as	  environmentally	  sensitive	  or	  adjacent	  to	  aquatic	  habitat	  areas,	  development	  shall	  occur	  in	  accordance	  with	  federal	  and	  provincial	  guidelines	  or	  regulations.	  	  	  16	  -­‐	  26	  The	  District	  will	  consider	  ‘Green	  Shores’	  principles	  in	  the	  planning	  and	  design	  of	  developments	  adjacent	  to	  coastal	  areas	  to	  recognize	  and	  address	  the	  ecological	  features	  and	  functions	  of	  coastal	  systems.	  	  	  16	  -­‐	  27	  Priority	  will	  be	  given	  to	  the	  re-­‐watering	  of	  the	  Mamquam	  Blind	  Channel	  and	  tributary	  systems	  to	  improve	  the	  flushing	  action	  along	  the	  waterway	  and	  enhance	  its	  environmental	  features.	  	  -Natural Environment P. 60 OCP(2009) 	  	  Mobilizing	  Resilience:	  A	  Disaster	  Resilience	  of	  Place	  Approach	  to	  IFHMP	  in	  Squamish	  British	  Columbia	   120	  Plan	  Element	  4:	  Goals	  	  Score:	  14%	  	  Strengths	  	  • Three	  flood	  risk	  reduction	  statements	  are	  made	  in	  the	  Hazard	  Lands	  section	  of	  the	  OCP.	  Objectives	  in	  the	  are	  made	  to:	  	   1. Understand,	   assess	   and	   manage	   multiple	  natural	   hazards	   taking	   into	   account	   publicly	  acceptably	  levels	  of	  risk.	  2. Minimize	   and	  mitigate	   the	   risk	   of	   loss	   of	   life,	  property	   damage	   and	   economic	   impact	   of	  hazards	  (including	  flood)	  and	  3. Adapt	   to	   climate	   change	   present	   and	   future	  while	   minimizing	   adverse	   impacts	   and	  capturing	  its	  opportunities.	  	  	  Weaknesses	  	  • There	   is	   no	   mandatory	   language	   around	  vulnerability	  reduction	  or	  risk-­‐based.	  • No	  particular	  businesses,	   infrastructure,	   services,	  populations,	   neighborhoods	   are	   recognized	   as	  being	  more	  vulnerable	  than	  others.	  • The	  value	  or	  retention	  of	  ecosystems	  that	  provide	  flood	  risk	  management	  services	  is	  not	  recognized.	  • A	   long-­‐term	   risk-­‐based	   approach	   to	   land	   use	  decision-­‐making	   is	   not	   referenced	   in	   the	  document.	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  Opportunities	  	  Guiding	   policies	   set	   the	   major	   directions	   for	   local	  planning,	   indicating	   levels	   of	   tolerable	   risk	   and	  vulnerable	  populations	  at	   this	   level	  puts	   risk	   reduction	  at	   the	   center	   of	   flood	   risk	   planning	   Based	   upon	   social	  consequence	   mapping	   conducted	   by	   KWL	   there	   is	  opportunity	  to	  base	  land	  use	  policy	  for	  coastal	  flood	  risk	  management	   based	   on	   observations	   of	   current	  socioeconomic	   and	   environmental	   conditions.	  	  Mobilizing	  Resilience:	  A	  Disaster	  Resilience	  of	  Place	  Approach	  to	  IFHMP	  in	  Squamish	  British	  Columbia	   121	  Plan	  Element	  5:	  Legal	  and	  Local	  Government	  Requirements	  	  Score:	  80%	  	  Strengths	  	  • Recognizes	  environmentally	  sensitive	  and	  hazardous	  areas	  in	  growth	  management,	  Area	  Planning,	  Natural	  Environment.	  Areas	  are	  mapped	  in	  Appendix	  Schedule	  C	  and	  D1.	  	  • Protection	  of	  estuaries	  is	  recognized	  by	  bylaw	  in	  the	  Squamish	  Industrial	  Park	  Development	  Permit	  Area.	  • The	  document	  notes	  the	  value	  of	  affordable	  housing	  for	  all	  multiple	  occasions	  and	  the	  Squamish	  Affordable	  Housing	  Strategy	  and	  	  • The	  OCP	  notes	  intent	  to	  prepare	  a	  Regional	  Context	  Statement	  for	  the	  SLRD	  once	  a	  Regional	  Growth	  Strategy,	  then	  in	  drafting	  stage,	  has	  been	  completed.	  	  Weaknesses	  	  • The	  document	  does	  not	  address	  low	  vacancy	  rates	  or	  • An	  action	  plan	  for	  is	  referenced	  but	  not	  linked	  to	  social	  deprivation	  or	  vulnerability	  to	  hazard.	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  Opportunities	  	  Given	   a	   very	   low	   vacancy	   rate,	   an	   increasing	   rate	   of	  those	   to	   spending	   more	   than	   30%	   of	   their	   monthly	  income	   on	   shelter	   and	   projected	   growth,	   there	   is	  opportunity	   to	   strengthen	   guiding	   housing	   policy	   to	  improve	   housing	   system	   capacity.	   Communities	   with	  low	  vacancy	  rates	  fare	  much