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:
- 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.
- 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