Staff Report

Staff Report
To:
From:
Subject:
Date:
RVCA Board of Directors
Don Maciver, MCIP RPP Director of Planning
Adoption of a regulation to manage development, interference with
wetlands and alterations to shorelines and watercourses
November 16, 2005
Recommendation:
That the staff report be received for information, and whereas a local regulation
to manage “development, interference with wetlands and alterations to shorelines
and watercourses” has been prepared in conformity with the provisions outlined
in Section 28 of the Conservation Authorities Act, and standards for mapping and
public consultation have been followed; therefore, the Rideau Valley
Conservation Authority adopts the subject regulation; and further, that the said
regulation and related documentation be submitted to the Conservation Ontario
Peer Review Committee and subsequently to the Ministry of Natural Resources
for approval by the Minister.
A Work Plan for preparation of a package conforming to established standards and
procedures and for adoption of a Generic Regulation was approved by the Board of
Directors at their August 2004 meeting. It was recognized that implementation would be
staged and that the initial phase of project would focus on ensuring that existing hazard
schedules were maintained and newer hazard mapping, where available, added into the
regulatory program. The Work Plan was subsequently amended, based on a resolution
approved at the September 2005 Board meeting, to provide for the inclusion of
provincially significant wetlands appearing on approved local Official Plan schedules in
our first round submission. This amended approach was based on input provided by the
Provincial Technical Committee formed to assist CA’s with the preparation of
submissions to the Province.
Information appended following the regulation text forms part of our submission to the
Peer Review Committee and is intended to affirm that the established standards for
mapping and for public consultation have been followed. Most of the required work has
been undertaken in house by staff of the Planning program, the Watershed Science and
Engineering section, and Communications staff.
CONFIDENTIAL
Until filed with the
Registrar of Regulations
ONTARIO REGULATION
made under the
CONSERVATION AUTHORITIES ACT
RIDEAU VALLEY CONSERVATION AUTHORITY:
REGULATION OF
DEVELOPMENT, INTERFERENCE WITH WETLANDS AND ALTERATIONS TO
SHORELINES AND WATERCOURSES
Definition
1. In this Regulation,
“Authority” means the Rideau Valley Conservation Authority.
Development prohibited
2. (1) Subject to section 3, no person shall undertake development, or permit another
person to undertake development in or on the areas within the jurisdiction of the
Authority that are,
(a) adjacent or close to the shoreline of inland lakes that may be affected by
flooding, erosion or dynamic beaches, including the area from the furthest
offshore extent of the Authority’s boundary to the furthest landward extent of
the aggregate of the following distances:
(i) the 100 Year flood level;
(ii) the predicted long term stable slope projected from the existing stable
toe of the slope or from the predicted location of the toe of the slope as
that location may have shifted as a result of shoreline erosion over a
100-year period; and
(iii) 15 metres inland.
(b) river or stream valleys that have depressional features associated with a river or
stream, whether or not they contain a watercourse, the limits of which are
determined in accordance with the following rules:
3
(i) where the river or stream valley is apparent and has stable slopes, the
valley extends from the stable top of bank, plus 15 metres, to a similar
point on the opposite side,
(ii) where the river or stream valley is apparent and has unstable slopes,
the valley extends from the predicted long term stable slope projected
from the existing stable slope or, if the toe of the slope is unstable,
from the predicted location of the toe of the slope as a result of stream
erosion over a projected 100-year period, plus 15 metres, to a similar
point on the opposite side,
(iii) where the river or stream valley is not apparent, the valley extends the
greater of,
(A.) the distance from a point outside the edge of the maximum
extent of the flood plain under the applicable flood event
standard, plus 15 metres, to a similar point on the opposite
side, and
(B.) the distance from the predicted meander belt of a watercourse,
expanded as required to convey the flood flows under the
applicable flood event standard, plus 15 metres, to a similar
point on the opposite side;
(c) hazardous lands;
(d) wetlands; or
(e) other areas where development could interfere with the hydrologic function of
a wetland, including areas within 120 metres of all provincially significant
wetlands and wetlands greater than 2 hectares in size, and areas within 30
metres of wetlands less than 2 hectares in size, but not including those where
development has been approved pursuant to an application made under the
Planning Act or other public planning or regulatory process.
(2) The areas described in subsection (1) are the areas referred to in section 12 except
that, in case of a conflict, the description of the areas provided in subsection (1)
prevails over the descriptions referred to in that section.
4
Permission to develop
3. (1) The Authority may grant permission for development in or on the areas
described in subsection 2 (1) if, in its opinion, the control of flooding, erosion, dynamic
beaches, pollution or the conservation of land will not be affected by the development.
(2) The permission of the Authority shall be given in writing, with or without
conditions.
Application for permission
4. A signed application for permission to undertake development shall be filed with
the Authority and shall contain the following information:
1. Four copies of a plan of the area showing the type and location of the
development.
2. The proposed use of the buildings and structures following completion of the
development.
3. The start and completion dates of the development.
4. The elevations of existing buildings, if any, and grades and the proposed
elevations of buildings and grades after development.
5. Drainage details before and after development.
6. A complete description of the type of fill proposed to be placed or dumped.
Alterations prohibited
5. Subject to section 6, no person shall straighten, change, divert or interfere in any
way with the existing channel of a river, creek, stream or watercourse or change
or interfere in any way with a wetland.
Permission to alter
6. (1) The Authority may grant a person permission to straighten, change, divert or
interfere with the existing channel of a river, creek, stream or watercourse or to
change or interfere with a wetland.
(2) The permission of the Authority shall be given in writing, with or without
conditions.
5
Application for permission
7. A signed application for permission to straighten, change, divert or interfere with
the existing channel of a river, creek, stream or watercourse or change or interfere with a
wetland shall be filed with the Authority and shall contain the following information:
1. Four copies of a plan of the area showing plan view and cross-section details of
the proposed alteration.
2. A description of the methods to be used in carrying out the alteration.
3. The start and completion dates of the alteration.
4. A statement of the purpose of the alteration.
Cancellation of permission
8. (1) The Authority may cancel a permission if it is of the opinion that the
conditions of the permission have not been met.
(2) Before cancelling a permission, the Authority shall give a notice of intent to
cancel to the holder of the permission indicating that the permission will be
cancelled unless the holder shows cause at a hearing why the permission
should not be cancelled.
(3) Following the giving of the notice, the Authority shall give the holder at least five
days notice of the date of the hearing.
Validity of permissions and extensions
9. (1) A permission of the Authority is valid for a maximum period of 24 months
after it is issued, unless it is specified to expire at an earlier date.
(2) A permission shall not be extended.
Appointment of officers
10. The Authority may appoint officers to enforce this Regulation.
Flood event standards
11. (1) The applicable flood event standards used to determine the maximum
susceptibility to flooding of lands or areas within the watersheds in the area of
jurisdiction of the Authority is the 100 Year Flood Event Standard described
in the Schedule.
6
Areas included in the Regulation Limit
12. Hazardous lands, wetlands, shorelines and areas susceptible to flooding, and
associated allowances, within the watersheds in the area of jurisdiction of the
Authority are delineated by the Regulation Limit shown on maps 1 to 256 dated
November 2005 and filed at the head office of the Authority at 1128 Mill Street
(Manotick) in the City of Ottawa under the map title “Ontario Regulation 97/04:
Regulation for Development, Interference with Wetlands and Alterations to
Shorelines and Watercourses”.
SCHEDULE
1. The 100 Year Flood Event Standard means rainfall or snowmelt, or a combination
of rainfall and snowmelt producing at any location in a river, creek, stream or
watercourse, a peak flow that has a probability of occurrence of one per cent
during any given year.
7
Made by:
RIDEAU VALLEY CONSERVATION AUTHORITY:
………………………………………………..
Signature
………………………………………………..
Please Print Name and Title
………………………………………………..
Signature
………………………………………………..
Please Print Name and Title
Date made: ………………………………
I certify that I have approved this Regulation.
……………………………………………
Minister of Natural Resources
Date approved: …………………………..
8
8
9
Regulation Limit Mapping Index
10
10
11
Rideau Valley Conservation Authority
Detailed Consultation Record
Generic Regulation Peer Review Committee
Contents









Mailing list of contacts .........................................................................16
Sign-in sheets from public meeting .....................................................19
Notice of public meeting ......................................................................23
Sample letter of notice to municipality and contacts............................24
Sample brochure.................................................................................25
Outline of Public Meeting Format ........................................................27
List and outline of context of all submissions ......................................28
received and response provided by RVCA
Sample Display Panels .......................................................................31
Website ...............................................................................................33
12
Mailing List of Contacts
Murray Hackett
Clerk/Administrator
Township of Montague
6547 Roger Stevens Drive
P.O. Box 755
Smiths Falls, ON
K7A 4W6
Darlene Noonan
CAO/Clerk - Treasurer
Township of Athens
P.O. Box 189, 1 Main Street West
Athens, ON
K0E 1B0
Mrs. Sharon Wilkinson,
CAO Clerk
Township of Augusta
3560 Co. Rd. 26, R. R. 2
Prescott, ON
K0E 1T0
Howard Smith
Administrator
Township of North Dundas
636 St. Lawrence Street
P.O. Box 489
Winchester, ON
K0C 2K0
Cynthia Moyle
CAO
Township of Beckwith
P.O. Box 989
1702 9th Line Beckwith
Carleton Place, ON
K7C 3P2
Cahl Pominville
Interim Chief Administrative Officer
Corporation of the Municipality of North Grenville
P.O. Box 130
515 Prescott Street
Kemptville, ON
K0G 1J0
Heather Fox
Clerk Administrator
Township of Central Frontenac
1084 Elizabeth Street, P.O. Box 89
Sharbot Lake, ON
K0H 2P0
Kelly Pender
Chief Administrative Officer
Town of Perth
Town Hall, 80 Gore Street East
Perth, ON
K7H 1H9
Mr. Yves Rousselle
Manager, Environmental Services
City of Clarence-Rockland
1560 Laurier Avenue
Rockland, ON
K4K 1P7
Robert Maddocks
Chief Administrative Officer
Township of Rideau Lakes
1439 County Road 8 at Chantry
P.O. Box 500
Delta, ON
K0E 1G0
Mr. Paul Snider
Clerk-Treasurer
Township of Drummond/North Elmsley
310 Port Elmsley Road, R.R.#5
Perth, ON
K7H 3C7
Wayne Brown
Director of Corporate Services
Town of Smiths Falls
Box 695, Town Hall, 77 Beckwith Street North
Smiths Falls, ON
K7A 4T6
Ms. Yvonne Robert
Clerk & Council Administrator
Township of Elizabethtown-Kitley
R.R. 2, 6544 New Dublin Road
Addison, ON
K0E 1A0
Gordon Burns
Clerk/Administrator
Township of South Frontenac
Box 100, 4432 George Street
Sydenham, ON
K0H 2T0
Don Reid
Chief Administrative Officer
Village of Merrickville-Wolford
P.O. Box 340, 317 Brock Street West
Merrickville, ON
K0G 1N0
Kathy Coulthart-Dewey
Chief Administrative Officer/Clerk
Tay Valley Township
217 Harper Road, R.R.4
Perth, ON
K7H 3C6
12
13
Scott Bryce
Clerk-Treasurer
Village of Westport
P.O. Box 68, 30 Bedford Street
Westport, ON
K0G 1X0
Secrétaire
Conseil des écoles catholiques du
Centre-Est de l'Ontario
4000 Labelle rue
Gloucester, Ontario
K1J 1A1
Mr. Greg Geddes
City of Ottawa
Corporate Services Officer
110 Laurier Avenue West
Ottawa, ON
K1P 1J1
Embridge Gas Distribution
400 Coventry Road
Ottawa, Ontario
K1K 2C7
Union Gas Limited
520 Gardiners Road
Kingston, Ontario
K7L 4Y6
Doreen Davis
Sharbot Lake Mishigama Anishnabae
Algonquin First Nation
3102, RR#2
Sharbot Lake, Ont.
K0H 2P0
Randy Malcolm
The Ardoch Algonquin First Nation
RR#3
Eganville, Ont.
K0J 1T0
Secretary
Ottawa-Carleton District School Board
133 Greenbank Road
Nepean, Ontario
K2H 6L3
Secretary
Upper Canada District School Board
225 Central Avenue
Brockville, Ontario
K6V 5X1
Secretary
Ottawa Carleton Catholic School Board
570 West Hunt Club
Nepean, Ontario
K2G 3R4
Secretary
Catholic District School Board of Eastern Ontario
Box 2222, 2755 Highway 43
Kemptville, Ontario
K0G 1J0
Secrétaire
Conseil des écoles publiques de
l'Est de l'Ontario
2445 boulevard St-Laurent
Ottawa, Ontario
K1G 6C3
Rideau St. Lawrence Distribution Inc.
985 Industrial Street
Box 699
Prescott, Ontario
K0E 1T0
Almonte Hydro
28 Mill Street
Almonte, Ontario
K1A 1A0
Direct Energy Business Services
409, 29 Hwy
Smiths Falls, Ontario
K7A 4S5
Perth Public Utilities Commission
15 Sunset Boulevard
Perth, Ontario
K7H 2Y3
Public Utilities Commission
25 Front Avenue West
Brockville, Ontario
K6V 4J2
Westport Hydro
30 Bedford Street
Westport On
K0G 1X0
Brian McCormick
Manager, Environmental Services & Approvals
Hydro One Networks
483 Bay Street,
13th Floor, North Tower
Toronto, Ontario
M5G 2P5
Enza Cancilla
Manager, Public Affairs, Corporate Communications
Hydro One Networks
483 Bay Street, 8th Floor, South Tower
Toronto, Ontario
M5G 2P5
14
Barrie Askew
Ontario Power Generation
8 Trent Drive
PO Box 966
Cambleford, Ontario
K0L 1L0
Mr. Grant Richie
District Manager
Ministry of Natural Resources
Kemptville District
P. O. Box 2002
Kemptville, ON
K0G 1J0
Adèle Malo
Vice President, Law & General Counsel/
Sustainable Development
Ontario Power Generation
700 University Avenue
Toronto, Ontario
M5G 1X6
Superintendent
Rideau Canal National Historic Site
Parks Canada Agency
34A Beckwith Street South
Smiths Falls, ON
K7A 2A8
TransCanada Pipelines
55 Yonge Street
Toronto, ON
M5E 1J
Margo Lienhard
Manager, Community Planning and Development
Eastern Municipal Services Office
Municipal Affairs and Housing
8 Estate Lane, Rockwood House
Kingston, ON
K7M 9A8
Enbridge Pipelines Inc.
10201 Jasper Avenue
P.O. Box 398
Edmonton, AB
T5J 2J9
Provincial Planning and Environmental
Services Branch
Municipal Affairs and Housing
777 Bay St, 14th Floor
Toronto ON
M5G 2E5
Great Lakes Gas Transmission Company
5250 Corporate Drive
Troy, MI 48098
(248) 205-7400
Fisheries & Oceans Canada
Communications Branch
200 Kent Street
13th Floor, Station 13228
Ottawa, Ontario
K1A 0E6
Trans-Northern Pipelines Inc.
310-45 Vogell Road
Richmond Hill, Ontario
L4B 3P6
Kent Kirkpatrick
City Manager
City of Ottawa
110 Laurier Avenue West
Ottawa, ON
K1P 1J1
14
15
Sign-in Sheets
16
16
17
18
18
Notice of Public Meeting






















Perth Courier
Manotick Messenger
The Packet
Barrhaven Independent
Nepean This Week
Kanata Kourier
The Review
Stittsville News
Kemptville Advance
Carleton Place Canadian
Almonte Gazette
Arnprior Chronicle Guide
Orleans Star
Brockville Recorder & Times
EMC Record News —
Full coverage
New Lanark Era
The Frontenac News
Carp Valley Press
Kingston This Week
Hunt Club/Riverside News
Land of Lakes Sun
Tweed News
20
Sample Letter
Dear Sir/Madame:
The Rideau Valley Conservation Authority (RVCA) is in the process of adopting amendments to the “Fill,
Construction and Alteration to Waterway” Regulation (Ontario Regulation 166 under Section 28 of the
Conservation Authorities Act), which has been in place since the late 1970s. The current legislation will be replaced
by a “Development, Interference with Wetlands and Alterations to Shorelines and Watercourse” Regulation
(adopted as Ontario Regulation 97/04). This regulation, also known as the “Generic Regulation,” will provide one
consistent format for a regulation to be administered by all Conservation Authorities in Ontario.
The changes to the legislation are due to the Red Tape Reduction Commission initiative to bring clarity and
consistency to existing legislation and eliminate no longer needed legislation while still safeguarding public health,
safety and the environment. The regulation will complement the Planning Act and Provincial Policy Statements, as
well as be reflective of the provisions of municipal official plans and by-laws. All Conservation Authorities will
implement the regulation by May 1, 2006. The regulation will assist the Conservation Authority to meet two of its
major priorities, namely safeguard water resources and protect people against natural hazards.
The Rideau Valley Conservation Authority (RVCA) with Mississippi Valley Conservation (MVC) will host a series
of public information meetings to present the new regulation and revised mapping. You may have seen notices in
local papers to this effect. The meetings are scheduled as follows:
• October 18, 5–9 pm — MVC/RVCA: Hall D, Nepean Sportsplex, 1701 Woodroffe Avenue at West Hunt Club,
Ottawa
• October 19, 3–9 pm — MVC/RVCA: Perth & District Community Centre (Arena), 2 Beckwith Street East, Perth
• October 25, 3–9 pm — RVCA: Suite 2, North Grenville Municipal Centre, 285 County Road 44, Kemptville
• October 27, 3–9 pm — MVC: West Carleton Client Services Centre, Kinburn, 5670 Carp Road, Kinburn
We will also be contacting municipal staff to discuss with them the details of this amendment.
If you have any questions, please call me at (613) 692-3571 ext. 1105, 1-800-267-3504 ext. 1105, or email me at
don.maciver@rideauvalley.on.ca or visit our website at www.rideauvalley.on.ca.
Regards,
Don Maciver MCIP, RPP
Director, Planning and Regulations
Encl.
20
21
22
22
23
Public Meeting Format

Approximately 10 staff were available for one-on-one public dialogue; this met
or exceeded the need at most times during the sessions.

Maps, in both digital and hardcopy format, were available for public viewing.

Public Information sessions were held at well known public venues at three
communities within the watershed.

The public information sessions were held from 3:00 to 9:00 p.m (six hours)
each (5- 9 in the City of Ottawa).

Twenty-one 32-inch by 24-inch display panels were prepared for public
viewing. The panels explain the Generic Regulation in a visual, easy-tounderstand format. As well, there were panels that highlighted natural
hazards.

A DVD presentation (TRCA) of the events surrounding Hurricane Hazel and
Conservation Authorities was played in a continuous loop on a large screen
throughout the evening.

Information was available for the public to take, including:
Ontario Regulation 97/04
S. 28 of the Conservation Authorities Act
RVCA’s Generic Regulation Fact Sheet,
Conservation Ontario’s Generic Regulation brochure, etc.

Refreshments were provided.
24
24
25
26
26
27
Sample Display Panels
28
28
29
RVCA Website
30
30
Rideau Valley Conservation Authority
Methods for Delineation of Regulation Limits in Accordance with Ontario
Regulation 97/04
November 16, 2005
Background and Purpose
The Rideau Valley Conservation Authority intends to seek approval from the Ontario Minister of Natural
Resources for a new regulation under Section 28 of the Conservation Authorities Act to replace
regulations that have been administered by the Authority since 1976 (most recently amended in 1980). In
the RVCA’s area of jurisdiction, a new regulation is required for the following reasons:
▪In the existing regulation, flood susceptible areas were delineated and “fill lines” were
established along some watercourses based on technical studies which have since been
superceded by more recent technical studies; the regulation limits need adjustment based on the
updated technical information.
▪Technical information on flood risks is now available to support the delineation of flood
susceptible areas and other hazardous lands along watercourses systems that are not presently
covered by the existing fill and construction regulation
▪All of Ontario’s Conservation Authorities have until April 2006 to ensure that their regulations
under Section 28 of the Act conform with the requirements of Ontario Regulation 97/04, the
regulation which governs the “Content of Conservation Authority regulations under Section 28(1)
of the Act: Development, Interference with Wetlands and Alterations to Shorelines and
Watercourses”.
In preparing its proposed regulation and associated mapping describing areas that will be subject to the
regulation, RVCA has generally followed guidance provided in an August 2003 document entitled
“Guidelines for Developing Schedules of Regulated Areas”, which was prepared by the Conservation
Ontario Generic Regulation Technical Standards Committee, in cooperation with the Ministry of Natural
Resources. In a few respects, RVCA’s methodology for delineating regulation limits has differed from
the methods suggested in the Guidelines, in order to account for local watershed conditions while
satisfying the intent of the Guidelines and accomplishing the objectives of the regulation framework.
The purpose of this brief is to describe the methodologies that have been used by the RVCA in
delineating areas that will be subject to the restrictions and requirements of its proposed regulation, with
particular attention paid to methods that differ from the Guidelines’ suggested approach. The RVCA’s
methodologies are subject to review and approval by:
▪the RVCA Board of Directors, as it considers a resolution to seek the Minister’s approval of the
regulation,
▪the MNR/Conservation Ontario “peer review” process that has been established to assist the
Ministry in it’s evaluation of CA regulation proposals, and
▪the Ministry of Natural Resources.
32
Apparent and Non-Apparent Stream Valleys
The initial step in the delineation of regulation limits has been to classify streams to be placed
under regulation on the basis of whether or not an “apparent stream valley” is associated with the
watercourse. This has been done on a reach by reach basis. Identifiable landmarks, such as
bridges and watercourse outlets, have been used to designate reaches as being predominantly of
the “apparent” or the “non-apparent” type. This classification was carried out through
interpretation of:


topographic mapping, where it is available in sufficient detail (one metre contour interval, or
better) and scale (1:5,000 or better), including
o base mapping prepared in conjunction with RVCA flood plain mapping studies,
o municipal base mapping (for portions of the City of Ottawa)
aerial photography, in locations where topographic mapping of suitable detail and scale is not
available
Following the Guidelines for Developing Schedules for Regulated Areas, a stream reach has
been classified as having an “apparent valley” if the valley walls are at least 3 metres in height
and they have an inclination of 5:1 (horizontal : vertical), or steeper. Table 1 lists the
apparent/non-apparent valley status for the stream reaches for which regulation limits have been
delineated.
Within the reaches that are classified as non-apparent, there are isolated locations, on one or both
sides of the system, where the terrain rises higher than 3 metres from the bank of the watercourse
and more steeply than at a 5:1 inclination. As an example, Steven Creek from Kars to North
Gower is predominantly a system with no apparent stream valley. The watercourse flows over a
flat, clay plain (formerly the bed of the post-glacial Champlain Sea) but in some locations the
watercourse is close to, and might be undercutting, adjacent slopes - the exposed portions of
drumlin or esker formations over which the clay deposits were laid down. Although these slopes
are not part of a recognizable “river or stream valley”, local erosion and slope stability hazards
could be present depending on the degree to which undercutting is occurring. The regulation
limits in these isolated locations have been delineated after taking into account the perceived
potential for local slope movements, using the criteria for apparent stream valleys (toe erosion
allowance, stable slope allowance and erosion access allowance).
In some locations, locally higher/steeper terrain adjacent to the stream (within predominantly
non-apparent systems or predominantly apparent systems) is associated with bedrock formations
(escarpments or outcroppings). In these situations, where it is confirmed that the local feature is
associated with bedrock formations, the existing face of the slope has been considered to be
inherently stable and the regulation limits have been delineated 15 metres upland from the
inferred “crest of slope”.
32
33
Table 1 –
Classification of Watercourse Reaches based on Presence/Absence of
An Apparent Stream Valley
Watercourse
Reach
Rideau River
Hwy 417 to Ottawa River
Main St to Hwy 417
O-Train Bridge to Main St
Hogs Back to O-Train Bridge
Black Rapids to Hogs Back
Watson's Mill Dam to Black Rapids
Manotick to Kars
Kars to Burritts Rapids
Burritts Rapids to Smiths Falls
Predominant Stream Valley
Apparent/Non-Apparent
Non-Apparent with
exceptions
Non-Apparent
Non-Apparent
Apparent
Apparent
Apparent
Non-Apparent
Non-Apparent with
exceptions
Non-Apparent with
exceptions
Jock River
Rideau River to Jockvale Road
Jockvale Road to Munster Road
Munster Road to Jock Trail
Jock Trail to Bleeks Road
Bleeks Road to Dwyer Hill Road
Dwyer Hill Road to Study Limit at Ashton
Apparent
Non-Apparent
Apparent
Non-Apparent
Apparent
Non-Apparent
Stevens Creek
Rideau River to Malakoff Road
Non-Apparent
Kemptville
Creek
Rideau River to Kemptville
Kemptville to Oxford Mills
Non-Apparent
Non-Apparent
Tay River
Beveridges Dam to Glen Tay
Non-Apparent with
exceptions
Ottawa River
RVCA Boundary at Shirley's Bay to
Chaudiere Bridge
Chaudiere Bridge to Portage Bridge
Portage Bridge to Rideau River
Rideau River to RVCA Boundary
downstream from Cumberland
Non-Apparent
Non-Apparent
Apparent
Apparent
34
Non-Apparent Stream Valleys
In reaches where there is no apparent stream valley, the regulation limit has been based on the
1:100 year flood hazard limit plus the nominal 15 metre allowance.
100 Year Flood Line
For all stream reaches for which regulation limits have been delineated, 1:100 year flood lines
have been determined through engineering studies, using methodologies that were consistent
with applicable technical standards of practice at the time the mapping was prepared. These
engineering studies are listed in Table 2. The referenced studies and associated flood plain
mapping are considered by the RVCA to represent the best available analyses and estimates of
the areas that are expected to be inundated under regulatory (1:100 year) flood conditions and are
suitable for use in the regulatory program. There are two special cases to be noted, where the
RVCA has recognized that the available flood risk mapping over-estimates the flood susceptible
area to some degree, and required revisions have yet to be completed:
Kemptville Creek: County Road 43 to Oxford Mills Dam
Hydrologic analysis undertaken during the Kemptville Creek Watershed Planning
process demonstrated that earlier flood plain mapping studies (completed in 1972 for the
reach from County Road 43 to Hurd Street, and in 1983 for County Road 43 to the CN
railway crossing, north of Oxford Mills) over-estimated the 1:100 year flood discharge
and associated flood levels along the Creek. This resulted mainly from the earlier
studies’ reliance on regional flood frequency analysis methods, as historical peak flow
data were insufficient to allow the use of single station frequency analysis at the time.
Single station frequency analysis of the historical streamflow record (now 35 years in
length) on Kemptville Creek, supports a considerably lower estimate of the 1:100 year
discharge than was adopted in the earlier flood risk mapping studies. RVCA has applied
the updated 1:100 year flow estimate in the available hydraulic modeling to generate
revised flood levels for use in its ongoing flood plain management efforts. RVCA
intends to generate updated flood risk mapping along the watercourse, but in order to do
so, updated topographic mapping of suitable quality is required, but is not available.
Until suitable topographic mapping is available, the existing flood risk mapping is being
applied for the purposes of delineating the regulation limits, with confidence that the
resulting regulation limits will have captured the areas that will be shown to be flood
susceptible in future updated flood risk mapping. However, in the administration of the
regulation, the RVCA make use of revised (lower) flood level estimates associated with
the updated 1:100 year flood discharge estimates.
34
35
Tay River: Tay Marsh to Perth Basin
The regulation limits for this reach of the Tay River have been plotted based on flood
lines generated in a 1981 flood plain mapping study (plus the nominal 15 metre
allowance). In that study, the 1:100 year water surface profile was based on a
conservative assumption that stop logs would be left in place in the sluiceways of the
Beveridges Dam (which controls water levels on the Tay Marsh) throughout a flood
event. Sensitivity analysis conducted during the 1981 study showed that the flood levels
within the upstream Town of Perth are not sensitive to the assumed water level at the
downstream dam, but more recent hydraulic analysis has demonstrated that this
assumption gives rise to higher water levels along agricultural lands between the Tay
Marsh and the Town limits than would result if the sluiceways were assumed to be fully
opened when the peak flood flows occur. RVCA will be consulting with officials of the
Rideau Canal – Parks Canada (owner/operator of the Beveridges Dam) to confirm that its
regular practice is to strip logs from the Dam during flood events to minimize its
influence on upstream water levels. An adjusted 1:100 year water surface profile for this
reach of the Tay River, derived from the available hydraulic model with the most
appropriate assumption with respect to the stop log setting at the dam, will then be used
by RVCA in its administration of the Regulation.
For all stream reaches, digital flood lines were used in the process of delineating regulation
limits, and were obtained in one of two ways:
Flood lines generated in Autocad format during the original engineering studies have
been imported directly into the RVCA’s GIS system (ARCGIS-based), with necessary
checks for scale, projection system, etc.
Elsewhere, where the flood risk mapping was completed before digital mapping came
into everyday use, the flood lines have been digitized from high resolution scans of the
older flood risk maps, again after performing quality control checks to ensure that the
projection of the original flood plain mapping was consistent with the projection system
used for the regulation limits mapping.
Spill Sections
The available flood risk mapping identifies “spill sections” – locations where the estimated water
surface elevation for the regulatory flood on a watercourse is higher than the lowest portion(s) of
the “height of land” between adjacent subwatersheds. During the regulatory flood event,
floodwaters are expected to spill from the flood plain of one stream into an adjacent
subwatershed across these “spill sections”. Water surface elevations along the path taken by the
“spilled” flood waters are not as high as the flood level above the spill section, since the rate of
flow across the spill section is very small compared to the total streamflow, and is not obstructed
by any hydraulic control located further downstream along its path. In the process of delineating
regulation limits, known or identified spill sections have been treated as being equivalent to
36
flood lines; the regulation limits do not include lands along the overland flow pathways taken by
the “spilling” flood waters.
Regulations Limits beyond the Limits of Available Flood Risk Mapping
“Limits of Study” are plotted at the upstream and downstream ends of engineered flood risk
maps, at the edges of available topographic mapping coverage, or where the flood plain limits
could not be delineated based on the available hydrotechncial analysis.
For the purposes of conforming with Ontario Regulation 97/04, the regulation limits on either
side of the stream system are truncated at the upstream limit of the available flood risk mapping
but they do not “close” across the flood plain/valley system. A standard notation has been
placed on the mapping to indicate that hazardous lands, river and stream valleys, or wetlands
may extend upstream of and beyond the plotted regulation limits, but their boundaries have yet to
be delineated. RVCA intends to update the regulation limits mapping over time, and will extend
the delineation of regulation limits further upstream on river and valley systems, as supporting
technical information (such as topographic mapping and flood risk mapping) becomes available.
Consideration of Meander Belt Criterion
The Guidelines for Developing Schedules of Regulated Areas require, for systems with “nonapparent” stream valleys, that the regulation limits be based on flood risk or erosion risk
whichever represents the greater hazard in terms of the land area that is affected. Areas that are
subject to an erosion hazard are to be defined by an estimated meander belt allowance. The
Guideline recommends that the width of the meander belt should be assumed to be “20 times the
bank full width of the watercourse”, in the absence of geomorphological assessments.
Geomorphological assessments have not been undertaken on the stream systems for which
RVCA has delineated regulation limits.
The “20 times bank full width” criterion, when applied to streams without apparent valley
systems in RVCA’s area of jurisdiction, yields meander belt widths that are considered excessive
and difficult to justify. From RVCA’s local experience, overbank flooding is generally
considered to be of greater concern than streambank erosion on such streams, in terms of risks to
property and public safety on streamside lands. To illustrate, consider the reach of the Jock
River between Greenbank Road and Moodie Drive in South Nepean. In plan view, the stream
exhibits a gentle meandering pattern, and its bankfull width is generally between 35 and 50
metres. The default meander belt width (20 times bankfull width) would vary between 700 and
1,000 metres. For the stream to move laterally to the edges of the resulting meander belt during
a 100 year period would require the annual rate of erosion to be in the order of 3 or 4 metres per
year, which is far greater than has been observed on the stream. To confirm this observation an
analysis of aerial photography taken in 1953 and 2002 (1:5,000 scale) has been undertaken. At
three representative cross-sections on the outside bends of the Jock River, the position of the
riverbank measured in relation to permanent features on the landscape that are identifiable in
both photos, has moved approximately 5, 10 and 0 metres, respectively over a 49 year period, or
36
37
at average annual rates of 0.1, 0.2 and 0.0 metres per year, respectively. The mean rate of
riverbank migration, across the three “sample sites” has been 0.10 m/yr.
Similar results were obtained by air photo analysis of reaches of the Tay River and Steven Creek
which, when observed from above, could be thought of as exhibiting meandering behaviour.
Mean annual rates of migration of 0.17 m/yr and 0.03 m/yr were measured for the Tay River (3
sample sites) and Steven Creek (4 sample sites), respectively.
A number of factors that can contribute to estimating error have not been accounted for in this
analysis, including differences in the stream bank vegetation cover, time of year, water level,
light/shadow conditions, etc. between the images from 1953 and 2002. The amount of
streambank migration that is inferred from the air photo analysis is very likely in the same order
of magnitude as the estimating error.
However, the air photo analysis provides qualitative evidence in support of RVCA’s view that
that the “twenty times bankfull width” criterion is generally inappropriate for use on the stream
segments where regulation limits have being delineated, considering the following:

stream systems with non-apparent valleys within RVCA’s area of jurisdiction tend to be
located on relatively flat landscapes on deep surficial deposits of stiff silty clays, or on
limestone plains with thin till overburden. The cohesive clay and till soils, or exposed
bedrock over which the streams are flowing are relatively resistant to erosion by fluvial
action compared to non-cohesive sand and gravel substrates on which actively
meandering streams are more typically seen; the natural geomorphology of local streams
is governed more by the contours of erosion resistant strata in the subsurface than by the
dynamics of loose sediment scouring, transport and deposition.

the watercourse reaches for which regulation limits have been delineated are higher order
watercourses whose main channels were established through fluvial action under much
higher flow regimes following the retreat of the ancient Champlain Sea, and long before
artificial regulation of the flows and levels by means of dams and reservoirs. Generally,
the present geology, hydrology, and hydraulics are such that streamflows have
insufficient energy to drive substantial or fast-paced change in the plan form of the
channels in question.

at many locations, structural alterations of the watercourses – including channelization
for land drainage or navigation purposes, conduits at transportation crossings, weir and
dams for water level control purposes, substrate armouring at buried utility crossings, and
streambank armouring for erosion control purposes – have had a constraining effect that
prevents the streams from meandering in a “natural” way (even at the extremely slow
pace that is possible in the relatively erosion resistant substrate)

future land development in the watershed, as identified in municipal official plans for the
current planning horizon, is not expected to significantly alter the hydrologic regime of
the subject watersheds and, in the longer term, the implementation of watershed-based
38
stormwater management strategies should ensure that land use change will be managed
so that it does not adversely affect the geomorphological stability of stream systems.
Therefore, for the stream reaches without apparent valleys and for which regulations limits have
been delineated as of the date of this brief, it is the RVCA’s opinion that the dominant hazard is
flooding and regulation limits based on 1:100 year flood lines plus a 15 metre allowance
adequately capture the areas that could potentially be affected by hazards related to streambank
erosion.
As the RVCA extends the delineation of regulation limits to include additional stream reaches in
the future, the application of the meander belt criterion (in the absence of geomporphological
assessments) will be considered on a reach by reach basis, recognizing that on lower order
headwater streams, the meander belt criterion could be the dominant criterion, depending on
local geological and hydraulic conditions.
Application of the “Up to 15 Metre Allowance”
The Guidelines allow the Conservation Authority to apply discretion in the application of the “up
to 15 metre allowance” beyond the 1:100 year flood line or the meander belt allowance
(whichever is greater). The technical basis and justification for including the additional
allowance in the regulated area beyond the identified hazardous area is related to the fact that
hazard land delineations are approximations, with many factors contributing to the inherent
margins of error. The permission granting provisions of the regulation allow carefully planned
developments and alterations that are proposed in the zone between the confirmed hazard limits
and the regulation limit.
The RVCA has applied the 15 metre allowance consistently in the delineation of regulation
limits but will advise its member municipalities and other interested parties to identify hazardous
lands, for the purposes of Official Plans and Zoning instruments based on the delineated hazards,
as opposed to the regulation limits. This is consistent with the guidance provided in the
Guidelines for Developing Schedules of Regulated Areas, where it is noted that “standard
allowances and requisite features are not hazardous lands”.
38
39
Table 2 –
Engineered Flood Risk Mapping in the RVCA Area of Jurisdiction
Watercourse
Reach
Consultant
Year
Completed
1984
Standards
Comment
FDRP
Hydrologic analysis reviewed in
1996 re: Britannia Village flood
control initiative
Ottawa River
Shirley’s Bay to
Rockland
MacLaren
Plansearch
Rideau River
Rideau Falls to Hog’s
Back Falls
Hog’s Back Falls to
Roger Stevens Rd.
Roger Stevens Rd. to
Burritt’s Rapids
Burritt’s Rapids to
Smiths Falls (Old Sly’s
Locks)
Smiths Falls (Old Sly’s
Locks to Poonamalie
Dam)
Rideau River to
Richmond Fen
Richmond Fen to
Ashton Dam
Rideau River to
Malakoff Road
Rideau River to Road
43
Road 43 to CNR
Railway
A.J. Robinson
1984
FDRP
M.M. Dillon
1989
FDRP
Robinson
2003
FDRP
J.F. MacLaren
1976
Pre-FDRP
Ortho-photo base does not include
topographic contours
J.F. MacLaren
1979
Pre-FDRP
Ortho-photo base does not include
topographic contours
PSR Group&
J.F Sabourin
PSR Group &
J.F. Sabourin
Robinson
2005
FDRP+
Base mapping specifications
exceed standards
2005
FDRP
1995
FDRP
Robinson
2003
FDRP
J.F. MacLaren
1983
Pre-FDRP
Road 43 to Hurd Street
J.F. MacLaren
1972
Pre-FDRP
Tay Marsh to Glen Tay
Fenco
1981
Pre-FDRP
Jock River
Steven Creek
Kemptville Creek
Tay River
Q100 over-estimated; no
topographic contours on orthophoto base
Q100 over-estimated; base mapping
out of date
Assumptions regarding Beveridges
Dam operation under review
40
Apparent Stream Valleys
For watercourses that occupy apparent stream valleys, the regulation limits have been placed 15
metres upland of the position of the dominant hazard or feature, amongst the following:

The 100 year flood line

15 metre toe erosion allowance plus stable slope allowance - where the toe of slope is
within 15 metres of the streambank.

stable slope allowance – where toe of slope is more than 15 metres from the streambank,
and the existing slope is potentially unstable

top of slope – where the toe of slope is more than 15 metres from the streambank or
where it is demonstrated that is no active erosion, and where the existing slope is
considered to be stable
Methods for delineation of each of the above mentioned setbacks have been in accordance with
the Guidelines for Developing Schedules of Regulated Areas, and are summarized as follows:
100 Year Flood Line
Flood lines have been taken from previous engineering studies, as in the case on non-apparent
systems.
Stable Slope Allowance
The guidelines recommend applying a 3:1 stable slope allowance, unless the soils of the valley
walls consist of sandy or sensitive marine clays, where a 5:1 stable slope allowance allowance is
recommended.
RVCA has referred to the “Quaternary Geology of Ontario” and assumed that all slopes within
areas of Glaciomarine and Marine Deposits: Silt and Clay (Unit 26 on Map 2556 of the Series)
can exhibit behaviour that is typical of slopes in sensitive marine clay. The stable slope
allowance of 5:1 is applied in those areas. RVCA recognizes this to be a conservative
assumption, since the sensitivity of clays and silty clays within that mapped unit is highly
variable. RVCA is aware of many locations in those areas where site-specific geotechnical
studies analyses bu qualified experts have concluded that existing slopes that are steeper than 5:1
have adequate factors of safety. However, from a policy point of view, the effect of the
regulation is to require that approvals be obtained for developments adjacent to existing slopes –
not to prohibit development - and in general, approvals for development between the slope crest
and the regulation limit will be granted if the proposals are supported by suitable geotechnical
analyses.
40
41
Details of the mapping methodology are as follows:
a. The position of the water’s edge (the streambank) was determined using available
mapping and aerial photos. For watercourses where contours from AutoCad drawings
were used, the water’s edge is defined as the first contour above the target navigation
level (on navigable sections of the Rideau River) or a defined water level within the
AutoCad drawing (where an elevation contour crosses the watercourse). This estimate of
the position of the water’s edge was then checked for reasonableness against available
aerial photos considering the time of year the photos were flown.
b. Since information is not readily available at all locations to determine if the existing
streambank is eroding or resistant to erosion, it has been assumed that all streambanks are
potentially eroding and require a 15 metre “toe erosion allowance”. It is acknowledged
that this is a conservative assumption and results in a larger regulated area at the slope
crest than may be necessary in locations where streambank armouring has been
completed or where the banks are naturally erosion resistant. Again, the local policy of
the RVCA will be to permit development within the zone between the slope crest and the
regulation limits, provided that suitable technical analysis is completed and the minimum
riparian zone setbacks (30 metres from streambank and 15 metres from crest of slope) are
respected. During the technical analysis of permit applications, the condition of the
streambank and toe of slope will be taken into account.
c. Where the toe of slope is within 15 metres of the existing water’s edge and the potential
for toe erosion is assumed, the stable slope allowance is plotted from the identified toe
erosion allowance of 15 metres to the point where a 3:1 slope (5:1 in sensitive marine
clays) intercepts the table land elevation (see Figure 1). At multiple locations (crosssections) along the valley wall, the stable slope allowance is plotted as shown in Figure 1,
and then the points where the stable slope allowance intercepts the table land elevation
are connected in plan view to delineate the potentially hazardous lands. Where the toe of
slope is greater than 15 metres horizontally from the waters edge, the stable slope
allowance is calculated from the existing toe of slope to the point where a 3:1 slope (5:1
in sensitive marine clays) intercepts the table land elevation (see Figure 2).
42
Stable Top of
Slope
Top of Slope
Regulation
Limit
< 5:1
Waters Edge
<5:1; >3m in height
15m Allowance
Navigation or
Normal Water
Level
15m Toe Erosion
Allowance
3:1 Stable Slope
Allowance (5:1 if
sensitive marine
clay)
Figure 1: Cross section showing stable slope allowance where toe of slope is within 15m of the
waters edge.
Top of Slope
Stable Top of
Slope
Regulation
Limit
<5:1; >3m in height
Waters Edge
Navigation or
Normal Water
Level
< 5:1
15m Allowance
Toe of Slope
3:1 Stable Slope
Allowance (5:1 if
sensitive marine
clay)
>15m
Figure 2: Cross section showing stable slope allowance where toe of slope is greater than 15m
from the waters edge.
d. Where incised ravines have cut into the primary valley walls on minor streams that are
tributary to the main watercourse, the regulation limit has been plotted as outlined above
(applying the toe erosion allowance and stable slope allowance) on the lower portion of
the ravine, up to the point on the ravine where its invert is three metres below the
adjacent table land. On the upper portion of the ravine (where its depth is less than 3
metres), the regulation limit has been positioned 15 metres upland from the top of slope,
as interpreted from the available contour mapping.
42
43
Top of Slope
As noted previously, where it is known that the toe of the slope is armoured or located more than
15 metres horizontally from the streambank, and that the existing slope face is stable, the
regulation limits would be positioned 15 metres upland from the existing crest of slope. To
apply this criterion requires information on the state of toe erosion as well as the stability of the
slope, which is not available for all locations. As noted above, the RVCA has conservatively
assumed that the toe of all valley wall slopes that are within 15 metres of the watercourse will
eventually be prone to toe erosion, and that all valley wall slopes that are steeper than 3:1 (5:1 in
sensitive marine clays) are potentially unstable. Thus, the “top of slope plus 15 metres criterion”
only applies in locations where the valley wall is known to be composed of exposed bedrock
(e.g. portions of the Ottawa River shoreline/valley), or on the uppermost portions of tributary
ravines where the depth of the ravine is less than 3 metres, as discussed above.
Inclusion of Wetlands in the Regulation Limits Mapping
An expressed objective of the amendments to Section 28 of the Conservation Authorities Act
which gave rise to the “generic regulation” process has been to make the regulations of
Conservation Authorities consistent with and complementary to the Provincial Policy Statements
(PPS) under Section 3 of the Planning Act, which governs land use planning in the Province.
The Provincial Policy Statement requires that development and site alteration shall not be
permitted in provincially significant wetlands (as identified by the Ministry of Natural
Resources) and that such areas be identified in municipal official plans. The Policy also requires
that development and site alteration on lands that are adjacent to provincially significant
wetlands be evaluated with respect to the potential for negative impacts on the ecological
functions of the wetlands, before proceeding.
To satisfy these objectives, the RVCA has included in its regulation limits mapping, any
provincially significant wetlands that have been identified in approved municipal official plans.
The wetland boundaries have been extracted from the MNR’s Natural Resources & Values
Information System (NRVIS) for use in the mapping, and a 120 metre allowance has been
applied upland of the wetland boundary to establish the regulation limits.
44
Future Extension of Regulation Limits Mapping
RVCA has focused its efforts to date on delineating regulation limits on river and stream reaches
for which flood hazards have been identified in engineered flood line mapping studies, and on
Provincially Significant Wetlands that are recognized in municipal official plans.
The Regulation Limits that have been delineated so far only describe some of the lands within
the RVCA area of jurisdiction to which the “Development, Interference with Wetlands,
Alteration to Shorelines and Watercourses Regulation” can apply.
RVCA will continue, over time, to delineate regulation limits on additional hazardous lands,
river and stream valleys and wetlands with whatever resources are available and can be allocated
to the task. It will be necessary to identify priorities amongst the many watercourses, inland
lakes and wetlands in the RVCA area of jurisdiction for which regulation limits will eventually
be needed.
It may also be necessary to select additional methods for delineating regulation limits for some
river and stream systems or wetland features. For example, RVCA’s methods for estimating
flood hazard limits in the absence of engineered flood lines on a given river or stream system and
the allowance to be applied as “other area” adjacent to locally significant wetlands have yet to be
determined.
The selection of priority areas for additional regulation limits mapping, and the development of
additional methods will be done in consultation with local municipalities and other stakeholders,
and will take direction from watershed and subwatershed planning initiatives, wherever they
have been undertaken.
If and when the Regulation Limits Mapping is amended to include additional areas, this brief
will also be revised and updated as required to document any modifications in the methods used
by the RVCA in the delineation of the regulation limits.
44