To City Council, The reply by Mr.

Moser to my questions below should be of concern to Council for a variety of reasons:

1. Relying on a homeowners single sump pump to drain potentially millions of litres of water in Beaver Ponds flooded condition is hardly effective mitigation for the fact that KNL has created a flood risk for at least one home. Given that every storm sewer in the area drains back into Beaver Pond, where does the City expect the water from this trusty sump pump to go? You cannot bail out a basement by emptying the water back into the source that is flooding the basement any more than you can bail a boat by emptying the water back into the same boat. KNL created this mess and should be held responsible for fixing it. Council should ask why Mr. Moser is not holding KNL responsible by requiring that they immediately implement mitigation measures within their existing development in Phases 1 6.

2. While it is commendable that the City has recognized the impact of climate change and increased the Ottawa Storm Design Guidelines, why is this information not available to the public? The lack of disclosure unnecessarily impedes the ability of Ottawas citizens to review and participate in decisions regarding storm water management and is inconsistent with the Citys stated Public Participation Policy. Public access to documents is easy via the Internet and there are no technical or cost barriers to overcome in making all city guidelines and bulletins freely available to the public.

3. It might be easier to agree with Mr. Mosers assertion that the Citys position was based on three separate professional opinions if one of them had been the opinion of a professional engineer. Flooding is a public safety hazard and the Professional Engineers Act requires that all matters concerning public safety be conducted under the auspices of a professional engineer. Is Mr. Moser acting in contravention of this law? Council should be very disturbed that Mr. Moser appears to be comfortable with relying on non-engineers to provide technical guidance on which schedule should be followed in an MEA Class EA process that is governed by the Municipal Engineers Association. Given that this process is NOT governed by the Professional Planners Institute, how is it appropriate for Mr. Moser to rely on consultation with professional planners and not professional engineers?

4. It appears that Mr. Moser may be suppressing the release of the engineering opinions that were provided to the City in this matter. This is not an isolated incident, but should be seen in the larger context of the FOI Report tabled at the Finance and Economic Development Committee on 3 April 2012 that documents an alarming increase in the need for MFIPPA requests to obtain information that should otherwise be accessible to the public. Council should direct all departments to be more transparent in the release of information to the public and specifically the release of these documents that we have waited for over 90 days: June 13, 2008 CH2MHill letter to the City

Nov 5, 2008 MoE letter to the City June 10, 2011 AECOM presentation June 21, 2011 Darlene Conway letter opinion Sept 2011 MoE District Engineer Charles Goulet email or letter opinion

5. It is evident from other documents that all ALL these engineers agree that a Schedule C Class EA is in fact required. We are also aware from our conversation with the MoE that the MoE at the outset of the EA confirmed that a Schedule C process is appropriate. MoE also states that they will support ANY decision by the City because it is the Citys responsibility to make the right decision due to the fact that the Class EA process is a proponent-driven process in which the City is the proponent. Some might consider it misleading for Mr. Moser to assert that the MoE confirms the Citys decision when in fact the MoE is deferring to the City as the decision-making administrative authority. Is Council comfortable that its city managers appear to be relying only on information that is supportive of their decisions to the point of not even disclosing that there are more-qualified, dissenting views? Should Council and public not be aware of all information concerning matters of public safety?

6. The MEA Class EA process is very clear on the fact that whenever there is conflicting guidance over which schedule should be followed, the more restrictive schedule should be used. It does not appear that Mr. Moser followed either the MCEA or the Code of Conduct for Class Environmental Assessments (attached) in reaching his decision. Had he done so, (i) there would have been an attempt at Aboriginal and other Public Consultation prior to his decision to abandon the Class C EA, (ii) the terms of reference of the Schedule C EA would have been broadened to encompass all impacts on the environment including specifically the impact on Species-At-Risk, (iii) even in a scenario in which KNL is designated as a proponent Mr. Moser would have ensured that Ontario Regulation 345/93 (attached) was followed which requires them to follow a Schedule C process. Furthermore, where is the delegated authority that enables staff to rescind a Notice of Commencement once public notice has been served? Council should question why its managers are not following best-practices in the conduct of Environmental Assessments and ask on what lawful authority Mr. Moser acted to rescind a Notice of Commencement without prior approval by the Environment Committee.

7. The recent discovery that the KNL lands are habitat for the largest known population of Blandings Turtle in Ottawa, a population that extends throughout the South March Highlands (including KNLs lands), is further reason why a Schedule C EA is required for the SWM Master Plan as well as an Addendum for the EA for Goulbourn Forced Road. Council should consider how, without a defined Schedule C EA process to follow, the City will comply with its responsibility to establish a clear understanding of the impact of proposed development on Species-at-Risk and what mitigation is possible in light of:

a. The City is legally bound by the Ontario Endangered Species Act and consequently has a fiduciary duty to ensure the protection of endangered and threatened species.

b. A variety of City documents state the fact that there are multiple endangered and threatened species in the area of the proposed KNL development, including: Blandings Turtle, American Ginseng, Western Chorus Frog, Whip-poor-will, Bobolink, Butternut, and others.

c. Any development by KNL will impact species-at-risk in both the developed area and in the City-owned lands adjacent to them. KNL clearly has a responsibility to mitigate this impact but so does the City.

d. As the approval authority under the Planning Act, the City cannot escape its legal responsibility for assuring that any and all approvals of Conditions of Draft Subdivision Approval are consistent with the Species-at-Risk Act of Ontario (SARO). Therefore the City also has a responsibility to mitigate this (unknown) impact.

e. A recent Federal Court of Appeal Judgement (2012 FCA 40) ruled that an administrative authority (in this case the City) has no discretionary power in limiting protection of critical habitat when the applicable legislation (in this case SARO) mandates it, and furthermore that it is unlawful not to protect critical habitat.

f. Since mandatory habitat protection under SARO occurs next year, the City is obligated to consider this inevitability in any decision this year that has a foreseeable affect next year. This obligation was emphasized to the public by the City at the public meeting on the SMH held in March.

g. Although the City may have entered into a past contracts with KNL (40% Agreement, Draft Approval of Subdivision) enabling development in the area, the City is legally on the hook for assuring habitat protection for Species at Risk a responsibility that operates as Force Majeure over any private contract. Development in the South March Highlands is NOT a foregone conclusion as the 40% Agreement may turn out to be unenforceable due to Force Majeure requiring the City to comply with SARO.

In summary, the decision process followed by Mr. Moser in this matter appears to be both nontransparent and flawed in such an egregious way as to generate serious issues for City Council and its Mayor.

It should be easy for Mayor Watson to implement a more transparent municipality given that he campaigned on this principle prior to his election. The remaining issues regarding the lack of a Class C EA for which the City is proponent, and the Citys responsibilities under SARO in the absence of a Class C EA can be resolved by Council overruling Mr. Moser who appears to have acted without delegated authority in this matter. Council may also wish to improve the decision-making process around EAs so that such mistakes are avoided in future. With Fortitude, Paul Renaud South March Highlands Carp River Conservation Inc.