To #OTTcity hydrologists: Where in the main body of the report are the existing condition non-compliance issues (from

tables D-3, D-4) and FVS enumerated and discussed? I.E. why is there no table summarizing FVS in the main body of the report? The report appears to shrug off FVS if they were previously identified. But, for each FVS, what are the consequential risks? For example, what is the extent of risk if the March Rd pumping station is flooded (will this trigger an outage that could see basements backing up as far away as Stittsville again)? Given the lack of calibration due to insufficient storm event data, will a sensitivity analysis be performed on the Hydrological assessment? Given the reliance on IDF, at least the known variance between the two IDF curves for Ottawa should be considered. In Appendix B, why are there no photos for Kizell K4 & K5? Did I miss seeing them? Appendix C: Table C-9, is the table correct vis mm rainfall? If so more explanation required to align with Phase 1 report parameters of 107mm rain as the 100-year event and 148 mm rain as the July 2009 event. Table C-14, why is July 2009 not included as a historical event?

Table C-15, why is there a downward revision of the AECOM Phase 1 findings given that one of the rainfall events shows higher than 100 yr rainfall? Appendix D: Table D-3, what are the units for the column on Capacity Prior to Overtopping? I.E. which 100-year standard is being referenced, the current 107mm or the 100-yr in effect when the culvert was built? Table D-3,D-4, what are the safety implications of not meeting MTO standards? Table D-5, is it correct to obtain the appropriate floodplain contour for the map sheets by subtracting the ground elevation from the 100 yr level? E.G. for location 9176.041, this would be 81.1 79.9 = 1.2 m which would be above the orange contour line shown on Sheet 16 of 18 and below the next yellow line. If so it would appear that a significant portion of a building would be flooded under

existing conditions. Where is flood susceptible infrastructure discussed in the report? In the Floodplain mapping, why is there a distinction for Routed water level when referring to the 100-yr flood line? The explanation on page 33-34 in the main body of the report is insufficient unless you are a trained user of the modelling tool. The explanation also appears simplistic as no other interaction effects are discussed (such as insufficient culvert capacity downstream that could back up flows). Appendix E: Given that the SB, KD/WC systems are in a fragile state and that additional development in these watersheds has the potential to exacerbate existing [conditions], why does the Fluvial Geomorphology Existing Conditions report not provide hard criteria for the development proponent to achieve when proposing to mitigate impact of a diversion? I.E. where are the targets? Why is there no risk assessment of the cumulative impact of erosion/ sedimentation on culverts that are already near capacity? I.E. given accelerated erosion in these watersheds, how long before pipes will get plugged if they are not maintained and what implications does this have for increased city maintenance (and costs)?

When will Appendix F be available in draft form? The main body of the report identifies that this will include a diversion as a conceptual alternative, but how is this possible if base flow is not modelled under all alternatives? Where is the water temperature study? The subwatershed plan identifies temperature to be an important aspect of water quality and this has been highlighted as a critical factor by the NCCs study on Watts Creek. Thanks in advance for clarification on these items. With Fortitude, Paul Renaud