However, unknown to GEAC, although it had adopted this resolution, Goulbourn’s council had other plans for the RCA. At GEAC’s 5 August 1997 meeting, Councillor Steven Lewis had asked if the RCAMP would allow the use of the Lagoons during emergency hundred year floods. He was told that this would not be a problem. At the 19 August council meeting at which the RCAMP was adopted, the question was again raised: Could the Lagoons still be used for the storage of sewage in an emergency? Council was told that nothing in the plan absolutely precludes it. Nothing further was said on the matter. GEAC was not told that the Richmond Lagoons had already been identified as an inexpensive way to solve continued problems with the Richmond sanitary sewer. On a number of occasions significant wet weather conditions had led to infiltration of surface and groundwater into the Richmond sewer system, which had exceeded the capacity of the Richmond pumping station. It was known that since 1993, when detailed data collection at the pumping station began, there had been three sewage bypasses to the Jock River. The last had occurred on 7 April 1997, only five months before the RCAMP was adopted. Although there was not sufficient data to provide a statistically significant estimate, this suggested that the Lagoons might have to be used not every hundred years, but every two or three years. Moreover, RMOC also wanted to use them to deal with breaks in the forcemain and maintenance, which would further increase the frequency of use. With the support of Goulbourn’s mayor, RMOC began a Class Environmental Assessment (EA) in January 1998 to justify these uses of the Lagoons. The product of this assessment was to be the Richmond Pumping Station Forcemain Study (RPSFS). The request for proposals was sent out on 3 December 1997. Connelly McManus Engineering (CME) was hired, and began drafting the RPSFS in January 1998.

Although it had been working for Goulbourn on the RCAMP for over four years, GEAC only learned of the RPSFS in March 1998 from the local papers. Inclusion of GEAC within the Class EA process did not greatly improve as the study progressed. The first draft of the RPSFS was received by the Goulbourn Clerk’s Office on 8 June with a covering letter from RMOC inviting comments on the draft for a meeting on 17 June. GEAC was neither informed that the draft was available nor told of the meeting. The minutes of the meeting later revealed that crucial questions concerning impacts on the RCA had not been pursued by Goulbourn staff. It was only on 9 July that GEAC received notice that the study was available. By late August members managed to procure a copy from the Goulbourn Clerk’s Office. GEAC began its own analysis of impacts on the RCA. At the same time it sent a letter to the mayor of Goulbourn Township, Janet Stavinga, detailing its exclusion from the process and asking for more transparency. The letter was ignored. However, GEAC completed its analysis and sent it to CME on 3 February 1999. Its primary concerns were with RMOC’s reluctance to regulate water within the Lagoons as required to maintain wetland habitats, restrictions on habitat enhancement possibilities within the Lagoons, restrictions on public access to the Lagoons for wildlife viewing, restrictions on access by RCA managers for habitat maintenance, obtrusive signs and floatables (e.g. contraceptives and sanitary products), which would remain in the Lagoons after a bypass of sewage. Having finally heard from GEAC, RMOC staff seemed for the first time to realize that there might be some problems with what was being proposed in the RPSFS.

On 30 March 1999, a meeting occurred between Goulbourn, the RMOC and the Ministry of Environment (MOE). Goulbourn’s solicitor put forward a proposal. It had apparently been determined that only one of the three Richmond Lagoon cells could be used for sewage storage, Cell C. The soils underlying the other two cells, A and B, were deemed to be too permeable for their use as sewage lagoons. The solicitor suggested that arrangements be made for Cell C to be jointly used by both the RMOC and Goulbourn. The RMOC would own the berms and basin of the cell, and any infrastructure associated with its use as a sewage works, but Goulbourn would own the land on which the cell was located. Therefore a joint use agreement (JUA) would have to be worked out to determine what rights and responsibilities both parties would have, given that the RMOC would be able to operate its sewage works on Goulbourn’s land.

The JUA now became the main focus of GEAC’s efforts. On 14 April RMOC staff submitted a preliminary set of conditions for an agreement. Acceptance of the conditions would mean the end of the RCA. GEAC submitted a revised set of conditions just prior to a 7 May meeting between the RMOC and Goulbourn. However, for the subsequent three or four months, further revisions were to take place under the Municipal Class EA process.

By the end of May, the RMOC had completed the final draft of the RPSFS. A Regional staff report on the study had been written for the RMOC’s Planning and Environment Committee, and it included conditions under which GEAC was purported to find the preferred alternative of the study acceptable. These conditions had to be brought before Goulbourn Council to be accepted or rejected. Thus Goulbourn’s clerk had to write a report on the RPSFS and make a recommendation as to whether the conditions were adequate. The report went before Council on 1 June. The wording of the recommendations was vague, not dealing with the specific details necessary to ensure that RCAMP objectives could be satisfied. It contained a number of glaring omissions and inexplicably framed the conditions as requests for RMOC to consider. GEAC had to send a letter to Goulbourn Council the day before the report came forward requesting that the omissions be dealt with and wording strengthened. Under pressure from GEAC at the meeting, the mayor agreed to add only one further condition. The RMOC’s activities had led to Ducks Unlimited Canada backing out of the project, and Ducks Unlimited had previously agreed to manage water for the RCA. Hence Goulbourn Council agreed that it would only accept the recommendations of the RPSFS if the RMOC would agree to manage water for the RCA.

Thus, somewhat strengthened, although still rather vague conditions went to the Planning and Environment Committee on 8 June. At this time, however, RMOC staff suggested further revisions that again weakened the conditions. The committee accepted these revisions. However, through lobbying RMOC councillors, GEAC had the final decision on the conditions deferred. The conditions went back to the Planning and Environment Committee on 13 July, but this time, the committee was persuaded to accept revisions supporting the RCA. Most of the revisions went through.

However, although this provided some assurance that the RCA was not to become no more than a sewage works, the future of the area was still in question. The adopted conditions were still rather vague. Whether there was really a possibility for shared use of the RCA would be decided in the process of drafting the JUA. There the details would have to be worked out. Hence, the next step was to finalize the JUA. Throughout GEAC’s lobbying of RMOC, Eric Snyder had been continually updating and revising the conditions that GEAC had proposed for the JUA in May. So he had wording for the JUA ready in July. On 11 August a meeting occurred between Mayor Stavinga, Goulbourn’s clerk and various GEAC members. At this meeting it was agreed that Goulbourn’s clerk would take Eric’s wording and put it in the form of an agreement.

However, nothing was done for months. Municipal restructuring was announced. The outcome could leave Goulbourn in a weakened negotiating position, for if Goulbourn was to be amalgamated by the year 2001, the RMOC would have no incentive to draft an agreement. GEAC repeatedly asked staff to get on with it. Its concerns were dismissed. On 26 October, GEAC made a presentation to Goulbourn Council, updating it on GEAC projects and activities. It again explained the importance of completing the JUA before the decision on restructuring. Still it was not until late December that GEAC received a draft from the clerk. The decision on municipal restructuring had been made and Goulbourn had lost any negotiating advantages that it had.

The draft was disappointing to say the least. Eric’s wording had not been used. Indeed even the conditions adopted respectively by the Goulbourn and RMOC councils under the Class EA process were not reflected in the agreement. GEAC voiced its frustration to Goulbourn Council. The mayor’s first response was denial. However, after passages of the draft were read to her, she had to change her strategy. She agreed to a meeting on the problem but refused to agree on a date for it. She held off the meeting for about three months. Eric used this time to complete his own draft JUA and have it adopted by GEAC. Then through discussion with RMOC’s legal staff he learned that Goulbourn’s clerk had approached RMOC to have it complete the agreement. Apparently this was preferable to having further attention focussed on his own efforts. GEAC members were outraged. Eric informed RMOC’s lawyer that GEAC had already drafted an agreement. She contacted Goulbourn. It was 14 February 2000. GEAC was to make a presentation to Goulbourn Council the following day, and it would be an embarrassment for the mayor to have this brought out in public. So she changed her strategy again. She was unusually accommodating. She set a date to meet on the agreement. Goulbourn’s lawyer would be there together with all necessary staff and councillors.

The meeting took place on 23 February 2000. The mayor made a number of commitments to ensure that the future of the RCA would be assured in the new City of Ottawa. To begin, GEAC’s draft JUA was accepted. It would be sent to RMOC before the end of February. Even if signed by both parties, it would not be binding on the new City of Ottawa after the year 2000, but it would provide a historical record of the intent of the two preceding governments. It would show that both intended to support the use of the RCA lands in accordance with the objectives of the RCAMP. Mayor Stavinga promised to ensure that an agreement was signed before the transition. She also promised to bring the RCA to the attention of the transition board. Moreover, she said that she would try to determine if RVCA could be made a party to the JUA, so it would retain validity after the transition. She did none of this. Moreover, having been compromised by Eric’s communications with the RMOC’s legal staff, she insisted that GEAC members have no further contact with that staff. When Eric continued to contact the RMOC’s operations staff, who were responsible for implementing the RPSFS, she had him removed from GEAC.

RMOC only responded to GEAC’s draft on 7 July 2000. Rather than provide comments, it produced a completely different draft. The two drafts were radically divergent as to which would be the primary use of the land, conservation or sewage storage. Indeed, RMOC’s draft was clearly written with the intention of removing Cell C from the conservation area, and allowing for the same to occur with the other cells in the future. Furthermore, the draft revealed that the RMOC was unwilling to manage water levels either in Cell C, or the other two cells, as was required to establish a mudflats for migrating shorebirds. Moreover, RMOC staff did not want to allow RCA managers to be able to access Cell C, and seemed unwilling to restrict public access to the cell in a way that would be compatible with the objectives of the RCAMP. On 26 October, Goulbourn’s clerk met with RMOC staff to discuss these matters. RMOC staff elaborated on some of the points in their draft. It was agreed that Goulbourn’s clerk would send them a number of recommendations within the week. Negotiations were to get underway in the last two months before restucturing. However, the clerk never sent any recommendations. Consequently, no progress was made and no JUA was signed.

The only exception to this shortsightedness on the part of Goulbourn Council was its appointment of the RCAMC prior to restructuring, in August 2000. Since, unlike the RCA Subcommittee of GEAC, the RCAMC included members independent of Goulbourn Township, it would not entirely disappear along with GEAC after municipal restructuring. Unfortunately, our secretary, Eric Snyder, was not appointed to the RCAMC. Consequently, during the following eighteen months, the most effective advocacy for the protection of the RCA would come through the Friends of the Jock River.

After municipal restructuring, we decided that we could deal most effectively with outstanding problems regarding sewage storage at the RCA if recognized as a member of the RCAMC, which would have a mandate to manage the RCA for the City of Ottawa. Thus when a proposal to extend the term of the existing members of the RCAMC came forward in March 2001, we sent a letter to the City’s Corporate Services and Economic Development Committee, and subsequently to Council, requesting that the City appoint a representative of the Friends of the Jock River on the RCAMC. Our letter received no response from City Council. Unfortunately, our interest in membership did not receive any acknowledgement from the RCAMC either, at least not until after the appointments of its members were extended. We realized that we would have to lobby more persistently for a position on the RCAMC. Fortunately, the Richmond Village Association was also becoming concerned with the lack of progress implementing the RCAMP. This organization proved to be a strong source of support for our later lobbying efforts.

During the spring of 2001, as we were planning another tree planting project on RCA land, we received a letter from the RCAMC informing us that our membership on it was desired. However, no definite time lines were provided in which that objective was to be achieved. We began making inquiries with City of Ottawa staff. The initial results of those inquiries were not encouraging. Staff would be writing revised terms of reference for the RCAMC. Then the RCAMC would be revising the RCAMP. Both the terms of reference and revised plan would then have to be approved by City Council. Once Council did so, the City would then proceed with recruitment for the public positions on the RCAMC, and only then would we be asked to submit a nominee as our representative on the RCAMC. When a Selection Panel had made a recommendation on the public membership, and various organizations had provided the names of their nominees, a report would go forward to Committee and Council recommending membership. Once approved by Council, the new RCAMC would then replace the former committee.

We had two main objections to this approach. First, we projected that if we could not have a representative appointed until the existing RCAMC completed revisions to the management plan, we would be waiting a long time. We could see no reason for the delay. Second, given the experience we had with the RCA, we believed that we could make a significant contribution in revising the RCAMP. Hence we wrote to city staff as follows:

We have a number of concerns regarding (i) the above referenced certificate of approval, as amended on 24 August 2001, and (ii) the ongoing work for which approval was given, the final plans and specifications for which were submitted in support of the application for the amendment. We are concerned that neither the amended certificate of approval nor the final plans and specifications, prepared by David McManus Engineering Ltd., take into account certain commitments, which were made to mitigate impacts on the Richmond Conservation Area (RCA) resulting from the use of Cell C of the Richmond Lagoons as a sewage works. Our concerns are as follows:

1. Status of Cells A and B

The amendment to Certificate of Approval number 3-0834-83-006 should reflect the fact that Cells A and B of the Richmond Lagoons will no longer be maintained or used as part of the Richmond pumping station and forcemain facilities. The May 1999 Richmond Pumping Station Forcemain Study (RPSFS) states:

The geotechnical investigation report, attached as Appendix ‘J’, concluded that Cells A and B should not be utilized as temporary storage facilities for sewage from the pumping station because the underlying soils are too permeable. However, Cell C could be used as an emergency lagoon for temporary storage of sewage. (RPSFS, p. 9, §3.13; cf p. ii, §3.3; p. 33, §9.0)

Similarly, the June 1999 Richmond Pumping Station Forcemain Study Environmental Screening Report (ESR), prepared by the Regional Municipality of Ottawa-Carleton Engineering Services Branch, states, "It was found that, under existing conditions, only one of three lagoon cells (Cell C) has the integrity to hold sewage . . ." (ESR, p. 10, §4.3). Accordingly the recommendations of the RPSFS include the following statement:

Cells A and B, in their current conditions, are not recommended as temporary storage facilities and, therefore, the existing 200 mm diameter forcemain, which terminates at Cell A, should be extended to Cell C, for the bypass of sewage from the pumping station to Cell C of the lagoons. (RPSFS p. 33, §9.0; cf. p. iii, §7.1; p. 33, rec. ii; p.34, rec. xi)

And the recommendations of the ESR include the statement:

The existing 200 mm forcemain linking the pumping station to Cell A should be extended to Cell B and C to permit the discharge of sewage into Cell C and water into Cells B and C. (ESR p. 15, §6, rec. 1)

However, the amended Certificate of Approval number 3-0834-83-006 does not reflect the above. On the contrary, Condition No. 2 of the certificate, which states, "Where there is a conflict between a provision of any submitted document referred to in this Certificate and the Conditions of this Certificate, the Conditions in this Certificate shall take precedence," implies that Cells A and B will continue to be regarded as part of Richmond’s sewage facilities. This contradicts assurances given to stakeholders, during the drafting of the RPSFS, that only Cell C would be considered a sewage works if the recommendations of the study were to be adopted.

We therefore conclude that, if Condition No. 2 is to remain a part of Certificate of Approval number 3-0834-83-006, the certificate should be amended to state that only Cell C is to be maintained and used as part of the Richmond pumping station and forcemain facilities. Do you agree, and if so, will you undertake to have the necessary amendment made?

2. The 200 mm Diameter Forcemain Connection to Cell A

We would like assurances that the remaining 200 mm diameter forcemain connection to Cell A has been tested and found to be operational. The RPSFS states:

The chamber, between Cells A and B, operated as a distribution control box and would have been designed to distribute flow to either Cell A or Cell B. . . . Upstream of this control box, the piping system was arranged so that with the use of gate valves, the flow could be directed to Cell A, bypassing the control box. (RPSFS p. 10, §3.2.1)

The final plans and specifications, prepared by David McManus Engineering Ltd., indicate that the manhole and appurtenances, which were used for the regulation of flows through the downstream connection to Cell A, are to be removed, and have been removed if the plans have been followed. This leaves only the upstream connection. According to the RPSFS, in 1999, "[t]he existing 200 mm diameter forcemain from the pumping station to the lagoons was tested and found to be operational" (RPSFS p. 19, §6.3). Is it the case that both connections to Cell A were tested and found to be operational during the study?

3. The 200 mm Diameter Forcemain Connection to Cell B

The minutes of the 15 May 2001 Richmond Conservation Area Management Committee (RCAMC) meeting indicate that you were in attendance to explain how the implementation of the RPSFS was to be phased. According to the minutes, Phase 1 is supposed to involve "most of the works needed to deal with sewage" while Phase 2 is to "deal with the conservation needs" that must be satisfied to implement the RCA Management Plan. The minutes indicate that both the RCAMC chair and the City of Ottawa Council member on the RCAMC supported this approach to phasing the project. Given the conclusions of the geotechnical investigation report for the RPSFS, why has the 200 mm diameter forcemain extension to Cell B been completed during Phase 1? Does the staff of the City of Ottawa Operating Division have any intention of using Cell B for storage of sewage at any time?

4. Mitigation of Impacts on Cell B

Resolution No. 99-110, passed by Goulbourn Council on 1 June 1999, concerns the conditions under which the council was willing to accept the "proposed solution" of the RPSFS. The resolution states:

Be it resolved that the Council of the Corporation of the Township of Goulbourn hereby supports the use of Cell C of the Richmond Conservation Area (RCA) for sewage purposes, subject to a Joint-Use Agreement, satisfactory to the Council of the Township of Goulbourn, which shall minimize negative impacts on the RCA and shall not dramatically interfere with the operation of the area for its originally intended purpose as a conservation area.

Amongst the conditions listed in the resolution as necessary for a joint use agreement is the following: "The design and placement of additional works will be conducted in cooperation with the Township so as to mitigate any damage and disruption caused by the construction".

The 13 July 1999 Report on the RPSFS, for the Regional Municipality of Ottawa-Carleton Planning and Environment Committee, from the Engineering Division of the Environment and Transportation Department, contains the recommendation that the Planning and Environment Committee confirm staff’s response to Goulbourn Township’s conditions for a joint use agreement. Staff endorsed the above condition. The Planning and Environment Committee, and subsequently Regional Council, also did so.

The condition was intended to ensure that managers of the RCA, either the Richmond Conservation Area Subcommittee (RCAS) of the Goulbourn Environmental Advisory Committee, or its successor, the RCAMC, would be consulted during the implementation of the RPSFS.

However, the RCAMC was not consulted on mitigation requirements for the construction that has recently been undertaken at the RCA. As a result, destruction of vegetation communities has occurred that need not have occurred. (An area used by breeding Empidonax traillii is of particular concern. No protective fencing was erected between this area and the adjacent construction site on the berm of Cell B, and this has resulted in the unnecessary destruction of part of the stand of Salix shrubs where the species breeds.) Moreover, the conditions concerning seeding and mulching, in the City of Ottawa Notice of Tenders, Richmond Pumping Station and System Upgrades (Contract No. ETL01-2095) threaten to make matters worse. If the conditions are followed then the impacted vegetation communities will be replaced by non-indigenous plant communities as a result of seeding and mulching efforts by the contractor. Can certain conditions specified in the City of Ottawa Notice of Tenders, Richmond Pumping Station and System Upgrades (Contract No. ETL01-2095) be altered to prevent further damage to the RCA?

5. Mitigation of Impacts on Cell C

5.1 Screening of Floatables

The final plans submitted with the application for the amendment to Certificate of Approval number 3-0834-83-006 should have included designs for the screening of sewage bypassed to Cell C, and both inlet structures for Cell C should have appurtenances, which function to screen "floatables" from the sewage bypassed to the cell. Amongst the conditions given in Goulbourn Township resolution 99-110, was the following: "That steps will be taken to minimize the risk of undue contamination of the lagoons by [means of] the Region . . . considering screening the sewage flow into the lagoons . . .’. Staff endorsed this condition. The Planning and Environment Committee, and subsequently Regional Council, strengthened it to state: "The Region will undertake to research and determine the requirements of screening of sewage discharges into the lagoons with a view to implementation".

However, the final plans and specifications, submitted with Certificate of Approval number 3-0834-83-006, include no designs for appurtenances that would function to screen sewage discharges into Cell C. Accordingly, no such appurtenances have been constructed during the extension of either the 200 or the 500 mm diameter forcemain to the cell.

As a result, following testing of the 200 mm diameter forcemain extension, used tampons and condoms were found littered about the inlet structure. We expect the same result when the 500 mm diameter forcemain extension is used, however, in that case, such "floatables" will be distributed throughout Cell C.

An inquiry from RCAMC member, Mr. Peter Blancher, concerning the situation described above led to the following staff response on 14 November 2001 from Ms. Susan Murphy:

Based on information provided by our Consultant and discussions with City's Operating Division with respect to screening of overflows to the lagoon, it has been decided not to provide any permanent screening facility for such overflows. The MOE does not require screening for lagoons that are being used infrequently such as in the case of Richmond. From an operating perspective our staff have indicated their agreement with this approach. To install a mechanical system for something that might only be used every few years is not an effective or efficient approach. In fact, such a system could be detrimental in that it provides another opportunity for a failure (plugging of the line, mechanical failure) that could result in a bypass to the Jock River. The Operating Division has indicated that their approach will be to closely monitor the facility during use and to have staff conduct a clean up (raking, etc.) at the conclusion of the event. Operations staff has indicated a desire to experiment with some sort of "basket" arrangement once the contractor has completed their work and turned the facility over to the City.

This raises the following questions:

(i) Who made the decision not to screen overflows? Since it is the Council of the City of Ottawa, not the MOE, that has the authority to decide what mitigation measures will be implemented for Cell C, insofar as it is still part of the RCA, and not just a sewage works, was the council consulted regarding the decision on screening? Why was the RCAMC, which has been given the responsibility of managing the RCA by the Council of the City of Ottawa, not consulted?

(ii) What designs for screening were assessed by the staff of the city’s Operating Division in determining that screening is not an effective or efficient approach? In undertaking this assessment, what information on the performance of such designs, and the frequency of mechanical failure or plugging, was reviewed by the city’s staff? Assuming that such information has been reviewed, and given that two bypass pipes to Cell C have been constructed, what is the risk, expressed as a conditional probability, that both would fail during a bypass of a few hours? What is the risk of such a failure during a bypass of two, three or five days? On the assumption that Certificate of Approval number 3-0834-83-006 will not be further revised, so that Cells A and B remain part of Richmond’s sewage facilities, if all four existing inlet structures for the Richmond Lagoons were redesigned to provide for screening of sewage, what is the risk of a complete system failure and bypass to the Jock River resulting from that screening?

(iii) Why are experimental mitigation proposals, such as the above referenced "basket arrangement", being tested after a bypass of sewage to Cell C rather than before? Cannot staff undertake tests in other lagoon facilities before using Cell C, and should this not have been done as part of the detailed design stage of the implementation of the RPSFS? Indeed, what research on, and evaluation of, the post-bypass clean up approach was done during the detailed design stage for the RPSFS? What cost assessments were done and what assessments of potential impacts on the wetland habitat in Cell C?

(iv) How does staff propose that "floatables" be raked from dense beds of Typha species?

(v) How is the "basket arrangement" supposed to function?

5.2 Draining of Sewage

A number of sources document the commitment to drain Cell C after its use for sewage storage. Indeed the proposed solution to overcome the Richmond Pumping Station overflow problem by bypassing sewage to Cell C is repeatedly characterized in both the RPSFS and the ESR as temporary sewage storage (e.g. ESR p. 3, §3; cf p. 15, rec. 6 and RPSFS pp. 19-20, §6.3, p. 24, §6.4.1). This is also emphasized in the handout provided at the public open house for the RPSFS, which states that storage will be "temporary . . . over a short period of time (from a few hours to a few days)" (ESR appendix D). The point was repeated at a meeting between Regional staff and RCA managers on 7 May 1999, the minutes of which state:

Regional staff assured all that Cell C is for infrequent and temporary storage only. The cell will only be used for the reasons outlined in the study and the contents of the cell will be drawn back as soon as is practical following an incident. (RPSFS appendix G)

Goulbourn Council Resolution 99-110 gives as a condition for an agreement on the joint use of Cell C: "That Cell C will be emptied as soon as is practicable immediately after any use for overflow". The 13 July 1999 Regional staff response to this condition, which was subsequently confirmed by both the Planning and Environment Committee and Regional Council, endorses it. The Request for Proposals for the implementation of the recommendations of the RPSFS includes in the description of the scope of the work to be undertaken: "Permit use of the Richmond lagoon Cell C as an emergency bypass facility and allow for drainage back to the pumping station following an event" (RFP No. 0200-91842-P08, p. 7).

However, the final plans and specifications, submitted with Certificate of Approval number 3-0834-83-006, do not provide for the draining of Cell C. Cell C was to have been drained by means of the 200 mm diameter forcemain extension into its basin (RPSFS pp. 19-20, §6.3). But the inlet structure represented in the final plans, which has now been constructed on site, is not designed to permit the draining of Cell C to less than 450 mm depth above the concrete pad on which the structure is situated. Furthermore, since the structure is placed at that end of Cell C, which is of highest elevation, sewage will remain in the cell at an average depth greater than 450 mm. No efforts have been made to regrade the basin given that it is now supposed to drain at the end opposite from that which it previously drained.

Ms. Murphy’s correspondence of 14 November 2001 indicates that following the bypass to Cell C, which is expected from 20 to 22 November, the sewage released into Cell C will be pumped out. This raises the following questions:

(i) Is this how the staff of the city’s Operating Division proposes to empty Cell C following all future bypass events?

(ii) Does staff also propose to use pumping, rather than draining by gravity, in fulfilling its commitment to gradually reduce water depths in Cell C, once or twice every year, for the purpose of managing the wetland habitat in Cell C for migrating shorebirds?

(iii) If the answer to the above two questions is affirmative, on what basis has staff concluded that pumping is preferable to draining by gravity? Please answer this question taking into consideration disruption to RCA operations and the respective costs of the two alternatives. (The ESR indicates that, using a portable pump, each pumping operation will cost $8,000 (ESR p. 16 and appendix B)). Again, if the answer to the above two questions is affirmative, was the Council of the City of Ottawa consulted on the decision in question? Why was the RCAMC not consulted?

5.3 Restricting Public Access

We question why there have been no efforts to develop protocols, in consultation with the RCAMC, concerning restrictions on public access to Cell C during a sewage bypass. In particular, we observe that the final plans submitted with the application for the amendment to Certificate of Approval number 3-0834-83-006 include no designs for fencing around Cell C. During completion of the RPSFS, Regional staff were insistent that Cell C would have to be fenced once it was capable of being used for sewage bypasses. Accordingly, the ESR states, "Cell C should be fenced in order to protect the community from potential safety hazards" (ESR p. 15, rec. 12). Indeed this document includes designs for ten fencing alternatives (ESR appendix E). Furthermore, the 13 July 1999 report to Regional Planning and Environment Committee recommends "construct fencing around the Richmond Lagoon Cell C to address safety concerns", and this recommendation was endorsed by both the Planning and Environment Committee and Regional Council.

During completion of the ESR, and subsequent adoption of conditions for a joint use agreement, the RCAS opposed fencing Cell C. Given that the designs submitted with Certificate of Approval number 3-0834-83-006 include nothing on fencing, can the current RCA management organization, the RCAMC, be assured that Cell C will not be fenced, and nor will any combination of some or all of Cells A, B and C? If that is the case, will the RCAMC be consulted on the development of protocols for restricting public access during bypasses of sewage to Cell C?

6. Mitigation of Impacts on the Richmond Conservation Area

6.1 Mitigation during Construction

6.11 Public Accessibility

Access to the RCA by heavy equipment, during construction, should have been restricted to a single entrance along Eagleson Road, either the Rideau Trail entrance or the existing parking lot. However, both entrances along Eagleson Road have been used, resulting in unnecessary impacts on the RCA. Both entrances now present RCA visitors with exceedingly muddy trails, deeply rutted by large tire tracks. Why was the RCAMC not consulted on protocols for minimizing this kind of impact during construction? Will the entranceways be repaired once construction is complete?

6.12 Public Safety

Deep pits have been left open and unattended, without safety fencing, during the construction of both the 200 and 500 mm diameter forcemain extensions. Why?

6.13 Worker Defecation

Although a portable toilet has been provided at the existing parking lot, construction work at Cell C is a considerable distance away. Workers have been using the trails surrounding Cell C. What inspections by City of Ottawa staff will be undertaken to ensure that this does not continue?

6.2 Mitigation after Construction

To mitigate impacts on the RCA resulting from the use of Cell C as a sewage works, commitments were made to modify the Richmond pumping station and forcemain to allow river water to be pumped into the lagoon cells for habitat management purposes. Accordingly, the RPSFS states:

Modifications should be implemented at the pumping station to supply water from the Jock River to the 200 mm diameter forcemain to the lagoons . . . . These modifications should be co-ordinated with the RCAS, as the facilities may occasionally be required to regulate water levels in the lagoons. (RPSFS p. 34, rec. vi, cf p. iv, §7.5)

And it further states: "The piping system at the outlet of the existing 200 mm diameter forcemain should be re-instated and modified so that water can be directed to Cell A and Cell B" (RPSFS p. 34, rec. xi).

The ESR elaborates on these proposed mitigation efforts. Table 4.2 of the ESR lists as concerns or potential impacts, resulting from the bypassing of sewage to Cell C, the following: (i) "Cell C could be used to store sewage over extended periods", (ii) "Proposed solution will constrain future flexibility in regulating water levels in the lagoons" and (iii) "Proposed solution may not be compatible with the Richmond Conservation Area Management Plan". The response to or mitigating measure for these potential impacts are given respectively as follows:

(i) Sewage will be drained back to the pumping station following completion of a contingency event. Under a worst case scenario, storage would be required for a period of about five days. It is estimated that temporary storage would be required once every two or three years.

(ii) Proposed modifications to the Richmond Pumping Station would permit water to be pumped from the Jock River to the Lagoons.

(iii) - Proposed solution would require that objectives for Cell B and Cell C be exchanged, but overall objectives for RCA can be maintained,

- Proposed modifications to pumping station provides solution to fundamental RCA problem of how to regulate water levels in the lagoons . . .

- Cell C use can be integrated into RCA Management Plan but its primary use would be as a sewage works. (ESR pp.12-3, table 4.2)

In view of the above, Goulbourn Council Resolution No. 99-110 states:

The Region shall provide for the purchase, installation and operation of a system of pipes and pumps necessary to realise the purposes of the RCA Management Plan. Schedules for pumping of water to the three lagoons shall be coordinated between the Region and the Township in accordance with the MOE guidelines.

The Regional Municipality of Ottawa-Carleton’s Planning and Environment Committee, and subsequently, Regional Council endorsed this condition, given an estimated cost of $40,000 for the purchase and installation of pumps and pipes. We emphasize that the above commitments were made at a time when geotechnical studies concerning the permeability of soils underlying Cells A and B were already completed and the results distributed to all concerned.

However, the 15 May 2001 minutes of the RCAMC record that you recommended that the above mitigation efforts be delayed until the permeability of Cells A and B could be further investigated. The proposed delay has, for the most part, occurred. Further investigation into the ability of Cells A and B to hold water has also occurred. Data collected over the spring, summer and fall of 2001 reveal that despite drought conditions, Cell B held water for 120 days. Analysis of this data (by Mr. Blancher) indicates that loss of water can be entirely attributed to evaporation and transpiration. However, at the 16 October meeting of the RCAMC, you were again in attendance and advised that the $40, 000 purchase of pumps and pipes still not be undertaken until it can be demonstrated in a manner which is "scientifically irreproachable" that Cell B is sufficiently impermeable to hold water for the purposes of the RCAMC. Thus the mitigation efforts have again been delayed.

The following considerations lead us to question whether this delay is justified:

(i) If the soils underlying Cell C are impermeable, that would seem to give sufficient grounds for fulfilling of the commitment to modify the pumping station; for the modifications were also supposed to allow river water to be pumped to Cell C for habitat management purposes (ESR p. 15, §6, rec. 1). In fact, the modifications were intended to allow water to be pumped into Cell C for its management as a mudflat to attract migrating shorebirds. Since Cell C is believed by City of Ottawa Operating Division staff to have the ability to hold water, it should still be useable by the RCAMC in management efforts to attract shorebirds during the spring migration, if not the summer/fall migration also. Accordingly, the modifications to the pumping station should not be made contingent on the integrity of Cells A and B. Indeed the only mitigation effort, which could justifiably have been made contingent on the permeability of either Cell A or B, is the 200 mm diameter forcemain extension to Cell B, and that is the only mitigation effort that has been done. Why has the extension to Cell B been completed, given that staff maintains that Cell B will not hold water? Why have the modifications to the Richmond Pumping Station that would permit water to be pumped from the Jock River to the Richmond Lagoons not been done, given that staff believes Cell C can hold water?

(ii) The commitment to modify the Richmond Pumping Station in a manner that would permit water to be pumped from the Jock River to the Richmond Lagoons was made to stakeholders, with Regional Council and staff knowing that the question of both Cell A’s and Cell B’s ability to hold water remained unanswered. The commitment was not conditional on this question having been answered in accordance with the most rigorous standards of evidence. There is now strong evidence, even if not the strongest possible, for the assertion that Cell B holds water. Since the assertion that Cell C is sufficiently impermeable to hold sewage is based on data from four auger holes which are assumed to be representative of an area of approximately 37, 500 m^2,, we question why the most rigorous scientific standards must be satisfied to justify an expenditure of $40, 000 to pump water into Cell B, while much less rigorous standards have been applied in justifying an expenditure of $485, 000 to pump sewage into Cell C. Why is the staff of the City of Ottawa’s Operating Division not applying standards of evaluation commensurate with the costs and risks of the proposed undertaking, as would seem to be only reasonable?

7. Consultation with Stakeholders and the Joint Use Agreement

The supporting documentation submitted with the application for amended Certificate of Approval number 3-0834-83-006 should have included a joint use agreement. This agreement was to have been drafted in consultation with the managers of the RCA, either the RCAS or its successor, the RCAMC. It was to have dealt with, inter alia, operating procedures for the use of Cell C and detailed design specifications for the infrastructure that would facilitate its use. It was to have been completed as part of the detailed design stage of the RPSFS process (ESR p. 15, rec. 13). Consultation during this stage of the process was supposed to have involved the presentation of design alternatives for RCA managers to assess (e.g. ESR p. 3, §3).

This is made quite clear in the RPSFS and the ESR. The RPSFS states: "Any detailed design and operational criteria related to the use of the lagoons should be established in consultation with the RCAS" (RPSFS p. 34, rec. xiv; cf p. iv, §7.13). The ESR states: "The detailed design of any works in the lagoon area should be carried out in consultation with the Township and the RCAS" (ESR p. 15, rec. 4). It further states:

A shared use agreement for the lagoon lands is currently being negotiated between the Region and the Township. This agreement will respect the main recommendations of the RPSFM study, but will provide additional detail on:

an operations protocol to minimize impacts on the Conservation Area,

the cost-sharing of various measures and

on the ownership and operation of infrastructure (ESR p. 7, §4, cf p.15. rec. 5)

It says in addition: "The Township has indicated it is in agreement with the major study recommendations subject to the successful negotiation of a shared use agreement for the lagoon area" (ESR p. 11, §4.4). Goulbourn Council Resolution No. 99-110 does indeed say this, the relevant quotation having been given above. Furthermore, the 13 July 1999 Report to Planning and Environment Committee recommends that "the Region and Township enter into a joint use agreement for the Richmond Lagoon area". This recommendation was endorsed by Regional Council on 14 July 1999.

Admittedly, the joint use agreement was at first conceived as a legal contract between the Regional Municipality of Ottawa-Carleton and Goulbourn Township. Such a contract is no longer necessary, or possible, given their amalgamation. However, the agreement has since been conceived differently, as a detailed statement of understanding for the operation of the lagoon lands, to be endorsed by the operations staff at the City of Ottawa and the RCA managers. This is evidenced, for example, by a letter from the Goulbourn ward councillor, dated 20 March 2001, well after amalgamation, which states that the agreement is still being drafted and will contain the necessary references to the role of the RCAMC. Accordingly, it has been the understanding of stakeholders concerned with the RCA that, despite amalgamation, efforts were still being made to complete the joint use agreement.

However, neither design alternatives nor proposed operations protocols were ever presented to the RCAS or RCAMC during the design stage of the RPSFS’s implementation, and the application for amended Certificate of Approval number 3-0834-83-006 includes no joint use agreement with the information submitted in support of the application. Will a joint use agreement be completed to deal with questions concerning operations protocols for the lagoons?

Conclusion

We observe that the application for the amendment to Certificate of Approval number 3-0834-83-006, which you submitted to MOE, indicates that the works for which the amendment has been made have fulfilled all requirements of the Environmental Assessment Act through completion of a Class A assessment. Given your considerable involvement with the RPSFS, since 1999, and your position as project manager for its implementation, you must be aware that the RPSFS was in fact done in accordance with the requirements of a Class B assessment. In fulfilling the requirements, there were significant commitments made to stakeholders, most of which we have pointed out above. In view of these commitments, your proposal to phase the implementation of the RPSFS recommendations, as explained at the RCAMC meeting of 15 May 2001, makes no sense. It is not possible to phase the project, so that the work necessary for sewage storage is completed, and subsequently that necessary for conservation is done. For the work necessary for sewage storage was supposed to include mitigation measures for conservation. Indeed, in implementing the RPSFS recommendations concerning sewage storage, the city’s consultant was supposed to ensure that its detailed design proposals would satisfy the requirements of the RCA Management Plan (RFP No. 0200-91842-P08, p. 8). This has not been done. If you disagree, please explain why you disagree by answering the questions, which we have posed above. For the time being, we would ask that no further discharges of sewage on to RCA lands be allowed until our concerns have been dealt with.

Sincerely,

Eric Snyder

for the Friends of the Jock River

Mr. Forestell,

We are writing in pursuit of the inquiries initially made in our correspondence of November 16, a copy of which is attached. We have as yet received no response, nor even an acknowledgement from you. We understand that you have discussed some of our concerns in conversation with Councillor Stavinga. We are also aware that you have provided a report to the RCAMC in which you give written comments relating to a number of our concerns. Nonetheless, we do not believe that you have answered most of our questions. Therefore we are again asking those questions for which answers have not yet been given.

However, before doing so, we would like to inquire about an additional problem that has recently arisen. For some days this month untreated sewage has been allowed to spill from Cell C into Cell B. As you know, the RPSFS makes it clear that Cell B does not meet MOE standards and should not be used for temporary sewage storage. Somehow no one thought to obstruct the pipe between Cells C and B during the bypass of sewage to Cell C. This is surprising since the ESR recommends removal of this pipe altogether so as to prevent Cell B’s contamination. It is all the more surprising, given that you inspected the Richmond Lagoon site on November 23 and, as project manager, must have known that this pipe was a concern. We therefore ask: First of all, how has this been allowed to happen, and secondly, what has been done by way of clean-up to ensure that the MOE will under no circumstances view the contents of Cell B as sewage?

Our previously asked questions:

1. Status of Cells A and B

Will you undertake to ensure that Certificate of Approval number 3-0834-83-006 shall be amended to state that only Cell C is to be maintained and used as part of the Richmond pumping station and forcemain facilities?

2. The 200 mm Diameter Forcemain Connection to Cell A

Is it the case that both the upstream and downstream connection to Cell A were tested and found to be operational during the Richmond Pumping Station Forcemain Study?

3. The 200 mm Diameter Forcemain Connection to Cell B

Why has the 200 mm diameter forcemain extension to Cell B been completed during Phase 1? Does the staff of the City of Ottawa Operating Division have any intention of using Cell B for storage of sewage at any time?

4. Mitigation of Impacts on Cell B

Can you confirm in writing that, notwithstanding what is specified in the City of Ottawa Notice of Tenders, Richmond Pumping Station and System Upgrades (Contract No. ETL01-2095), no non-indigenous plant species will be introduced to the RCA as a result of seeding and mulching efforts by the City’s contractor?

5. Mitigation of Impacts on Cell C

5.1 Screening of Floatables

(i) Who made the decision not to screen overflows? Was the Council of the City of Ottawa consulted regarding the decision on screening? Why was the RCAMC not consulted?

(ii) What designs for screening were assessed by the staff of the city’s Operating Division in determining that screening is not an effective or efficient approach? In undertaking this assessment, what information on the performance of such designs, and the frequency of mechanical failure or plugging, was reviewed by the city’s staff? Assuming that such information has been reviewed, and given that two bypass pipes to Cell C have been constructed, what is the risk that both would fail during a bypass of a few hours? What is the risk of such a failure during a bypass of two, three or five days? On the assumption that Certificate of Approval number 3-0834-83-006 will not be further revised, so that Cells A and B remain part of Richmond’s sewage facilities, if all four existing inlet structures for the Richmond Lagoons were redesigned to provide for screening of sewage, what is the risk of a complete system failure and bypass to the Jock River resulting from that screening?

(iii) Concerning the so-called basket arrangement recently used during a bypass of sewage through the 200 mm diameter forcemain inlet structure for Cell C (and apparently not as effective as might be desired): Why did not staff undertake tests of this arrangement in other lagoon facilities, before using Cell C, as part of the detailed design stage of the implementation of the RPSFS? Since, in deeper water than that currently in Cell C, floatables discharged within the recently used baskets will presumably float, and therefore may not remain in the baskets, will further tests be undertaken in deeper water conditions before significantly larger quantities of sewage are released into Cell C? What alternatives to the basket arrangement will be tested?

(iv) What research on, and evaluation of, the post-bypass clean up approach was done during the detailed design stage for the RPSFS? What cost assessments were done and what assessments of potential impacts on the wetland habitat in Cell C? How does staff propose that "floatables" be raked from dense beds of Typha species?

5.2 Draining of Sewage

In your report to the RCAMC you state the following concerning the draining of Cell C:

The outlet structure for Cell C has been designed to drain by gravity (siphon) back to the pumping station. This will drain the lagoon down to 450 mm above the bottom of the lagoon. The reason for the 450 mm dimension is due to debris that sits on the bottom of the lagoon. It is not unusual for there to be 200-300 mm of this debris. In order to ensure that there is no plugging of the line, sufficient space has to be maintained from the inlet to the bottom of the lagoon. There has been an allowance for further lowering of the water in the lagoon. The outlet structure has a plate that can be removed to allow water to be pumped back to the pumping station through the use of a portable submersible pump. (File No. 19-97-0013-V)

We repeat our previous questions, revised accordingly:

(i) Will the staff of the city’s Operating Division empty Cell C using a portable pump following all future bypass events? If so, to what depth can Cell C be emptied after any such event? Since the above referenced debris is a constituent of the sewage, and as such is supposed to be emptied from Cell C along with the drainable constituents, can we be assured that pumping will remove the debris?

(ii) Does staff also propose to use pumping, rather than draining by gravity, in fulfilling its commitment to gradually reduce water depths in Cell C, once or twice every year, for the purpose of managing the wetland habitat in Cell C for migrating shorebirds?

(iii) If the answer to the above two questions is affirmative, on what basis has staff concluded that pumping is preferable to draining by gravity? Please answer this question taking into consideration disruption to RCA operations, the respective costs of the two alternatives and other options for preventing plugging of the forcemain. Again, if the answer to the above two questions is affirmative, was the Council of the City of Ottawa consulted on the decision in question? Why was the RCAMC not consulted?

5.3 Restricting Public Access

Can the RCAMC be assured that Cell C will not be fenced, and nor will any combination of some or all of Cells A, B and C at any future time? If that is the case, will the RCAMC be consulted on the development of protocols for restricting public access during bypasses of sewage to Cell C? (We observe that for at least a month, a City of Ottawa sign stating "Do not enter, waste water present" has been erected at the Eagleson Road entrance to the RCA, which unnecessarily restricts access to the entire Richmond Lagoon area, rather than just Cell C.)

6. Mitigation of Impacts on the Richmond Conservation Area

6.1 Mitigation during Construction

6.11 Public Accessibility

Why was the RCAMC not consulted on protocols for minimizing impacts during construction, such as those on the two Eagleson Road entranceways and those on the berm of Cell B? Will the entranceways be repaired once construction is complete? If so, when will repairs be undertaken, and will the RCAMC be consulted on both the entranceway repairs and mitigation for the Cell B berm?

6.2 Mitigation after Construction

In your report to the RCAMC you state:

We are proposing to submit a report to the Environmental Services Committee on December 11, 2001 that will provide an update on the status of the project and seek approval to undertake permeability testing of the lagoons. Pumping Station modifications will be reviewed once testing (if approved) of the lagoons is completed and a workplan has been identified. (File No. 19-97-0013-V)

We therefore repeat the following questions:

(i) If the soils underlying Cell C are impermeable, that would seem to give sufficient grounds for fulfilling of the commitment to modify the pumping station; for the modifications were also supposed to allow river water to be pumped to Cell C for habitat management purposes (ESR p. 15, §6, rec. 1). In fact, the modifications were intended to allow water to be pumped into Cell C for its management as a mudflat to attract migrating shorebirds. Since Cell C is believed by City of Ottawa Operating Division staff to have the ability to hold water, it should still be useable by the RCAMC in management efforts to attract shorebirds during the spring migration, if not the summer/fall migration also. Accordingly, the modifications to the pumping station should not be made contingent on the integrity of Cells A and B. Indeed the only mitigation effort, which could justifiably have been made contingent on the permeability of either Cell A or B, is the 200 mm diameter forcemain extension to Cell B, and that is the only mitigation effort that has been done. Why has the extension to Cell B been completed, given that staff maintains that Cell B will not hold water? Why have the modifications to the Richmond Pumping Station that would permit water to be pumped from the Jock River to the Richmond Lagoons not been done, given that staff believes Cell C can hold water?

(ii) The commitment to modify the Richmond Pumping Station in a manner that would permit water to be pumped from the Jock River to the Richmond Lagoons was made to stakeholders, with Regional Council and staff knowing that the question of both Cell A’s and Cell B’s ability to hold water remained unanswered. The commitment was not conditional on this question having been answered in accordance with the most rigorous standards of evidence. There is now strong evidence, even if not the strongest possible, for the assertion that Cell B holds water. Since the assertion that Cell C is sufficiently impermeable to hold sewage is based on data from four auger holes which are assumed to be representative of an area of approximately 37, 500 m^2,, we question why the most rigorous scientific standards must be satisfied to justify an expenditure of $40, 000 to pump water into Cell B, while much less rigorous standards have been applied in justifying an expenditure of $485, 000 to pump sewage into Cell C. Why is the staff of the City of Ottawa’s Operating Division not applying standards of evaluation commensurate with the costs and risks of the proposed undertaking, as would seem to be only reasonable?

7. Consultation with Stakeholders and the Joint Use Agreement

In your report to the RCAMC you state that, as a result of amalgamation, a joint use agreement is no longer required. The events of the last several weeks prove that a joint use agreement is required. Will a joint use agreement be completed to deal with questions concerning operations protocols for the lagoons?

Conclusion

In your report to the RCAMC you state, "If there are any questions or concerns about what we are doing, please feel free to contact us and we will do our best to answer your questions". We trust that the Friends of the Jock River, which the Council of the City of Ottawa has recently given a position on the RCAMC, will receive answers to its questions.

Sincerely,

Eric Snyder

HOME  |  BACK