Carp River flood plain update - Dec. 2005



Machines began moving earth in and along the floodplain (circled in red) in mid-summer - Corel Centre in left background
(click on picture for close-up)


Riverkeeper's view on the importance of retaining natural floodplains
Floodplains provide a valuable service to humans in protecting against floods.  Natural stream channels and flood plains are capable of adapting and respondig to floods.  Their higher level of "ecosystem resilience" compared to artificial channels, ponds and hardened shorelines means they will continue to provide flood control services, even under likely climate change scenarios that involve higher frequency of extreme precipitation events.  Natural floodplains provide greater aesthetic values and recreational opportunities and proximity to healthy natural systems increases property values.   Natural floodplain vegetation purifies the river by absorbing nutrients and breaking down wastes resulting from human activities in the watershed.  Their higher resilience means that nutrient absorption and waste assimilation services are maintained even under droughts, which also are predicted to increase under climate change scenarios.  Natural floodplains represent a key part of the habitat for the roughly forty fish species that are found in the Carp River.

2005 in retrospect
 Comments
1.  A flawed public consultation process
Individuals and groups who have participated in the planning process over the past several years are generally dismayed at the disconnect between what is offered as public feedback at a meeting and what comes out in a plan.  The most obvious example being the river restoration plan that offers just one choice, namely, the narrowing of the floodplain and deepening of the main channel without any details supporting its feasibility.   This unsupported one choice option has generated controversy which has resulted in frustration when the posting of the Master Plan was mishandled thus depriving the public from making comment.

Subsequent meetings the planning staff has had with concerned individuals and groups offers no indications that criticisms are being heard.  Furthermore, since staff appear to have delegated authority to post 3 up-coming EAs in mid-January there will be no opportunity for public input without making an appeal to the OMB - a costly and time consuming process.

2. Piecemeal development
One of the main reasons the MOE and MNR initiated watershed and subwatershed planning in the early 1990s was the recognition that the piecemeal evaluation and approval of individual developments and projects was failing to address and avoid the cumulative impacts of all development in an area. It was believed the best unit to use for considering the cumulative
impact was the watershed, and in the case of developing communities, the subwatershed.

A review of the Watershed/Subwatershed Plan and the modeling used to support the recommended river restoration project
would lead one to think that no other projects are planned within the subwatershed area other than the Kanata West development, the river restoration project and SWM projects. In fact there are several other undertakings planned along the Carp River corridor within and immediately upstream and downstream of the limits of the river restoration project, that, by the nature of the works, will have some measure of impact on the hydraulics of the river restoration project.

Council also passed two re-zoning applications during the year to change floodplain hazard land to general urban for nearby developments just outside the boundaries of Kanata West.  Such piecemeal development is not appropriate, all projects should be integrated - this is the purpose of subwatershed planning.

3.  A lack of compliance of the Carp River restoration project as a schedule B undertaking as set out in section C.1.3 of the Municipal Environmental Assessment Class EA. 

The Carp River restoration project falls within the class of projects set out in section C.1.3 of the Class EA: “Watercourse management projects consist of works located in open watercourses and may include flood control, erosion control, water quality control, and works related to aquatic, wildlife and terrestrial management within a floodplain.”

The Master Plan states, “The restoration plan and modified floodplain approach also frees up approximately 60 ha of land for development. This area could be used as leverage to engage the development community in Kanata West to participate in the restoration of the Carp River.  The modified floodplain approach is one mechanism to implement the Carp River restoration plan.” (page 154)

It would appear that the only “management within a floodplain” is how to manage to allow 60 ha of the existing floodplain to be developed. 

Furthermore, the Conservation Ontario Class EA Document states that flood and erosion control works to increase developable lands does not fall within the definition of a Class Undertaking.  The City’s response is that the Carp River Restoration project is considered to be “works undertaken in a watercourse for the purposes of flood control or erosion control”. This statement is inconsistent with findings of the Master Plan.  The Master Plan document states on page 137 that there are no flood damage centers in the area of the restoration project. Later on Page 161 it states, “the restoration plan has been proposed to address problems of water quality degradation, sedimentation and aquatic habitat degradation as a result of historic and current channelization and aggradation problems.” If there are no flood damage centers, and the Carp River is so flat that it has sedimentation and aggradation problems, on what basis is there evidence that there is a flood and erosion problem warranting the restoration project?  Municipal flood and erosion control projects satisfying the definition of Class Undertakings are used to protect existing property and infrastructure from an impending threat of flooding or erosion, not to free-up land for future development.

4.  Conservation Ontario Class EA for Flood and Erosion Control Projects
The Master Plan identifies the need for improvements to the Carp River corridor within the urban (Subwatershed Plan) and rural (Watershed Plan) areas. Flood and erosion control along river systems in the Province of Ontario has traditionally fallen within the mandate of the Ministry of Natural Resources and Conservation Authorities. Flood and erosion control projects
are also subject to the Environmental Assessment Act. 

A Class Environmental Assessment document has also been prepared to assist with the planning of flood and erosion control projects. The document prepared by Conservation Ontario identifies various undertakings related to flood and erosion control that fall within the definition of “Class undertakings.”

On Page 11 of the document under the heading "2.3 Definition of Undertakings Within Class",  the Conservation Ontario Class EA document states:
"Remedial Flood and Erosion Control Projects refer to those projects undertaken by Conservation Authorities, which are required to protect human life and property, in previously developed areas, from an impending flood or erosion problem. Such projects do not include works which facilitate or anticipate development. Major flood and erosion control undertakings which do not suit this definition, such as multipurpose projects, lie outside the limits of this Class and require an Individual Environmental Assessment."

While the findings of the Master Plan were that there are no flood damage centers or erosion problems existing in the reach of the restoration project, on the basis that the Master Plan has identified a need for restoration of the Carp River in both the urban and rural areas, it would appear that the priorities for restoration of the Carp River are based on where funding will
be available to undertake the improvements. It would appear that from the discussion on Page 154 of the Master Plan, 60 ha of floodplain could be developed in exchange for funding of the restoration works.

If it can be accepted that the project at hand is a “flood and erosion control” project, presumably the planning of this type of project could just as easily be completed by the Mississippi Valley Conservation Authority using the Conservation Ontario Class EA, if funding was available. 

What is being advocated by the City and Kanata West developers, is that the same project that would require an Individual Environmental Assessment had it been planned by Mississippi Valley Conservation, can instead be planned as a Schedule B
undertaking using the Municipal Environmenal Assessment Class EA.

The process to be followed to satisfy the requirements of the Environmental Assessment Act for flood and erosion control projects should be the same whether the project is being planned by the City, by the MVC, or by the Kanata West developers. The Conservation Ontario Class EA document is very clear that flood and erosion control projects are to be used “to protect human life and property, in previously developed areas, from an impending flood or erosion problem.  Such projects do not include works which facilitate or anticipate development.”

5. Mississippi Valley Conservation's issuing of floodplain fill permits is highly problematical
While the MVC may be satisfied that it has the authority under it’s Fill Regulations to issue a fill permit to allow development of the floodplain so that the Carp River restoration works can proceed, and allow flood levels and flood risk to rise, the MVC’s regulation falls under the Conservation Authorities Act that is administered by MNR.  Furthermore, the Carp River restoration project will also require approval under the Lakes and Rivers Improvement Act, an act also administered by MNR.

The MVC has consented to the land developers and City that the Restoration Project can be planned as a “flood and erosion control project” – a Schedule B undertaking under the Municipal Engineers Association Class EA planning process – despite the fact that there is no existing flood or erosion problem in the reach of the restoration project – but there is 60 Ha of Greenfield development of the floodplain to be established as part of this “restoration project”.  What would have been more appropriate is a full E.A.  How is it possible for a Conservation Authority to disregard the Natural Hazard Policies of the Provincial Policy Statement – particularly just downstream on the same river where flooding of dozens of homes occurred in 1996 and 2002?

Finally, MVC's support of a 2 zone floodplain policy by issuing fill permits for the Carp seems somewhat contradictory to its own recommendations elsewhere, example, an OMB decision in July cited the MVC as not supporting floodplain filling in the Town of Mississippi Mills.

6. Floodplain development is not good planning
Developing in the floodplain is not good planning - even if the "only" development is a stormwater management facility. Until the works along the Carp River are approved by all permitting agencies, there will be no certainty in how flow conditions in the Carp River will interact with the performance of the SWM Facility.  If the SWM facility is not going to perform as designed, or will be swamped by flood waters, pollution could wash into the Carp River, thus diminishing the purpose of the Restoration Project. 

7. Floodplain development has started
Why has the City not adopted the precautionary principle, given the history of flooding problems with the Carp rather than allowing development plans to progress and for work to start in the field?  As of December 2005, there are still no completed E.As, yet work has been going on in the field since mid-summer.   How can work commence that goes beyond the conceptual stage when floodplain delineation is still inconclusive as are the riparian storage areas?

Informal approval seems to have been given for developers to begin constructing infrastructure, this is surprising considering the City is currently spending $7,000,000 on a flood control project upstream in the Glen Cairn community to resolve flooding problems.