Risk Assessment and administrative decisions

Post subject: Assessment of Risk and the Review of Administrative Decision

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"the interests of public safety and flood mitigation are also
extremely important priorities."

Take this sentence and break it down: it comes from PWGSC employee NESS:

Now take a look at recent decisions by the Supreme Court of Canada:

30322 Balvir Singh Multani et al v. Commission Scolaire Marguerite-Bourgeoys et al

Its a fascinating case which addresses administrative decisions:
There was a case settled in the Supreme Court of Canada which involved a school board and a Sikh student that carried a Kirpan or ceremonial dagger. The school board decided to bannish the student saying that the Kirpan presented a danger.

The Supreme court ruled that the board was acting on a perceived danger without any tangible evidence that the danger was real or imminent, in fact, there had never been an incident.

What it means to me, is that when a statement like:

"the interests of public safety and flood mitigation are also
extremely important priorities."

are made, there must be substantiation. There may be risks, and no situation can be made absolutely safe. What is the true risk of a 10,000 year flood? Are there weather forecasts that indicate this? What are the factors being used to make a decision.

In controlling the water at Minden: what are the facts? Do you know: does anybody know?

IF there are no facts, then there are grounds to appeal administrative decisions. That is my read of it.

From the case in question: a fascinating read.


98 ..." In these circumstances, the argument relating to safety can no longer reasonably succeed."


99 ..." By disregarding the right to freedom of religion, and by invoking the safety of the school community without considering the possibility of a solution that posed little or no risk, the school board made an unreasonable decision. "


http://scc.lexum.umontreal.ca/en/2006/2006scc6/2006scc6.html

Citation: Multani v. Commission scolaire Marguerite‑Bourgeoys, [2006] 1 S.C.R. 256, 2006 SCC 6

Date: 20060302 Docket: 30322

between:

Balvir Singh Multani and Balvir Singh Multani,
in his capacity as tutor to his minor son Gurbaj Singh Multani
Appellants

v.

Commission scolaire Marguerite-Bourgeoys and
Attorney General of Quebec
Respondents

‑ and ‑

World Sikh Organization of Canada, Canadian Civil
Liberties Association, Canadian Human Rights
Commission and Ontario Human Rights Commission
Interveners
_________________
Working hard to safeguard paddling assets for all Canadians

Racing versus Recreational boating

We want to clear up the myth that all the Whitewater Ontario money goes to slalom.

There is zero support for paddlers wishing represent Canada twice at world championships. There is NO support for slalom other than a paid national coach and 12 carded athletes nationally.

All the young paddlers that we are trying to support are all paying 100% of costs (or their parents are) Last year WO did provide some funding for travel assistance but minimal (ie less than $5,000) which is far less than the funds WO spent to fight legal battle for rec water access, far less than WO spent on MInden preserve as a recreational facility and far less that WO spent on intro courses for recreational paddlers.

On the other hand...

Those recreational boaters pay their own way every where they go (no grants or charity) unlike the slalom boaters. there is no carding or any thing of the sort and many of them did the tour for the worlds last year on there own dime.

If the tail race of the pump house were promoted to river runners and play boaters, a little more interest or maybe a little membership money might be forthcoming.

If there where only 300 slalom boaters , and all the recreational paddlers that pay their own way and have a population 100 times that of slalom were gone there may actually be fall out on the slalom side, for example:

1. The slalom boaters would be buying their retro paddling gear from someone in europe and paying much more for it.

2. Trail head, Bustaucka ,MEC, The paddle shack, and boatwerks could not exist on the revenues of 300 slalom boaters canada wide alone.

So recreational boaters, have no one to pay the bills for them, they don't bother looking to see how much revenue slalom has brought them.

In conclusion:

The tax dollar of all canadians is what floats slalom teams trips and existence is not correct either however.

Recreational boaters are canadian citizens who are mostly all tax payers. How many of the funded athletes that are under the age of 18 and paddling all over the country and world actually work and pay taxes that they can't get back at the end of the year.

However I find it hard to understand how in event of failure, paddlers will blame WO, when they don't even belong to WO. They can't have it both ways. If they want WO to be a voice for paddling, they should sign up and support the association. That being the case, we should ensure we get maximum visibility and use this issue as a way to prove to these freeloaders that the association is working on their behalf and there is a benefit to membership

There is local interest in changing the way water is released down the Gull system. It current seems that the new guy has been doing a poor job and local frustration has been growing more than ever. Things have been worse lately regarding water levels and that fits with the growing concerns locally. This effort to get changes is very likely to be successful under the current conditions. There currenlty is plenty enough to do but we should be looking into this more thoroughly. If this finishes with a change that isn’t good for the Gull and we haven’t participated we’re going to be in a real bad place with the paddlers who use the Gull.

Whitewater Ontario

Details about the Ottawa Tailrace Project

Ottawa River Runners – Comments on City of Ottawa Staff Report - Fleet Street Tail Race Ref N°: ACS2007-CCS-PEC-0008



As the staff report identifies, the Ottawa River Runners kayak club (ORR) were responsible for the cleanup and restoration of the Pumphouse tailrace. ORR has actively used this channel for 15 years, until it was temporarily closed for bank stabilization in 2004. For the previous 15 years ORR had an access agreement with the NCC, which owns the adjoining parkway and bowl to the east, and has enjoyed a very positive and co-operative relationship with the City Pumphouse staff.
The principle concern of ORR is that this facility has been temporarily closed since an engineers report identified serious concerns with bank stability. At that time (May 2004) the then Mayor instructed city staff to work with ORR to restore use of this site as soon as possible. Ongoing construction in the upsteam aqueduct created some unanticipated delays. However, aqueduct construction is now complete as is the major restoration to significantly grade the banks and eliminate formerly dangerous unprotected cliffs along the tailrace channel. The final element of this bank stabilization involves landscaping to replace lost vegetation and pathways and is anticipated that this will be completed this spring.
The current issue before committee is how to manage risks and liability related to this combined industrial and recreational asset. The city position is that the tailrace is primarily an outflow from an industrial facility (the pumping station). The report identifies the tailrace channel as one of fast flowing water and an extreme whitewater site. The staff report asserts that ORR has installed obstacles to increase the speed of water flow to replicates “the world’s wildest rivers”. Staff has suggested that there are serious risks and potential liability and relate these to removal of vegetation, together with fast water flow. It is important to clarify that the staff report grossly overstates the nature of this waterway and the associated risk. This channel would be considered a class II rapid and is far from replicating the world’s wildest rivers (class V and VI). It is designed to create obstacles and eddies replicating a natural river. As such, it is in fact as safe or safer that hundreds of kilometers of the Ottawa and Rideau river shorelines that exist within the City (and remain unfenced). The clean eddies that have been created provide a safe haven for a swimmer that has capsized his/her kayak. Such eddies are far safer than an unobstructed shoreline, or the most dangerous shorelines which involve fallen trees and branches which act as a trap and can cause drowning.
The report also fails to note that the city has in fact made the site much safer by regrading the shoreline into gentle slopes (with the exception of the steep rock cliffs of the west side). Augmenting this grading with a low (1.2m fence) and appropriate signage would leave the newly restored site far safer than the previous conditions (steep cliffs and unfenced pathways).
The staff report recommends referral to the Local Architectural Conservation committee for consideration as a heritage site. This seems inconsistent with the staff position that this is an industrial site and should be surrounded by a high industrial fence. ORR has no objection to this suggestion but is concerned that this may cause further delays. Staff has had three years to consult with this committee, but have not taken the opportunity to do so. Further delays in reopening the site to its established use will seriously impact both the local and national canoe and kayak community – a sport that is itself a key element of Canada’s heritage.
The ORR has no objection to a fence. Our concerns emanate from a city position that sought to completely restrict public access and required ORR to enter into an access agreement to allow exclusive access to club members. ORR has maintained that such a restriction is unnecessary and unduly restricts public access.
ORR is entirely in agreement with the installation of fencing and appropriate signage, but objects to the City staff proposal to designate this as a dangerous industrial site with a high fence and locked gates. Fifteen years of history, active public and club use and an insurance policy with not a single claim throughout this fifteen-year period is a testament to the true level of risk that exists on this site. The investment of more than $4 million to grade and stabilize the banks and the installation of a 1.2m safety fence creates a significantly lower level of risk than the pre-existing conditions.
ORR youth programs as well as those of the national slalom team have been seriously impacted by the “temporary closure” that has left the facility unusable for 3 years. ORR strongly urges Council to instruct staff to accept the recommendations of ORR, the NCC and the local residents association to install a 1.2 m safety fence or railing along the graded parts of the shoreline. Higher safety fencing may be appropriate along the portion of the western shore where steep cliffs remain and above the down stream viaduct to the Ottawa River.
ORR also requests that Council instruct staff to include the necessary installation of concrete pedestals to support slalom gate wires as part of the landscaping plan so these installations are aesthetically integrated in the plan (something that engineering staff previously agreed to undertake by was rejected by recreation and risk management staff).
Further ORR requests that Council direct staff to complete the final phase of restoration (landscaping and fencing) to enable paddling to resume in the tailrace as soon as possible now that ice and winter conditions have passed.

Ottawa River Runnners: tail race project

Waiting for Ottawa council to make their move:

Minden at low water

We want to try and prevent this scenario:

Whitewater Ontario Priorities: A survey

I have mentioned this survey a number of times.

While its a useful heads up about getting our message out it is not an entirely fair or unbiased survey - its from a user board for play boaters. Sure we could have sent an email to all slalom racers and told them to respond and would have higher results, but we didn't seek to stack the survey.

You could joke, that if you did a survey of mental health patients and asked it their doctor is nuts most would say yes,!

So while keeping this survey in perspective - its the specific views of a specific user group lets try and communicate better with the paddling community yet not drive our entire direction based on this survey.

The counter argument is that PSO's are intended as representatives of competitive sports, but by necessity include recreational activities as a way to build a base for participation and excellence. If we took this approach our entire purpose would be focused on the competitive programs.

Just like paddling down a rapid - its all about balance

My thanks to Steve Pomeroy:


In an official survey on Boatwerks, the priorities identified by individuals included 60% river preservation followed by 28% Club Development.

racing and instruction were low on the totem.

I suggest we apply our resources where the priorities lie if possible.

Here is the summary:

Whitewater Ontario Priorities
The Minden Wildwater Preserve 7% [ 4 ]
River Preservation Issues in Ontario 66% [ 35 ]
Slalom Racing as the Provincial Sport Body 7% [ 4 ]
Club and Resource Development 11% [ 6 ]
Freestyle Development 7% [ 4 ]
Total Votes : 53


What do you think the Number Two Goal of WO Should be?
Minden Wildwater Preserve 20% [ 8 ]
Club Development and Resources 30% [ 12 ]
Instruction and/or River Safety Training 10% [ 4 ]
Ontario River Preservation 17% [ 7 ]
Ontario Salom Provincial Sport Body 2% [ 1 ]
Freeestyle development 20% [ 8 ]
Total Votes : 40

You could add up the votes but this muddies the water for priorities but there is agreement on the issues, club development and river preservation.

Whitewater Ontario Priorities
The Minden Wildwater Preserve [ 12 ]
River Preservation Issues in Ontario [ 42 ]
Slalom Racing as the Provincial Sport Body [ 5 ]
Club and Resource Development [18 ]
Freestyle Development [ 12 ]
Instruction and/or River Safety Training [ 4 ]

Whitewater Ontario supports Ottawa River runners tailrace project

To: Hume, Peter E; Feltmate, Peggy; Bellemare, Michel;
Desroches, Steve
Cc: Doucet, Clive; Harder, Jan; Holmes, Diane; Hunter, Gord W;
Monette,
Bob
Subject: brief, clear and specific information concerning slalom
use of
Ottawa tailrace


To Members of Planning and Environment Committee

Whitewater Ontario is here to serve as the voice of paddlers
interests to
government and business. We want to increase access to
whitewater resources
and work cooperatively to develop whitewater recreation
opportunities in
Ontario and Canada. We are the designated provincial whitewater
sport
paddling organization and owner/operator of the Minden Wildwater
Preserve in
Minden. We have a membership of around 500 active members, 6
active clubs,
and 25 corporate members.

We have just learned about the date of an important committee
hearing on
which you sit. What you learn BEFORE the meeting will as much if
not more
more impact than what you will hear during the meeting

The Ottawa Pumphouse tailrace slalom project is the tenth of
eleven items on
the morning agenda. Due to the brief amount of time available
there will
likely be 3 delegate presentations (max 5 min each) as follows:

1. On behalf of ORR using brief power point with slides of
Valleyfield, Hogs
back, pumphouse, new fencing near war museam and locks at
chateau (to make
point that the project has safety in mind);
2. a professional expert and advisor on whitewater safety and
risk
management
3. a senior national team member/coach, re importance of site
to the CKC.

Here are some important internet links to the tailrace project
site:

http://ottawariverrunners.com/12apr05_tailrace_ss/default.htm
http://ottawariverrunners.com/web_pages/orr_tailrace.htm

The Ottawariverrunners club plans to:

In the short term, (1 year) :
-reopen the Pumphouse as a training facility;

In the long term (1-3 years):

-complete the construction of a club house and boat storage
building;
-restore the Pumphouse as a competition site;
-establish a coaching development program to expand coaching
opportunities
to both recreational and competitive paddlers.

We hope that you will make every effort to learn about this
project and
support it wholeheartedly as does Whitewater Ontario

Peter

Peter Karwacki President,
Whitewater Ontario
www.whitewaterontario.ca


ORR
Doug dougsyl@magma.ca 521-0526

COUNCILLOR CONTACT INFO

Members of Planning and Environment Committee
Peter Hume, Chair 613-580-2488 Peter.Hume@ottawa.ca
Peggy Feltmate,Vice Chair 613-580-2752 Peggy.Feltmate@ottawa.ca
Councillor Michel Bellemare, 613-580-2481
Michel.Bellemare@ottawa.ca
Councillor Steve Desroches, 613-580-2751
Steve.Desroches@ottawa.ca
Councillor Clive Doucet, 613-580-2487 Clive.Doucet@ottawa.ca
Councillor Jan Harder, 613-580-2473 Jan.Harder@ottawa.ca
Councillor Diane Holmes, 613-580-2484 Diane.Holmes@ottawa.ca
Councillor Gord Hunter, 613-580-2479 Gord.Hunter@ottawa.ca
Councillor Bob Monette, 613-580-2471 Bob.Monette@ottawa.ca
Councillor Shad Qadri 613-580-2476 Shad.Qadri@ottawa.ca

Task for to discuss Gull River Water Levels and other Issues

LANDMARK ASSOCIATES LIMITED
380 ARMOUR ROAD, SUITE 140
PETERBOROUGH, ONTARIO
K9H 7L7
e-mail: landmark@on.aibn.com
Telephone (705) 742-3881
Toll-Free 1-800-477-2919


CC.
Dave Ness
Water Control Engineer
Trent-Severn Waterway
Telephone: 705 750-4902

Dear Sirs:

Regarding: The Gull River

Last fall and thru the early part of the winter the Gull was humping, that is not typical.

Now there is no water and lakes are at risk of being very low to start the season, this does not bode well for the summer and fall water levels throughout the system.

Likely, this coming season could potentially be one of the worst with regard to water levels.

Whitewater Ontario wants to communicate more with the Trent Severn Waterway and Parks Canada... and their overeers PWGSC the same, very same group being called to task over the Kipawa with their Environmental Assessment which concluded "pas de problem". (See Federal Court Judicial Review: T 452-06)

Historically this organization hasn’t been very open to any kind of input, usual responses tend to be things like; “you wouldn’t even have those lakes if it weren’t for us” or “flood control and safe navigation must be maintained throughout the Trent Severn System”.

Meanwhile unsafe navigation, flooding, dewatering, and environmental damage are common here. The priority has always been Trent water levels.

Our first goal will be getting a seat at the table - a spot at the water agreement table.

This is because a new water agreement change may impact our whitewater flow. We have to follow this as far as it takes us.

We are beginning the process of recruiting a few people who are keen to work on these types of issues. Of course a legal type would be a god send but regardless a few more bodies to attend meetings, define issues that we should pursue and meet with landowners and interested parties would spread the work around a bit.

In the end, however, the discussiosn around water level are ultimately for the greater good and we choose to be part of that representation along with whoever else is concerned.

Paddlers have spent a few hours over a couple evenings moving rocks around to focus the flow and clean up the eddies at the bottom of the Gull River. What we have done is essentially clean up the beaches and eddies at the bottom of the river and pile the rocks out from the existing rock walls to help focus the current into the bottom wave and clean up the eddy lines. These smaller rock walls instantly made a difference at lower lake levels. To the Paddler’s eye the wave at the bottom changed instantly. The first retaining wall we built was on the river left side(surfer’s right) where most people take out. We cleaned up the beach of 50-150lbs rocks and placed them on an angle just off of the rock wall. This fixed the eddy making it calmer, and made a defined eddyline and a small shoulder on the wave.

The next night we moved well over 100 rocks on the river right shoreline(surfers left) and cleaned up that eddy. We built a much longer retaining wall out on an angle to the wave which at the beginning of the evening was flat…not surfable and by the end of the evening the wave became a small surfable wave/hole with a foam pile accessible from both sides of the river! Of course all of these changes are more than likely temporary and only time will tell whether they actually work and make the river feature at the bottom better at more waterlevels. But this is some food for thought at what volunteers with a couple hours/ evening could accomplish. Being conscientious about taking rocks from above the water line that were strewn about and not stealing from the big existing walls, or degrading any integral river features. We will try and get over to the river and take some pics of our work as well as the low-low river.

Lets state clearly here that first and foremost we are conservationists, we love habitat that the Gull river provides and enjoy fishing for rainbows(catch & release) as well as running and playing on the water.

After seeing what the Dam operators have done to the Gull over the past few years and how the same beaurocracy higher up have shut the doors on future river mods on the Gull...We are perplexed. More facts are required: What is the methodology?

We need to understand out measured inflows, outflows, precipitation, monitored waterlevels, and control the flow based on low/high water thresholds are used. That way, if it is decided to dump water in the middle of winter, one can go to a public website and see why.

First of all, the river is man made and has been modified over the course of the river's life as we know it. The pictures from before it was a man-made and blasted reveal it was barely a creek...a trickle hardly suitable for fish habitat etc...

To tell the Gull River Association that there is no possible way for them to get a machine down to the water to move and replace some river features like eddies and rock walls(that are man-made in the first place) is lame... but then to drop the river level by 5ft in less than 30 minutes leaving rocks with algae and gravel bars exposed to the sunlight and air in the middle of spawning season to feed the reservoirs above for Trent Severn river levels later on in the summer and Hydro is completely beyond reason!

At least this organization could be consistent in their priorities. It's not cool to move some rocks and modify river features with a heavy machine(which has been steam cleaned before-hand) but it's ok to leave all that 'protected' fish habitat exposed to the air for hydro and tourists in their power-boats down in another county. That is the message we are getting. Consider that the Rainbows are stocked in the lakes above and below anyway...not even native...or have already been wiped out once.

There is building frustration with this whole situation and mentality on our "home" river. ‘Cash is King’ because the environment and waterways are protected up to a certain price-tag.

Something to think about…we all use the river, why can’t we help maintain and improve it by moving a few rocks that are serving no real purpose or cleaning up the eddies from rocks that have moved in over the spring flood?

This kind of seems like our responsibility, and if we go about it in a responsible and thoughtful way, the fish could even benefit from our work...of course we will also benefit from a better river with features that are more user-friendly and consistent.

Whitewater Ontario

Peter Karwacki
President


Who is Whitewater Ontario:
www.whitewaterontario.ca



Stemming from the above

A task force is being assembled to meet with officials of the Trent Severn Waterway and Parks Canada, and Public Works Goods and Services Canada - maybe Steven Harper will attend (joke here).

right now we need to assemble some factual information, and pictures would be worth a thousand words.

If any of you have photographs of the Gull at LOWWWWWW water that would be highly instructive especially if dates are available.

Any references to historical guages, fish spawning, cancelled events due to low flows, also, any correspondence with TSW or its officials, any hard communications relevant to the following issues would be appreciated:

Navigation of Water Control Structures
Water flows
Extremely high or low levels
River modification or reparations and bank stabilization
Photographs of usage.
Historical documents: relevant to the 25th anniverary of the Minden Wildwater Preserve.


Please sent to


Peter Karwacki,
President, Whitewater Ontario
1620 Trenholm Lane
Ottawa, Ontario,K4A 4B6
kayaky@hotmail.com