Ce diaporama a bien été signalé.
Nous utilisons votre profil LinkedIn et vos données d’activité pour vous proposer des publicités personnalisées et pertinentes. Vous pouvez changer vos préférences de publicités à tout moment.
Welland River Floodline Mapping
Consultation Summary Report #2
June 2016 Public Information Sessions
September 2016
Prepar...
ConsultationSummaryReport#2
WellandRiverFloodplainMappingUpdate
1
Contents
1.0 Introduction .................................
September2016|MMMGroupLimited
2
1.0 Introduction
The Niagara Peninsula Conservation Authority’s
(NPCA) legislative mandate...
ConsultationSummaryReport#2
WellandRiverFloodplainMappingUpdate
3
Thursday June 16, 2016
 Wellandport Community Centre
50...
September2016|MMMGroupLimited
4
indicating that it provided answers to many
questions and was easy to understanding.
Most ...
ConsultationSummaryReport#2
WellandRiverFloodplainMappingUpdate
5
understand the physical shape and slope of the
River as ...
September2016|MMMGroupLimited
6
5.0 Next Steps
The information collected in throughout the
June consultation will be used ...
Appendix A: Mail Out and email to Land Owners
Niagara Peninsula Conservation Authority
250 Thorold Road West
Welland, Ontario, L3C 3W2
 
Welland River Floodplain Mappin...
Schedule:                                                            Presentations are the same at each session. 
Wednesda...
The NPCA is undertaking a new mapping exercise for the main branch of the Welland River from Binbrook
Dam to the Niagara R...
Note that draft floodlines will not be available at the Round #2 sessions.
Schedule for all meetings: 6:00 pm to 8:00 pm, ...
Copyright © 2016 NPCA, All rights reserved.
Want to change how you receive these emails?
You can update your preferences o...
Appendix B: Presentation
WELLAND RIVER
FLOODPLAIN
MAPPING UPDATE
Public Information Meeting
June 2016
Diego Torres Silvestre ((CC BY 2.0)
1
Presentation Outline
2
• Project Vision
• Project Overview
• Consultation Summary
• Where We Are Now
• Technical Overview
Project Overview
To successfully complete a Floodplain Mapping Update Study that is
Connected, Accurate, Reliable, and fou...
Project Overview
Study Area Limit - Lower
Study Area Limit - MiddleStudy Area Limit - Upper
4
Project Overview
Awareness Meetings (February 2016) occurred during the beginning of the study
and focused on describing t...
Consultation Summary
Meeting #1: 131
Meeting #2: 104
Meeting #3: 63
Meeting #4: 109
Total Sign-In: 407
6
Consultation Summary
The word cloud reflects
themes expressed throughout
the February consultations.
The size of the words...
Consultation Summary
Mandate and Need to Update Floodline Mapping
• NPCA’s legislative mandate as set out in Section 20 of...
Consultation Summary
Storm Event Selection
• In order to determine what risk of flood to protect against, a storm
event mu...
Consultation Summary
Ontario Power Generation
• OPG has a presence in the area and the Welland River plays a significant r...
Consultation Summary
Siphons
• The Siphons are perceived to have a significant impact on the Rivers response to
flood even...
Where We Are Now
• Technical work is advancing.
• Some site visits have taken place.
• Excellent input and discussion from...
What this Presentation will Cover
• An overview of
the technical
work
• How the model
is created
• Local data input
• Over...
Standard Industry Practice
Update 1985 mapping using standard industry practice
• Build a model using proven software
• Ad...
Floodplain Model for the Welland River
Overland Flow
(Runoff)
A
A Stream Flow
(Elevation)
B+ = C Floodline
Flood Line
Norm...
Floodplain Model for the Welland River
How much rain
falls onto the
land
1 How much water
sinks into the
ground, how much
...
Floodplain Model for the Welland River
Rain contributes to how
much water falls on the
land
Soil conditions, slope and wha...
Welland River at Church Road – 1957 to present
Overland Flow (Rain – Land – Flow)
Local data on relationship between rainf...
Overland Flow (Rain – Land – Flow)
Example of rainfall at Church Road gauge shows valid
connection between rainfall and in...
We know from analyzing soils maps that the infiltration rates
are generally consistent across the watershed therefore we c...
Overland Flow (Rain – Land – Flow)
Watersheds draining to Church Road gauge:
• West Wolf/Little Wolf/Wolf
• Buckhorn
• Els...
Overland Flow (Rain – Land – Flow)
Church Road Gauge
22
Peak Flow
Observed
Flow
Observed
Rain
3 days
Precipitation / Runof...
Overland Flow Links to Stream Flow
We looked at cross sections of the river in different
locations and at all bridges. Thi...
Stream Flow – Mapping
24
B
300 400 500
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
Welland River
Station (m)
Elevation(m)
...
In order to determine what risk of flood to protect against
we need to select a flood event.
100-year flood event is the s...
Stream Flow – Flowing Water
Simulated flood event flows used
for 1985 mapping (m3/s):
1. Abingdon Road - 75
2. Church Road...
Q
Q2
Q1
As water moves down the river the flow increases.
We have data on the history of flows in the river.
The 100 year ...
Flood level
Normal level
Looking downstream…
Elevation(m)
Flood Level and Floodline
Flood level
Normal level
Flood level
N...
Summary – Floodplain Model
Overland Flow
(Runoff)
A
A Stream Flow
(Elevation)
B+ = C Floodline
Flood Line
Normal Level
B C...
Facilitated Q&A
Diego Torres Silvestre ((CC BY 2.0)
Appendix C: Q&A – Public Information Sessions
Welland Question and Answer Notes – June 1, 2016 
 
Question 1: I know were not talking about lines yet. The topographic l...
know what were waiting for, because the process that was described was very black and white 
and very concrete? 
 
Answer:...
can do the verification. We will be able to tell how well the model is behaving with that 
particular syphon, it will give...
insurance up because I am in the floodplain. The Welland Canal is nearby but the water would 
have to come up awfully high...
Follow up: For example in my case, my insurance company has already told me that to 
get flood insurance, it would be craz...
NPCA will have this information and can continue to refine it as more information 
becomes available. 
 
Question 11: I am...
55 km is described as moderately sloping, it has 78 metres of fall over the 55 km. That would 
encompass the area that is ...
Welland Question and Answer Notes – June 8, 2016 
 
Question 1: Do you do any form of depth solving in the centre of the s...
are very close to the dam, so I don’t see my flood lines changing that much, but I do see a very 
large impact based off o...
chemicals, and we are destroying habitat. I asked this evening about a beaver dam, and I asked 
what would happen if I wer...
Question 4: I am in agriculture and I hear that from you, but I am glad you brought that up too 
Andrea, if you look at Bi...
  Answer: It is not the 100‐year flood event, but it is the highest peak, yes.  
 
Follow up question: I would be very int...
Answer: Right now, just shy of it. So for example, if the 96.3m3
 was an observed event at 
Church Road, and if you recall...
often, and it is about this much more. They can then say, in the next ten years we can 
expect to see this kind of reactio...
Welland Public Meeting Question and Answer Period – June 13, 2016
Question 1: I own quite a chunk of property and it is co...
Steve follow up: We update them every four years, the last one, the one that we are
using, was done in 2013.
Follow up que...
Answer from Andrea: Again, I acknowledge that the building is existing in the flood
plain, what would come into play is if...
Answer from Steve: About half of the watercourses in our jurisdiction have floodplain
mapping. Some of it is old from 1985...
Follow up from Mark: I just wanted to let you know how were dealing with the siphons.
It is called a sensitivity analysis,...
the old siphon, water level going downstream, and that’s another piece of observed
data that has been collected. We will b...
sensitivity analysis, we need to look at the average level, what is the more often than
not water level at that location. ...
Welland River Floodplain Mapping - June Consultation Summary Report
Welland River Floodplain Mapping - June Consultation Summary Report
Welland River Floodplain Mapping - June Consultation Summary Report
Welland River Floodplain Mapping - June Consultation Summary Report
Welland River Floodplain Mapping - June Consultation Summary Report
Welland River Floodplain Mapping - June Consultation Summary Report
Welland River Floodplain Mapping - June Consultation Summary Report
Welland River Floodplain Mapping - June Consultation Summary Report
Welland River Floodplain Mapping - June Consultation Summary Report
Welland River Floodplain Mapping - June Consultation Summary Report
Welland River Floodplain Mapping - June Consultation Summary Report
Welland River Floodplain Mapping - June Consultation Summary Report
Welland River Floodplain Mapping - June Consultation Summary Report
Welland River Floodplain Mapping - June Consultation Summary Report
Welland River Floodplain Mapping - June Consultation Summary Report
Prochain SlideShare
Chargement dans…5
×

Welland River Floodplain Mapping - June Consultation Summary Report

1 198 vues

Publié le

Round 2 summary report for the Welland River Floodplain Mapping study. This is following 4 public engagement session in June 2016.

  • Soyez le premier à commenter

  • Soyez le premier à aimer ceci

Welland River Floodplain Mapping - June Consultation Summary Report

  1. 1. Welland River Floodline Mapping Consultation Summary Report #2 June 2016 Public Information Sessions September 2016 Prepared for the Niagara Peninsula Conservation Authority
  2. 2. ConsultationSummaryReport#2 WellandRiverFloodplainMappingUpdate 1 Contents 1.0 Introduction ......................................................................................................................................2 1.1 About the Consultation.................................................................................................................2 1.2 Summary of June Meeting Dates and Locations...........................................................................2 2.0 Who We Heard From ........................................................................................................................3 3.0 What We Talked About.....................................................................................................................3 4.0 What We Heard ................................................................................................................................3 4.1 Key Themes...................................................................................................................................4 5.0 Next Steps .........................................................................................................................................6 STANDARD LIMITATIONS This report was prepared by MMM Group Limited (MMM) for Niagara Peninsula Conservation Authority (the client) in accordance with the agreement between MMM and the client. This report is based on information provided to MMM which has not been independently verified. The disclosure of any information contained in this report is the sole responsibility of the client. The material in this report, accompanying spreadsheets and all information relating to this activity reflect MMM’s judgment in light of the information available to us at the time of preparation of this report. Any use which a third party makes of this report, or any reliance on or decisions to be made based on it, are the responsibility of such third parties. MMM accepts no responsibility for damages, if any, suffered by a third party as a result of decisions made or actions based on this report. MMM warrants that it performed services hereunder with that degree of care, skill, and diligence normally provided in the performance of such services in respect of projects of similar nature at the time and place those services were rendered. MMM disclaims all other warranties, representations, or conditions of merchantability or profitability, or fitness for a particular purpose. This Standard Limitations statement is considered part of this report. Document Version Tracking Log Version No. Date Description 1 Sept 13 2016 Sent to P Graham for Review 2 Oct 3 2016 Incorporate Comments 3 Oct 12 2016 Print for WFC meeting 4
  3. 3. September2016|MMMGroupLimited 2 1.0 Introduction The Niagara Peninsula Conservation Authority’s (NPCA) legislative mandate as set out in Section 20 of the Conservation Authorities Act is to establish and undertake programs designed to further the conservation, restoration, development and management of natural resources. The NPCA fulfills this mandate by advocating and implementing programs that improve the quality of lands and waters within its jurisdiction; contribute to public safety from flooding and erosion; provide for the management of conservation and hazard lands; enhance the quality of life in its watershed by using its lands for regional recreation, heritage preservation and conservation education. In 2015, the NPCA hired MMM Group (MMM) to undertake an entirely new mapping exercise for the main branch of the Welland River from Binbrook Dam to the Niagara River. The goal of this newly initiated mapping exercise is to engage the community and stakeholders in a process that produces accurate and technically supported floodline mapping. A comprehensive consultation and engagement process forms an integral part of this new project. 1.1 About the Consultation The consultation and engagement program was designed to ensure that property owners know about any potential impact to their property. In addition, it is important that input from property owners and the public is incorporated into the technical process before a draft floodline is prepared. Three rounds of public meetings are planned: 1. Awareness of the project and general questions (February) 2. Technical explanations of the storm contributing to flooding conditions, the way flood water flows down the River, and the potential impacts of various structures within the River on the floodline. (June 2016) 3. Draft Floodline (Dates TBD) The meeting format includes an informal session at the beginning and end of the meeting where participants are able to speak one-on-one with the project team. A formal presentation and facilitated question and answer period formed the basis for the rest of the meeting time. 1.2 Summary of June Meeting Dates and Locations The first round of meetings was held in February 2016 and the consultation summary report is available on the NPCA website. Four meetings were held in June 2016 to give an update on Round One public consultation and to provide a formal presentation explaining the technical work that MMM Group will be doing to create the draft floodline over the summer. The presentation at each meeting was the same. Meetings were held 6:00 pm to 8:00 pm, with a formal presentation at 6:15 pm Wednesday June 1, 2016  Riverstone Event Centre, 414 River Road, Welland Wednesday June 8, 2016  Caistor Community Centre 1683 Abingdon Road, Caistor Centre, West Lincoln Monday June 13 2016  Legends on the Niagara, 9561 Niagara Parkway, Niagara Falls
  4. 4. ConsultationSummaryReport#2 WellandRiverFloodplainMappingUpdate 3 Thursday June 16, 2016  Wellandport Community Centre 5042 Canborough Road (Reg. Road 63) Wellandport, West Lincoln 2.0 Who We Heard From The meetings were well attended. A sign-in sheet was used to track attendance and to update the project mailing list. Observations from the Project Team indicate that some people chose not to sign in. As such the total estimated participation is over 260 people. Sign-in Sheet Summary:  Meeting #1 (Welland) - 118  Meeting #2 (Caistor) - 11  Meeting #3 (Chippawa) - 47  Meeting # 4 (Wellandport) - 67 Total Sign-Ins – 243 Most attendees were property owners who had received a direct letter or email from NPCA (Appendix A) about the project and inviting participation. There were a few members of the general public who are interested in the project and became aware of the meeting through the newspaper advertisements or local municipal notice board announcements. Some Councillors from local municipalities attended meetings as did some local municipal staff. NPCA Board members and members of the Welland Floodplain Committee also attended. Comment Cards Comment Cards were made available to all participants. Five Cards were returned during the meeting process. All of this information was reviewed and contributed to preparation of key themes and where appropriate, specific follow up action was taken. 3.0 What We Talked About The presentation was designed to included a short summary of the project overview including vision statement, study area maps and public input timing. A summary of the consultation input received throughout the February meetings was presented. Additional detail was presented on four topics given their prominence in the February meetings:  Mandate and need to update floodline mapping  Storm event selection  OPG  Siphons The technical portion of the presentation focused on:  How the model was created  Local data input  Three key components: o Overland flow (runoff) o Streamflow (elevation) o Floodline A copy of the presentation is included in Appendix B. 4.0 What We Heard It was clear that participants want to ensure that the floodplain model will be accurate in the context of the Welland River. This technical information is critical to developing a level of trust that the technical work is accurate and that the resulting line is in fact appropriate in order to protect public safety. Many positive comments were received regarding the presentation made
  5. 5. September2016|MMMGroupLimited 4 indicating that it provided answers to many questions and was easy to understanding. Most participants remain interested in the “line” and the impact on their property; namely the policy restrictions that will implement the line. There appeared to be agreement that the Board’s decision to release the policy and draft floodline at the same time in early 2017 was appropriate In addition to the technical questions and question related to specific properties, the health of the Welland River, the functioning of the siphons and general process questions were raised. The Question and Answer sessions at each meeting were transcribed and are included in Appendix A. Every effort was made to capture the intent of the question and the answer provided at the meeting. This material was used by the project team to identify key themes emerging from all four public meetings. The themes are presented below and will be addressed as the technical process continues to evolve. In some cases, we have added additional information to fully answer a question. 4.1 Key Themes 4.1.1 Draft Floodline and Policy Release The draft floodline is being prepared by the technical staff at MMM Group Limited and it will be ready as planned in fall of 2016. It was recommended, and accepted, by the NPCA Board that the draft floodline not be released until the policy work has been completed. The policy work is a separate process and is being completed by Dillon Consulting. The purpose of releasing the draft floodline with the policy is of benefit to the residents and interested parties. By releasing these items together, constructive conversation may happen around the floodline and the implications of the line on individual properties. The policy will outline what can and cannot happen within the regulatory floodline area. 4.1.2 Elevation and Cross-Sections The Welland River Floodplain Mapping Update will utilize highly accurate digital maps of the landscape within the study area. These digital maps are intended to assign ‘real-world’ elevations to the Welland River floodlines with the intent to dramatically improve upon the accuracy of the Welland River floodline maps that were generated over 30 years ago. The Digital Elevation Model provides an accurate representation of the depth and elevation of the River. The Welland River floodline mapping will also use cross-sections of the riverbed. Cross- sections have been created at points every 300 metres along the course of the Welland River. These provide a snapshot of what the water basin, or ‘container’ looks like along the River. 4.1.3 Accuracy, Calibration and Verification The technical work being completed for the project is being done by a team of professional engineers and hydrologists who are very experienced with this type of work. Other professionals will supplement the core team as necessary. As explained by the project team in the June consultations, the floodplain model requires two components: knowledge of the overland flow, and understanding of the stream flow. The overland flow component includes information about amount of rainfall and watershed characteristics such as land use, soil type, and slope. The stream flow component includes information on the River itself. Cross sections will be taken all along the length of the River to
  6. 6. ConsultationSummaryReport#2 WellandRiverFloodplainMappingUpdate 5 understand the physical shape and slope of the River as well as the landscape adjacent to it. The model will be calibrated using the Church Road gauge, as it has the most amount of data. The data will be verified at all other locations, including Wellandport, O’Reilly’s Bridge, Old Siphon, Material Dock, Oswego Creek, Big Forks Creek. Although Church Road is the calibration point, the project team has ensured that there is local data for the entire length of the River. 4.1.4 Siphons The Siphons are perceived to have a significant impact on the River’s response to flood events The NPCA has confirmed that the Old Siphon is approximately 30% blocked and the New Siphon contains no blockages. This floodplain study will undertake a sensitivity analysis which will determine the impact that the Siphons have on the floodplain under varying blockage conditions. The sensitivity analysis will analyze the impacts of cleared siphons, and the impacts of the siphons as they are today. It is noted that the NPCA is not responsible for clearing the Siphons however these concerns have been passed along to the City of Welland and the St. Lawrence Seaway Management Corporation. 4.1.5 Ontario Power Generation (OPG), Flow of Water and Sedimentation The Project Team is fully aware of the duration and nature of the operational regime OPG imposes on the Welland River. The impact to the Welland River floodplain as a result of the OPG operational regime will be analyzed as part of this study. While there has been public discussion about potential changes to OPG operations, this project must assume that OPG will continue to operate their facility in the same manner until OPG declares otherwise. 4.1.6 Communication NPCA has created many points of contact to ensure that information about this project is available to property owners who may be affected by the floodline, residents who are generally interested in the River, local municipalities and stakeholders. Concerns about direct mail notices for the June meetings not being received and errors in the information were address by staff. During the meetings, everyone who wanted an opportunity to speak was provided a forum, either in the group setting or one-on-one with the project team. Written comments were also collected. All questions were answered and notes are provided in the Appendix C of this Report.
  7. 7. September2016|MMMGroupLimited 6 5.0 Next Steps The information collected in throughout the June consultation will be used by the Project Team to address specific technical concerns. Additional information will be presented during the next meetings in order to answer outstanding Questions. The floodline NOT be finalized until the policy work is complete. This is anticipated to be in early 2017. As such, the next round of meetings will be sometime in winter or early spring 2017. At that time the draft floodline and the draft policies will be presented. Appendices Appendix A: Mail out and email to Land Owners Appendix B: Presentation Appendix C: Q&A - Public Information Sessions
  8. 8. Appendix A: Mail Out and email to Land Owners
  9. 9. Niagara Peninsula Conservation Authority 250 Thorold Road West Welland, Ontario, L3C 3W2   Welland River Floodplain Mapping Study The NPCA is undertaking a new mapping exercise   for the main branch of the Welland River from Binbrook Dam to the Niagara River.  The comprehensive consultation process involving three rounds of public information sessions   is intended to keep residents informed and provide an opportunity for participation and feedback.  The Consultation Summary Report from the February (Round #1) Public Information Sessions is available here:  www.wellandriver.ca  Public Information Sessions – Be Informed – Ask Questions  You are receiving this notice because you are a property owner within the study area and/or have requested to be kept  apprised of this project.  Our first round of public consultation revealed that residents want more information on how  water flowing through the river may affect the new flood lines. As such, the following June (Round #2) Public  Information Sessions will focus on explaining the technical aspects of the floodplain modelling.  We will also address any  outstanding topics and seek your input on any new issues using the facilitated discussion format.   Note that draft floodlines will not be available at the Round #2 sessions. 
  10. 10. Schedule:                                                            Presentations are the same at each session.  Wednesday June 1, 2016  Riverstone Event Centre  414 River Road, Welland    Wednesday June 8, 2016  Caistor Community Centre  1683 Abingdon Road, Caistor Centre, West Lincoln  Monday June 13, 2016  Legends on the Niagara  9561 Niagara Pkwy, Niagara‐on‐the‐Lake    Thursday June 16, 2016  Wellandport Community Centre  5042 Canborough Road (Reg. Road 63), Wellandport,  West Lincoln    Name Company Add1 Add2 City Prov Post For additional information please contact:  Formal presentation at 6:15 pm  6:00 pm to 8:00 pm  Peter Graham, NPCA  Email: pgraham@npca.ca  905‐788‐3135  www.wellandriver.ca
  11. 11. The NPCA is undertaking a new mapping exercise for the main branch of the Welland River from Binbrook Dam to the Niagara River. View this email in your browser Welland River Floodplain Mapping Study The NPCA is undertaking a new mapping exercise for the main branch of the Welland River from Binbrook Dam to the Niagara River. A comprehensive consultation process involving three rounds of public information sessions will keep residents informed and provide an opportunity for participation and feedback. The Consultation Summary Report from the February (Round #1) Public Information Sessions is available here: www.wellandriver.ca Public Information Sessions – Be Informed – Ask Questions Our first round of public consultation revealed that residents want more information on how water flowing through the river may affect the new flood lines. As such, the following June (Round #2) Public Information Sessions will focus on explaining the technical aspects of the floodplain modelling. We will also address any outstanding topics and seek your input on any new issues using the facilitated discussion format.
  12. 12. Note that draft floodlines will not be available at the Round #2 sessions. Schedule for all meetings: 6:00 pm to 8:00 pm, formal presentation at 6:30 pm Wednesday, June 1 Riverstone Event Centre 414 River Road, Welland Monday, June 13 Legends on Niagara 9561 Niagara Parkway, Niagara Falls Wednesday, June 8 Caistor Community Centre 1683 Abingdon Road, Caistor Centre, West Lincoln Thursday, June 16 Wellandport Community Centre 5042 Canborough Road (Reg. Road 63), Wellandport
  13. 13. Copyright © 2016 NPCA, All rights reserved. Want to change how you receive these emails? You can update your preferences or unsubscribe from this list
  14. 14. Appendix B: Presentation
  15. 15. WELLAND RIVER FLOODPLAIN MAPPING UPDATE Public Information Meeting June 2016 Diego Torres Silvestre ((CC BY 2.0) 1
  16. 16. Presentation Outline 2 • Project Vision • Project Overview • Consultation Summary • Where We Are Now • Technical Overview
  17. 17. Project Overview To successfully complete a Floodplain Mapping Update Study that is Connected, Accurate, Reliable, and founded on Empirical data and observations using state-of-the-art tools and methodologies. Project Vision Statement • This means that new floodline mapping will be in place for the Welland River. The new line may affect what you can do on your property. • The project will fully engage affected landowners. • Awareness, understanding and input are key principles of the consultation program. 3
  18. 18. Project Overview Study Area Limit - Lower Study Area Limit - MiddleStudy Area Limit - Upper 4
  19. 19. Project Overview Awareness Meetings (February 2016) occurred during the beginning of the study and focused on describing the project and listening to community ideas and concerns. Technical Understanding & Input Meetings (June 2016) are occurring now that some modeling work has been completed. Draft Floodline Maps (once policy work is ready) will be presented once the technical work is complete and the policies are drafted. Community input will be considered before NPCA Board makes a final decision. Public Input A series of Meetings open to the public, interested landowners and stakeholders are scheduled. 5
  20. 20. Consultation Summary Meeting #1: 131 Meeting #2: 104 Meeting #3: 63 Meeting #4: 109 Total Sign-In: 407 6
  21. 21. Consultation Summary The word cloud reflects themes expressed throughout the February consultations. The size of the words reflects the frequency and relative emphasis expressed during discussion and from the comment cards, as interpreted by the project team. It is not meant to include every issue raised but rather the key themes that need to be addressed as the project progresses. 7
  22. 22. Consultation Summary Mandate and Need to Update Floodline Mapping • NPCA’s legislative mandate as set out in Section 20 of the Conservation Authorities Act is to establish and undertake programs designed to further the conservation, restoration, development and management of natural resources. • In addition, under the Provincial Planning Act Conservation Authorities have been delegated the responsibility to reduce the potential for public cost or risk to Ontario’s residents from natural or human made hazards. Section 3.1 of the Provincial Policy Statement (2014) indicates that development shall be directed away from areas of natural or human-made hazards where there is an unacceptable risk to public health or safety or of property damage, and not create new or aggravate existing hazards. • As such, the Conservation Authorities require that Planning Act development applications identify areas of flood hazard and undertake development such that the risk to the public is mitigated. • NPCA Board agreed with Staff recommendation that the 30 year old floodline mapping be updated in an effort to ensure that the established line reflects the best available information, is up to date, and is technically defensible. • climate change • improved technology (e.g. greater resolution - Digital Elevation Models, more data). 8
  23. 23. Consultation Summary Storm Event Selection • In order to determine what risk of flood to protect against, a storm event must be selected and modeled. • 100-year flood event is the standard. • This is also the storm event used to create the 1985 line. • Means that 1% chance of that storm happening in any given year OR if thinking of a typical home mortgage, there is a 22% chance of the 100- year flood event occurring during the term of the mortgage. 9
  24. 24. Consultation Summary Ontario Power Generation • OPG has a presence in the area and the Welland River plays a significant role in OPG operations. There is a strong perception that: • various structures and facilities affect the flow of water in and down the River • controls on water level and flow have a direct impact on the River’s ability to naturally accommodate flood events and as such the impact flood events have on property • operations contribute significantly to the level of sedimentation • The impact of current OPG operations will be taken into consideration when developing floodplain mapping for the Welland River. • While there has been public discussion about potential changes to OPG operations, this project must assume that OPG will continue to operate their facility in the same manner until OPG declares otherwise. 10
  25. 25. Consultation Summary Siphons • The Siphons are perceived to have a significant impact on the Rivers response to flood events. • The impact of the Old and New Siphons on the Welland River floodplain will be analyzed as part of this study. • It is noted that the NPCA is not responsible for clearing the Siphons however these concerns have been passed along to the City of Welland and the St. Lawrence Seaway Management Corporation. • It is unknown when the next clearing of the siphons will occur. 11
  26. 26. Where We Are Now • Technical work is advancing. • Some site visits have taken place. • Excellent input and discussion from the Watershed Floodplain Committee. • On track to complete the technical work and determine a recommended floodline. • The Committee recommended that the floodline NOT be finalized until the policy work is complete. NPCA Board agreed with this recommendation. 12
  27. 27. What this Presentation will Cover • An overview of the technical work • How the model is created • Local data input • Overland Flow • Stream Flow • Linkage to the Stream Flow Model Overland Flow (Runoff) A A Stream Flow (Elevation) B + = C Floodline Flood Line Normal Level B C Flood Level 13
  28. 28. Standard Industry Practice Update 1985 mapping using standard industry practice • Build a model using proven software • Add local data Volume of Water Welland River Risk Management 14
  29. 29. Floodplain Model for the Welland River Overland Flow (Runoff) A A Stream Flow (Elevation) B+ = C Floodline Flood Line Normal Level Standard industry practice, build model and input local data B C Flood Level 15
  30. 30. Floodplain Model for the Welland River How much rain falls onto the land 1 How much water sinks into the ground, how much evaporates, and how much runoff gets into the river 2 3 How much water flows down the river once it gets into the river We calculate volume in 3 steps 16 A
  31. 31. Floodplain Model for the Welland River Rain contributes to how much water falls on the land Soil conditions, slope and what land is used for determines how much sinks into the ground 17
  32. 32. Welland River at Church Road – 1957 to present Overland Flow (Rain – Land – Flow) Local data on relationship between rainfall and water level Month(s) # Flood Events on Record Jan – Mar 7 Apr – May 2 Nov - Dec 7 R 18 R
  33. 33. Overland Flow (Rain – Land – Flow) Example of rainfall at Church Road gauge shows valid connection between rainfall and increased flow in river Peak Flow Observed Flow Observed Rain 2006 3 days Discharge Precipitation / Runoff Response 19
  34. 34. We know from analyzing soils maps that the infiltration rates are generally consistent across the watershed therefore we can predict, with high confidence, overland flows in areas without long-term data monitors. We also have good informatio on land use by catchment area for each gauge station so we can adjust soils info for imperviousness due to development and still have a high confidence level that the volume of water getting to the river is accurate. We are calibrating the model using the Church Road gauge and verifying it at all other gauge locations (Abingdon Road, Brooks Bridge, Becketts Bridge, O’Reillys Bridge, Montrose Road). Overland Flow (Rain – Land – Flow) 20
  35. 35. Overland Flow (Rain – Land – Flow) Watersheds draining to Church Road gauge: • West Wolf/Little Wolf/Wolf • Buckhorn • Elsie • Moores/Mill • Local Watershed Characteristics: • Surface Slope • Length of overland flow • Soils/land use Church Road Watersheds draining to Church Road 21
  36. 36. Overland Flow (Rain – Land – Flow) Church Road Gauge 22 Peak Flow Observed Flow Observed Rain 3 days Precipitation / Runoff Response
  37. 37. Overland Flow Links to Stream Flow We looked at cross sections of the river in different locations and at all bridges. This helps us understand the rivers capacity to handle the flood event. shape and condition of the river affects how water flows in the river once it gets there 23
  38. 38. Stream Flow – Mapping 24 B 300 400 500 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 Welland River Station (m) Elevation(m) Legend WS 100 Year Ground BankSta .055 .035 .055 100 200 300 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 Welland River Station (m) Elevation(m) Legend WS 100 Year Ground Ineff BankSta .055 .035 .055 BridgeTypical Cross Section Elevation(m) Elevation(m) Distance (m) Distance (m) Centre line of River Future Cross Sections Bridge O’Reilly’s Bridge Gauge
  39. 39. In order to determine what risk of flood to protect against we need to select a flood event. 100-year flood event is the standard. Means that 1% chance of that flood happening in any given year OR if thinking of a typical home mortgage, there is a 22% chance of the 100-year flood event occurring during the term of the mortgage. Stream Flow – Flowing Water 25
  40. 40. Stream Flow – Flowing Water Simulated flood event flows used for 1985 mapping (m3/s): 1. Abingdon Road - 75 2. Church Road - 100 3. Brooks Bridge -115 4. Becketts Bridge - 205 5. O’Reillys Bridge - 245 6. Montrose Road - 275 Flood Event = 100 year event (1% chance of occurring each year) 26
  41. 41. Q Q2 Q1 As water moves down the river the flow increases. We have data on the history of flows in the river. The 100 year event was experienced at Church Road in 1959. 27 Stream Flow – Flowing Water
  42. 42. Flood level Normal level Looking downstream… Elevation(m) Flood Level and Floodline Flood level Normal level Flood level Normal level 28 C
  43. 43. Summary – Floodplain Model Overland Flow (Runoff) A A Stream Flow (Elevation) B+ = C Floodline Flood Line Normal Level B C Flood Level 29
  44. 44. Facilitated Q&A Diego Torres Silvestre ((CC BY 2.0)
  45. 45. Appendix C: Q&A – Public Information Sessions
  46. 46. Welland Question and Answer Notes – June 1, 2016    Question 1: I know were not talking about lines yet. The topographic lines that you will be  using, have they been updated in the last five years? There are concerns about the errors that  were made the last time this was done.    Answer: Yes. There is very good digital topographic mapping that is being used.     Question 2: We notice that in the diagrams the river is flowing the way it wouldn’t naturally  flow. Everyone here knows it flows in two directions. We’re wondering if you’ve taken into  consideration in which direction the river was flowing at the time, because that would make a  difference?    Answer: Yes. We have heard numerous times and we are very aware of the reverse flow  issue and the short answer is yes. We will be investigating that and working that into the  modelling exercise.    Follow up question: So that was not done when measuring the peak flood times?    Answer: The slides were just an illustration, and is not the detailed information.  That was Mark giving an example of how we are going to be working things into  the model.     Follow up from Mark: We have chosen industry standard software intentionally  that can handle flow that goes in both directions. When it comes time to doing  that part of the modelling, especially when we get down below Fort Davidson,  the model will be able to handle flow direction. Also keep in mind that we are  talking about a flood event, and that is going to be the sensitive part, when we  get to that elevation.    Follow up comment: We notice when the water is flowing backwards we have a lot of  water on our property    Answer: Absolutely, we are aware of it. We are putting proper attention into  this, in order to make sure that we correct the standard model for those  particular situations. Thank you to the people who raised this in the last round,  because we did do more investigation to make sure we had the information we  need.    Question 3: I’d like to first of all thank Mark for a very thorough and informative description of  the process you're going to take, I really appreciated that. I saw earlier in your presentation  that a lot of this cannot go forward until the policy is created, reviewed, and approved. I don’t  see a policy changing the amount of rain, the shape of the river, or anything else. I’d just like to  June 1, 2016
  47. 47. know what were waiting for, because the process that was described was very black and white  and very concrete?    Answer: Thank you for allowing me the opportunity to clarify. The technical work that  MMM Group and Mark’s team is working on to create the line (to do the A + B = C),  does not require any policy work. The actual creating the line, and our recommendation  for where the line should be can be completed, and will be completed, in the timeframe  that we anticipated. The decision is to not get into a discussion about that line until the  policy work is completed, so that you as a landowner know that the line is going to be  “here” and you will know what that means to you in terms of policy implementation.  What can you do and not do with respect to the line? We will be able to talk about the  line, and the policy implications about that line at the same time, as opposed to just  talking about the line, and then people may ask ‘what does that mean?’ or ‘what can I  do, and not do?’ and ‘how do I work around different issues?’ Without the policy we  wouldn’t be able to answer those questions. You are absolutely right – nothing in the  policy impacts the amount of rain, infiltration, or flooding, but it is about the ability to  have the appropriate conversation with you, to say, how do the two fit together. That is  the reason the Floodplain Committee made the recommendation, and the Board has  made the decision to go with this recommendation.    Question 4: Very good presentation, by the way, thank you. You had mentioned the effect of  the bridges on the flow of the river. But you didn’t really mention the effect of the siphons and  the aqueduct. Can you give us some more information on that and how that would effect it?    Answer: The short answer is that it is another structure that we have got to squish water  through. The way that we consider it, is that we know the geometry of the siphons, and  the model that we use to calculate how the water moves through the siphons, uses  physics and equations that recognizes that water is being stuffed through pipes like that.  Its not your average bridge, it is a bit more complicated, but we are recognizing that  complexity and we have chosen a model that can handle it. We will be focusing on that  towards the end of the next presentation when we actually do the flood line.     Follow up comment from Andrea: I know that someone is going to come with a  secondary question ‐ that we feel the siphons are clogged. So we know that there are  concerns about this, and we are aware. We will be doing what we can to make  allowances for that in the model that Mark has talked about. There is the ability to  tweak things to see if it was totally flowing and its a brand new syphon, the model  would look like ‘this’. We can look at what we have to adjust to allow for X %, and we  have some information in terms of that, and we will be working this into the process.     Follow up comment from Mark: As an example, as part of our verification process, we  know the details of what is happening at Church Road, but by the time you get down to  the siphons, Niagara Peninsula and Steve Miller and his team have put in some  instrumentation at these siphons (the old one in particular), and it is a point where we  June 1, 2016
  48. 48. can do the verification. We will be able to tell how well the model is behaving with that  particular syphon, it will give us some confidence that we are on the right track.    Question 5: I was watching you explain the various points on the river that you were watching.  The aqueduct is a problem. So if we have a huge flood, all of these points that you are  watching, of what benefit will all of this be, if there is no way to remove the water at the  aqueduct? A flood is a flood, all of your studies and all of your maps are not going to do  anything, so of what benefit to the taxpayer and property owner are all these maps and  studies? Are you going to build a dam, or pump the water out?    Answer: I think that it’s a great question, and I think what I’ve heard you say is that you  are concerned that the aqueduct is a barrier to the flow of the water in a flooding  situation, and so how are we going to deal with it beyond that, and is there any  credibility in the model that Mark is building?    The answer is that is why we are doing the calibration and the verification, we know the  restrictions, and we are going to be doing more investigation on those restrictions, and  we will know how the rest of the river responds to that because of the process that  Mark has described. Yes, we believe that there is credibility, and the model is valid, not  withstanding the fact that we have these restrictions.     Question 6: I would like someone to clarify how a computer model can predict how many tree  trunks and shopping carts are blocking the siphons, and which way the water flow is at the time  of this flood event. To me, the water flow, particularly going upstream, is going to have a  tremendous effect on where the floodplain would be at that event. I don’t understand how this  can be dealt with without first dealing with the problems of the OPG, the siphons, and the  sedimentation of the river.    Answer: Thanks for that, and I know at the last series of meetings you did bring up this  issue of the chicken and the egg – which process are we going to do first: the health of  the river or floodplain mapping? So we talked about that a lot, as we dissected the  input, and we are going to do everything we can to get the information necessary to  tweak the model to respond to things like blockages, the river flow, and those types of  things. The model itself is not going to predict those things, Mark and his team are going  to get whatever information they can to make manual corrections to the model to  account for those issues. The second part of my answer to your question is the  Conservation Authority Board has made the decision to do things in this order. I  acknowledge that you don’t necessarily agree with that decision, and I respect that  opinion, but the NPCA has made this decision and we will continue to follow up on some  of the points that you have raised, but it is not going to alter the process we are  embarking on now.    Question 7: This is well put together and impressive. I live over by Notre Dame High School, and  they’ve decided that I am in the floodplain, and my home insurance decided to bump my  June 1, 2016
  49. 49. insurance up because I am in the floodplain. The Welland Canal is nearby but the water would  have to come up awfully high to get to our street. At what effect does the water from Church  Road going to have on our property over by Notre Dame High School?    Answer: Certainly the insurance question was raised a number of times during the  February consultation and there is a detailed description of that topic online. The short  version of it is that the Conservation Authority has no ability to deal with the insurance  issue, but they are cognisant of it and are working to ensure that the line is defensible,  so that we know it is not any more or any less than it needs to be. The Church Road  issue, as Mark said, is feeding into this model, and it is the point of calibration for the  model because it is the gauge that has the most extensive information, but it is being  verified at all of those other points. So if there are other points that are appropriate and  more in proximity to a particular location, it will be verified against that so we know the  flood line that is created in one location is not based on information just at Church  Road, it is based on information that has been verified throughout the River.    Question 8: I just wanted to follow up, you talked about a draft flood line, but that’s not going  to be issued until the policy has been set. Will that policy tell us as homeowners who may be  impacted by the new draft line, are we able to challenge said draft line? (When I bought my  house I was outside of the flood line and now I may be in it, which has consequences for  insurance, property value etc.) I feel I should have some kind of recourse to some, whether it  be the City of Welland Mayor or someone else.     Answer: The answer is yes. I don’t know that I would call it challenge, but it will be out  for consultation and we are going to go through the process. We are going to make our  technical recommendation, that line will be vetted with the board before we release it  to you, and then we are going to come out to consultation like this. We are going to say,  now we actually have a line, and here is how it is different and here is how it effects  your property. You will have an opportunity to comment on that, and that consultation  input will feed back to our technical team. The technical team will review it and see if  there were things missed, or things that need to be corrected, because something has  been told to us that we didn’t catch. The other case may be that we take your input, but  there may not be a technical reason to change anything. The information would still go  to the Conservation Authority Board before they make the decision about what line they  are going to approve. Ultimately, it is their decision to determine where the line is going  to be, based on our technical work. The reason why we are connecting it to the policy  piece is so that as a property owner you are aware of the implications of the line on  your property. So we heard you when you said you don’t want to talk about one without  the other. This is the reason we are going to delay the discussion on the draft line until  we can talk to you about the policy piece as well. But you will absolutely have the  opportunity to comment on it, and comment on the policies, before the board approves  anything.    June 1, 2016
  50. 50. Follow up: For example in my case, my insurance company has already told me that to  get flood insurance, it would be crazy to consider it. When the line is on my property,  my value of my home is ultimately zero, and I am paying huge in insurance.    Answer: We are very aware of the concern, and that is the reason why the Conservation  Authority and taking so much care and effort to make sure the technical work we are  doing is credible. That is why we are spending a lot of time calibrating and validating the  model because we know, and the Board knows that it has implications for you as a  property owner. At the end of the day, it may still affect you, I don’t know yet, it is about  the policies that will determine what the impact is. Granted that the policies are not  going to reflect insurance, but there are other things that they will be working on.    Follow up comment from Carmen: I just wanted to add one thing, the Board  did approve a Dispute Resolution Mechanism, so let’s say you are a land owner after the  line and policy are implemented. Say two years from then you want to do a project on  your property. We have advised our staff that although you can look at something on  the computer screen, if there is a landowner asking for something that just doesn’t fit  the norm, the staff will do a site visit and field work to verify what we are seeing on the  computer scenes.    Question 9: I have a question on the summary report (Section 3.1.5). Referring to “non‐ sustainable farming practices”, where is it occurring, and how much of it is occurring?    Answer: Thank you for the question. I know I can’t go into all of those details right now  but I can get that answer for you. We are talking about people who have expressed  concerns in the consultation meetings that there may be farming practices that were  allowing additional runoff to get to the River. There were also some concerns about  sedimentation, and there were feelings that some of that was contributing to factors  that were affecting the rivers ability to handle flood events. It was a topic that was  raised, and we needed to reflect it in the summary report, and if you give me a chance  to go back to my notes I can certainly give you more details about that.    Question 10: I thought the presentation was very well done. Mark, are you confident as an  engineer that using the Church Road data as the calibration location is credible? And can you  back it in relation to the short term data we have, especially because Welland is where most of  the water is going to end up.     Answer: Yes, I am confident. From the work that we have done to date, I believe we  have a detailed and intricate process of looking at the data. With the calibration process  we basically leave the computer to run for two or three days, and do several thousands  of calculations and simulations to make sure we are doing the calibration process well.  So that gives me a higher level of confidence that the model that we will deliver will  represent and simulate the 100‐year‐flood in the Welland Canal very well. As we talked  about getting more and more information, and another flood event, the people at the  June 1, 2016
  51. 51. NPCA will have this information and can continue to refine it as more information  becomes available.    Question 11: I am in agreement that the siphons are going to cause some restriction of water  flow and could raise the floodplain to a wider extent. Because this is on a computer model, is it  possible to run both scenarios, with the siphons cleaned and with the siphons how they are,  and to show that there is a significant variance in the floodplain. If so, is there a plan to use this  data to say, this must be done and reflect this back to the authorities?    Answer: Yes. We can run the scenarios, and yes we will. I just want to correct that the  siphons are not going to enlarge the floodplain, what we said is that there are various  constrictions that play into the modelling process, and they are being taken into  consideration. If information becomes available, yes, the Conservation Authority Staff  are always passing that onto the appropriate groups, what action they take is not in our  control. But we have certainly already passed on the concerns people have about the  siphons, so we will continue to do that.      Question 12: In the previous meeting you touched on the study area vs. the existing flood plain  lines. There could very well be people who are located within the study area but are not  currently in the flood plain lines, and in the future won’t be affected by the flood plain lines. It  is my understanding that you took the length of the river, you went 500 m on either direction.  The gentleman who lives by Notre Dame is within the study area, but he probably won’t ever  be affected by the flood plain lines. Is that a fair statement?    Answer: Correct. You are absolutely right. There is a study notification area, where we  wanted to make sure that anybody who is in any proximity that may be affected was  aware. The idea is definitely the red line is the notification of this study, we do not  anticipate that the flood line is going to come close to that, in most situations. We  wanted to make sure people were aware. When we get to the line, that is when we will  be narrowing things down in terms of affected properties.    Question 13: Further to the question about confidence with using the Church Road, you may be  confident and you are an engineer and I am not, but I am not confident at all. For a series of  reasons. First of all, you mentioned Church Road many times, and you showed it on the map,  but you didn’t really point out its physical location. It is way upstream, and really only captures  a smaller section of the watershed, 26% if you do the math. So to take the 26% and use it to  project the runoff response for the balance of the river, personally I think it is a bit of a stretch.  Refer to verification with various other flowmeters that exist, but unfortunately those meters  have only been in existence for the last couple of years. Statistically too short of a period of  time to be of much value. Additionally, the Church Road meter, which has been in operation  since 1957 – on the face of it that sounds fantastic, but when you look at the data a little more  closely it has not been continuous. The final point that is important to understand, if you look at  the watershed and do math on the watershed, the entire watershed covers something like 880  km sq.. Really you have to divide the watershed into two sections. The upper section, the first  June 1, 2016
  52. 52. 55 km is described as moderately sloping, it has 78 metres of fall over the 55 km. That would  encompass the area that is drained and measured by the Church Road station. The balance of  the river, the lower 80 km, falls only 4 metres, it is very flat. So the two sections are significantly  different. So you may be confident that a 26% of the watershed moderately sloping area can be  projected for the 74% that is mostly very flat, but I am yet to be convinced.    Answer: Thank you. I think there are a couple of things we need to recognize. The  Church Road gauge is the calibration point, but Mark has been very clear that there is  information flowing into that, and in his professional opinion, the soils information, land  use information and other things falling into his opinion on being able to use that as the  calibration point – he feels confident. I recognize you don’t agree, and we are going to  continue to work through those concerns. The other point that I think is very important  is that Church Road is the calibration point, and there are other points, including the  ones in the lower half, that you have identified as having different characteristics that  are going to be verified. The calibration point is only one issue, and we are going to  verify it. If we go through the verification process, and something doesn’t look right,  Mark’s job is to go back, tweak things, and do more investigation. Your points are well  taken and we are not ignoring them, we are continuing to work through them, as we  have been through the Floodplain Committee meetings, and looking into it in more  detail. But we have to rely on Mark’s professional opinion that he feels confident that  this two step process of calibration and verification is valid for the Welland River.     Mark follow up: The only thing I want to add, for the benefit of the rest of the crowd is  that I want to emphasize that we are aware of this. We also have processes put into  place where we are looking for things to be able to identify differences, and significantly  different regions in the watershed that we cannot account for, cannot deal with, or do  not know about yet. We know the sloping is such between Binbrook and Davidson, and  we know its pretty flat from thereon in. We know that there is flow reversal. We know  what the soil properties are like from stem to stern. We know what the rainfall  distribution is like across the river. We know what the topography is like in terms of the  cross section and the lay of the river. We are actually going to be doing more work in  the river itself coming up. We know an awful lot of information, and this is encouraging  to be able to generate what we believe to be a floodplain model that will represent the  100‐year‐flood level very well. Yes, there are pieces of information we don’t know, it will  never be 100%. We will continue to follow up and we will continue to have discussions  at the Committee level.      June 1, 2016
  53. 53. Welland Question and Answer Notes – June 8, 2016    Question 1: Do you do any form of depth solving in the centre of the stream flow and consider  the amount of silting in the centre of the waterway, and the tributaries? Which would bring the  volume up so your bottom of your stream would be higher by squishing the water outward. Is  that considered in this modelling?    Answer: The short answer is yes. The slightly longer answer is yes we need to recognize  as we do the sensitivity analysis. We need to look at what the riverbed looks like with  certain elevation of sediment in it. For example, with the siphons, we need to see if  there is six inches, or twelve inches of silt in the siphons, and how does that effect the  water levels, and we fill them up and see how it goes. Yes, we are doing this.    Follow up question: So as you do that, and you have the 1985 numbers from before, can  you do a comparison and consider the change in the basin itself, and then use that as a  projection of what might happen, and also accommodate the changes in agriculture, say  the types: there is surface runoff but there are people who are working the land too  close, and there are people who are using different types of agriculture, so the amount  of water and silt is going to affect what you are doing. Will you compare this with the  past and build it into the model    Answer: Mark pointed out that we have really good information about soils and land  use, so yes, we know the difference in land use, how land is being used between 1985  and now, that is the land use characteristics in each of the watersheds that is feeding  into each of the catchment areas, so we can calculate it. I don’t know if it is so much  about the comparison back to 1985, but we are focusing on what it is today in order to  build that model. I mean if there is some significant difference that we want to double  check, then maybe there would be some comparison back, but the 1985 line is the 1985  line. The model we are doing is building it for todays information and conditions and  modelling that information. So the answer is yes, we are using that information, and it is  the most up to date that has been available. Back in 1985 and before that we simply  didn’t have the technology to be able to capture that in as much detail as we can today,  whether that be elevation, digital elevation models, or whether it be imperviousness of  land.    Follow up from Mark: Just another way of looking at it, the exercise that we are doing is  not to try to say ‘why is it different?’, were here to say this is what the flood line looks  like in 2016. So that accommodates the Binbrook development, and any other village  that has gotten larger and much more. So it is not so much why, it is just what it looks  like today    Question 2: This is especially on the upper regions here; I am curious what the dam release  policies are doing for factoring into the model. We see a significant amount of release  happening, especially in the spring. Although for our land that I am specifically referring to, we  June 8, 2016
  54. 54. are very close to the dam, so I don’t see my flood lines changing that much, but I do see a very  large impact based off of the dam releases and there is contributing area going into the dam, so  I am wondering if this will change the dam release policies based on the updated model.    Answer: In terms with changes to the policy, we are not dealing with the policy in this  portion of the study, as Mark said, we are dealing with where the line is on the  landscape, but as for the result of that line and the other policies that need to be  addressed. Certainly that information will be fed on and be dealt with appropriately,  either through the policy study, or through some other mechanism. It may not be a  policy that the Dillion Consulting team is working on, it may be something else, but we  will consult with staff on that.    Follow up Answer from Mark: With regards to the dam release, it is what we call a  boundary condition. It is set, and because it is right at the edge of the model, it starts  the whole thing rolling. So whatever the release rates are. Mind you, we are looking for  the flood event, we are not looking for a particular spring event, or what they call a  continuous model. We are looking for a very specific flood event, so the operations  curve, the characteristics of the dam and how they release it, that is set for us. Just as  much as the completely opposite end of our study area, the Niagara, that condition is  also a boundary condition, and that is set.    Follow up question: But it is not a set boundary condition, because I understand that  there is variability in the storms, but when you are looking at what the 100‐year event  is, the worst case scenario would be flash‐freeze storm coming when there is a high  release from the dam. Is that taken into account?      Answer: Yes. So I think what Mark just said is that they know what those policies are,  they know the release rates are, and will be able to factor that in. So say if for example,  the release rate is 50 in April, and Mark knows that the 100‐year flood event is in April  for that particular year because he has that data, then he is able to calibrate things to  that information. So the answer to your question is yes, we are aware of it and yes, it is  factored into the technical process, and we can identify where there may be a conflict  that needs to affect the modelling exercise.    Question 3: Mark you mentioned a couple of times about backup and water control, and this  gentleman also mentioned about sediment in the Welland River, and if we don’t address an  issue, like the boundary lines being made wider, I don’t see why we are doing this, because  we’re going to come back to the same thing again in another 25 years. If you take the  development in Binbrook, before they get approval, they have to set up stakes with the black  erosion control barrier, correct? But if you take agriculture, since 1985 and now, it has  dramatically changed with no‐till farming, and if you were to go along the Welland River,  agriculture is just dumping thousands and thousands of tonnes of dirt into our river, and that is  what is causing part of it to back up and restrict. So if we don’t come up with some guidelines  and suggestions also, where farmers are spraying right up against the Welland River, with their  June 8, 2016
  55. 55. chemicals, and we are destroying habitat. I asked this evening about a beaver dam, and I asked  what would happen if I were to destroy a beaver dam, if I could get charged, or get into lots of  trouble. But were allowing agriculture to creep right up to the river when you come up with  your new lines and close the book and say this is done, there should be something in there, I’m  no expert, but there should be something in there telling farmers, or trying to control how close  they are allowed to get to the river, there should be more yards of strictly grass, so that the soil  cannot erode into the river. In some farms there are thousands between here and the Niagara  River.    Answer: That is a great question and you have raised it, and certainly so have others. So  where that comes into play is two fold. The first is, we are very aware of land use. So we  know feeding into the technical exercise, we know the land use, and I will use  agriculture as an example. We know where they are, and we know where they, how  they are contributing to the infiltration rates, the evaporation rates, the runoff rates, so  that “A” portion of Marks model. We know that information locally, and we are able to  use that to calculate that portion. The second area where it comes into play is the policy  side, it is not this study, because this is about where the line is on the land. But the  policies about what you can do and not do, whether it is agriculture, or land  development, or conservation, whatever the land use or development is, the policies for  that flood plain area will be incorporated to ensure that the contributing factors are  addressed, and that is where this piece leads into it. Your comment about ensuring  there are ways that farming practices are not impacting the river and making the flood  situation worse: that is the policy side. But this doesn’t just apply to agriculture, it  applies to every type of land use that has a potential impact to contribute to the flood  event, or what the risk would be to that land use as a result of the flood. So your  comment is being addressed in two ways, we know how to address it technically, but we  also know how to feed that concern into the policy piece.       Follow up question: So it might be addressed then?      Answer: It will be addressed in some form. I can’t say it is going to be more policies or  less policies, but absolutely it will be addressed in the policy context. That’s what is  important to understand, is that it will be addressed in the policy context. But is not just  agriculture, it is any land use.    Follow up from Carmen: So when it comes to Best Farming Management  practices, the jurisdiction and the scope of the Conservation Authority is very limited, in  terms of water courses and what can be adjacent to it. The primary legislator is the  Province, on Best Farming Management practices, with OMAFRA, The Ministry of  Environment and Climate Change, there in lies the types management and nutrient  management you can put on your farms. All of those are guided by the provincial  bodies. Our scope is very limited when it comes to farming management practices, it  includes what you can do, where you can do it, and right next to those buffer zones. It is  very limited.  June 8, 2016
  56. 56. Question 4: I am in agriculture and I hear that from you, but I am glad you brought that up too  Andrea, if you look at Binbrook, and the amount of water that comes when you do the  development. Yes , in agriculture, we’re under rules and regulated, and not everyone follows it,  but it is getting better over time. It is more than just the sedimentation, if you have  sedimentation in a river, and the river doesn’t flow correctly, the sedimentation is going to end  up in the river anyways. There are some issues with the rain and the river flowing backwards.  The question I had for Mark is, do you do a cross‐sectional the same through the whole scope  of the whole river, every 300 metres? And do you do the same thing above the dam?    Answer: Yes. He is going to have lots and lots of cross‐sections. Mark gave an illustration  on that one little slide at O’Rileys Bridge to give you a couple of examples, but if you  took a look at the whole Welland River, it is chopped up with a whole bunch of Marks  cross sections, and there would be hundreds.     Follow up from Mark: I just wanted to point out that the study is ending at the dam, so  we are not going above.    Question 5: To get back to your comment about agriculture, as far as agriculture goes, I am also  involved in agriculture and as an industry, agriculture is the most unregulated industry,  probably going in Ontario. If you take the subdivisions here, people who work in there are  policed and controlled by safety regulations, agriculture has zero. The way that farmers deal  with their chemicals, no one comes and controls it, the way that farmers deal with their grain,  no one controls it, safety regulations as far as heights go, nobody controls it. So Ontario just  drops the ball totally when it comes to this, I am not here to argue I see a bunch of people  shaking their head, we all have to work together.    Answer: I certainly appreciate your opinions and perspectives. I know that there are  people who have different opinions and different perspectives. I will go back to Carmens  point that in the context of the Conservation Authority and the context of the flood  plain mapping project, what we are concerned about is the soils, the land use and how  that contributes to the information that we need to build a model and to know where  the line needs to be. Where it is appropriate and where the mandate of the  Conservation Authority has the ability to put policies in place to deal with the interface  of the river and the land use, and it is not just agriculture, they will do that.  Other  concerns of whether it is appropriate or not is beyond the scope of this project, so I am  not going to go into any of that. Your comments will be noted as part of the record for  the meeting.    Question 6: Mark, the flowmeter just down the road here at Church Road is very important,  and I would suggest it is the cornerstone of the entire study. If you look on the results of that,  March 21st  1959, seems to be a significant date. 96.3m3  estimated flow at that date. Is that the  highest date that you have seen, or believe that to be the 100‐year storm event that has been  witnessed?    June 8, 2016
  57. 57.   Answer: It is not the 100‐year flood event, but it is the highest peak, yes.     Follow up question: I would be very interested to see the flowchart and the associated  rainfall like what we saw on the example for 2006. I would be interested to see it for  that particular storm event, because that is for the section of the watershed that is  captured at Church Road, that would seem to be the peak that has been experienced  since the 50’s when that station was activated. So do you have any information on what  the associated rainfall event was for that March 21st  1959.    Answer: I don’t have it tonight, so I can’t say ‘it is this number’. Plus, for every flood  event we are picking out to mode there will be a pair of data for the rain event. We will  be looking for, if not already found the rain event that caused that flood event.     Follow up question: I know we’ve had this conversation before that the portion of the  watershed that is captured by the Church Road station is only a portion of the  watershed. So it is very important that the data be as complete and as accurate as  possible. So the flow of 96.3m3  on the website has an “E” beside it, which tells me that it  is estimated.    Answer: So I think that is a great point, that we need make sure that the dataset is  complete, particularity for the calibration element of the model, and then mark needs  to be confident that the information is appropriate to be the calibration so that the  verification can happen. My understanding is that they are digging to make sure that is  complete.    Follow up answer from Mark: AN important point to remember as well is that the  quality of the data at Church Road is the Cadillac of flow measurement. The standards to  which these datasets have been collected by Environment Canada and Water Survey of  Canada, is top notch. If you go on the website you cannot see or get the 2015 and 2016  data, it has not been published yet. This is because Water Survey of Canada goes  through an extensive scrutiny of the data. So even when they say estimated, a lot goes  into figuring it out. They are publishing it and it means that it is the best, it truly is.    Follow up question from Andrea: So Mark I am going to ask you a question, in your  professional opinion, because we’ve talked a lot about this. You have got to put your  credibility behind it. Do you feel confident that the dataset we will be working with,  once it is complete, is it going to give us the information that we need for Welland?    Answer: Absolutely.    Question 7: Mark, I guess relative to the data at Church Road, you said 16 events, so you will  build your model based on the peak flows. And we know for those peak flows, we know the  rainfall event that created those flows. The question is, how close do those peak flows that you  observed come to the 100‐year storm?  June 8, 2016
  58. 58. Answer: Right now, just shy of it. So for example, if the 96.3m3  was an observed event at  Church Road, and if you recall back in the slide showed the 1985 flows, at Church Road,  the number happened to be 100m3  per second. All of our data is just shy of that  number. SO let me add if I may, but just because we haven’t seen 100 at Church Road,  or haven’t seen the 100‐year flood event at Church Road or anywhere else, just because  we haven’t seen it, doesn’t necessarily mean it wont happen tomorrow or the next day  or next year. This is what I have to deal with professionally and I have to look at that  event, and just because it hasn’t happened, doesn’t mean it wont happen.    Follow up from Andrea: Just to clarify, when Mark is saying it is just shy, that is the  calibration, you are going through and calibrating, so you get to the margin of error that  scientifically and professionally you feel comfortable, and once you calibrate it to be as  best as it can, then you go and do your verification process, is that correct?    Answer: Yes.    Question 8: I see the value of using historical data. But we have also seen through climate  change over the last decade a lot higher intensity storms. I am wondering what effects climate  change projections are having. The 100‐year storm event in 1985 isn’t necessarily equivalent to  the 100‐year storm event we are having today. That may actually have the biggest effect and  impact, even if you do assume the changing land use.    Answer: Absolutely, and if you remember the slide that talked about the need for this,  and the staff making recommendations to the board about why it was appropriate to do  this update. Climate change is a big part of this we know it is happening and we have to  build it into the projections.    Answer from Mark: When we do these comparisons between the rain event and the  subsequent flow event, we recognize that there is a volume of rain and a volume of  flow. Then there is a matter of projecting to say, what is the hundred‐year event and  there are statistics involved in order to extrapolate slightly to get to the 100‐year event  because we haven’t witnessed it yet, but we are close. The way we are accounting for  climate change is that we are recognizing the change in the peak flows over time. What I  mean by that, and I find this particularly interesting, when you have got a dataset that is  50 years old and counting, I find it interesting that if you look at it by a decade basis,  each of those decades from the 50’s, 60’s, 70’s, 80’s, 90’s and into the 2000’s, each of  those decades essentially only has one event, that big peak event only happened once.  At Church Road in the 2000’s the big number is 60 m3 , and since 2000, there have been  six events bigger than 60 m3 , and four events bigger than 80 m3 , all since 2000. That gets  my attention. We recognize it that way.    Follow up from Andrea: The non technical answer is that they take those events, and  how many times they are happening, and they are able to extrapolate that out. So there  is a mathematical equation where they can say, so it is happening four times more  June 8, 2016
  59. 59. often, and it is about this much more. They can then say, in the next ten years we can  expect to see this kind of reaction, and they feed that into the process as well. They are  taking raw data, but then they are able to apply that information from the historical  data as well.        June 8, 2016
  60. 60. Welland Public Meeting Question and Answer Period – June 13, 2016 Question 1: I own quite a chunk of property and it is considered part of the floodplain in the example. Marked on the floodplain there was quite a big piece of land marked in the elevation. Would that be private property or would that have been property owned by the NPCA? Answer: So it was just an example, but all property is mapped so some may be owned by the NPCA, some may be owned by a municipality, or owned by the public. All property has the floodplain applied to it in the exact same way. The calculation is done and the policies that are applicable to that will apply. Follow up question: When you mark the property are you compensating for any losses? Answer: I will reiterate what I said at the first meeting, there is no compensation for floodplain mapping. It is not an expropriation of land, it is simply a line that talks about what you can do and how you use that property. So there is no compensation. Follow up question: I see in the literature that you are saying those who have properties in the line, they can no longer build on. Answer: No, that is not the answer. If there is a floodline, there will be policies that talk about what you can and can’t do, and how you use that land. It is not ‘no development’ it is, if you would like to develop within the floodplain you need to come in and talk to NPCA staff to determine what the policies are saying, and how to use the land. They will then work with you to determine whether or not there are any restrictions or modifications that need to happen. It is not no development, it is how to best do that to ensure your personal safety and the safety of your property. Yes, there could be some situations where you can’t, but that is why we need to have discussions with NPCA staff about this. There is a development approval process that is currently in place for the existing floodline and that will continue. Question 2: What is the name of the software model? Answer: Mike 11. No idea why it is called that, however 1 means one-dimension. Question 3: On your cross-sections for the land, how often do you check them? Every year, every five years, as to the shape and for? Because you probably get silt, and runoff that changes everything. Is that considered too? Answer: Mark and his team are looking at that shape as they build the model. I am not aware that you do any annual checking, Steve, however, correct me if I am wrong. However, we will be taking a look at some ‘key performance indicators’ or monitoring recommendations for this, and there will be updates for this in the future, if there was a reason to do that. June 13, 2016
  61. 61. Steve follow up: We update them every four years, the last one, the one that we are using, was done in 2013. Follow up question from Andrea: Steve, what process do you use to do this? Answer from Steve: You can think of it as a specialized radar that flies over, snaps a picture, and bounces back up and turns the photo into 3D image of the terrain. It is accurate within 4’’ vertical, we’ve compared them since we started capturing in 2002. Depending where you are, like a developing subdivision, we see a lot of change, other natural areas that are subject to typical erosion and processes, not as much change. But yes, we are interested in seeing and understanding, and documenting the changes and making sure this gets incorporated. Follow up form Andrea: That is one of the reasons staff did recommend this update. There is new technology, that was not available in 1985, and staff wanted to be able to take advantage of that and make sure things are reflecting the new technology that is available. Question 4: I am wondering about the information you’ve been collecting up until now, has it identified any trends? Answer: I don’t think we are at the point where we’ve finished doing the data analysis so I think it is too early to identify any trends. Up until now, no there are no trends. The only trends I would be able to pull out would be trends in the consultation side, and what people are concerned about, which are feeding into the model. By sometime mid- summer, I think Mark’s technical work, and collecting and inputting the information into the model will start to identify some trends. They really have just got the data that is now starting to have the wiggles and turns, and they are just generating the model. Question 5: I would like to know the ramifications. I have property on Lions Creek. The floodplain has been raised in 1985. I had eight building lots there and when it was updated in 1985, it got reduced to four. Now you are going to increase the floodplain another, I don’t know how I am going to feed, what is left for me? I had that property 65 years ago. Also the existing buildings that are there, they are well within the floodline. Answers: The answer is similar to what I have indicated previously to the lady at the front of the room. It is not ‘no development’ in many cases, it is how, and what needs to be done to develop in a safe way. So you would go in and talk to the conservation authority staff through the development approval process and if the policies need to be applied than you would have to comply with them. But it is not ‘no development’ it is how you develop in a safe way. Follow up comment: But my lots are worthless. June 13, 2016
  62. 62. Answer from Andrea: Again, I acknowledge that the building is existing in the flood plain, what would come into play is if you wanted to make any alterations to the building than the policies would apply. I acknowledge the concern about building and developing new properties and we talk a lot about that in the first round of consultation and it is certainly in the consultation summary report. But as I said then, and I will say it again, that is one of the reasons why the NPCA needs to be very sure that they can defend the line, which is why the monitoring exercise is so important, and the policies that are with that recognize the potential impacts and are appropriate. I hear you and I will continue to report that back. Follow up comment: Well because you know there is an answer to that. Answer from Andrea: Well the answer is that it is not ‘no development’ it is that if you are going to develop, you have to conform to the policies and consult with staff. But I have heard you in terms of the concerns about the impact of the line. Question 6: The most recent information that we’ve seen about the siphon structure, from 2013, indicated that there was approximately 1/3 of the siphon structure is blocked with sediment debris. Many people who live upstream of that siphon structure are very concerned that the bottleneck caused by that blockage would raise the flood plain during a flood event. I noticed in your slides from the summary of the consultation you said that ‘it is unknown when the next cleaning of the siphons would occur’. That strongly implies that there has been cleaning in the past, which is news to me. Do you have any information that would indicate that there has ever been any cleaning in that siphon structure? Answer: I am not aware of the date when the siphons were cleaned, and I am not aware of when they will be cleaned again. But I have noted the concern that this concern has been raised about the clogging and the potential impact of that, as Mark indicated that water has to be squeezed through a narrow opening, and obviously that is a concern, and were documenting that and the siphon issue will be incorporated into the model. But I am not aware of any date. Follow up comment: I have looked into it, and I have never found any evidence that they have ever been cleaned since built in 1921. Follow up from Andrea: Thank you for clarifying that, I will continue to note that. Question 7: I was just wondering if other rivers in the Niagara area have been assessed for the floodlines. If so, how often are they assessed? Answer: We are only doing the Welland River, not the other branches as part of this study. Steve, what other rivers have floodline mapping under the NPCA jurisdiction? June 13, 2016
  63. 63. Answer from Steve: About half of the watercourses in our jurisdiction have floodplain mapping. Some of it is old from 1985, but about half of it we have been updating since 2002. Most of the water courses in Fort Erie, Niagara on the Lake and Lincoln, if you go online to our website you can see on our Watershed Explorer, a mapping product, you can click on it and all of the floodplain will come up. If you are having trouble finding that you can just give one of us a call and we can help you with that. Follow up from Andrea: And I will say that the NPCA is not the only conservation authority doing the floodplain mapping in the province of Ontario, or in other provinces. Floodline mapping is a big topic, we have had major flood events in our country and in other countries so it is a hot topic. I would say across Ontario, there are many conservation authorities doing floodline mapping right now. Follow up question: I noticed some of the slides and I am wondering are there spots that are more susceptible to floods than others? Answer: I think the example you are referring to is the Church Road example, where it was 7, 2, and 7 in the different months. That was just for Church Road as an illustration, but we do have the information for the other spots along the river. I am not sure if some areas are more prone than others. We are looking at the major event, and at the major event, there will be floods in lots of spots, and that is the reason we need to make sure that we know where that line needs to be. Follow up question: Back to the siphon thing, and the build up, would it not be prudent to dredge that first before you went with all of this? Is that part of the planning? Answer: Great question, it was raised in the first round of consultation and is certainly addressed in the consultation summary report. Its kind of the chicken and the egg question. It flows quite nicely with the river health concept that we discussed at the first meeting. The NPCA is not the authority responsible for doing the cleaning, so as a result of that, they also took a look at what they should be doing and made their decision to move forward with the mapping exercise, recognizing that the model can deal with these types of issues, including concerns about the siphons and sedimentatation, not just at the siphons, but at other locations as well. We are working on how to incorporate those concerns into the process. Follow up question: So if its not the NPCA’s siphons, who is it, the municipality? Is it where the siphon occurs, is it their responsibility? Answer: Yep, so one of the slides talks about who has responsibility so it is the City of Welland, the St. Lawrence Management Corporation, and they are the two that have responsibility, and as Bev has pointed out he is not aware of the dates, and I am not aware of the dates either. June 13, 2016
  64. 64. Follow up from Mark: I just wanted to let you know how were dealing with the siphons. It is called a sensitivity analysis, and what we need to do is look at them when they would be clean with no sediment at all, and then there was a study done years ago when they did an inspection on the siphons so we have an idea on what the amount of sediment is in the siphons. We can then look at what the effect is of the sediment on the siphons and the water level. So this is called a sensitivity analysis and it is part of the process. Question 8: The siphons is that where the river goes into the Welland Canal? Answer: Yes. Follow up question: Where is O’Reilly’s bridge? Answer: Across from the Pellham Airport. Question 9: Would some of that siphoning be dredged? Where does the sediment come from originally? Our lands that collapse in and wash down? So if its cleaned, would it not take more of our lands. It’s a natural phenomenon that over the years has developed itself. Answer: Yes, so that’s what Marks sensitivity analysis is going to take a look at. What is the implication of the siphons being clogged and not clogged so that we have an understanding of the impact of the rivers ability to carry out water in a flood event and what the impact would be to the land. Follow up question: Yeah, but if we change it and its not a natural thing? Answer: Absolutely, it is not a natural thing, beyond sedimentation, there is a number of reasons why there is clogging, some of it is sedimentation and as Bev has pointed out to me a number of times there are grocery carts and other things in there as well. Crowd comment: There are bodies of vehicles in there as well. Answer: And bodies of vehicles, I haven’t heard that one yet. But thank you. Question 10: So you’re saying that, is there a direct correlation between the siphons being cleaned and flooding. Answer: No, were not saying that there is a direct correlation between the siphons being clogged and flooding. We are saying that we are trying to understand what the implications are. Follow up from Mark: We are talking about the flood level. So the other thing that is happening with the siphons is Niagara Peninsula collected fairly detailed information on June 13, 2016
  65. 65. the old siphon, water level going downstream, and that’s another piece of observed data that has been collected. We will be using it to evaluate what is happening at the siphons. Keep in mind, we are not talking about the normal water level, we are talking about the flood event, so higher water levels. And it is just physics, as we said it earlier. We have to see how that has an effect on the ability of water being pushed through the siphons, basically what pushes it is the change in water level from the upstream and the downstream side. So that is part of our model that looks into that on the physics side of things. Question 11: I have three questions involved in my question. How long has it been since the NPCA or any other body began to analyse the flood plain? How long has this activity been ongoing? Answer: Before 1985 because that’s when the last lines were done. Follow up from Mark: I am a bit of a history nut as well. Its been since 1954, when Hurricane Hazel hit the province in ’54, mass amount of flooding and a good chunk of the land, and that’s what got the government to form conservation authorities, and initially it was for floodplain mapping. I don’t know the exact date, but most of them were in the 50’s Follow up question: How many floods have occurred since then in the Welland River? Answer: Against the 100-year flood line. It depends on the different points, which is what I have indicated on the slides. We showed you Church Road and we showed you the flood events 7, 2, and 7 in the different months. That was the example at Church Road. I don’t have the number off the top of my head. Steve do you know total number? Answer from Steve: Since we’ve been recording at Church Road, since 1959, in 2006 it came close, but we haven’t seen a recorded event since we started recording 50 years ago that has exceeded the 100-year flood event. Follow up question: That makes me feel more comfortable. How many flood events have actually taken place since monitoring? Answer: Again, we are going against the 100-year flood line because that is what we are monitoring against. Steve’s answer at Church Road was almost, very, very close in 2006. Question 12: When you are determining the lower level, are you taking the high water from OPG or the low? Because they fluctuate. Answer: Short answer is both. That’s what we call a boundary condition. We can’t do anything about the Niagara River, it is what it is. But it is the end point of the study, so that sets some conditions for us. Very much like the siphons in terms of doing a June 13, 2016
  66. 66. sensitivity analysis, we need to look at the average level, what is the more often than not water level at that location. We also need to see what the highest and lowest is. It becomes a form of sensitivity analysis to see what the effect of the levels are on the river. Question 13: I guess everyone knows that the Welland River wasn’t just dredged, it was actually dug deeper from the Niagara Falls from the river itself opening, down to where they built the canal. Before it was just a very shallow river almost like a crib running from the Welland to the Niagara River. So taking it down 40+ feet it goes towards the QEW and merges with the water coming from the Welland River. Now was that portion heading west to Welland, was that ever dug or dredged down at one point? And also, since man made water flow going towards the canal is deeper, I can imagine there was flooding over 100 years ago but since Hydro One or Ontario Hydro built the canal that made such a big difference, it takes so much water away and is much deeper. Answer: The first part of your question is if we know if the one portion of the river was dug or not. The second portion is leading back to the Hydro canal and the implications of that with the flooding, because obviously it takes a lot of water and has a lot of capacity. I will answer the second one first, and the answer is that yes absolutely we know that this area of the river is different than up in Binbrook, because it has different characteristics, including the Hydro canal and that needs to be taken into consideration when they are doing the modelling. Answer from Mark: No I don’t know if it was dredged or dug. But once again, were looking for what the river looks like in 2016. That sets the timestamp for us and says what the river looked like to the best of our ability, if its 40 feet deep, then it will be set to be 40 feet deep. As part of our data collection exercise we will be seeing what it is like. The other thing we can do, speaking of elevation and sediment, same idea for assessing these scenarios. In the last meeting we heard that sediment was accumulating in certain sections. We can look at if the sediment increases by 2 or 3 feet or decreases by 2 to 3 feet, is there an affect on the flood line? This is part of the sensitivity process. Question 14: The concerns we have with the study is that the study will have major impacts on the residents and property owners who are living along the watercourse. But it seems that some of the major players that are involved, the City of Welland, the Seaway Authority, OPG, are pretty much left freehand to do whatever they need to do or not do to some of the structures that could have a major impact. In other words, these jurisdictions are not being held accountable in any way for the effect they may have on the study or on the future of the water course. Answer: I am going to record the comment. I have recorded it previously and I will continue to pass that information on, and assure that in Marks sensitivity analysis, the one example of the siphons is being addressed in particular. June 13, 2016

×