Message (below) to Mayor and Council, from Harvey Snyder, Director of the Richmond Village Association urges the city to align themselves to the principles of the provincial "White Paper on Watershed-based Source Protection Planning", by stopping their plan to send a pressurized sewage forcemain through Richmond's shallow aquifer:

-------- Original Message --------

The following has been extracted from the MOE white paper on watershed
based source protection planning.

For the past 18 months I have asked Mr. Hewitt and his subordinates, both
directly and through councillor Stavinga, to do exactly what this
describes, a TVRA (threat , vulnerability, risk assessment). They ignored me.

Had a TVRA that included the water source serving Richmond been performed, the city
would not be building a forcemain sewage pipe (human waste, household chemicals,
blood etc.) through the aquifer feeding our approx.1200 private shallow wells.

You can still stop it. To quote one of your colleagues, "the time is now."

R.A. Harvey Snyder, P.Eng.
Cell  613-720-0664

40
APPENDIX 2:

PROPOSED MANDATORY FRAMEWORK FOR
THE THREATS ASSESSMENT PROCESS

The details of this process would be informed by the work of the Technical
Experts Committee. One potential approach contains the following sequential steps:

1. Scope and objectives set during the assessment phase.

2. Threats inventory and analysis ? this is anticipated to be "generic" and
conservative so as to be consistent with the precautionary principle, and will 
include descriptors for data reliability and confidence, resulting in a ranking 
of threats from high to low.

3. Water resource sensitivity analysis ? identification of how individual
water resources may respond (generic) if a threat becomes an impact, including 
descriptors of analysis reliability and confidence, resulting in a numeric 
ranking of sensitivity.

4. Vulnerability analysis ? identification of the likelihood of specific threats
impinging upon the water resource, including proximity and pathway analysis
and reliability and confidence analysis, resulting in a numeric ranking 
of vulnerability.

5. Risk analysis compilation ? summarization of the threats, sensitivity and
vulnerability analysis to result in a compiled listing of relative "risk" 
including "confidence descriptors" derived from data reliability and confidence 
compilations.

6. Values analysis ? review of ranking summaries to identify water
resources that are threatened that have current or prospective use, or may be of 
high value to the SPPC, so as to concentrate planning activities upon highly valued 
water resources.
This would also incorporate into the risk ranking threats to other water
uses, including heritage, fisheries, wetlands, etc, for which a semi-quantitative
risk assessment approach may not be applicable.

7. Ranking of water resources under threat for subsequent detailed site-specific
analysis, utilizing a conservative (precautionary) approach when considering data
uncertainty.

8. Repeat Steps 2-7 using site-specific models and ground-truthed information about
threats, loadings, discharges, sensitivity, vulnerability including the ability to
document the existence and compliance of "best practices" or other risk mitigation
measures that will if maintained, substantially reduce the threat.

9. Designation of water resources as follows:

  drinking water resources under significant and direct threat for immediate actions
to reduce the threat;

  drinking water resources for which current risk reduction practices must be
maintained;

  future drinking water resources for which action is required either to restore or
maintain the water quality and quantity; and

  surface water resources and other water resources (wetlands, springs, heritage
waters) that require remediation or protection.

10. Delineation of management actions to be undertaken, including those to resolve
information gaps and pursue a monitoring program.