Submission and Remarks on Bylaw Draft 13- 14 Presented at the Memphremagog MRC and the Village of North Hatley As Part of the January 8, 2015 Public Consultation
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Submission and Remarks on bylaw draft 13- 14 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 P a g e | 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 P a g e | 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 Ste- Catherine-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 P a g e | 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 P a g e | 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 P a g e | 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) P a g e | 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? P a g e | 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 0- 100 years in the yellow. The green areas would henceforth lie outside the flood zone. Fig. 8: Proposed Map P a g e | 9 A comparative analysis leads to the following conclusions: Sections of the original 0-20 year flood risk zone now surprisingly lie in a non- flood 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