August 11, 2005

Sierra Club of Canada
Ottawa Chapter

Attn:    Ms. Carol Gudz:

Re:    Carp River Tour Follow-up

Dear Carol:

I am writing to give the Sierra Club an update on Riverkeeper’s activities related the City of Ottawa’s Carp River Watershed project.

Earlier this year the City posted a Notice of Completion for the Carp River Watershed/ Subwatershed Plan. The City invited the Public to review the documentation (Master Plan) prepared by its consultants over the period May 20 - June 20, which Riverkeeper proceeded to do. Based on this review Riverkeeper identified a number of concerns that, following the City’s instructions, were brought to the attention of the City.  A Part II Order request was also submitted to then MOE Minister Leona Dombrowski.

To our great surprise, Riverkeeper received a letter from the Director of the MOE’s Environmental Assessment and Approvals Branch (EAAB) dated July 12, 2005 stating that the City had made an error in their Notice of Completion, and there is no opportunity to request a Part II Order of a Master Plan. Furthermore, the MOE commented that the City had indicated to them that it followed Approach 1 in Appendix 4 of the Municipal Engineers Class EA document. By using this Approach MOE stated that there is no opportunity for the Public to request projects identified in the Master Plan to have to follow any particular Schedule of undertakings under the Municipal Class EA, or to request that the projects be subject to a Full Environmental Assessment.

About two weeks after receiving the MOE’s letter, Riverkeeper received a letter from the City. Despite raising a number of questions and concerns in our original submission to the City, the City did not make any attempt to respond to any of our questions or resolve any of our concerns - in particular the plan to fill and develop 60 Ha of floodplain. The City stated in this letter that the Carp River Restoration project is proceeding as a Flood and Erosion Control Project under the MEA Class EA, and that the planning of this project is being completed as part of the Kanata West Development as an Integration Project under the Planning Act. To make a long story short, using this process means that if the public has any concerns with filling and developing the floodplain, they cannot request a Part II Order from the MOE Minister - they must Appeal the matter to the OMB!

In its response to Riverkeeper, and in its discussions with MOE, I am led to believe that there is evidence that the City has made at least two apparent misrepresentations about the Carp River Project:
  1. The City’s claim that they followed Approach 1 is not valid. According to the MEA Class EA document, to follow Approach 1, the City would have had to provide 30 days for the Public to review the Watershed Plan documents before Council was asked to Approve the Plan. Council Approved the Plan on January 12, 2005 but the Public never saw the Plans until May 20, 2005.
  2. Despite the claims by the City to the contrary, the Carp River Restoration project is not a “Flood and Erosion” Control Project by the fact that in the Watershed Plan, the consultant states that there are no flood damage centers in the area of the Restoration Plan and furthermore that if anything, there is a sedimentation problem. It would appear that the flood control project has been advocated on the basis to allow development of 60 Ha of floodplain.
Riverkeeper has looked into the matter about Class undertakings involving “flood control” for new development areas. As it turns out, the Class EA process for Conservation Authorities states that these types of projects are beyond the scope of scheduled undertakings and require a Full Environmental Assessment.
 
I have to ask the question of what is motivating the City to be misleading MOE and the public on this project calling for the filling and development of 60 Ha of floodplain just downstream from Glen Cairn, where flooding occurred in 1996 and 2002?

City Council should now have to re-address its passing of the Carp River Watershed Plan to consider the misinformation provided by staff and whether it should now re-post the Notice of Completion so the public will have an opportunity to comment in a consultation process on a very controversial project.

Meredith Brown