Brown, John (Ted) E. (President, Richmond Village Association)

P.O. Box 04, Richmond, ON, K0A 2Z0

Telephone (residence): (613) 838-5389, Telephone (work): Not applicable.

______________ ___________________________________

Finch, Brian J. (President, Friends of the Jock River)

45 Eisenhower Cr., Nepean, ON, K2J 3Z8

Telephone (residence): (613) 825-8029, Telephone (work): (613) 954-4106

______________ ___________________________________

Not applicable.

110 Laurier St.,
Ottawa, ON
K1P 1J1
Tel. (613) 580-2400
Tel. (613) 580-2424

Section Number: Part II.1: Section 13 (3)(a): Section 15

The requirements of the Class EA process have not been satisfied by the "Munster Hamlet Sewage Treatment Environmental Study Report for a Class EA Wastewater Treatment System Expansion/Upgrade" (ESR) and the "Addendum to the ESR Class EA Wastewater Treatment System Expansion/Upgrade," undertaken by the Region of Ottawa-Carleton (now the amalgamated City of Ottawa). Proceeding with the project to Phase 5 of the Planning and Design Process for Municipal Class EA’s, is either a contravention or is about to result in a contravention of the EA Act. For, since the requirements of the Class EA process have not been satisfied, the proponent is not in compliance with Part II.1, Section 13 (3)(a) of the EA Act. Non-compliance with this section of the EA Act is consequent on non-compliance with Section 15 of the EA Act as detailed in 5(C) of this application.

The City of Ottawa has not satisfied the requirements of the Class EA process through the "Munster Hamlet Sewage Treatment Environmental Study Report for a Class EA Wastewater Treatment System Expansion/Upgrade" and the "Addendum to the ESR Class EA Waste Water Treatment System Expansion/Upgrade," in that:

(C.1.1) Statement of Alleged Contravention: The proponent intends to proceed with its preferred alternative for the project under the May 1999 "Addendum for the ESR Class EA Wastewater treatment System Expansion/Upgrade." However, the proponent’s selection of its preferred alternative on 2 May 2003 was in fact based on two documents completed respectively in December 2002 and April 2003. The first document, "Munster Hamlet Wastewater Treatment Facility Re-evaluation of Alternatives," dated 16 December 2002, by R. V. Anderson Associates Ltd., was undertaken as a result of Decision 0926 of the Ontario Municipal Board delivered by N. M. Katary on 8 June 2001. The second document, "Annex ‘A’, Munster Hamlet Wastewater Review Technical Memorandum: Supporting Information submitted to City of Ottawa, Infrastructure Services Branch, 560 Rochester St., Ottawa, ON," dated 30 April 2003, by R. V. Anderson Associates Ltd., was commissioned by City of Ottawa staff for the stated purpose of ensuring "due diligence prior to recommending an appropriate solution for Council approval."

For the MOE to fulfill its obligation to prepare a review of the Class EA, under Part II.1, Section 15 of the EA Act (which states inter alia that Part II, Subsection 7(1) applies mutatis mutandis to Class EA’s), a second addendum to the January 1996 "Munster Hamlet Sewage Treatment Environmental Study Report," based on both the R. V. Anderson Associates Ltd. documents, must be filed with the EAA Branch of MOE. As the proponent for the project, it is the responsibility of the City of Ottawa to provide, through the Class EA process, "clear and complete documentation of the planning process followed, to allow for the traceability of decision-making with respect to the project."

(C.1.2) Explication: On 4 October 2000, the Ontario Minister of Environment, under Section 9 of the EA Act, approved the Municipal Class Environmental Assessment prepared by the Municipal Engineers’ Association. Accordingly, this document may be interpreted as an explication of the EA Act, particularly as it concerns Class EA’s.

The Municipal Class Environmental Assessment gives the key principles of successful environmental assessment planning under the EA Act, including inter alia:

It further states, under Section A.2.1, "Five Phase Class EA Planning Process," that during Phase 4 of the process, the proponent must:

In addition, it states:

The same point is emphasized under Section A.4, "Documentation and Revisions – Addenda":

Documentation of the planning and design process followed in developing Schedule B and C projects is, therefore, a mandatory requirement of this Class EA. It is important that, for all Schedule B and C projects, documentation be established that allows traceability.

Under Section A.4.2, "Schedule C – Environmental Study Report," the Municipal Class Environmental Assessment states:

(C.1.3) Discussion: Previously, questions have been raised that must be considered in evaluating the status of the two R. V. Anderson Associates Ltd. documents under the EA Act.

On 27 September 2001, Ontario Superior Court Justice A. de L. Panet heard a motion for leave to appeal to the Divisional Court the 8 June 2001 Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) decision. The City maintained that the Minister of the Environment has exclusive jurisdiction to deal with undertakings such as the subject wastewater treatment alternative, and that the OMB, in considering a proposed amendment to an Official Plan, has no jurisdiction to consider such evidence as that given in support of an EA in exercising its jurisdiction under the Planning Act. Justice de L. Panet rejected the City of Ottawa’s motion in a 29 October 2001 decision, stating: (i) "There is no statutory direction which states that the OMB cannot consider the same evidence that supported an environmental assessment when it is presented in support of an official plan amendment," and (ii) "It would be unprecedented to require the OMB to decline its independent jurisdiction to decide whether an undertaking is good land use planning or not, simply because an undertaking has received an approval from the Ministry of the Environment."

The OMB decided in effect that the City should revisit the Class EA for Munster’s wastewater treatment system expansion/upgrade; that being a necessary condition for deciding the land use planning questions which the OMB had before it. The OMB decision stated that the City should undertake to have three wastewater treatment alternatives – pipeline, mechanical treatment plant discharging to the Jock River and Snowfluent – re-evaluated to the satisfaction of City council. The OMB advised that the re-evaluation be done using both qualitative and quantitative methods; and in particular, that the Weighted Additive Method be employed with modifications, if necessary. The OMB decision was based on the presumption that deciding the propriety of the pipeline alternative required (i) an assessment of the methodology used during the Class EA to arrive at Table F-1 of the "Addendum for the ESR Class EA Wastewater treatment System Expansion/Upgrade," and (ii) a re-evaluation of alternatives in light of the aforementioned assessment and additional evidence made available at the hearing. The effect of the OMB decision was that the proponent had to undertake a re-evaluation of wastewater treatment alternatives for Munster Hamlet both in accordance with the requirements of the OMB decision relating to good land use planning, and accordingly, in a manner consistent with the requirements of a Class EA.

Furthermore, in undertaking to have a re-evaluation of the alternatives done "to the satisfaction of City council," in the words of Mr. Katary, City of Ottawa staff was required to have the re-evaluation completed under the existing EA for the Munster wastewater treatment system expansion/upgrade. For, the council of the City of Ottawa, in approving the action plan presented in a 10 July 2001 staff report, did so with the stated intent that compliance with the terms of the OMB decision should be undertaken "while respecting the requirements of the Environmental Assessment process." Moreover, in preparing its action plan for council, City staff solicited advice from the MOE "to ensure that no provisions of the Environmental Assessment Act were contravened", as is recorded in the discussion preceding the recommended plan which was submitted to council. In addition, the action plan contains the statement: "The proposals [for the re-evaluation] will be evaluated with the consultant presenting the team with the best combination of corporate experience, team depth and experience with the EA process, being chosen for the assignment." All of the above quotations from City of Ottawa Report ACS2001-TUP-INF-0014 support the conclusion that Ottawa City council required the re-evaluation of alternatives for the Munster wastewater treatment system expansion/upgrade to be done as part of the EA for the project when it approved City staff’s action plan on 11 July 2001.

Finally, as stated above, both R. V. Anderson Associates Ltd. documents were adduced by the proponent on 2 May 2003 in selecting its preferred alternative for the project in question.

To satisfy the requirements for review, documentation and "traceability" under the EA Act, the City of Ottawa must file an addendum to the January 1996 "Munster Hamlet Sewage Treatment Environmental Study Report," which is based on the R. V. Anderson Associates Ltd. documents.

(C.1.4) Corollary Remarks: It is particularly important that both R. V. Anderson Associates Ltd. documents be reviewed by the MOE since the first recommends against the City’s preferred alternative and the second, which remains unsigned by its author, gives no recommendations. Mr. Reg Andres, Vice-president, R. V. Anderson Associates Ltd., has stated in personal communication with Mr. R. A. H. Snyder, Vice-president, Richmond Village Association, that Annex ‘A’ in no way alters his company’s recommendations. Consequently, without agency review, there is serious concern that the purpose of the EA Act (i.e., "the betterment of the people of the whole or any part of Ontario by providing for the protection, conservation and wise management in Ontario of the environment") will be undermined if the project proceeds to Phase 5 of the Planning and Design Process for Municipal Class EA’s.

The alleged contravention is sufficiently serious to warrant an investigation because, if the City of Ottawa implements its preferred alternative:

(i) A forcemain will be routed past rural residences between Munster Hamlet and the village of Richmond, and also through the village of Richmond, which will place at risk approximately 1500 homes that are dependent on the shallow aquifer underlying Richmond for their water supply.

(ii) An additional stress will be added to the Richmond sanitary sewer system, which according to "Hydraulic Transient Analysis of the Richmond Pump Station and Forcemain and Break Investigation - Jock River Crossing in the City of Ottawa, Ontario, Canada," dated August 2003, by Environmental Hydraulics Group Inc., is predisposed to failure. Given various uncertainties about the Richmond sanitary sewer system, Environmental Hydraulics Group Inc. acknowledges that the adequacy of its proposed mitigation measures against future failures cannot be confirmed. The added stress to the system is associated with a risk to the Jock River, since the weak part of the Richmond sanitary sewer system consists of two forcemain connections under the river’s bed. The connections have already failed twice, one within six weeks after its construction in 2001 and the other six months later.

(iii) No assessment has been completed for impacts of the forcemain on the Richmond Fen Wetland, a provincially significant wetland along the planned forcemain route. The stated reason for this has been that no assessment is required because the forcemain will be constructed within an existing road bed, which passes through the wetland. However, the City of Ottawa has more recently stated that the forcemain will be placed within the road easement, not necessarily the bed, which increases the potential for negative impacts on wetland flora and fauna.

(B) (i) Mr. Richard Bendall, appellant, OMB Hearing on Munster Hamlet Wastewater Treatment Alternatives, 8082 Copeland Rd., RR2 Ashton, ON, K0A 1B0.

(ii) Mr. Terrance Denison, Attorney at Law, 984 Pinewood Cr., Ottawa, ON, K2B 5Y5

(iii) Mr. Martin Hauschild, Executive Vice-president of Marketing, Seprotech Systems Inc., 2378 Holly Lane, Ottawa, ON, K1V 7P1

(iv) Mr. Peter Jordan, owner, Brackenshiel Enterprises Inc., 1 Lucas Lane, Stittsville, ON, K2S 1S5

(v) Mr. Richard Pellerin, P. Eng., owner, Scoterea Engineering, 11 Foxchapel Rd., London, ON, N6G 1Z1

(vi) Mr. Gordon Sample, appellant, OMB Hearing on Munster Hamlet Wastewater Treatment Alternatives, 7861 Franktown Rd., RR1 Richmond, ON, K0A 2Z0

(vii) Dr. Eric Snyder, Vice-president, Friends of the Jock River, P. O. Box 1961, Kemptville, ON, K0G 1JO

(viii) Mr. Harvey Snyder, P. Eng., Vice-president, Richmond Village Association, 7 Queenston Dr., Richmond, ON, K0A 2Z0

(ix) Mr. Jeff White, P. Eng., owner, Northern Watertech Corp., 200 Commerce Rd., Vars, ON, K0A 3H0

(ii) Municipal Class Environmental Assessment (replaces the Class EA’s for Municipal Projects, and Water and Wastewater Projects, June 1993), dated June 2000, by the Municipal Engineers’ Association

(iii) "Munster Hamlet Sewage Treatment Environmental Study Report for a Class EA Wastewater Treatment System Expansion/Upgrade," vols. I-III, dated January 1996, by Totten Sims Hubicki Associates

(iv) "Addendum for the ESR Class EA Wastewater Treatment System Expansion/Upgrade" (Ref. No. 12152(6)), dated May 1999, by Conestoga-Rovers and Associates

(v) "Munster Hamlet Wastewater Treatment Facility Re-evaluation of Alternatives" (RVA 5706), dated 16 December 2002, by R. V. Anderson Associates Ltd.

(vi) "Annex ‘A’, Munster Hamlet Wastewater Review Technical Memorandum: Supporting Information submitted to City of Ottawa, Infrastructure Services Branch, 560 Rochester St., Ottawa, ON" (RVA 5969), dated 30 April 2003, by R. V. Anderson Associates Ltd.

(vii) 28 February 2003 letter from Mr. Reg Andres, P. Eng., Vice-president, R. V. Anderson Associates Ltd. To Mr. Wayne Newell, P. Eng., City of Ottawa, Transportation, Utilities and Public Works, 560 Rochester Ave., 2^nd Floor, Carling Square, Ottawa, ON. RE: Munster Hamlet Wastewater System – Staff Report to Council (RVA: 5969)

(ix) "Agenda 35," dated 27 May 2003, Environmental Services Committee, City of Ottawa, Champlain Room, 110 Laurier Ave. West

(x) "Report to Environmental Services Committee and Council, Ref No. ACS2003-TUP-INF-0007," dated 2 May 2003, by Rosemarie Leclair, General Manager, Transportation, Utilities and Public Works, City of Ottawa

(xi) "Review and Assessment of the R. V. Anderson Associates Ltd. Munster Hamlet Wastewater Treatment Facility Re-evaluation of Alternatives – Final Report," dated 24 February 2003, prepared by the Richmond Village Association

(xii) "A Critical Analysis of the Munster Wastewater Treatment Project," November 2002, by Brackenshiel Enterprises Inc.

(xiv) "Richmond Pumping Station Forcemain Study Final Report," dated 21 May 1999, by Connelly McManus Engineering Ltd.

(xv) "Richmond Pumping Station and Forcemain Study Environmental Screening Report," dated June 1999, by Region of Ottawa-Carleton

(xvi) "Hydraulic Transient Analysis of the Richmond Pump Station and Forcemain and Break Investigation - Jock River Crossing in the City of Ottawa, Ontario, Canada," dated August 2003, by Environmental Hydraulics Group Inc.

(xvii) 15 October 2003 letter from Mr. Ted Brown, P. Eng. (ret.), President, Richmond Village Association, to Mr. Steve Burns, District Manager, Ottawa District, Eastern Region, MOE, 2435 Holly Lane, Ottawa, ON. RE: Proposed Munster Hamlet Sewage Pipeline _ Environmental Impact on the Village of Richmond.

(xviii) "Motion by the Plaintive for leave to appeal to the Divisional Court from a decision of the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) dated June 8, 2001," dated 29 October 2001 (Court File: No.: 01-DV-00616, Date: 20011029)

(xix) Ontario Municipal Board decision no.0926, dated June 8, 2001, delivered by N. M. Katary and order of the Board.

(xx) "Report to Environmental Services Committee and Council, Ref No. ACS2001-TUP-INF-0014," dated 10 May 2003, by Rosemarie Leclair, General Manager, Transportation, Utilities and Public Works, City of Ottawa

(xxi) "Report to Environmental Services Committee and Council, Ref No. ACS2001-TUP-INF-0014," dated 10 July 2001, by Rosemarie Leclair, General Manager, Transportation, Utilities and Public Works, City of Ottawa

(xxii) "Supplemenary Report: Munster Lagoon Rehabilitation Environmental Study – Cost Comparison," dated 22 May 1997, prepared by Michael Pinet, Township Engineer, Goulbourn Township

(xxiii) "Final Report for Wastewater Treatment Alternatives Evaluation, Munster Hamlet," dated October, prepared by Conestoga-Rovers & Associates

(xxiv) "Wastewater Pipeline Route Alternatives Evaluation, Munster Hamlet, Volume 1: Final Report," April 1999, Conestoga-Rovers & Associates and Natural Resources Solutions

(xxv) "Wastewater Pipeline Route Alternatives Evaluation, Munster Hamlet, Volume 2: Public and Government Consultation Summary," April 1999, Conestoga-Rovers & Associates

(xxvi) 27 November 2003 letter from Ms. Catherine Doherty, Manager, Client Services Section, EAA Branch, MOE, to Mr. Ted Brown, P. Eng. (ret.), President, Richmond Village Association. RE: Requirement for a Richmond Environmental Assessment.

(i) Meeting with Environmental Commissioner, Gord Miller, on 8 October 2003 to determine options under the EBR. The outcome of this consultation is the current application for an investigation.

(ii) Richmond Village Association letter to Mr. Steve Burns, District Manager, Eastern Region, MOE, dated 15 October 2003 to request that an EA be done for Richmond, that the MOE direct the City of Ottawa to stop work on the project, that no C of A for the pipeline be issued and that the MOE investigate particular questions relating to the Munster Class EA. The outcome of this consultation is a letter from Mr. Steve Burns dated 27 October 2003 stating that the Richmond Village Association’s correspondence has been forwarded to Mr. James O’Mara, Director, EAA Branch, MOE. Subsequently, a letter was received from Ms. Catherine Doherty, Manager, Client Services Section, EAA Branch, MOE, stating that the MOE would not be requiring an EA for impacts on Richmond, would not issue a stop work order and would not undertake an investigation.

(iii) Friends of the Jock River email to Mr. Ted Tuszynski, EAA Branch, dated 10 June 2003, asking for clarification of particular points relating to the EA process for Munster Hamlet’s sewage treatment system expansion/upgrade. The outcome of this consultation was an email from Mr. Tuszynski, dated 10 June 2003, stating that the Friends of the Jock River’s correspondence has been forwarded to Mr. Steve Burns, District Manager, Eastern Region, MOE. After two months, an email was sent to Mr. Burns, on 13 August 2003, asking that he indicate by 18 August when his reply to the initial correspondence would be coming. No reply to this email was ever received.