Welland River Floodline Mapping

Consultation Summary Report #2

June 2016 Public Information Sessions

September 2016

Prepared for the Niagara Peninsula Conservation Authority

Co

nsu

ltation

Sum

mary R

epo

rt #2

Wellan

d R

iver Floo

dp

lain M

app

ing U

pd

ate

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

Sep

tem

ber

20

16

| M

MM

Gro

up

Lim

ited

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

Co

nsu

ltation

Sum

mary R

epo

rt #2

Wellan

d R

iver Floo

dp

lain M

app

ing U

pd

ate

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

Sep

tem

ber

20

16

| M

MM

Gro

up

Lim

ited

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

Co

nsu

ltation

Sum

mary R

epo

rt #2

Wellan

d R

iver Floo

dp

lain M

app

ing U

pd

ate

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.

Sep

tem

ber

20

16

| M

MM

Gro

up

Lim

ited

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

Appendix A: Mail Out and email to Land Owners

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. 

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  

NameCompanyAdd1Add2City 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

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.

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

Copyright © 2016 NPCA, All rights reserved.

Want to change how you receive these emails?

You can update your preferences or unsubscribe from this list

Appendix B: Presentation

WELLAND RIVER FLOODPLAIN MAPPING UPDATEPublic 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 isConnected, Accurate, Reliable, and founded on Empirical data andobservations using state-of-the-art tools and methodologies.

Project Vision Statement

• This means that new floodline mapping will be in place for theWelland River. The new line may affect what you can do on yourproperty.

• The project will fully engage affected landowners.

• Awareness, understanding and input are key principles of theconsultation program.

3

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 studyand focused on describing the project and listening to community ideas andconcerns.

Technical Understanding & Input Meetings (June 2016) are occurring now thatsome modeling work has been completed.

Draft Floodline Maps (once policy work is ready) will be presented once thetechnical work is complete and the policies are drafted. Community input will beconsidered before NPCA Board makes a final decision.

Public InputA series of Meetings open to the public, interested landowners and stakeholdersare scheduled.

5

Consultation Summary

Meeting #1: 131 Meeting #2: 104Meeting #3: 63Meeting #4: 109

Total Sign-In: 407

6

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

Consultation SummaryMandate 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

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

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

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

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

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 LineNormal Level

B C

Flood Level

13

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

Floodplain Model for the Welland River

Overland Flow (Runoff)

A

A Stream Flow (Elevation)

B+ = C Floodline

Flood LineNormal Level

Standard industry practice, build model and input local data

B C

Flood Level

15

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

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

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

Overland Flow (Rain – Land – Flow)Example of rainfall at Church Road gauge shows valid

connection between rainfall and increased flow in river

Peak Flow

ObservedFlow

ObservedRain

2006

3 days

Discharge Precipitation / Runoff Response

19

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

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

Overland Flow (Rain – Land – Flow)

Church Road Gauge

22

Peak Flow

ObservedFlow

ObservedRain

3 days

Precipitation / Runoff Response

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

Stream Flow – Mapping

24

B

300 400 500167

168

169

170

171

172

173

174

175

176

177

Welland River

Station (m)

Elev

atio

n (m

)

Legend

WS 100 Year

Ground

Bank Sta

.055 .035 .055

100 200 300166

167

168

169

170

171

172

173

174

175

176

Welland River

Station (m)

Elev

atio

n (m

)

Legend

WS 100 Year

Ground

Ineff

Bank Sta

.055 .035 .055

BridgeTypical Cross Section

Elev

atio

n (

m)

Elev

atio

n (

m)

Distance (m) Distance (m)

Centre line of RiverFuture Cross SectionsBridge

O’Reilly’s Bridge Gauge

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

Stream Flow – Flowing Water

Simulated flood event flows used for 1985 mapping (m3/s):1. Abingdon Road - 752. Church Road - 1003. Brooks Bridge -1154. Becketts Bridge - 2055. O’Reillys Bridge - 2456. Montrose Road - 275

Flood Event = 100 year event(1% chance of occurring each year)

26

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

Flood levelNormal level

Looking downstream…

Elev

atio

n (

m)

Flood Level and Floodline

Flood level

Normal level

Flood level

Normal level

28

C

Summary – Floodplain Model

Overland Flow (Runoff)

A

A Stream Flow (Elevation)

B+ = C Floodline

Flood LineNormal Level

B C

Flood Level

29

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 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 

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 

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 

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. 

 

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 

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 

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. 

  

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 

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 

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. 

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?  

  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? 

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 

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.  

  

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.

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.

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?

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.

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

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

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.

Question 15: What I’ve noticed in your presentation this time and the last time, is that you seem to have a lot of information from Welland, from the siphons, from up river, a lot of data, a lot of information you’ve accumulated over the years, studies have been done. But what I am wondering is, have you ever done any studies or gathering of information for this section of the river that flows backwards. I see a lot of information being repeated over and over around Welland and siphons, you keep talking about all of that. Never talking specifically about anything in this area as far as what the floodline has been, the depths, and blockages and those sorts of things.

Answer: Thank you for bringing to our attention that we are not being fair in our examples of information that we are presenting in the presentations. Next time I will make sure I pay more attention to down here, because it is important to feel like we have been doing the research. They are just examples that we pulled for the presentation. The short answer is yes, absolutely, Mark and his team are collecting data, cross sections, all the things that we are talking about, and Steve doing the elevations of sedimentation and other issues regarding the container. They are doing it in all areas of the river, including here. The particular question about the flow and does it flow downhill, does it reverse? They are looking at that. So this area of the river and of the watershed will receive as much attention as any other area, I just obviously didn’t give it as much attention as I think I should have in giving examples in the presentation.

Question 16: My question is connected to what this lady just mentioned here. Mark maybe you know, it seems to me, I live on the lower portion of the river, and it seems to me that the average height of the river is much higher in the last year or so. Maybe it is connected or related to opening of operating of the big tunnel. Are you aware of this average has increased over the last year, or year and a half?

Answer from Steve: Your observation is correct and it is valid. In this part of the river we have seen a higher average.

Follow up question: So I trust that you are working with Hydro on this matter.

Answer: The answer to the question is that Steve is agreeing that on average they are seeing higher water levels. I don’t think that at this time there has been a specific connection to the tunnel. Certainly we are aware of peoples concerns about that, and we have that documented. But the comment about higher average water levels, for sure has been noted.

Follow up question: Because along with the higher water levels with the boat traffic and I mean speed regulation is a little bit iffy at times, but the erosion, there is more erosion from higher water levels than the wake that is created from the boats.

Answer: I don’t want to have everyone give their opinion on whether or not the tunnel, or not the tunnel, or the OPG or not the OPG. Steve has answered the question in terms

of the water levels, and what the cause of that is, we are not aware of at this point in time.

Follow up comment: Well I mentioned that because I believe that it effects the health of the river.

Answer: I agree with you, but Sir, I am not going to take the commentary on whether or not you think it is the tunnel or not, because we don’t know.

Comment from audience member: Yes, you do. Cause I have been in contact with OPG, and since they built the tunnel, they don’t draw as much water down the Welland River as they used to be. Henceforth, the water in the last two years, the water level is up about 12” from where it usually is. I have been in contact with OPG to try and get them to lower the water down to where it used to be. Because what little erosion control is left on the banks of the river from the mouths of the water down to where the canal begins, what little erosion control is left is overwhelmed by having the water level a foot higher than it usually is. The shoreline right now is defenseless. Ok, we are losing property some places 5” every two years. Ok. And that is a fact, not an opinion. That is a fact coming from OPG. When they opened up the new tunnel the water level in the Welland River came up. You can find that out for yourself by simply making a phone call and making inquiries yourself.

Answer: I appreciate that and certainly staff have done that and have come back to have discussions with OPG. As I have indicated OPG and their current water levels, as it stands today is being incorporated into the study. It is just not a fact that I can say tonight. Right now it is your information you are sharing with the group, and I just need to make sure

Follow up comment form audience member: I would make that a priority to make sure whoever is responsible for the siphons to clean them out, and asking OPG to keep the water level at a certain point so as to not aggravate the existing erosion problem that exists there now.

Answer: Yes, and definitely it has been documented, so thank you for that. Question 17: I have more than one question and a couple of comments. What this gentleman has just said, is good evidence for the NPCA to keep development out of the floodplain, because when things flood the water levels rise. So, I hope you take issue, because I live in the country downstream from the development. I really take issue with urbanites who want to develop in the floodplain, it should have been stopped a long time ago. When developers do it, they go after the little people. I have concerns with this 500 m buffer. I believe in it, but I have concerns as to how you are going to handle the two major developments of Thundering Waters and the Grand Niagara. How you are going to apply that buffer, which I think should be in the natural state.

Answer: I am going to stop you there, and I want to clarify again, the 500 m is not a buffer. It is simply the area that we notified people about this study. It is not a buffer. It is a study area boundary, it is a notification area, it has nothing to do with a buffer, it is not supposed to be naturalized. It is simply who is going to get a mail notice of these meetings.

Follow up comment: Ok maybe I am hoping hundreds of years down the road, that everything might get developed. Are there any calculations if there was more and more development, how much bigger the flood line would be? Answer: That is part of the analysis we are doing, we are taking into account land use, and when land gets developed, there is more impervious land and water doesn’t infiltrate as much and runs off. So that is part of the analysis Mark is doing. It is the overland flow piece the “a” part of the equation. And yes, it would potentially impact that, but yes, that is what he is looking at. Follow up question: The Watershed Floodplain Committee, when was that formed and who sits on it, and how did you pick them? Answer: The Watershed Floodplain Committee, a number of the members are here tonight, it is a committee that was appointed by the NPCA board, and includes a number of different representatives, including municipal, mayors and councillors, some NPCA board members, members of the public, and the Floodplain Association. Glen is here, Bev is here, Stu is here, Mayor Diodati was here. We can get you a list of the names if you would like. And it was formed prior to when I became involved in December. Follow up question: Didn’t I see something up there that said 500 m buffer? Answer: It says 500 m study area. So it is the study area, it is just who is going to get the notice. Follow up comment: Because the Welland River is a major ecosystem, that you should be leaving, like to just leave a floodplain, I hope that is not all that you do, because these other ecosystems need to function with it. Answer: Yes, thank you for the comment, and that will be where the policy piece comes in with it.

Question 18: The legend doesn’t identify the yellow flags.

Answer: The flags are simply people who participated in the first round of meetings. When you came in they were given a flag and a comment card, which had a corresponding number, so you could mark where your property is. Then you could give a comment card with your concerns and contact information. We are then able to

correlate trends, and themes, when we did out analysis. So the flags represent all of you, and all of the other 600 people who participated.

Welland Public Meeting Question and Answer Notes – June 16, 2016 Question 1: Regarding my particular property, maybe you can explain it. I have about a two-acre pond and the water level is down probably a foot. The river, which borders my farm on the west and on the south, is probably the highest I’ve ever seen it. The water isn’t moving. So I took a bottle and threw it into some slime, and left it for a day, and it is exactly where I left it. It is almost like water is coming the other way. Now, I’ve heard rumours, that OPG wants to use the Welland River as a resource where they can use it to store water, I know people where the water level is right at their door step. So what are you doing, if anything, to try and stop this. The last meeting, I asked about the siphons, and the question was never answered. There are rumours that the Niagara got money or somebody got money from OPG to clean the siphons and they used it for something else.

Answer: So I think there are three parts to the question, the first one is your individual property, which I am going to let you hold and you can certainly see somebody after to talk about your specific situation because I don’t know exactly about it. I am going to answer the second part of it. The second piece is the comment about is there a reverse flow, and is it real. I don’t know if Mark made the comment in this presentation, I don’t think I heard you make it, that ‘every water resources engineer loves to tell the story that water flows downhill, except for when you come to Niagara it is not always true’, so he has to change his whole understanding of water resources, because in Niagara there is definitely acknowledgement that water flows the other way8. So yes, we are acknowledging it and it is real, and the good news is that the model that has been selected, which I understand is called Mike 11, is that this model is able to use that reverse information in the modelling exercise. So it can handle that piece of information, and we’ll make sure it is accurate for the Welland situation. So the third part of your question was about OPG and their intentions to potentially use the Welland River as a reservoir, certainly we heard that at the last meeting and I think my answer in the earlier presentation is that there is lots of questions and rumours and perceptions about what OPG might do, we don’t know. We are not dealing with the unknown; we are dealing with their operations as it is today. As it is today, there is no reservoir for the Welland River and that is what we are dealing with in this project. If it changes in the future the staff will certainly deal with that.

Follow up question: Right now, my pond is going down, the river should be going down as well.

Answer: So I can’t make an answer to your specific question, but certainly that phenomenon is something Mark is working with in terms of the Welland, because it has been raised as a technical issue. They will incorporate this into the modelling. Follow up from Mark: What is happening, this whole flow reversal, because we are taking the model right down the Niagara River, that River acts as a boundary. It is the edge of our model, and because the land around the lower Niagara and lower Welland

is so flat, what happens is the Niagara River rises and falls only a few inches. When it comes to the upper watershed it is a little bit different, we understand the difference in the shape of the watershed and we are able to pick that up. Answer from Andrea: We will work to get more information as we do the technical process, but I definitely have captured that you have a question and a concern about that, and my answer is that we are aware of it and we have heard it. It is being captured in the modelling process.

Question 2: How many old people have you talked to that lived along that river for a lifetime

Answer: I have not talked to any people specifically. There are definitely people who have history that are feeding into this process, whether it be the committee, or through background information. But we are not doing a specific outreach program to say can you give us the history. Certainly lots of people have offered their opinions through the public meetings. If there is something of specific interest, then we would definitely like to hear it.

Question 3: I have lived along the Welland River ever since 1942. My father lived there when he was 8 years old. My husband was born there in 1921. Now, do you want the whole history. Because the whole history is Ontario Hydro. Ontario Hydro hikes that river up every day about a foot, if not more. Then at night it goes down and the next day it is the same. We have had high tide and we have low tide. Ever since the 50’s, 40’s. The river has not been the same. They changed it at Niagara Falls. In 1945/46, the River froze over and the Hydro backed the river up, and another layer of ice froze over the river, and all of the fish that was in the river dies because of lack of oxygen. In 1956, Ontario Hydro backed that river up and flooded 7 or more acres of garden, our cucumbers, our peppers, and our tomatoes, and our squash and our pumpkin, the whole lower end. July 1st, no rain before, no rain after. And then, I come home “oh my god, there is 300 feet of our garden under water, maybe even more, I don’t know”. I phoned Ontario Hydro and Chippewa, finally I went on that phone and I didn’t even say hello. I said I am going to make two more phone calls and if I don’t get results I am going to get two sticks of dynamite and put it under you.

Answer: You are absolutely right, and thank you for sharing. I realize that you probably have more, can you give me one more decade?

Follow up: Can you get a map of 1985, an aerial view of the Welland River? Let’s say from Robinsons Bridge to Welland? Because when these people here realize that there is about 45 feet of their land in the middle of the Welland River, because that is what it shows on the 1985 map. If that river was cleaned out or the Mississippi, we wouldn’t have this business. Answer: I think that is another great point. What my answer is going to be is that I fully acknowledge your concerns about the OPG operations and I think that it was captured

in the consultation summary report from the first round. My answer back to you again today is that we are aware it is legitimate, and we continue to explore that information. Mark’s model can absolutely deal with those circumstances and we are dealing with the OPG operations as they are today. With respect to the issue about trying to follow up on aerial photography, we will certainly make a note to see if we can follow up on that. Follow up: It is about 15 feet deep now. Answer: I recognize the concern about cleaning up the sedimentation. It was certainly documented last time. We are aware of this. Marks model can also understand what the implications would be with a sedimentation and clean up. The container, the shape, and the capacity of the container is part of the model.

Question 4: First of all, I’d like to congratulate Mark on an excellent presentation. My question is, you have collected a lot of data over several years, and as for the existing Welland River. Would that flow be different if the siphons were cleaned out and Ontario Hydro was not backing up water? We have this data, but if those obstructions were gone, would that data be totally different?

Answer: The short answer is probably. There would be some implications. Mark will give you more detail about how he’s going to deal with that. We don’t know when the siphons are going to be cleaned next. We understand there are lots of concerns about sedimentation, but Marks model is able to deal with boundary conditions about that siphon.

Mark Answer: Thanks. So in terms of the flow, certainly at Church Road, it is far enough away from the lower part of the Welland, that it is not affected very much by the operations down on the Niagara River. It gives us a good snapshot of what is happening in the relationship between rain falling on the land and what ends up in the river. That is one piece. The other piece is that in terms of its ability to address what is happening in the lower part of the river, there are couple of things going on. First of all, were looking to see how much of the water runs off to the river. Once it gets to the river, we are trying to understand how it goes down the river. That is where the piece comes in where we look at, if we have so much water getting to the river, then what happens when it gets there. Also keep in mind we are looking at the flood event, it is a big event, we are not going to be modelling what happens daily. We need to understand how the river level at the Niagara affects the flow at the lower part. Finally, what it comes to is sedimentation and the change in the river blocking. We do what is called a sensitivity analysis, and what that means is that we ask ourselves a few questions: what would the water levels look like if the siphons had a blockage by 20 or 30%, is there a change in the water level. Fortunately, the NPCA has gone out and has collected data recently upstream and downstream of the old siphon, so we don’t have 50 years of record, but we have some years of record that we can use to verify how this model is working. So the sensitivity analysis also can look at what happens if the river bed is at a certain

elevation, like 2 or 3 feet higher because of sediment accumulation. We can look at that to understand if it has an effect on the water level, and it comes down to physics. But that is something we are going to be looking into. Andrea follow up: I know that we have answered this question at a previous meeting and the answer was that the sensitivity analysis, which is particularly important for the siphons because the NPCA is not responsible for the cleaning of them, so we need to know what would happen if they were blocked. So the sensitivity analysis will give Mark the ability to say if there was a certain level of blocking, how would the river in a flood event react, so he is able to say, okay the container can still handle it, or there is a greater implication.

Question 5: I am somewhat confused. The NPCA is a government controlled operation. The OPG is a government controlled operation. Whoever it is that does the siphons, government controlled operation. But, the Conservation Authority is doing some kind of study and can’t get the information from the other people. What is wrong? Something is really wrong that you can’t get the information from the other branches of the government.

Answer: Thank you for the comment. Certainly noted the concern and certainly the NPCA and staff are doing everything they can to get the information that is necessary. Certainly the information with respect to the sensitivity analysis is good, and the information about the next siphon cleaning is just not available to us at this time.

Follow up question: Well the current government will not do anything to make sure that the other areas and groups will provide you with the information to make your study really worthwhile, maybe the opposition party will do something to help. Because it is absolutely ridiculous that our money is going to do a study when you are not getting any cooperation from any of the other forms of the government. Answer: So I will certainly make sure that is reflected in the summary. I appreciate it.

Question 6: I have to agree with these ladies, we need more information. So is there going to be something published that we are going to be able to look at, where it comes from? My question will also be, as you are explaining this you're saying the number one is the water comes down and runs off the land that’s where you started and that’s correct. Now we’ve had a lot of changes to the contour of the land and use of the land. It is very different at one end and at our end. The wind turbines, we have acres of substation, is that all taken into your model? Is all the extra sediment and treelines for the towers, is all this part of your model?

Answer: So I am going to take a couple of steps into your question and acknowledge the comment that there is more information necessary. The project team feels confident that they have the information necessary to do the work and we are continuing to follow up on information that continues to add value. Your second question about having access to the technical information. Absolutely, as we get closer and through the

technical study you will have information available to you. But Mark has kind of given a summary to you now. With regards to land use, soil, and rainfall information, all of that yes. If you remember Mark had two components, there was the soils information and the rainfall information. There was also land use information, so how much is developed vs. farmland, because paved surface doesn’t allow water to infiltrate as good as natural land, and also in terms of runoff. So we have all of that information, and we also have updated digital elevation modelling, it is much more technologically advanced than it was in 1985. All these pieces of information are local to the Welland River and all of that information, very comprehensibly is feeding into Marks model to make sure that it is as accurate as possible in that calibration stage, and then again he goes out to multiple locations that the calibration will be modelled against (I think there is about 8 or 9 locations). All of that is included in it. So yes.

Follow up question: So I didn’t hear anything about the substations

Answer: There is not a specific study on that area, but any land use change information is included.

Question 7: After the last floodplain was set, we found that the actual level that the River rose was actually only about a third of the line said it should be, after Hurricane Sandy. So what are you going to do to ensure that when you do your validation process and we actually have a significant amount of rainfall event or level to prepare the model?

Answer: My answer would be I don’t know for the Welland. The question is, if I was going further I would want to know what the volume of rain when the Sandy dropped on the watershed, and that, I don’t know.

Follow up question: They told us that was a level 5 storm.

Answer: Okay. So the critical piece of information here is, we would have to compare the Sandy volume to the volume were going to say 100-year event was. That would be the starting point to see what the difference was there. Sandy may come up, we certainly pay attention to when that happened, it was an event of interest. Once again were looking for the big huge event, whatever that was, and I honestly don’t know where Sandy fits into that.

Follow up question: If between now and the end of your study, what if we don’t have significant rainfall, what is your validation? Will you go back to say 2008? Answer: So were not looking for the rain event this year, it is irrelevant. We are looking for historical information, Church Road has 50 years, other gauges have… Follow up from crowd: But you only have flow you don’t have elevations?

Answer continued: We have elevations, we have flow. So there are a whole bunch of pieces of information over many years that is going into it. It is not information from this year.

Follow up question: So where are the elevations?

Answer: Church Road

Follow up question: So you are only on the upper third of the watershed? Answer: We feel confident that this is appropriate. Church Road is the location where we have the most amount of information. We do have information in other places throughout the watershed. Typically, have the water level and flow at a particular location. So it is just the nature of the data collection that typically happens in pairs, level and flow. Follow up question: But you had the same information in the last study, and it wasn’t 100% for the 5-year line. Answer: We can’t comment on the 5-year line because we are dealing with the 1985 line, which was the 100-year flood line, and that is what we are looking at. We can follow up about your specific question and the 5-year line. Follow up question: The other issue is that elevations are only taken at Church Road, so you are only looking at about 30% of the watershed. Answer: So I want to clarify that Mark has indicated that he has elevations at locations other than Church Road, he doesn’t have as much data at those locations. But he does have elevations at other locations, and we will piece it all together at the calibration and verification process. So that we feel confident from a professional engineering perspective that it is accurate for the Welland River.

Question 8: I am curious how you determined the baseline water levels to begin with? And then you talk about 100-year storm, I am curious as to how much water you are going to be dumping into the river for how many days, how many hours, how much water are you actually dumping for your study?

Answer: So I will answer the second question first. We are not dumping anything. It is just whatever is going to fall. Mark will give you an approximate volume for what we know at Church Road. And then we can answer your question about baseline levels.

Answer from Mark: For example, the graphic I showed you from 2006, the December event the blue bars were observed rain, and red was observed flow, the flow was 65 units and the rain was about 60 mm so about 3 inches. So it is important to understand

we are looking for that pairwise comparison, looking for first of all the flow, then we look for the nearby rain event that caused the flow. We are looking for the pairs of data and then we look at the land. That is the connection between the rain and the flow. So what we are looking for is the flood level. We let the model do what is called a ‘steady state condition’ means that it is just the starting level, it will be slightly different than the flood level, but you the let model run and it will basically figure out, and settle down. Remember that chart that showed 75 and Abingdon Road working its way down to Montrose Road at 275, you feed that into the model and it settles down and figures out what the water level is like. The baseline, where you start, is not as important as where it finishes.

Follow up question: I am still curious and you didn’t say how many inches of rain are you going to be dumping into your scenario to see the change?

Answer: So I think we are looking for the flood event and the flood event at Church Road was, Mark you said, 3 inches. That is what the precipitation was for the flood event, for 2006, the example that was given. So we are looking for how much precipitation would come down onto the land at that flood event time.

Follow up from Mark: I think this may help. That is why were not just taking 2006, that’s why we’ve chosen 16 different events. That is why we have chosen throughout the year. Remember that graph that showed 7 in one season, 2 in another, and 7 in another. In each of those events we are looking for that pairwise flow. So you see those 16 events for the peak flow and we look for its buddy, which is rain, and that is where we make that connection. It is not just one event and rain. We look for the pairwise comparisons to make a connection. That is why we are looking at 16 different events.

Follow up from Andrea: And that is important because if the 100-year event came in September versus in December, the watershed is going to act differently because the land is going to be different, and potentially froze and have other influences on it. So we need to understand how much rain in different season and what the reaction is. So then Mark keeps going back to this pairing. And then we average it and we let the model do the predicting about what the implications of that are. It is not one year, one point and one event. It is a whole bunch of them all added together, synthesized and verified.

Question 9: For the model, for curiosity, did you look at how much silt is set on top of the original waterbed?

Answer: So the sedimentation issue and the container, how deep it is. The digital elevation information is available and feeds into Marks model. We don’t worry about the original, we worry about what it is today, because that is what we are modelling against is today.

Follow up question: Is it today or is it before they did all of that stuff at the transfer station and all that silt went into the River? When is your base taken? Are you doing it again now? All those trees are gone. Are you taking it today? It is going to be different than 6 months from now. Answer: Yep I recognize your concern. Answer from Mark: Short answer is yes. Yes, part of our work is to measure the depth of the River. Follow up question: In this area? Answer: Yes. For as long as we can. Follow up comment from another audience member: I’ve seen it rain and rain for months. And some people will remember it. It rained and the ground stunk and we went in the field we were in mud like that, you couldn’t pick the tomatoes off in September, because it started raining, and it rained right through until winter when it froze up. The river didn’t rise, it rained, and every day it rained, rain rain rain. But the river didn’t come up

Answer: And that is one of the reasons it is important for us to be able to take that data from many different years. So we need to understand and part of Mark’s exercise is to understand that relationship and why.

Follow up comment: And we used to have so much rain in the summer, the old people used to say it rained 40 days and 40 nights. Its true.

Question 10: You talked about the flow at Church Road in 2006. The 65 units of rain. How much did the River increase in height in that example?

Answer: I don’t have the information right here to be able to say it came up 6 or 8 or 9 feet. But I can find out. In order for that flow to be calculated, what they are doing is measuring water level at Church Road. So the information is there for how much it came up. But what I just plotted was flow, I could find out but I don’t have it with me tonight.

Follow up from Andrea: So we will make a commitment to get that piece of information. Question 11: You mentioned peoples property along the river, and representing folks who do, the concern I have is loss of property rights and loss of property enjoyment. And there is a lot of suspicion because of the way the last round came about. The map was not told to everybody, we all found out our land was covered. So my suggestion more for the NPCA than for the consultants is if I understand the siphons are a bit of a bottleneck, and make things potentially worse, or actually with OPG that caused greater sediment and make the risk greater. Could the

NPCA put those at its top recommendations to fix the problems, by first using its authority. I am glad to help get the information as quick as possible from the Seaway Authority and OPG, I am happy to put my weight behind that. But essentially, you want to try and cure the real problem, rather than forcing loss of enjoyment and property rights for folks along the river.

Answer: Certainly thank you for the question and it was something that was raised in the first round and we have taken that and we will certainly be working forward with it from a technical perspective I will give you that and then I will ask Carmen from the NPCA from their perspective. Our mandate is to recommend the line, and to understand the assumptions that go into the line. We have had discussion at the committee level that we need to note those assumptions. So an assumption, being that a sensitivity analysis with the siphons cleared or not cleared will be in there. It will then be up to the NPCA board about what their next steps will be.

Answer from Carmen: Thank you Andrea and Thank you Mr. Hudak for the question. I want to express this in three parts. The first part is absolutely correct. We had a 1985 flood plain line and then in 2010 that line was remodelled and completed and the NPCA did not tell anybody. So yes, absolutely. So the board that exists today when they hired me, they said whenever you do things, you are to advise the public. So that is why we put the 2010 model on the shelf and only use it as a guideline. So that is why we are doing this exercise in 2016, and we notify over 5,000 property owners exactly what we are going to do, the technical aspect, and then the third phase we will produce the maps. Now, when we produce the maps and it is based on new information and based on now we have digital elevation lines, once we have that, what I have to tell you is the policy is also important. We give you the maps, but then what is the policy saying for the landowner what you can and cannot do. Here is what my staff does, if you call because you want to do a project on your property, the staff will have a conversation with you and look at the computer screen. Certain times the land owner will say that doesn’t make sense to me. Our staff will put boots to the ground. We will do an onsite, and talk to the land owner and understand your experience. We do it case by case. The map is our guideline, it is a regulatory line, but staff are still directed to go onsite and talk to land owners because there could be some nuances.

Comment from attendee: And that is at the cost of the land owner. I have just gone through this recently and luckily I wasn’t in the floodplain. But it would cost $5,000 plus to get the whole recommendation from you guys.

Answer from Carmen: Well, correct.

Comment from attendee: So to put boots on the ground, all I am saying is don’t make it look like you are doing us a favour and trying to help us, it is all at our cost.

Answer from Carmen: I am just going to finish my points. So we did get in 2013 the information from the City of Welland on the siphon and they confirmed that it is 30%

blocked, we do know that. In 2007, we got the information from the St. Lawrence Seaway, because it is a more engineered and newer siphon, there is not a lot of concern about blockage, it is pretty well engineered. With OPG, Peter Graham who is project manager he is speaking and they met just two weeks ago. He speaks with OPG and the dialogue of what is happening with their operations and how that impacts the Welland River. So we are in dialogue. So the suggestion is to make recommendations to them, absolutely. And that is what our project manage is doing. Just two points if I may respectfully say, yes. We get landowners who want to build their house. They want to know where the floodplain line is, because they don’t want to put their investment on the side of it. And some people have the option and flexibility, they will come to us saying they want to build a house or do this project, can you tell me with confidence where this floodplain line is, so I can be outside of it and protect my investment. That is important and that is the primary reason why we do this stuff. BY having the map lines we take the onus off of you that you have to do your own mapping, because we have done the mapping on a general scale.

Follow up from Andrea: Thank you, the link to the policy is particularly important. And I would encourage you to make sure that you stay involved in that because the line is the line but what you can do in the line, as Mr. Hudak as pointed out, is particularly important, and there are things that we will, and I am a Registered Professional Planner, I know that side of it. So part of what I am watching for is those implications that I can bring to the attention of the policy team so we can try and deal with it in a policy framework and make sure that we are minimizing the impact but still maintaining the mandate, the very important risk management mandate. There is a link to the other study as part of this project website and certainly staff are also available to give you information on that.

Question 12: Sorry I am just getting started here, on behalf of my father and other people. So you have had previous meetings and sessions, where do I get that information?

Answer: It is all posted on the NPCA’s website. There is a section that has this particular project so you can click on that. It will take you to the page that gives you the consultation summary report.

Follow up question: This is the fourth one?

Answer: This is the fourth one of this round. I haven’t written the summary report for this round but we will be doing this shortly. But the February meetings and that summary report is done and completed, it is posted online on the same website, and if you have trouble getting it, certainly contact Peter Graham at the NPCA and he will get it for you. The report for this round I will be writing shortly and we will be taking it to the Committee and the Board and it will be posted in the same location. The PowerPoint presentations from last round and this round are also posted on the website so you can

download them if you wanted. All meeting notices are there, and also in the newspapers. Follow up question: I guess the issue there is my father is never going to learn and access the computer

Answer: That is ok, we can get you a hard copy, either Peter or Michael from the NPCA. No issue, if you need a hard copy, simply contact us and we will get you what you need. No problem, absolutely.

Follow up: Will there be copies at the next meeting for people who do attend? Answer: We will make note of that, thank you for your comment. Question 13: I thought we were going to have a meeting in Fall of 2016?

Answer: As I had stated before, we heard you when you said that you didn’t want to be talking about the line without knowing what you can and cannot do within the line. Because of this the Floodplain Committee recommended to the NPCA Board to hold off on releasing the line until the policy work was done. The Board took this recommendation and has decided to release the line when the policy work is complete so we can talk about what you can do and cannot do in the line. The policy work wont be ready until early 2017.