AREAS OF CONFLICT: 
ROPA-5, WITH THE REGIONAL OFFICIAL PLAN

     1.

10.3.1 (1)  "To safeguard the quality and quantity of groundwater in the rural area."

The proposed pipeline implementation does not conform to this objective of the plan in that 46.1 MILLION GALLONS OF WATER PER YEAR (575 m³ /Day) will be unnecessarily diverted out of the Jock River Basin. A local wastewater treatment facility producing highly treated non-toxic effluent would maintain the water within the basin, in conformance with this Plan objective.

     2.

10.3.1 (2)  "To ensure that rural development can be supported by an adequate supply of potable water."

The proposed pipeline implementation does not conform to this objective of the Plan in that the unnecessary diversion from the Jock River basin, will inevitably impact the groundwater supply which is the potable water source for the communities of Munster, Richmond and the surrounding rural areas.

     3.

10.3.1 (7)  "To ensure a sufficient quantity of potable water in communal systems to meet the priority needs of existing and future generations."

5.2.2 (1.) Council shall: Undertake an aquifer management study to address existing groundwater quality and quantity, potential threats to groundwater, and the issues associated with a change in groundwater quality and quantity. The study will identify the means to acquire regular, reliable data for qroundwater monitoring and a means of protecting groundwater for long-term use. Particular attention will be placed on the protection of communal water supplies.

The Rideau Valley Conservation Authority (RVCA) noted in its Watershed Report that a "cone of depression" exists in the aquifers of both Munster and Richmond. This suggests a "draw-down" of the potable water supply which has yet to be delineated. No studies have been done to determine what further threat to the potable water needs for future generations is posed by a proposed pipeline's diversion of 46.1 million gallons of water per year, from the Jock River Basin. This diversion therefore works against the objectives of the Plan, "to ensure a sufficient quantity of potable water in communal systems to meet the priority needs of existing and future generations".

One wonders, since there are viable, (lower cost) alternatives to risking the long-term groundwater supplies (including shallow wells in the area), why institute any measures which may alter the groundwater characteristics, without doing and exhaustive study? Why institute measures with ANY unknown potential risks,  when safe, RISK-FREE ALTERNATIVES EXIST?  

(See also, ROP Policy: 1.4. (8): "Preserve the integrity of natural systems by directing land use and development in a way that maintains ecosystem functions over time.")

The MISSION STATEMENT of the Water Environment Protection Division of the RMOC is:

             "The mission of the Division is to provide leadership in the protection of the water environment and model behaviour reflecting an eco-system approach to the cost-effective delivery of our services."

     4.

10.3.1 (4)  "To ensure the safe and continued operation of any communal services in the rural area."

1.4. (12.)  To: "Protect people from natural and human-made hazards."

A "communal" wastewater on-site treatment plant, for Munster, conforms to the Regional Official Plan and therefore does not require ROPA-5. On-site "communal systems" are both capital cost effective, operation and maintenance cost-effective, and above all, MOE-approved as "safe". Forcemains such as the proposed Munster pipeline (which would be one of the longest in Ontario), have a level of risk that is unacceptable, given that there are viable on-site alternatives, which do not pose such risk. (The RMOC states that there is, on average, about one forcemain break per year, throughout the Region. The Richmond forcemain has broken three times in recent years: May 28, 1990, July 5, 1995, and September 4, 1998. The latest break, leaked 780 m³ in a 12-hour period.)**

The risk to shallow wells, (in porous soils) the whole length of the pipeline, and within the Village of Richmond, is completely unnecessary.

     5.

10.3.1 (10)  "To minimise wastewater system overflows to the extent practical and in consideration of the current Ministry of Environment and Energy policies."

Since the pipeline proposed for Munster requires a lagoon cell to store raw sewage flows during peak flow periods, the proposed solution can only be seen to perpetuate the same environmental problems it was intended to correct.

     6.

10.3.1 (11)  "To minimise property damage and risks to public and overall environmental health."

The pipeline wastewater transfer option, as proposed under ROPA 5, "maximizes" rather than "minimizes" the potential for property damage, counter to the Plan provision: 10.3.1.(11). In comparison, a readily available "at source" wastewater treatment solution clearly addresses the Plan objective "to minimize property damage".

The environmental health of the Richmond Fen would be at risk, unnecessarily.

 (Ref.: the forcemain breaks, noted in Matrix # 4, above.)

           7.

10.3.1 (12)  "To implement pollution prevention measures at sources where practical."

This fundamental objective of the Plan had been disregarded, with the proposed pipeline transfer option, as recommended under ROPA 5. Viable "at source" wastewater treatment alternatives have been suppressed and misrepresented to the public, under the Region's own wastewater treatment evaluation, which lead to the erroneous impression of a need to amend the Official Plan to implement a wastewater "transfer" rather than the "treatment" solution originally directed by Regional Council (Motion No. 72 dated March 11, 1998).

     8.

10.3.7 "Public Communal or Central Services to Remedy a Health Problem"

(1.)    Consider an amendment to Schedule H and Table 13 or Table 14 below, where a public health problem arises and Council determines that the installation of Regional water and/or wastewater services …"

2.4.1. (10) Policies. …"Council shall: Not extend central services to the rural area except in exceptional circumstances to address a public health issue."

The situation in Munster Hamlet (past and present) with the faulty lagoon and spray irrigation system is clearly an "environmental problem" rather than one of "public health". The proposed pipeline wastewater transfer option, as proposed under ROPA 5, clearly fails the fundamental test for an amendment of Schedule H of the Plan, as a public health problem does not exist.

The largest potential health problem, in fact, is presented by the potential for a raw sewage pipeline break in a populated or recreational area (such as the Richmond fen), or from continuation of the open lagoons in close proximity to Munster residences. Both unnecessary health risks are presented by the forcemain / lagoon combination, and are preventable with on-site treatment.

There is no (obvious) rational explanation for subjecting residents to this exposure (however small it may or may not be), along with causing the added delays, caused by ROPA-5, and the increased cost associated with the pipeline and the delays (i.e.: 3 winters of hauling sewage, at $650,000 per year).

Re: 2.4.1. (10): The main, potential "health issue" that could relate to this ROP Policy, would be created by the lagoon, itself, which is a required component for the pipeline feasibility. However, a lagoon is NOT needed for the on-site treatment option. That would also eliminate the need for a pipeline …as well as ROPA-5

     9.

10.3.8 "Public Communal or Central Services on a Large Scale"

Council shall:

a.)      reflect locally-developed community goals and objectives;

b.)     be based on Council's objectives for communal services or central services…

1.6 (10) "When considering amendments to this plan, Council shall have regard, among other things, to the following criteria:

a.)      the impact of the proposed change on the achievement of Council's goals, objectives and policies expressed in this Plan."

Residents of Munster, through the Munster Community Association, requested a review of new technology that would eliminate the long-standing, environmentally problematic and socially offensive lagoons. Goulbourn's Mayor, Janet Stavinga, requested that Regional Council investigate new treatment technologies. Regional Council (on March 11, 1998), passed a motion stating that: "proponents of wastewater treatment facilities who can meet the requirements of improving the level of treatment; can guarantee to meet the compliance schedule; and can guarantee its price, be allowed to submit a proposal for the treatment of wastewater for the Munster Hamlet lagoon system". A pipeline was not asked for by the residents on Munster, the Council of Goulbourn, Regional Council's motion, or the subsequent Request for Proposals (RFP), and therefore does not conform to the Regional Official Plan (ROP). A petition in Munster, dated February 23, 1998, showed over 98% support for Mayor Stavinga's request that Regional Council look at the advanced technology solutions, proposed to them.

The proposed non-compliant pipeline, with a lagoon, is considerably less compliant with the "community goals and objectives" and, thus, with the ROP. (See February, 1998 Petition by Munster residents, and RMOC Chair, Chiarelli's response.)

Note that ROP Policy: 1.6.(10.a), (see left), stipulates that "When considering amendments to this Plan, Council shall have regard (…to) the objectives and policies expressed in this Plan" In other words …the Regional Official plan amendments should not contradict the Regional Official plan, itself.

ROPA-5  contradicts the plan in every relevant area, including: 1.6.(10, 10.3.8 (a & b), 10.3.1.(12),

   10.

10.3.7  Council shall: (2.)  Permit development within designated Villages up to the capacity shown in Table 13. …No Official Plan amendment will be required to amend the servicing capacity on Tables 13 and 14 if additional capacity can be demonstrated."

Table 13 under section 10.3.7 of the Official Plan indicates an allocation of 2800 dwelling units for the Village of Richmond, and 480 dwelling units for Munster. Based on Section 10.3.7 of the ROP, it can be concluded that the available capacity in Richmond is allocated for Richmond only, and the Munster wastewater flow, which represents 17% of the ultimate Richmond capacity (40% of usage), would inevitably reduce the capacity for Richmond, as currently allocated in the ROP.

The 1996 ESR (by Totten Sims Hubicki) concluded that no sewer capacity was available in Richmond to accept Munster's sewage flow and thus rejected this option. Has MOE's standard of per capita sewage output been lowered for this application?

It is difficult to see how the re-direction of Munster's sewage flow to an already over-taxed system in Richmond, will not worsen the situation, and impact sewage capacity in Richmond, both immediately and long term.

   11.

4.1.2. (8.) "Support innovative solutions to reduce costs of development, such as alternative development standards, and pilot projects for new technologies."

The Regional Council motion, of March 11, 1998, conforms precisely to the ROP, in its request for new, innovative, wastewater treatment technologies, that could also reduce costs. This was not what followed, however.

   12.

4.1.2. (16.) "Minimise the costs of Regional services and infrastructure and compare those costs with the costs of other metropolitan areas."

The winning RFP-compliant technology bid a guaranteed price of $3.1-Million. The pipeline proposal, which does not conform to either the RFP or the ROP, has not been able to match the low bidder in either capital cost or O&M costs.
(See #15, for Pipeline cost of: $12,494,000.)

Individuals on the Public Liaison Committee urged the Region's consultants, to compare the costs of the Niagara system (which has been operating satisfactorily for more than 10 years, and compares with the low Munster bidder. This was never done.

   13.

1.4 (2.)  "Maintain the desirable characteristics and integrity of established communities in the urban and rural areas of Ottawa-Carleton.

1.4. (8) Preserve the integrity of natural systems by directing land use development in a way that maintains ecosystem functions over time."

Munster is a proud, closely-knit community that has a pleasant rural quality, making it a positive environment for young, growing families. One "blight" on the community is the open, smelly, fly-ridden sewage lagoons adjacent to the development. Residents have tolerated it as a "necessary evil," because there were no, known, viable alternatives. The situation was exacerbated, by years of neglect, and poor stewardship, by the Region. The TSH-ESR (1996) relates that groundhogs dug burrows in the berms, some valves and measuring devices became defective, and were poorly labelled. Lagoons over-topped the berms on a few occasions, and an ongoing loss of over 60% of the influent sewage was documented in the report. As it became apparent that something had to be done, residents insisted upon removal of the lagoons. While, onsite, mechanical treatment does NOT require any lagoons (which is what the community wanted), the pipeline option DOES require a lagoon. (This also conflicts with ROP Plan provision: 10.3.8 (a) concerning "Community goals and objectives".)

   14.

..

c  

2.4.1  Policies  (6.) "The amendment shall be supported by studies which address the following matters: (f) impact on resource areas and the natural environment."

2. "REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT

 STRATEGY" Re: "Environment: By encouraging …protection of sensitive natural areas.

1.6. (5.) "HOW WILL THE PLAN BE IMPLEMENTED?" …Other public utility and municipal services and facilities are permitted in all land use designations on Schedules A and B, except in Natural Environmental Areas, Significant Wetlands

…or Flood Plains …provided that: a) such use is necessary in the area, that it can be made compatible with its surroundings and that adequate measures are taken to ensure land use compatibility.

5.5.2. (3) (See right):

5.5.2. (4) (See right):

Re: 2.4.1. (6.f) The Region's consultant (CRA) stated at the public meetings that it would do a wetland study on the Richmond fen, because it is a provincially significant wetland. CRA then avoided doing the study because they said that it was not necessary, because they were putting the pipe into road corridor ---which is really a non-wetland space "between two wetlands".

Since the road is a shallow  "pad" on top of the wetland, (with the adequate number of culverts to effect natural surface flows). it does not disrupt the sub-surface water flows the way a pipeline, dug to approximately an 8-foot depth will potentially cause. The point being made, is rather than use semantics, to trick the public on their reasons for not doing the proper wetland "due diligence", why not avoid the risk entirely, by going with on-site treatment, (eliminating the need for ROPA-5). 

Re: 2.: Running a raw, untreated, sewage pipeline through the "Richmond fen" (one of the largest fens in Eastern Ontario), does NOT constitute "protection to sensitive natural areas", when it is NOT necessary. Even though the "mitigation measures" are deemed adequate by authorities ---as long as the pipeline does not break--- it constitutes, none-the-less, an unnessary risk of breakage by its presence, when on-site treatment would eliminate both the risk and the need for ROPA-5. Imagine the consequences of a 780 m³ spill (see # 6, above), caused by a break occurring in the Richmond fen!

This is one of the reasons that ROP provision 10.3.1 (12) was put in place:  "To implement pollution prevention measures at source where practical ". (See Matrix Item #7, above.)

5.5.2. (3) states: "When considering other developmental proposals involving lands within 120 meters of a Significant Wetland south and east of the Canadian shield, require a full site Wetlands Impact Study unless a comprehensive Wetlands Impact study has been prepared, in which case a scoped site Wetlands Impact Study may be sufficient." 

Locating the pipeline in the road easement, through the Richmond Fen, still places it within the 120 meters, requiring a full Wetlands Impact Study. This study was promised at the public meeting in Munster, and has NOT been done.

5.5.2. (4) states: "Ensure that local municipalities require a Wetlands Impact Study or its equivalent when they review and approve or adopt local Official Plan Amendments, zoning by-laws, site plans and consents to sever."

According to this provision in the ROP, any Amendment to the Plan cannot be fulfilled, until the Wetlands Impact Study is completed. The Study has not been executed to date. 

   15.

COST-related references to the ROP:

2.2      "…the need to deliver services more efficiently require that RMOC use its limited resources wisely."

2.3  (4)  "To minimise the Regional and local municipal lifecycle costs (capital, operating and maintenance) of piped and transportation services."

(See also: 4.1.2.(16.), in Matrix #12, above.)

For more than 20 years, Munster residents have suffered RMOC mismanagement of the leaking lagoons. They have experienced long delays, attempting to have the lagoons replaced with a long-term solution that is efficient, clean and cost-effective. (This should not have been difficult, under several Provisions of the Regional Official Plan. [To name a few: 1.4. (12), 10.3.1 (4), 10.3.8 (a), 1.4 (2), and 10.3.1 (12)].

Reference to  ROP Policy 2.2 (see left), should be evaluated when considering the following COST COMPARISON:

Re: 2.3.(4). When ON-SITE wastewater treatment servicing can be done for less capital and O&M cost than for a pipeline, the best way to minimise the cost (capital and O&M) of piped services, is NOT to put them in. The Munster situation is a model case of where this applies, thus, eliminating the need for ROPA-5.

   16.

1.6. (10) "When considering amendments to this Plan, Council shall have regard, among oth
er things, to the following criteria:

a.)     [See Matrix Item #9, above]

b.)     the need for the proposed change…

c.)      the effect of the proposed change on the need for Regional services and facilities."

Also see 2.4.1 (10), above (in Matrix # 8.)

It has been shown throughout this Matrix that the ROPA-5 does NOT fulfil the Regional Official Plan's regard for "NEED". There is obviously NO viability or justification for "need" of a pipeline, when an on-site treatment plant meets ALL of the ROP requirements of cost efficiency (2.2, 2.3.(4)), environmental compliance (5.5.2.(3&4)) and benefit (5.2.2.(1), 10.3.1.(1), 10.3.1(10 & 11)), treatment at source preference (10.3.1.(12)), fulfilment of Council's direction (10.3.8.(b)), and of Community goals and objectives to eliminate the lagoons (10.3.8.(a))…. to name a few.

Re: 1.6. (10.c): The "effect" of the proposed change, would be to introduce the already described, needless risks to the Richmond fen, the needless removal of water from the Muster groundwater supply, and the Jock River fish habitat during the dry summer, water shortfall periods; to needlessly increase the tax burden on Regional ratepayers, to counteract the goal of Munster residents ---to eliminate the lagoon(s) in their community---, to contravene Regional Council's motion, to unnecessarily extend the implementation time (by accepting non-compliant pipeline bids, and other anomalies), …to name a few.

   17.

1.6. (11) "In addition to policy 10 above, when considering amendments which affect the use of a specific site or sites, Council should consider:

a.)      whether there is a need to add to the site or sites to the lands already designated for the proposed use; (Appeal 20)

b.)     the physical suitability of the land for the proposed use."

 a.)      The pipeline option imposes an unwarranted "need to add to the site or sites to the lands already designated for the proposed purpose". There would be the unwarranted "necessity" to increase the existing "footprint" for sewage conveyance purposes, resulting in the tying up more than a 15-Acre service corridor for the pipeline.

       However, there is NO need for ROPA-5, due to the availability of other, less expensive on-site treatment technologies, which occupy a much smaller footprint, entirely within the area designated for wastewater treatment …without the "need" to add to the lands already designated, which meet ALL of Regional Council's criteria for improved level of treatment, guaranteeing to meet the compliance schedule, and guaranteeing the cost. Use of on-site treatment would have permitted an improved the level of treatment (to 1/30^th the level of Phosphorus, for example), would have met the compliance schedule, and guaranteed the cost.

b.)     The current ROPA-5 proposal calls for a pipeline/sewage lagoon combination. This type of pipeline is not feasible without the lagoon. The Totten Sims Hubickie ESR (1996) documented several concerns regarding the history of the Munster  lagoons, especially in the area of severe neglect, and the tendency for the lagoons to leak into the sub-surface fractured rock.

       (Engineering documentation in the ESR, reported 60% leakage of the lagoon contents, on an ongoing basis). The residents of Munster wanted the lagoons eliminated for the above, and other reasons. (See also, Matrix #9, about the necessity for the ROP to reflect "community goals and objectives".) (See "What Munster Residents Asked For", on Home Page)