Councillor Stavinga's Response to Outstanding Concerns about Plans for Kanata West and the Carp River
(Response in blue)


January 11, 2006

Outstanding Concerns about Plans for Kanata West and the Carp River
Background for January 12 Meeting of Councillors with Staff

Following is a summary of concerns held at this time by members of the following organizations:
    Greenspace Alliance of Canada’s Capital
    Sierra Club of Canada, Ottawa Group
    Friends of the Carp River

At issue is the intended posting of Notices of Completion for three Environmental Assessments, along with approval of an Plan of Subdivision and a Site Plan.  The EAs are for the Carp River Restoration Project, and for Piped Services and Roads serving development in Kanata West.  The Subdivision and Site Plan approvals are for the Mattamy and Taggart/Loblaws developments respectively.  These Notices are in respect of both the Environmental Assessment Act and the Planning Act, under the Integration Provision of the MEA Class EA process.

General Concerns

1. We believe that the public interest will be best served if neither the three provincial ministries nor members of the public are forced to go to the OMB.  This will require staff to be more forthcoming with updates on the status of their work on the 3 Class EAs to allow for the resolution of any issues identified by members of the public or the provincial ministries prior to posting the notices of completion.  Staff should aim to obtain unambiguous sign-off from the Ministries (MNR, MOE, MTO), not in effect challenge them to take the City to the OMB.

The three Ministries share our concern. In their joint letter of November 22 to City staff they said:
“We collectively feel that, before the technical issues raised by our three government agencies can be brought to closure, it is essential that, as a minimum, the level of detail be sufficient to provide consistency between all technical studies, otherwise we cannot concur with the City’s intention of     advertising a Notice of Completion for the Class EA Studies pertaining to the Kanata West development.”

2. After the City mistakenly invited members of the public to apply for a Part II Order after posting the Notices of Completion of the Watershed/Subwatershed Study, they were told:
“It is anticipated that the planning applications and Class EA documents will go     forward for City Council Approval and notification this year.”

Clearly, now seeking to proceed by Delegated Authority, plans have changed; the public and Councillors are left in the dark.


Process Concerns

1. Some of the works envisaged by the three Class EAs for Kanata West are located outside the areas for which subdivision or site plan approval is sought. (EXAMPLES)  This raises several concerns:

1.  Is it appropriate for an EA to be approved under the Integration  provision of the MEA Class EA rules when the undertakings envisaged by that EA go well beyond the scope of the Planning Act applications?  Doing so appears to be outside the intent of the  Integration provision.
2. Is there an approved budget for these undertakings?  If not, staff  does not have delegated authority to give approval.  (Ref.: By-Law 2001-12, Schedule E, section 1 (c)).
3. By approving EAs for undertakings that go beyond those envisaged to serve the Mattamy and Taggart/Loblaws developments, does the City in effect commit to rezoning for later developments such as the Hazard Lands on the Minto, Richcraft and Laurentide developments?

Response To General Comments and Question 1

The Ministry of Environment has advised the City and the Kanata West Owners’ Group that the integration process being followed for the Kanata West infrastructure planning studies and Plan of Subdivisions should not be followed.  Based on this advice, the Planning Act and Environmental Assessment requirements for the Kanata West development area will be proceeding independently.  The on-going transportation, master servicing and restoration studies will be prepared as three separate Class Environmental Assessment documents.  

The City and the Kanata West Owners’ Group as co-proponents will be holding a public meeting on March 7, 2006 at the Kanata Recreational Centre from 6:30 p.m. to 8:30 p.m. to inform the public of the process change, work undertaken since the June 2005 open house, comments and responses to issue raised and preferred infrastructure and restoration solutions.
 
The three Class Environmental Assessment Studies will proceed to Committee and City Council for approval prior to issuance of the Notices of Completion.  In addition, agency technical issues will need to be resolved prior to the Notices of Completion being issued.  The City and Kanata West Owners’ Group are working closely with the Ministry of Environment, Ministry of Natural Resources, Ministry of Transportation and the Mississippi Valley Conservation Authority to identify and resolve technical issues on the Class Environmental Assessment reports.

2. The various approvals are not being sought in a coherent fashion.  Two zoning applications have already been approved on the assumption that approvals will be obtained for various works in the Carp River and floodplain.  Rezoning of any part of the Carp River’s floodplain should not be undertaken until the Carp River Restoration Project EA is approved and the envisaged undertakings are budgeted.   Furthermore, the Carp River Restoration Project needs to take into account all known and prospective plans, including all current and proposed encroachments on the River and the floodplain.

There has not been any rezoning of flood plain lands for development.  In the area of 5500 Kanata Drive, the proposed development is outside of the existing Regulatory (1:100 year) flood plain of the Carp River.  The alignment of Terry Fox Drive is on the boundary of the Regulatory flood plain and the only feature of the proposed development that is located within the flood plain is the proposed stormwater management pond.  For the Taggart/Loblaws development, a corner of the proposed stormwater management pond is encroaching into the 1:100 year flood plain.  These two locations, considered alone, are minor encroachments into the flood plain.

To address the potential cumulative impacts of proposed development and filling of flood fringe areas in the Carp River watershed, there is a comprehensive analysis being completed.  The City of Ottawa has completed an updated flood plain analysis, which includes:

    Updated flows.  A new updated hydrologic model was assembled taking into account existing development in the watershed and specific drainage patterns including storm sewer locations.

    Updated hydraulic analysis.  An updated backwater (HEC-RAS)  model has been assembled utilizing specific cross sections surveyed in the field.

In the context of the various EAs being completed for the development in the Kanata West area, the above-noted hydrologic and hydraulic models are being further modified to specifically incorporate the planned development of Kanata West and the proposed stormwater management facilities and all other potential development areas, as shown in the City of Ottawa’s Official Plan, in the upstream subwatershed. The hydraulic (backwater) model will be modified to include specific restored channel design within the Carp River corridor, specific areas that will be filled and all proposed and/or modified crossings with the development of Kanata West.  This analysis has also been extended downstream of Richardson Side Road to the Village of Carp to assess potential impacts for the entire reach.


3. Should the Roads EA not be approved by the Transportation Committee?

The Road Network EA (Master Transportation Plan) will be brought forward to Transportation Committee for approval.  Staff may coordinate this meeting of the Transportation Committee with the Planning and Environment Committee, if feasible.

4. Is the reach of the Carp River through Kanata West, and points downstream, a Municipal Drain or Award Drain, constructed under a predecessor of the Drainage Act, and still the subject of a legally binding By-law? If it is, the cost and legal ramifications are significant. Staff should provide definitive evidence on this, not leave it to members of the public to research the matter.

The City has sought advice from the City’s Municipal Drainage Manager on the status of Carp River.  The City has received or been forwarded requests from various groups regarding this issue, including, but not limited to, City staff, various consultants, the Friends of the Carp River, MNR and MTO and have had recent discussions directly with OMAFRA and MNR.  The City of Ottawa does not have the necessary documentation to support the legal status of the Carp River under the Drainage Act or the Ditches and Watercourses Act.  In order for the Carp River to have legal status as a Municipal Drain under the Drainage Act there would have to exist a valid Engineer's Report, including a plan and profile, as well as a valid by-law.  The City has conducted a thorough search of municipal files (including files of the former municipalities of Goulbourn, Nepean, Kanata, and West Carleton).  In addition, OMAFRA and the AOLS' (Association of Ontario Land Surveyors) have also conducted research on this matter.  These efforts have not been able to produce any pertinent documents that would demonstrate that the Carp River has legal status as a municipal drain.

The City has seen OMFRA Map and the 97-year-old Ontario Court of Appeal decision referring to the Carp River as a drain.  The fact remains that unless someone can produce the necessary documents mentioned above (by-law, engineer's report, plan & profile), it continues to be the City’s position that the watercourse has no legal status as a Municipal Drain under the Drainage Act.  

5. Is a Two-Zone Flood Plain Policy applicable in this case?  A two-zone floodplain policy may only be used if
(a) it doesn’t worsen existing flood elevations
      (b) it doesn’t create any new flood hazards
(c) it doesn’t result in adverse environmental impacts.

   Current plans to narrow the floodplain are expected to result in higher flood elevations, faster water movement carrying more sediment downstream, putting fish habitat at risk.  Even if a two-zone floodplain policy would be acceptable, then mandatory consultation with the MNR Regional Engineer does not appear to have taken place to date.

Representatives from MNR were involved in the Steering Committee of the Carp River Watershed/Subwatershed Study and the MNR Regional Engineer in the Kemptville office has been involved in specific on-going consultation and meetings regarding the Kanata West Class EAs since last October.  

Section 3.1.6 of the Provincial Policy Statement (2005) states:

Further to policy 3.1.5, and except as prohibited in policies 3.1.2 and 3.1.4, development and site alteration may be permitted in those portions of hazardous lands and hazardous sites where the effects and risk to public safety are minor so as to be managed or mitigated in accordance with provincial standards, as determined by the demonstration and achievement of the following:

a)    development and site alterations is carried out in accordance with floodproofing standards, protection works standards and access standards;
b)    vehicles and people have a way of safely entering and exiting the area during times of flooding, erosion and other emergencies;
c)    new hazards are not created and existing hazards are not aggravated; and
d)    no adverse environmental impacts will result.

The analysis that is presently being completed will have to meet these “tests”.


Substantive Concerns

1. The flood modelling contained in the Carp River Watershed/Subwatershed Study was of a preliminary nature and not driven down to the appropriate detail nor did it take into account a number of other projects that will have an impact on Carp water levels.  A comprehensive study needs to be undertaken to assess the cumulative impacts of all projects within the Carp River watershed on water levels.  Projects that would need to be included are the new Campeau Drive and Transitway Bridges, the Terry Fox Drive extension, plans for Hazeldean Road, the Broughton Subdivision, and the channelization of Poole Creek, Feed-mill Creek and the Carp River itself.  As well, the recent redesignation of the Del-Brookfields lands to General Urban Area needs to be taken into account, as over 100 ha of these lands fall within the Carp River Watershed.

The analysis completed in the Carp River Watershed/Subwatershed Study demonstrated that the option of applying the two-zone concept through this reach was worth further investigation.  As described above, a further comprehensive analysis is being completed through the on-going Class EA studies.  The post-development analysis includes all urban land development within the catchment area as depicted on Schedule B - Urban Land Use of the City’s Official Plan as well as the infrastructure and restoration projects identified above.  The Del-Brookfield lands have just been added to the urban area recently through an OMB decision.  It is premature to include these lands in the Kanata West analysis.  The Del-Brookfield development would need to undertake a separate land use planning exercise to support this new urban area.  Through the separate land use planning exercise, municipal infrastructure servicing studies would need to be completed to support the land use plan taking into consideration development downstream.  

2. The Carp River floodplain mappings are out of date (as noted in the Carp Watershed/Subwatershed Study).  Staff has stated that the mappings will not be updated.  Instead, assessment of applications will be based on the updated model results from the analysis by CH2M HILL.  Is this good enough?  Is it serving the public interest?

Typically new topographic mapping is produced as part of a flood plain mapping study.  Based on Provincial standards, a certain number of spot elevations and contour locations on a percentage of maps are checked for accuracy by field surveys. Then topographic information from these maps is used in the backwater model that is assembled.  In this case, as stated above, topographic information that was used in the backwater (HEC-RAS) model was obtained from cross sections surveyed in the field.  This information is probably more accurate than that which would be obtained from topographic maps.

3. If part of the floodplain of the Carp River is to be filled, there must be commensurate compensation for the lost flood water storage capacity.  The MEA Class EA document states that it is not desirable to place fill or structures in the floodplain.  It also requires that if fill and structures are placed in the floodplain, then the loss of storage should be compensated.

Appendix 2 of the MEA Class EA document provides examples of possible site-specific situations and the measures, which might be taken to mitigate the effects identified.  It states that the list is illustrative only and that the proponent must address specific effects during the planning and design process, and document these effects and the appropriate mitigating measures.

The review and analysis being undertaken as part of the Class EAs is considering the flood plain storage issue.  As detailed above, a comprehensive hydraulic backwater analysis is being completed taking into account all post-development changes in reach of the Carp River including the proposed filling of the flood fringe.  This analysis will have to demonstrate that the loss of flood storage by filling the flood fringe without providing compensating storage capacity does not increase the risk to public safety.  If this cannot be demonstrated then other mitigation measures, such as providing compensating flood storage, will have to be implemented.

4. It would not appear that there has been an adequate review of the Species at Risk nor of Significant Fish Habitat within the study area as required by the relevant provincial and federal legislation.  Also, insufficient data have been provided to support the conclusion that there is no pike spawning habitat in the study area.

The City is currently addressing these issues in consultation with the Ministry of Natural Resources and Department of Fisheries and Ocean.  Although no pike were found spawning during the 2005 field surveys, the restoration work for the Carp River and its tributaries has been planned to include habitat for pike species.  

5. How does the City respond to the serious concerns raised by MTO in their letter of August 31, 2005 regarding Highway 417?

The August 31, 2005 MTO letter contains comments with respect to the Carp River Watershed/Subwatershed Study.  Their letter essentially concludes by stating that further analysis is required.  The Kanata West Class EAs have undertaken further analysis for both existing and post development conditions as recommended in the Carp River Watershed/Subwatershed study.  MTO staff is currently reviewing this analysis as it relates to the Highway 417 structure.  As with all Provincial ministries, MTO staff has been consulted on the Kanata West Class EAs since last fall.

6. Do the proposed undertakings provide for sufficient natural and/or constructed settling and/or filtering elements to mitigate against the anticipated large increases in sediment, salt, nutrients, automotive wastes, pesticides, etc.?  

The Carp River Watershed/Subwatershed Study includes options regarding stormwater management facilities for development in the Kanata West area.  These facilities are designed to address potential water quality impacts with development.  The stormwater management measures are being refined through the Kanata West Master Servicing Plan and detailed design will occur through the planning process for the Kanata West area.

7. Is there a guarantee that the planting of almost 50,000 seedlings along the River at various degraded sites over the last eight years will not be undone by flooding due to infill upstream?  Similarly, there is concern that a major ($1.5M) restoration project for the 1.5 km portion just above the Village of Carp may need to be redesigned if flow levels will change.

As stated above, the analysis to assess potential impacts with the proposed development in the upper watershed has been extended downstream of Richardson Side Road to the Village of Carp.  This analysis will have to demonstrate that no negative impacts will result from the upstream proposals.  This area includes the proposed location of the Friends of the Carp restoration project.  To our knowledge, there are no detailed plans, at this time, for the proposed restoration project and the Friends of the Carp have had limited consultation with Mississippi Valley Conservation and the Provincial and Federal ministries.  Without further plans and drawings for the proposed restoration project it is impossible to specifically include the proposal in the analysis.  When more details of their proposal become available the hydraulic model that has been assembled in support of the various EA documents can be used and modified to further assess the proposed design.