| |
Richmond Conservation Area “Sewergate”
Richmond
Conservation Area or
Richmond Sewage Lagoons:
What does Janet Stavinga
really intend for the Village of Richmond?
…and for Munster
Hamlet?
Overview
- April 2003:
- In the spring of 2000, as Goulbourn mayor,
Janet Stavinga promised that none of the Richmond lagoons
would be taken from the Richmond Conservation Area as a result of
its use for sewage storage.
- As a City of Ottawa councillor, she claimed in December
2002 that only one lagoon has been taken from the
conservation area to become part of the city’s sewage works.
-
In March 2003, the Ministry of Environment admitted: “All
the works approved through amended Certificate of Approval No.
3-0834-83-006 were submitted, by the city, for emergency and
maintenance purposes.” This means that two lagoons were
given new connections to the Richmond pumping station for sewage
storage, and the third remains part of the Richmond sewage
facilities.
- How does Janet Stavinga explain the discrepancies between
her promises, her statements, and the information from the
Ministry of Environment?
- How
does she explain the selection of the Richmond Conservation Area
Management Team? Allegations of conflict of interest
involving Councillor Stavinga, herself, along with conflict of
interest involving
a Management Team volunteer, and
corruption of the selection process have never been openly
publicly addressed by the City of Ottawa.
- To restore public trust, the city must provide
credible answers about its intentions regarding the Richmond
Lagoons, and must address the allegations concerning the
Management Team in a transparent and open manner.
For the full
details, read on:
Richmond
Conservation Area or Richmond Sewage Lagoons: What does Janet
Stavinga really intend for the Village of Richmond . . . . and
Munster Hamlet?
On 16 December 2002, City of Ottawa councillor,
Janet Stavinga, said to a gymnasium full of Richmond and Munster
residents, that only one lagoon has been taken from the Richmond
Conservation Area for storage of sewage. The question, which we
so often find ourselves asking about statements made by
politicians, must be asked in this case too. Is her statement
true? Her actions, and the actions of the city staff with whom
she works, would seem to suggest otherwise.
Confronting the Facts
How many lagoons have been designated for
sewage storage? The answer to this
million-dollar question can be found in the details of Certificate
of Approval 3-0834-83-006, which was issued to the City of Ottawa
for the Richmond pumping station by the Ministry of Environment.
The certificate allows the city to put municipal sewage in
all of the Richmond lagoons, not just one. The
certificate was amended in August 2001, at which time two of the
lagoons should have been removed from the city’s sewage facilities
because, according to the study that led to the amendment, they
are not up to current standards for municipal sewage storage.
Since November of 2001, a local environmental organization, the
Friends of the Jock River, has been asking both the city and the
Ministry of Environment to correct the certificate. But the city
has shown no willingness to have the certificate amended a second
time.
What is the city’s
defense for refusing to have the sub-standard lagoons removed from
the certificate? City of Ottawa
engineer, Birgitte Alting-Mees, who, until very recently, was
responsible for sewage treatment projects in both Richmond and
Munster, wrote to the Ministry of Environment in January 2002 to
make the city’s case for retaining all lagoons under the existing
certificate of approval. Her letter, which was carbon copied to
Janet Stavinga, states, “It has never been the intention to
utilize Cells A and B [the two sub-standard lagoons] for [sewage]
bypass storage . . .” This is untrue, as is made abundantly clear
in the 1999 Richmond pumping station study, which contradicts Ms.
Alting-Mees’ statement. Her letter continues with the claim that
cells A and B will be used to store Jock River water for the
Richmond Conservation Area, adding, “Since the inlets to Cells A
and B and the 200mm forcemain represent a physical link to
the Richmond pumping station, we believe it is important to
maintain the designation under . . . Certificate of Approval
3-0834-83-006.”
The “physical link”
defense does not hold up under examination, however. The Friends
of the Jock River has asked the Ministry of Environment to provide
references to any statement in any provincial act, policy or
regulation, which implies that a physical link requires that the
designation be maintained. In over a year, the ministry has still
not come forward with the requested information. The fact is that
the information does not exist. If we were to take the “physical
link” argument seriously, its consequences would be downright
absurd: Every residence in Richmond is physically linked to the
pumping station by means of piping, and need not be designated
under Certificate of Approval 3-0834-83-006.
To answer Ms.
Alting-Mees’ other claim: It certainly is not necessary to
have Cells A and B designated under the certificate in order to
manage them for the Richmond Conservation Area. On the contrary,
retaining cells A and B under the existing certificate of approval
will make it more difficult and costly to manage them for
conservation purposes. Furthermore, as long as cells A and B are
designated under Certificate of Approval 3-0834-83-006, the
conditions of the certificate restrict the means of achieving
management objectives for the habitat in the lagoons. In fact,
under the conditions of the certificate, the only way of achieving
those objectives will involve unacceptable disturbance to both
wild life and conservation area visitors.
So, what conclusion can
we draw at this point? The city’s stated reasons for maintaining
cells A and B under the existing certificate of approval do not
withstand scrutiny. Moreover, it only makes sense that
sub-standard lagoons should not remain under the conditions of a
certificate, which allows municipal sewage to be stored in them.
So only one question remains: Why the continued arguments from
the city that it be allowed to retain the cells under the
certificate, unless it plans to use them for sewage storage at
some future time?
The Truth is Out
There
Additional evidence for
this conclusion comes from consideration of the would-be joint use
agreement for the Richmond lagoons. The undertaking by Goulbourn
Township and the Regional Municipality of Ottawa-Carleton to write
a joint use agreement for the Richmond Conservation Area is of
great interest for a variety of reasons, particularly considering
Janet Stavinga’s involvement. For the present purposes, however,
only a brief overview is necessary. The Richmond pumping station
study was undertaken in March 1998 by the Regional Municipality of
Ottawa-Carleton. The study was supposed to identify low-cost
alternatives for dealing with flows in the pumping station
exceeding its capacity. However, from the outset it seems that
those conducting the study considered storage of sewage within the
Richmond lagoons, in the event of excessive flows, to be the
inevitable choice. The first meetings relating to the study
were on 16 February 1998, fifteen months before the study report
was completed. The minutes of the second meeting of that day
record the Region’s consultant, Dave McManus, suggesting that
“given the inevitability of the lagoon recommendation,” an
evaluation of impacts on habitats in the Richmond lagoons should
be made before “the local environmental group is approached.” No
evaluation was ever made, at least not by the Region or Goulbourn
Township. But planning continued for the “lagoon
recommendation.” By March 1999, still about three months before
publication of the study, staff at the Region together with
Goulbourn mayor, Janet Stavinga, had decided that a joint use
agreement was needed, stipulating their respective rights and
responsibilities in managing the conservation area lands for
both conservation and sewage storage. Regional council agreed
that a joint use agreement was needed, in July 1999, when it
approved the recommendations of the Richmond pumping station
study.
Staff at the Regional
Municipality of Ottawa-Carleton, who are now City of Ottawa staff,
released a draft joint use agreement in the late summer of 2000.
The draft reveals that, about a year before Certificate of
Approval 3-0834-83-006 was issued, staff working on the Richmond
pumping station project intended that all the lagoon cells
would remain part of the sewage facility. The agreement
stipulates: “Goulbourn agrees to grant to the Region . . . the
right to use Lagoon Cell C, together with such rights over the
remainder of the Lagoon Lands, as are necessary for the purposes
of complying with the Certificate of Approval (Sewage) Certificate
Number 3-0843-83-006 dated September 2, 1983 as it may be amended
or replaced from time to time.” This sounds unobjectionable until
we consider staff’s definition of “Lagoon Lands.” “Lagoon lands,”
according to the draft joint use agreement, “means the lands and
works . . . which contain the Former Richmond Sewage Lagoon Cells
A, B and C, Collection System and Associated Works.” In other
words, it would seem that it has always been the intention
of City of Ottawa staff to retain all of the Richmond
lagoons as part of Richmond’s sewage facility.
Further support is given to this conclusion, if
we consider the extension of the 200mm diameter forcemain from the
Richmond pumping station to both Cell B and Cell C. The extension
was completed by the city’s contractor during the fall of 2001,
after Certificate of Approval 3-0834-83-006 was issued. According
to the environmental screening report for the Richmond pumping
station study, the extension is intended “to permit the discharge
of sewage into Cell C and water into Cells B and C.” However, as
long as Certificate of Approval 3-0834-83-006 remains in place,
the extension permits more than water to be discharged into the
sub-standard Cell B. An email obtained at the Ottawa District
offices of the Ministry of Environment, apparently filed
mistakenly with other documents concerning the Richmond lagoons,
contains an interpretation of Certificate of Approval
3-0834-83-006, forwarded from staff at Dave McManus Engineering to
Birgitte Alting-Mees. The interpretation comes originally from
Bryan Dickman, Senior Environmental Officer at the Ministry of
Environment, who wrote, “C of A #3-0843-83-006 with respect to the
Richmond lagoons says: Sewage can be pumped from the pumping
station to Cells B and C during periods of shutdown.”
Bryan Dickman’s email would seem to give
confirmation of what City of Ottawa staff has always wanted,
i.e., to retain as many lagoons as possible for sewage
storage. There are a number of reasons to believe this
conclusion, in addition to those already given. The first
concerns which corporation agreed to pay for the extension,
i.e., the Region rather than Goulbourn Township. The second
has to do with the phasing of the Richmond pumping station
project. The last concerns the design of the inlet structure for
the extension into Cell B.
Why did Regional staff not want Goulbourn
Township to pay for the extension to Cell B?
Before the city became responsible for the Richmond pumping
station project, Regional staff estimated the cost of the
extension to cells B and C at $75, 000. Staff was insistent in
its recommendations to the Region’s Planning and Environment
Committee, that Goulbourn Township cover the cost of any work done
for conservation purposes, and recommended that it “pay the
estimated $40,000 for the pumping station improvements which will
permit pumping of Jock River water to the lagoons.” But they did
not show any desire for Goulbourn to pay the cost of the extension
to Cell B, which was also supposed to be for conservation
purposes. Was this because the extension to Cell B was really
intended for the purpose of providing sewage storage capacity?
What about the phasing and design of the
extension? In May of 2001, staff
from the City of Ottawa attended a meeting of the Richmond
Conservation Area Management Team to inform it of their intention
to implement the Richmond pumping station study recommendations in
two phases. The first phase would deal with the work required for
sewage storage. The second would deal with conservation work to
satisfy the Richmond Conservation Area Management Plan. The
extension to Cell B was subsequently completed in the first
phase. Furthermore, in response to the Friends of the Jock
River’s concerns about the design of the inlet structure for the
pipe extended into Cell C, city staff suggested that the design
was necessary to prevent obstruction of the forcemain from
200-300mm of “debris” that would be present in the cell after it
was filled with sewage. But the same design has been used
for the inlet structure in Cell B. There is no question that this
design will not facilitate habitat management in that
lagoon. At this point, therefore, the conclusion to draw from the
available facts would seem to be obvious.
So, it is clear that there are compelling reasons to believe that
the City of Ottawa intends to use more than one of the Richmond
lagoons for sewage storage. As mayor of Goulbourn Township, Janet
Stavinga ostensibly supported a proposal from the Goulbourn
Environmental Advisory Committee to continue the management of
Cell C for conservation, even though it was to be used as part of
the Region’s sewage facilities. However, as City of Ottawa
councillor on the Richmond Conservation Area Management Team for
the last two years, she has done nothing to further this
commitment. In fact, a 12 December 2002 water taking application
for the conservation area, done by the City of Ottawa in close
consultation with the management team, states, “Water levels in
the cells A and B will be managed by RCAMT throughout the year.
There is to be no active management of water levels within cell C.”
Hence, it appears that Janet Stavinga has no intention of
fulfilling her past commitment to the conservation area. If a
lagoon in the Richmond Conservation Area is used for sewage, it
is, in effect, removed from the lands of the conservation area.
This would seem to be the future of Cell B, and perhaps eventually
Cell A.
Managing the Lagoons . . . for Conservation?
But could not someone make a case against this
conclusion? Is not the city currently planning to spend a
considerable amount of money for the management of the Richmond
Conservation Area, including the installation of pumps to increase
water levels in the lagoons for habitat management? Furthermore,
has not the City of Ottawa appointed a management team to
implement the Richmond Conservation Area Management Plan, giving
it a budget and staff support? The answer to both questions is
“Yes,” but that is not the whole story.
In 1999, the council of the Regional
Municipality of Ottawa-Carleton agreed to pay $40,000 for the
purchase and installation of a pump to take water from the Jock
River and release it into Richmond lagoon cells A and B. As has
already been explained, staff at the Region did not support this
expenditure. The same staff, working for the City of Ottawa,
insisted that, before it could recommend the purchase and
installation of a pump, the ability of cells A and B to hold water
must be proven scientifically, using the most rigorous
methods of testing. Staff claimed that, based on modelling of the
permeability of cells A and B, done by Dave McManus Engineering,
if filled with 1.5m of water, the former cell would be fully
drained within about fourteen days, the latter within about
twenty-eight. Daniel Brunton, the city’s consulting biologist,
concluded that it is impossible to implement the management plan
for the Richmond Conservation Area.
However, McManus’ model was in fact a
projection based on data from lagoon substrate samples that was
insufficient for making a reliable prediction. The conclusion
derived from this paucity of data contradicted the experience of
all those who had been working to establish the conservation area
for over ten years, and observing water levels in the Richmond
lagoons for just as long. These individuals were unconvinced by,
not to say incredulous of, the arguments from the city’s
consultants.
Nonetheless, with Janet Stavinga’s support,
staff hired Dave McManus Engineering to conduct a study, at an
estimated cost of $53,800 ($13,800 more than the $40,000 estimated
cost of the pump), to decide whether the Richmond lagoons could be
managed in accordance with the Richmond Conservation Area
Management Plan. The test of the permeability of Cells A and B
was undertaken in the spring of 2002, with the diligent
participation of organizations such as the Friends of the Jock
River. Needless to say, many thousands of dollars later, the
predictions of Dave McManus and Daniel Brunton were irrefutably
falsified. Both cell A and cell B are still holding water.
Thus, after more than a year of delays, the
City of Ottawa is finally undertaking to install a pump,
ostensibly to allow habitat management in Richmond lagoon cells A
and B. However, since the city remains resistant to having
Certificate of Approval 3-0834-83-006 properly amended, it remains
to be seen how beneficial the installation of this pump will be.
Dave McManus Engineering’s October 2001 report, entitled “Proposed
Modifications for Pumping Raw Water to Lagoon Cells A and B,”
states that Jock River water drawn through the Richmond pumping
station “can be used for flushing the 200 and 500mm forcemains.”
Perhaps that will be the greatest benefit, and perhaps that is the
real purpose of the pump.
Submitting Names, and Political Games?
Let us now consider the question of the
Richmond Conservation Area Management Team, appointed by the City
of Ottawa to implement the Richmond Conservation Area Management
Plan. As with many of the city’s decisions regarding the
conservation area, the purpose of its decision to appoint a
conservation area management team is subject to interpretation.
There were in fact two management teams
appointed by City of Ottawa council in 2002. The first team was
appointed during the summer, following a recommendation in June
from the selection panel for the Richmond Conservation Area
Management Team to the Environmental Services Committee. All
applicants were recommended for appointment except the nominee
from the Friends of the Jock River. This applicant, who is in
fact the main author of the Richmond Conservation Area Management
Plan, was the only applicant who had raised concerns about
Certificate of Approval 3-0834-83-006. The selection panel that
recommended against his appointment consisted of only two
individuals, councillor Janet Stavinga and the chair of the
existing management team, Brenda Hutchinson. The City of Ottawa
decided to do the appointments again, after a number of objections
were raised about the appointment process.
The details of the objections can be obtained
from various sources. Some are available on the Friends of the
Jock River website. Therefore, it will suffice merely to give an
overview of the concerns here. First, according to the city’s
Appointments Policy, neither Janet Stavinga nor Brenda Hutchinson
satisfied requirements necessary to sit on the selection panel.
Second, Brenda Hutchinson’s sitting on the selection panel,
without disclosing the situation to the city clerk, was contrary
to the city’s Advisory Committees Conflict of Interest
Guidelines. For she had reapplied to sit on the Richmond
Conservation Area Management Team and her spouse had also
applied. Further concerns were raised about work done on
conservation area land immediately adjacent to Brenda Hutchinson’s
residence. The motion, which designated existing Richmond
Conservation Area funds for this work, and which requested that
additional funds be found by the city, was written by Brenda
Hutchinson and Janet Stavinga, and moved by the former at a
meeting of the Richmond Conservation Area Management Team.
The second appointment of a management team for
the Richmond Conservation Area was on 25 September 2002. Most of
the applicants previously appointed were reappointed, including
Brenda Hutchinson’s husband, Daniel Matko. The applicants not
appointed included nominees from the Friends of the Jock River,
the Richmond Village Association and the Ottawa Field-Naturalists’
Club - all the organizations that had expressed concerns about the
previous appointments to the management team. Why were they not
appointed? Following the previous appointments, the city revised
its Appointments Policy, adding the requirement that organizations
must submit names of two nominees for review by city
selection panels. The reason for this revision has never been
explained. The second selection panel for the Richmond
Conservation Area Management Team consisted of councillors Janet
Stavinga and Peter Hume. Since none of the above organizations
was able to find a second nominee, the councillors recommended
that the city not appoint any representatives from those
organizations. An objection was raised once again because,
according to the city’s revised Appointments Policy, Janet
Stavinga did not satisfy the requirements necessary to sit on the
selection panel. The city was asked: If the Appointments Policy
need not be followed with respect to selection panels, why must it
be followed with respect to numbers of nominees? No answer to
this question has been given.
To summarize, the City of Ottawa has appointed
a management team for the Richmond Conservation Area. The team is
supposed to implement the Richmond Conservation Area Management
Plan. But there have been irregularities with the appointments
process, and some of the most qualified applicants were not
appointed. City of Ottawa staff is apparently revising the
Richmond Conservation Area Management Plan, without consulting the
person who wrote the part of the plan on managing the lagoons -
surely a person who should be consulted whether on the management
team or not. This happens to be the same person who maintains
that Certificate of Approval 3-0834-83-006 causes unnecessary
difficulties for implementing the plan, and should be amended a
second time. It might be added that the city has had a lot of
difficulty finding volunteers to sit on the management team.
Recently, in February 2003, it again posted advertisements for
more management team members.
Conclusion
In conclusion, let us ask once more: Was Janet Stavinga’s
statement to Munster and Richmond residents on 16 December, 2002
true? Although she has stated that only Cell C of the Richmond
lagoons has been taken for sewage storage, everything is in
place for putting the other, sub-standard, lagoon cells to the
same use. If the city really has no intention of doing so, that
can be demonstrated without a great deal of difficulty. The
concerns raised here could be put to rest, if the city were to
undertake to have Certificate of Approval 3-0834-83-006 amended to
exclude cells A and B. Why is Janet Stavinga not undertaking to
have this done?
February 2004 update:
Although many of the serious allegations
concerning the RCAMT have still not been addressed, thanks to the
efforts of the Friends of the Jock River, Cells A and B have now
been removed from C of A Number 3-0834-83-006. For details see
the 29 July 2003 Friends of the Jock River Press Release.
CLICK HERE.
|
|