Thank you for your prompt reply Mr. Moser.

It is regrettable that you appear to have been misinformed regarding the nature of EAs in Ontario. A full EA in fact refers to an individual EA a good example of one of these is the Individual EA currently being conducted by Waste Management for the expansion of the Carp Landfill. Individual EAs are for a single type of undertaking while all Schedules of Municipal Class EAs are streamlined, abbreviated format EAs intended to simplify the assessment process for a class of commonly performed EAs by municipalities. We suggest that you refer to the Introduction in the attached Code of Practice for Class EAs for further clarification.

According to the attached, one of the benefits to following the Class process is that proponents significantly

reduce the administrative timelines for the review and approval of projects undertaken on a frequent basis . At the completion of a Class EA, interested parties may petition the Minister of Environment to request a Part II Order
which, if granted, results in a full Individual EA being required. So only if a Part II Order is granted does a Schedule C, or any other Class EA, become a full EA.

Other than observing that none of the consultant opinions regarding the engineering process that is to be followed were provided by Professional Engineers, we will reserve further reply on their opinions until you have provided a full copy of those documents to us. We trust that this information, as well as a copy of your letter to the MoE will be fully and promptly disclosed since the City has already disclosed this information with the MoE and because this information is apparently being used to suppress further public disclosure. Please refer to Section 3.2.3 in the attached for further guidance on the importance of Openness and Transparency in the Class EA process. Also attached is the Code of Practice on Consultation in the EA Process that clearly establishes that all documents submitted to the MoE form part of the public record and is to be disclosed to the public (page 10).

While we do not concede that the opinions provided by non-professional engineers are correct, even if they were, the rationale you outlined for predicating the assertion that the existing Schedule C EA can be downgraded to a Schedule A EA appears to be in conflict with the explicit guidance provided in Section 8.1 of the attached Code of Practice: It

is important to recognize that there should be flexibility within a process to be responsive to specific project complexity. For example, while a project may be on a schedule that is preapproved without any further assessment required and there is significant public interest in the project or there is the potential for significant negative environmental effects, a proponent may find it prudent to subject the project to some higher level of investigation in order to assess alternatives, environmental effects and public, Aboriginal communities and government agency issues and concerns. While this is not a requirement, a proponent may wish to do this in order to avoid significant concerns at the end of the planning process. [emphasis added]
We observe that any flooding of peoples homes (as verified by the Citys own studies) would be readily interpreted by most reasonable persons as having a potential for significant negative effects.

We also observe that the determination of which schedule to follow is clearly proscribed by the attached Appendix from the MCEA Class Process which identifies that one of the primary basis for escalation of schedule is the extent of impact and complexity that the proposed undertaking may have. Therefore even if one were to start with a basic Schedule A, the process would be escalated to a Schedule B or C based on impact and complexity alone.

Finally, there is the unavoidable fact that KNLs undertaking matches several of the criteria identified on page 12 of the attached Appendix as requiring a Schedule C:

It pertains to the construction of a new sewage system; It pertains to expanding the current rated capacity of the existing Kizell & Beaver Pond facilties; To prevent flooding, it will need to establish new lagoons to detain water during a heavy storm; Construction of a sewer for the purpose of diverting flows from one watercourse to another specifically surface water flows.

Depending on the mitigation measures yet to be identified in the EA process, it is also highly likely to need to construct new dams or weirs to prevent erosion in Kizell Drain due to the massively increased water flow.

Section 4.1.1 of the attached Code of Practice also explains why consultation with Aboriginal communities is required under any EA Class process. This section explains very clearly that aboriginal communities must be engaged when framing the terms of reference for the EA (which inherently includes any decision regarding a change in the Schedule that governs those terms of reference). Since no treaty exists with the Algonquin First Nation, this means that the City is obligated to consult with ALL aboriginal communities that self-identify themselves as interested parties and not just selected bands. There is no evidence that the City complied with this requirement prior to notifying the MoE of the change in Schedule process.

Section 4.3 of the attached Code of Practice also clearly spells out the need to engage the general public and other interested parties when establishing the terms of reference for a class EA. Changing the terms of reference behind the back of the general public is hardly consistent with the Code of Practice. Changing the class process to be followed, or changing the proponency of an EA, is a change to the Terms of Reference. As a registered interested party in this EA, we can attest that we were NOT consulted prior to your letter to the MoE in February that attempts to change the Schedule for the EA.

Section 6.2.5 is very prescriptive about the requirement for public consultation when changing the process being followed for a Class EA. Since changing the Schedule being followed removes entire activities from the process, this is very clearly a major amendment: A

major amendment could include the removal of certain project activities from the class environmental assessment, moving project activities into a category where a lower level of assessment is required or the inclusion of a new group of project activities.

Section 6.2.8 also identifies the need for Federal Consultation on EAs that could impact Federal Lands. Since one of the riparian landowners affected by KNLs proposed water diversion is the National Capital Commission, any change to the EA must also engage the NCC prior to the decision being made. There is no evidence to suggest that this was done prior to the Feb notice sent to the MoE.

All of the above illustrates our point why non-qualified persons should not be meddling in the selection of which engineering process to use especially when the District Engineer for the MoE and your own Lead Engineer on the EA have already determined that a Schedule C process is the most appropriate engineering process to be followed. Perhaps you were unaware of the fact that the MCEA Class EA is an engineering process established by the Municipal Engineers Association for use by Professional Engineers who are properly trained to interpret and follow its guidance in fulfilling their professional obligations under the EA Act.

Notwithstanding your observation that the Planning Act may provide that, Draft Approval of a plan of subdivision is a statement that the subdivision can proceed to registration and development subject to compliance with the conditions imposed and any other applicable processes required by law., you appear to have overlooked the glaringly obvious fact that, by violating its CoA, KNL is NOT in compliance with the conditions imposed. The Citys own Phase 1 results of the EA prove this beyond any shadow of doubt. Therefore any invocation of integration provisions based on an assumption of compliant development is premature at best.

In summary, it appears clear that the City did not follow the Code of Practice in changing the Schedule for the Class EA. Had you done so you would have (a) respected the professional guidance of licensed and qualified engineers, and (b) engaged ALL of the stakeholders involved and not just the developer who appears to be the sole beneficiary of that dubious decision. We look forward to receiving all documentation that rightfully should have been disclosed by the open and transparent process that should have occurred. Meanwhile, please also be advised that if the City persists in pursuing this travesty that you can be assured of a Part II Order Request that will inevitably require the City to do the right thing by conducting a comprehensive EA in the full sunlight of public engagement. With Fortitude, Paul Renaud South March Highlands Carp River Conservation Inc.

From: Marier, Lise [mailto:Lise.Marier@ottawa.ca] On Behalf Of Moser, John Sent: March-19-12 5:18 PM To: 'paul@renaud.ca' Cc: Watson, Jim (Mayor); 'gordhenderson@gmail.com'; 'mattmuirhead@ymail.com'; Conway, Darlene; Schepers, Nancy; Curry, John (Stittsville News); 'Alistair.Steele@CBC.CA'; Mueller, Laura (Ottawa This Week); Reevely, David (Ottawa Citizen); CFRA; 'news@ctv.ca'; Marc, Timothy C; 'sandra.candow@nccccn.ca'; 'charles.goulet@ontario.ca'; Herweyer, Don; 'jborra@globeandmail.com'; 'Peter.G.Taylor@ontario.ca'; 'mcraig@mvc.on.ca'; Chiarelli, Rick; Chernushenko, David; Deans, Diane; Holmes, Diane; Thompson, Doug; El-Chantiry, Eli; Harder, Jan; Hobbs, Katherine; Hubley, Allan; Hume, Peter E; Egli, Keith; McRae, Maria; Fleury, Mathieu; Monette, Bob; Clark, Peter D; Qadri, Shad; Bloess, Rainer; Moffatt, Scott; Blais, Stephen; Desroches, Steve; Taylor, Mark; Tierney, Timothy; Wilkinson, Marianne Subject: Class Environmental Assessment - Storm Water Facilities - Kanata
Good afternoon Mr. Renaud, I am writing in response to your correspondence of March 16, 2012 to Mayor Watson. The City of Ottawa has acted in accordance with the Environmental Assessment process and the Environmental Assessment Act in all instances related to the matters that you raise. A summary follows: The KNL plan of subdivision has received draft approval from the Ontario Municipal Board. Draft Approval of a plan of subdivision is a statement that the subdivision can proceed to registration and development subject to compliance with the conditions imposed and any other applicable processes required by law. With respect to the question of stormwater, it was the Citys initial understanding that as the stormwater approach for the subdivision would lead water that normally feeds into Shirleys Brook instead finding its way ultimately through Watts Creek to the Ottawa River that a Schedule C Environmental Assessment (commonly known as a full environmental assessment) would be required under the Class Environmental Assessment process. The developer requested that the City move forward with this Environmental Assessment. In June and July, 2011, the City received two opinions by consultants retained by the developer that questioned the need for a Schedule C Environmental Assessment. They advanced the opinion that the stormwater facilities were not a Schedule C activity but in fact a Schedule A activity (deemed approved), falling within the following: Item 17-Construction of stormwater management facilities which are required as a condition of approval on a consent, site plan, plan of subdivision or condominium which will come into effect under the Planning Act prior to the construction of the facility. In light of these opinions, the City sought out a consultant to provide an independent review. The consultants conclusions were that the developer was the proponent of the works and that the works fell within Schedule A to the Municipal Class Environmental Assessment document as the stormwater management facilities were a condition of approval of the draft plan of subdivision under the Planning Act. All of these opinions were forwarded to the MOE for their comment. While under the Municipal Class Environmental Assessment, the proponent has the primary role of determining under which schedule proposed works fall, the Ministry of the Environment did provide its views to the City by way of a letter dated December 21, 2011 agreeing with the assessment of the consultant for the City, that the stormwater facilities required as a condition of development fall within Schedule A. John L. Moser