Everblue Massawippi`s brief and remarks on bylaw draft 13

Submission and Remarks on bylaw draft 1314 presented at the Memphremagog MRC
and the Village of North Hatley as part of the
January 8, 2015 public consultation.
January 28, 2015
[email protected]
www.lacmassawippi.ca
819.238.4410
Page |2
Table of Contents
Everblue Massawippi: Status and Mission......................................... 3
Background of Everblue Massawippi's Involvement in this Public
Consultation ...................................................................................... 3
Lake Massawippi Watershed............................................................. 4
The Lake Massawippi Watershed in North Hatley ............................. 5
Proposed Changes............................................................................ 7
Credibility of EXP Consultants ......................................................... 10
About LiDAR ................................................................................... 13
The Concept of Mobility Space ........................................................ 14
The Economic Argument ................................................................. 15
Conclusions and Recommendations ............................................... 17
Page |3
Everblue Massawippi wishes to make observations and comment on bylaw draft 13-14
(which amends the revised development plan adopted by bylaw number 8-98).
The specific provision of the bylaw on which we will focus reads as follows:
WHEREAS a review is needed of the flood zones of the Municipality of North Hatley to
determine the boundaries of the high-frequency zone (0-20 years) and low-frequency
zones (20-100 years) based on water flow/level data; (including the maps based on
these revisions)
Everblue Massawippi: Status and Mission
Everblue Massawippi is a nonprofit organization whose mission is to safeguard the
health of Lake Massawippi. Consequently our priority lies in encouraging improvements
in water quality throughout the watershed. In order to optimize the quality of life around
the lake, we also concern ourselves with the shoreline; the habitat and the visual and
tranquil environment they provide; and the respectful and safe use of its water for sports
and recreation.
As of January 1, 2015, Everblue Massawippi boasts 1090 members, of which 291 are
North Hatley residents or property owners, with some 175 more in the immediate vicinity
of North Hatley at the border of the municipalities of the Canton-de-Hatley and SteCatherine-de-Hatley. Furthermore, nearly 80% of members are shore-dwellers or
residents of the watershed in close proximity to Lake Massawippi.
To achieve its mission, Everblue Massawippi adheres to the following values and
strategies: maintain environmental watchfulness; keep conclusive scientific knowledge
up-to-date; listen to citizens; disseminate current educational information; seek out
varied and practical solutions; publicly represent the interests of members, residents and
users; practice vigilance; monitor the implementation of bylaws in riparian environments;
develop projects in collaboration with local and regional authorities; implement concrete
improvement; and finally, maintain a long-term vision.
Background of Everblue Massawippi's Involvement in this Public
Consultation
Fundamentally, Everblue Massawippi is not involved in the political decision-making
process, which is the domain of the municipalities and their citizens. In light of this,
Everblue Massawippi took no position in the recent debate regarding the large
development project in North Hatley. We are not mandated to intervene in the economic
and aesthetic choices of a municipality, riparian or not, to the extent that these choices
are not likely to affect Lake Massawippi. If these choices result in changes to the basic
standards established in the watershed, however, Everblue Massawippi must take
action. When it comes to overflow in wetlands, floodplains or areas where there is
Page |4
evidence of seepage or other form of underground exchange, it behooves us to pay very
close attention. The changes laid down in bylaw 13-14 are of this kind. They take aim at
floodplains located partially in the Lake Massawippi watershed and include areas where
there is evidence of seepage or other form of underground exchange. Finally, the
perimeter of the area in question is located at a distance varying from 0 to about 300
meters (farthest severance line) from the shore of Lake Massawippi.
Lake Massawippi Watershed
The Lake Massawippi watershed covers an area of 609 km2. Two major rivers, the Niger
and the Tomifobia, and 33 documented streams flow directly into the lake (18.7 km2)
whose water flows out through a single outlet, the Massawippi River in North Hatley.
Consideration must be given to the major impact of the watershed on these rivers whose
flow increases tremendously during major floods, not to mention the direct impact of the
drainage from the lake's 38.3 km perimeter. The mouth of the Massawippi River is barely
24 meters wide. In light of this, the risks associated with floodplains around Lake
Massawippi cannot be taken lightly.
Fig. 1: The Lake Massawippi Watershed
Page |5
The Lake Massawippi Watershed in North Hatley
The Municipality of North Hatley covers an area of 3.23 km2, and is by far the smallest
of the five municipalities that have a shoreline around the lake (Parc Régional
Massawippi). Nearly 80% of North Hatley lies in the Lake Massawippi watershed
(outlined in white in Figure 2).
Fig. 2: North Hatley territory and transposition onto the map of the watershed
Fig. 3: Outline of watershed boundaries on actual map
Fig. 4 :North Hatley and Massawippi River watershed boundary outline
Page |6
Fig. 5: Watershed boundary, Capelton Road (photo taken on the line)
The boundary passes between Kesar and Ladouceur streets and extends to the mouth
of the river. The watershed encompasses, therefore, approximately one-third of the area
subject to the changes proposed by bylaw 13-14. In fact, included in the watershed is
the entire shoreline constituted by Dreamland Park, all properties on Capelton from
Kesar to the lake, those on Main Street as far as the Pilsen, as well as those on Main
Street on the other side of the bridge (Figure 6)
Page |7
Fig. 6: Outline of the boundary of the watershed in the area covered by the bylaw
Proposed Changes
From the outset, Hugues Ménard, Memphremagog MRC development coordinator, has
presented the table project as the mere will of the municipality to clarify the flood zone
boundaries that had been originally delineated using "broad strokes."
" 'Broad strokes' is the most simplistic. It consists in tracing on a map of the area under
consideration the boundaries of floodwaters in the past. To do this, different information
sources can be used (memory of municipal officials and residents, information available
from the ministries, photos, newspaper articles, aerial photographs, etc.).”
Source: Zones inondables - Informations générales - Centre d’expertise hydrique,
Québec, http://www.cehq.gouv.qc.ca/zones-inond/
There were no prior indications that the original delineation of the flood zones was
incorrect. In order for the municipality to obtain more conclusive results, scientific
analyses need to be carried out with care and with respect for the standards of the
discipline.
At this point, it is appropriate to recall the submission filed by MCI (Memphremagog
Conservation Inc, Gisèle Lacasse-Benoit), which emphasizes that in these times of
climate change, now is not the time to reduce or ignore at-risk zones. The real question
must be asked: what is the true reason for the changes to the bylaw that have
been presented?
Page |8
The nature and extent of the proposed changes must be analyzed using the original map
of the designated area as a benchmark.
The purple areas indicate a risk factor of 0-20 years (5% probability of an annual flood),
and green areas indicate a risk factor of 0-100 years (1% annual probability of flooding).
Fig. 7: Present map of flood zone
Figure 7 was included in
EXP's report in support of
changes to the plan. The
colour legend was inverted. It
was an obvious error which
we have taken the liberty to
correct.
Figure 8 outlines a risk factor
of 0-20 years in the brown
areas and a risk factor of 0100 years in the yellow. The
green areas would henceforth
lie outside the flood zone.
Fig. 8: Proposed Map
Page |9
A comparative analysis leads to the following conclusions:
 Sections of the original 0-20 year flood risk zone now surprisingly lie in a nonflood zone (in the watershed).
 Large tracts of 0-20 year flood-prone land are completely isolated and
surrounded by 0-100 year risk bands. It must therefore be by routes other than
above ground travel that these areas would be flooded five times more often
than those areas that surround them. The first portion is in the watershed.
How not to conclude therefore that, in one way or another, these areas interact
directly with the lake?
Under these circumstances, what is the point of defining this band 0-100 years?
These facts alone explain Everblue Massawippi's puzzlement regarding the proposed
changes, and with them, of course, the new possibilities of human activity that would
inevitably take place with the adoption of this plan.
Assuming for an instant that this map reflects reality and that it is correctly scientifically
based, it is clear that any digging or backfilling in this area is likely to have a direct
impact on the lake, at the very least through underground channels, whether this digging
or backfilling takes place in the watershed or not. It should be added that any backfilling
would almost inevitably change the boundary of the watershed; albeit by a matter of
centimeters in many places.
It must be made clear that if the boundary of the watershed can be shifted as a result of
any future activity, the map of the flood zone will also change:
"Floodplain maps cannot take into account land development (eg, embankments or other
protective structures) carried out after the date on which the surveys were made. In
addition, all the methods used to perform mapping may include some inaccuracies.”
Source: Zones inondables - Informations générales - Centre d’expertise hydrique,
Québec, http://www.cehq.gouv.qc.ca/zones-inond/
Consequently, Everblue Massawippi invites policymakers to err on the side of utmost
caution in their assessment of the situation. The tabling of this new map demonstrates
vividly the extreme fragility of this area, and an assessment of the potential impact is
very complex.
P a g e | 10
Credibility of EXP Consultants
The observations made above take for granted that the information filed in support of
change (the new map) are correctly science based. Is this the case?
Mr. Gwyn and Mr. Grayson's submissions are serious and the findings are troubling.
The fifteen (or so) written answers offered by the EXP consulting firm (provided after the
meeting due to its absence from the public consultation) are not enough to reassure us.
In fact, we see in them a form of carelessness, they generalize and trivialize and
reinforce our concern.
An 84-point questionnaire was sent to the MRC on January 15 to which no reply has
been published to date. Why not?
These submissions deserve to be read and understood by all those who love North
Hatley and this area of the lake. Everblue Massawippi offers the following highly
significant extracts (highlighting is ours).
Gwyn submission:
a. It appears from reading the EXP report that, with one exception, there was no other
validation or verification on the ground. (p.9 / 16)
b. The EXP report assumes that everything is fine, that the curves drawn on the map,
representing the boundaries of the different flood plains, are clear, fair and accurate.
However, in this Section 7.0, we present photographic evidence and calculations that
contradict this assumption. (p.9 / 16)
c. Secondly are the areas where there should be no flooding (in natural colours). If the
map is valid, these areas are above the 100-year flood levels. As can be seen in
photographs from April, 1994 and April, 2014, however, these areas are indeed
'floodable' as they are clearly flooded.... (p.10 / 16)
d. Note that during these floods (1929, 1937), the floodwater did not stand still. It was not
a mere extension of Lake Massawippi. Quite the opposite; in Figure 5a we can see that
the water flow is torrential, and a little further it degenerates into a flow of quasi-fluvial
proportions. (p.12 / 16)
P a g e | 11
e. ... we recalculated the likelihood of flood recurrences (20 and 100 years) from the
EXP report. These calculations (Table 1) indicate a 13-year flood recurrence in the EXP
report's 20-year zones, and a recurrence of 57 years in the EXP report 100-year flood
zones. (p.16 / 16)
Grayson submission:
a. The EXP report shows, with the help of graphs and tables, that the water touches the
underside of the bridge deck during the five-year recurrent floods. (p.4 / 28)
b. Note that the level of the street at the intersection of Main Street and Capelton is
about 10 cm below the underside of the bridge. It is also important to recall that the lake
level, a short distance upstream from the bridge entrance, is considerably higher than at
the entrance of the bridge itself, the result of the phenomenon of suction created as the
water is drawn into the restricted opening of the river. Thus, the level of the lake opposite
Dreamland Park will be 16 to 27 cm higher than at the bridge (flood zones of 20 years
and 100 years respectively). (p.5 / 28)
c. Hydrological data from the years 1966 through 2004 (38 years) show that the lake
level reached or exceeded the current level of the street (Capelton and Main) on 15
occasions. (p.5 / 28)
d. ... we have gradually reduced the lake discharge capacity by forcing the flow to pass
through a narrow channel bordered on the east side by a stone retaining wall, and on the
west side by buildings with concrete foundations, one of which juts directly into the river.
(p.6 / 28)
e. ... we should not consider this area as an isolated unit. It is part of a larger entity
comprising the lake and the river, a very complex and vast system. Past floods have
made this area a channel of intense overflow. (p.10 / 28)
f. The EXP report suggests that a huge backfilling operation should take place before
any construction can be started on this site. (p.21 / 28)
g. The effect of the proposed backfill and new construction in the lake's natural corridor
of evacuation would constrain it even more or even block it completely. The high waters
of the lake will accumulate until they forge a new exit here or elsewhere, creating major
damage and undoubtedly demolishing public infrastructure. The Main Street bridge
would endure enormous pressure and could be severely damaged if not actually swept
away by the strong current. (p.16 / 28)
These twelve elements speak for themselves and we have no intention of reiterating the
arguments that are connected to them.
It should be noted that we were made aware of an additional document provided by the
municipality following the filing of the Grayson and Gwyn submissions. This map
provides a fairly accurate topographic map of the mouth of the river and surrounding
P a g e | 12
area. This document, in and of itself, sheds doubt on the calculations of the EXP
consultants. (Figure 9) The elevations indicated appear to clearly corroborate the
allegations of the two above-mentioned submissions.
Fig. 9 : Map provided by the village of North Hatley
P a g e | 13
What can we conclude? The Gwyn submission implies that the EXP report was sloppy;
the Grayson submission implies that the EXP mandate was too narrow. In light of the
serious arguments raised above, there is no question the work must be redone BEFORE
any decision is taken. The commissioned expert must take under consideration the
following:







The vastness of the Lake Massawippi watershed
The significant constraints at the mouth of the Massawippi River
The constraints already added to the natural outflow path in North Hatley
The fact that this area that is being considered for development is intertwined
with the lake, the river and the watershed
The probability of heavier flooding in the short-term due to climate change
The likely effects of backfilling this zone, on Lake Massawippi, either because of
flooding or because of the significant impact it would have on the immediate
watershed
The use of DGPS and LiDAR (a digital elevation measuring device) to ensure
accurate surveying, in conjunction with aerial photographs AND a geological
history, referenced and analyzed. This method should result in a map free of
basic mistakes.
About LiDAR
LiDAR (Light Detection and Ranging wave) provides remote sensing based on
measuring the delay between the emission of laser pulses and the detection of
the signal reflected from the source. In general, a laser scanner is mounted on an
aircraft whose movement is tracked via GPS satellite. Scanners at the cutting
edge of technology can transmit and receive up to 500,000 laser light pulses per
second, which allows the collection of data to map reflective objects in great
detail in three dimensions. Source: Natural Resources Canada,
http://www.rncan.gc.ca/forets/inventaire
LiDAR has become the essential topographic survey tool because of the accuracy of its
results and its relatively low cost. It is commonly used to analyze flood risk and enable
management and emergency planning. It is frequently used in development planning in
Quebec. According to experts (see page 14), LiDAR is the reference for evaluating flood
plains. The modelling capabilities of LiDAR would allow the generation of what
hydrologists call a profile of water surfaces, and would, without a doubt, be of great
benefit not only in helping resolve this debate, but in determining the impact of all other
potential projects in the area modelled.
Everblue Massawippi firmly believes that the entire watershed would benefit from this
LiDAR modelling. The report would help resolve many debates and would serve as an
exceptional tool for both the MRC and all municipalities in the watershed. The village of
North Hatley receives water from the entire watershed. It would be only logical and
judicious for all watershed municipalities to participate financially in the study that would
P a g e | 14
prove invaluable. A collaborative effort is required to find funding. What we have here is
a golden opportunity to take collective responsibility. Everblue Massawippi will
participate in this undertaking and provide all the resources at its disposal deemed
necessary.
The Concept of Mobility Space
The renowned hydro-geomorphologist Pascale Biron (PhD, Associate Professor,
Concordia University) was the keynote speaker at Everblue Massawippi's 2013
symposium: Eau courante, on ne rigole plus. Invited to speak on the behaviour of
rivers like the Tomifobia, Professor Biron was clear. "In general, the erosion of
riverbanks and flooding are a problem only when urban and agricultural development
constrain the space allocated to watercourses.”
She is currently developing a "Quebec river management approach based on the
concept of mobility space to strengthen the resilience of river systems in the face of the
increased variability and flow volume of water and sediment related to climate change."
The mobility space of a river is actually a protected corridor in which the river can flow
without causing damage. It consists primarily of the area of normal flow together with an
area of integrity made up of potential floodplains and natural wetlands.
Needless to say, we are far removed from the traditional concepts of development.
Under question is the proposed backfilling, which (being less than 100 meters from the
lake, in a wetland, in a floodplain) may obstruct outright Lake Massawippi's only natural
outlet. Under these circumstances, suffice to say the concept of mobility space is a gross
understatement!
What will be the consequences of these decisions on the North Hatley end of the lake?
Who will be responsible for the erosion caused by the high lake level, deprived in large
part of its only outlflow? Who will be responsible for new floodplains upstream on the
shores of Lake Massawippi? Who will give us the assurance that the North Hatley end of
the lake, recognized as one of the most beautiful places in Quebec, will not degrade
dramatically in the medium term with the assault of floods associated with the major
changes planned in the area?
Professor Biron surprised many: "Human activity on a river has as many consequences
upstream as downstream, that is simply the dynamic of rivers."
During floods, the lake, at the North Hatley end, becomes a river. Do we not have the
duty to analyze a little more seriously the consequences of what we are about to do
under the guise of economic necessity?
P a g e | 15
The Economic Argument
We are aware that the village of North Hatley has serious economic needs. We know the
difficulties facing local businesses, and we also know that a segment of the aging
population of North Hatley would like to be settled here more comfortably.
All these needs are legitimate. It is up to the municipality and its citizens to manage the
shape and size of these attractive projects.
Nevertheless, North Hatley must not forget the vital role it plays in this great ecosystem
that is Lake Massawippi.
Lake Massawippi is North Hatley's most precious asset, but with it, come limitations it
cannot ignore. Today we have the tools necessary to ensure the creation of intelligent
developments. It is unthinkable to consider repeating and exacerbating past mistakes.
Beyond basic environmental concerns, it behooves us to also assess the economic
impacts in the medium and long term. Fighting floods on developed property is very
expensive. Developers build, pocket their profits and leave. The municipality remains.
Everblue Massawippi remains. And the problems will multiply.
In her agriculture zone studies, Professor Biron calculated economic impact. Invariably
the economic benefits associated with ecological management far outweigh the shortterm losses, including loss of building rights and farm production rights. For her, "a costbenefit analysis that takes into account all the costs of the questionable actions, of poor
water quality and of ecosystem services would no doubt show economic benefits for
society to leave more space for watercourses.”
This way of thinking is no longer the preserve of environmentalists. The recent climaterelated disasters in the United States, Canada and Quebec are sobering: "From a
practical standpoint, funding resiliency is a far wiser investment than spending on
emergency funds in case of disaster,» L. Patton, Zurich Insurance Group.
Some of the strongest supporters of the change in the bylaw at all costs may argue that
Everblue Massawippi's involvement masks its basic opposition to the development
project. This is not the case. The future of North Hatley belongs to North Hatley. The
future of Lake Massawippi is another story, however. It belongs, to say the least, to all
citizens of the watershed.
One of the submissions submitted demonstrates well how the political debate can drift
towards the path of economic ease and unrealistic short-term solutions, without regard
for the actual costs.
Morgan W. Quinn submission:
It is my opinion that those opposing the flood zone change are masking their aversion to
a development in our down town core. However most residents and citizens of North
Hatley agree that we must rejuvenate in order to stop the steady slide, which our
municipality is clearly experiencing. The developer has proposed a project that would
bring him the most potential but in order to set the expectation for negotiation with our
municipality. That is the real issue, not the flood zone change. … I believe that the river
between the dam and the bridge over Main St. should be dredged, allowing more space
P a g e | 16
and therefore volume of water to flow. There has been significant erosion of silt and
other items that have been channelled into the river over a period of many years.
Consequently the river bed bottom is rising allowing for less volume of water to occupy
that space. The result in recent years has been some flooding but could be avoided with
the combination of regulating the proper flow of the dam in the spring in conjunction with
the dredging of the river. (p.1/1)
It is the fact that the project is planned in North Hatley's most ecologically fragile area,
which justifies Everblue Massawippi's intervention. If the proposed project had been
based on firm and solid ground, almost anywhere else in North Hatley, the project would
have solicited no reaction from Everblue Massawippi.
Furthermore, with respect to Mr. Quinn, does he really believe that dredging the river a
few meters would suffice to stem the flow of flash floods consisting of 729 million cubic
meters of water, to which is added the runoff water from the steeply drained 602 km2
watershed?
The issue of dredging rivers is neither new nor original. First, it is a very complex
operation for which permission is very difficult to obtain. Second, it is a very expensive
operation. Last but not least, it is ineffective on one hand, and environmentally
unsustainable on the other. Flood victims regularly suggest this shortsighted solution
and all the experts reject it irrevocably.
Dredging "is certainly not a mid or long-term solution" to fight floods -- the words of
Pascale Biron, hydro-geomorphologist and co-authour of a study on river management
in the context of climate change.... "It is requested regularly by riparian property owners,”
she said in an interview in Le Soleil. “It is normal that a river should flood. There is
nothing exceptional in a river overflowing its banks, and there is nothing exceptional
about ice jams," she said, confessing to be surprised at the astonishment of the
victims.... Moreover, she argues, dredging the river does not guarantee results. "The
sediment removed will return eventually and will have to be removed again." According
to her, it would be better to analyze the river and check upstream for anything that could
be creating a significant flow of sediment and promoting ice jams. "It is better to find the
source of the problem than band-aid the symptoms." And this is besides the fact that
dredging "disturbs the riverbed and all that lives there," she says. Journal Le Soleil, April
28, 2014.
P a g e | 17
Conclusions and Recommendations
North Hatley is an exceptional rural and convivial village which owes its idyllic character
to Lake Massawippi. It is without a doubt one of the most beautiful villages in Quebec; a
jewel of the Eastern Townships.
This privileged status has its advantages, but with it, come serious responsibilities.
Nothing and no one, much less a municipality, has the right to endanger Lake
Massawippi.
This statement may be hard to accept at first and difficult to acknowledge by politicians
in light of the great economic seduction of the proposed investments, the source of this
debate. Of course, in 20 or 30 years (if indeed there are no problems before), the current
administration will no longer be there to deal with the certain consequences. But is this
the legacy we collectively choose to leave behind?
It is possible to develop intelligently. It is possible to stop repeating errors. Why is it
necessary for the project in question to be located in this sensitive area? Why acquiesce
to the subjective and damaging choice of a promoter rather than consider alternatives
available in North Hatley for a similar project? Do we not see the real issues?
The village of North Hatley has an opportunity to stand out by refusing to fall into the
quick-profit trap. Investing in North Hatley is a privilege. That development be carried out
with the utmost respect for the dynamics of the lake, and the Massawippi River, must be
a non-negotiable prerequisite.
Everblue Massawippi recommends to the MRC and the village of North Hatley the
following:
PLACE A MORATORIUM on changes to the development schema for the area in
question (bylaw 13-14).
ASK that a LiDAR study be undertaken without delay, and to this end, appeal for
assistance from all municipalities in the watershed, the Parc régional Massawippi, the
Coaticook MRC, COGESAF, and any other affected organization with the understanding
that the study serves the entire Lake Massawippi watershed.
MANDATE experts to analyze data, taking into account both the LiDAR study and
historical data to establish an accurate new map of the area in question in North Hatley.
BROADEN the mandate to clarify what work can be undertaken in the area in question
by eliminating backfilling in 0-20 year flood zones, thereby minimizing the effects on
Lake Massawippi. The mandate must consider the following:




The vastness of the Lake Massawippi watershed
The major flow restrictions in the mouth of the Massawippi River
The restrictions to the natural water course already created in North Hatley
The fact that this area is intertwined with a much larger bio system consisting of
the lake, the river and the watershed
P a g e | 18


The probability of short-term heavier flooding due to climate change
The likely effects of backfilling this zone, on Lake Massawippi, either because of
flooding or because of the significant impact it would have on the immediate
watershed
Everblue Massawippi is available to work in collaboration with the North Hatley town
council to support the development of ecologically acceptable projects, if it so wishes,
including active participation in the development of a LiDAR project in consultation with
all stakeholders.
January 28, 2015
Note 1: The Grayson and Gwyn submissions, Professor Pascale Biron's conference, and
the bylaw draft 13-14 are available on our website: www.lacmassawippi.ca
Note 2: The layout of the watershed was produced by COGESAF; situation maps from
Google pictures on pages 5 and 6 courtesy of Luc Lemieux, MAPAQ Estrie