Thames Sydenham and Region Source Protection Committee

Transcription

1 Thames Sydenham and Region Source Protection Committee Meeting Notice Please be advised that a meeting of the Thames-Sydenham and Region Source Protection Committee has been called for the following time. Please confirm attendance with Deb Kirk at x256. Meeting Date: January 15, 2016 Meeting Time: Meeting Location: 10:00 am St. Clair Conservation Authority Board Room Proposed Agenda 1 Chair s Welcome and Introductions 10:00 2 Adoption of the Agenda 3 Delegations none 4 Minutes From the Previous Meetings SPC meeting October 16, Declaration of Conflict of Interest 6 Business arising from the minutes 6a 6b Members Addendum to Discussion Paper on the Participation in the SP Process Current SPC member extension letters Rules of Order/Code of Conduct 10:15 7 Business 10:30 7a 7b Reporting Requirements (45 min) MOECC presentation Thames-Sydenham and Region RMO Reporting Guidance Transport Pathways Guidance Draft Guidance 8 Information 8a Stewardship funding survey MOECC covering MOECC Survey 11:15 11:30 P a g e 1

2 9 In Camera Session (not planned) 10 Other Business 11:45 11 MOE Liaison report 12 Member Reports 13 Adjournment 12:00 Next Meeting: Friday, April 8, 2016 (SCRCA) P a g e 2

3 SPC MEETING MINUTES OCTOBER 16, 2015 Meeting #64 Bob Bedggood, Chair of the Source Protection Committee called the meeting to order at 10:00 a.m. on October 16, 2015 at the St. Clair Conservation Authority Boardroom. The following members and staff were in attendance Members Bob Bedggood Murray Blackie (SPA Liaison) Pat Donnelly Dean Edwardson Patrick Feryn Paul Hymus Carl Kennes George Marr James Maudsley Don McCabe Regrets: Kennon Johnson Brent Clutterbuck Joe Kerr Valerie M Garry Doug McGee Hugh Moran Augustus Tobias Staff: Chris Tasker Deb Kirk Girish Sankar Rick Battson Steve Clark Brian McDougall Michelle Fletcher Linda Nicks Don Pearson Teresa Hollingsworth Bonnie Carey Earl Morwood Darrell Randell Joe Salter Fatih Sekercioglu (HU Liaison) Charles Sharina Pat Sobeski John Trudgen John Van Dorp Darlene Whitecalf Teresa McLellan (Provincial Liaison)

4 1) Chair s Welcome Bob Bedggood welcomed the committee and announced that the Thames, Sydenham and Region Source Protection Plan is approved with an effective date of December 31, Fatih Sekercioglu the new Health Unit Liaison was introduced. Bob advised the members this is Chris Tasker s last SPC meeting due to reorganization at the UTRCA. The committee proceeded as a sub committee until a quorum was achieved. 2) Adoption of the Agenda The agenda was approved after quorum was achieved. Moved by Darrell Randall- seconded by Joe Kerr RESOLVED that the October 16 th meeting agenda be approved. CARRIED. 3) Delegations There were no delegations. 4) Minutes from Previous Meeting The June 12 SPC meeting minutes were approved once quorum was achieved. Moved by Darrell Randall -seconded by Dean Edwardson RESOLVED that the June 12 SPC meeting minutes were approved. CARRIED. Page 2 of 8

5 5) Declaration of Conflict of Interest No conflict of interest was identified. 6) Business arising from the minutes 6a) Members renewal following the plan approval Regulatory changes resulting from the EBR posting will affect the member renewal discussed at the previous meeting. This is covered in more detail under Agenda item 8d) SPC Regulation 288 changes. 7) Business 7b) Rules of Order/Code of Conduct The Rules of Order/Code of Conduct have been revised based on the SPC s discussions at the June SPC meeting. These SPC Policies will be endorsed by the Striking Committee and can be modified in the future if required. A high level summary was provided and a brief review of the SP website showing the meeting packages was given. Key Points; Meeting Per diems is streamlined to $ for all meetings. Number of meetings has been reduced to 2-4 per year and will be shorter in duration. Meetings will start at 10:00 a.m. Agenda and reports will be posted on the SP website and packages will be forwarded to the members electronically. Meeting minutes will be circulated to members for approval by an electronic recorded vote and then posted on the website. If the Chair is absent the SPA Liaison, MOE Liaison or SP Project Manager can call the meeting to order and ask to have an acting Chair appointed rather than establishing a Vice-Chair annually. Recording Secretary and Executive Committee has been eliminated. Working groups or sub-committees, no change. Proxy can be used as a last resort and count toward quorum. The rules for using proxy include members being required to forward their proxy in writing to a likeminded member and the Chair. The person who speaks for the absent member will need to use discretion based on the discussions during the meeting. Page 3 of 8

6 Pat Donnelly noted as we move into the next phase of implementation the Code of Conduct may be utilized more; rules pertaining to delegations and media contacts may occur more frequently. Any type of media contact needs to go through the Chair and communications staff. 8) Information 8a) Revisions to SPP and AR through approval The SPP and ARs required some revisions prior to approval. Michelle Fletcher gave a brief overview of these changes. The revisions highlighted included the pre-consultation section that was missed in the SPP that is now included on the DVD. The Ministry also requested verification relating to the microcystin policy listing the Essex Region as being the lead in microcystin monitoring; this was correct therefore no changes were made. Other minor editorial changes were done. 8b) SPP Approval and effective date Approval letters for the Assessment Reports (AR) and the Source Protection Plan (SPP) from the Minister were included in the member s packages. The ARs were approved September 16 and the SPP September 17. The SPP effective date is December 31, The reports are uploaded on the SP website and the geoportal is updated to include the approved mapping. The mapping now includes simple, high level new layers showing areas with significant threats, areas with low and moderate and other designated areas that municipalities need to consider. All municipalities need to be prepared especially for Part IV responsibilities and be able to process Section 59 applications. UTRCA will be providing Risk Management Services for five municipalities and two others are possible. Chatham-Kent, Oxford, Thames Centre and Middlesex Centre will be undertaking their own services. UTRCA is hosting a municipal workshop on October 30. The morning sessions will cover moderate/low threats and the afternoon significant threats. Bob spoke to the SP approval as a worthy commitment to protect drinking water sources for the future and thanked the committee for persevering through the process. 8c) Staffing Changes Chris Tasker reported on some of the recent staff changes at the UTRCA. When a senior manager left to accept a position as a municipal CAO this led to an opportunity for some Page 4 of 8

7 modifications to the UTRCA management team. Previously the Hydrology and Regulatory Services Unit included two mission centers; Flood Control and Regulatory Services which now are separate. Chris Tasker will be the Manager of Flood Control and will also be responsible for Information Management. Tracy Annett a planner for more than a decade will manage the Environmental Planning and Regulations Unit which will include Source Water Protection. This will allow for capacity as Source Protection shifts from planning to implementation while retaining the expertise to be ready for review of the SPP and the AR in Michelle Fletcher has accepted the position of Source Protection Coordinator which will include working with the SPC. The Policy and Risk Management Advisor position will be posted. Deb Kirk will remain the primary contact for the SPC. Bob thanked Chris Tasker for all of his hard work over the many years and indicated that he will be missed. 8d) SPC Regulation 288 changes based on EBR posting comments Chris Tasker gave a presentation and updated the committee on the possible changes to Regulation 288. The Ministry had posted a discussion paper on the EBR for comments and is currently working on a draft regulation. Some of the requirements were reviewed at the previous SPC meeting and have yet to be finalized. Some of the proposed changes outlined in the presentation included; Membership expiry dates will now be January 1 of the year of the third annual progress report being due (2018) unless a member wants to leave earlier. The SPA will determine which appointments expire and when. The current term for appointment is 3 years and this could be changed to maximum of 5 years and minimum of 6 months. Previous members can be considered for re-appointment. There is some flexibility in if and by how much the size of the committee is reduced. Proposed maximum is 21 as it currently is and minimum is 9. A more workable number for this region may be 15 members. First Nations seats would be determined by the size of the committee and the term of appointments may be determined by band councils. The London Districts Chiefs council appointed the members and it is important that it continue to be a joint decision. Quorum would be the Chair plus 2/3 of members. The First Nations members are not used in determining quorum but they count towards it. This will be clarified and have clear messaging as it relates to determining quorum. Currently a CA board member cannot be a SPC member. The changes may remove this provision. Page 5 of 8

8 Any provisions that no longer apply will be removed from the regulations such as setting the first meeting. Health units can designate Health Unit liaisons vs the MOECC as previously required. The next step is to wait for the regulations to be finalized. At that point the current vacancy will be replaced, committee size will be determined and members will be renewed. 8e) Meeting Schedule The meeting schedule was included in the package. There is not a meeting in November. The next meeting is January 15, 2016 and will cover reporting requirements that are due prior to February. The schedule is extended to January 2017 and may need adjustments to accommodate needs. 9) In Camera Session None. 10) Other Business None. 11) MOE Liaison Report Teresa McLellan congratulated everyone on the SPP approval. Twenty plans are approved. Long Point and Grand River Regions are the final plans to be approved and are expected to be approved before the end of the year. A RMO workshop designed to provide RMOs extra training on developing agricultural based Risk Management Plans is being held December 1. Ling Mark has moved to the Lands and Water policy branch and Heather Malcomson is the new acting Source Protection Director. The Chairs meeting is October 26th and 27th. Teresa thanked Chris Tasker for his strong leadership as the Project Manager in this region and province wide. The Ministry s management teams are looking at how SP being integrated into regular CA business based on the UTRCA model. Chris Tasker spoke to his many years working as the SP Project Manager. He indicated it has been a pleasure working with the SPC and it being an interesting process. He relayed that his initial interest was in the science of the Assessment Reports and he has learned a lot about processes. Chris thanked the members for their support and hard work. He thanked Page 6 of 8

9 Bob for his leadership, guidance and no nonsense approach which was respected by staff and also around the chair s table. He thanked the many staff that have worked on this project and indicated that at its peak there were more than 13 full-time staff working on the project and some of the team meetings included upwards of 30 people; currently there are 5. The province has invested over 20 million dollars in the SPP, AR, implementation and stewardship efforts and with this considerable investment he noted the work is not done it is just changing. In 2018 the SPP and Assessment Reports will need to be reviewed. Chris commended the committee and thanked Paul Michiels, Ingrid Vanderschot and Melissa Kiddie on having the foresight to build flexibility while developing s59 policies Other regions are finding huge work involved in issuing s59 notices, we will have the ability to tweak the guidance to make sure that we can focus on what matters and not having to look at decks, fire suppression systems and other minor building permit or planning items which have no relevance to drinking water threats. It is expected there are other examples of where this freedom and flexibility will be of assistance and that there will be unintended consequences to correct and make improvements which need to be made. Brian McDougall spoke on behalf of the Management Committee and thanked the SPC and staff for all the work and determination on the project. He spoke of the challenges ahead with implementation and being pleased to have Michelle Fletcher on board as the lead through this. 12) Members Reports John Van Dorp- spoke of the recent MOE announcement on the phosphate loading for Great Lakes program and that is very difficult for farmers to meet these guidelines; he noted there is a disconnect between MOE and the realities of what goes on at farms. Maitland is offering farmers $10 per acre to plant tiller crops to clean up the water and wondered if there is consideration for funding from this region. John Trudgen- acknowledged and congratulated the minute taker on the accuracy of the minutes given the challenges around the discussions and arriving at consensus. George Marr- the South Huron Committee is hosting the Annual Ducks Unlimited Canada Wetlands Conservation Dinner and Charity Auction on November 19 in Exeter. Tickets are available through George and are $35.00 per person or $60.00 per couple. Pat Donnelly- thanked Chris Tasker for his guidance and wisdom and the other SP staff who will continue to move the program forward. Pat Feryn- reported there is money available for cover crops in this watershed. He is concerned also about the Great Lakes Water Quality agreement and how farmers will meet Page 7 of 8

10 the targets. He is looking forward to the results of the monitoring and research on where the phosphorus is coming from and has read it may not be coming from the land but sloughed off river banks and that zebra mussels may be changing the chemistry in Lake Erie. Dean Edwardson-wished Chris Tasker well. Don McCabe- spoke to the RMOs needing to take the Great Lakes Protection Act, Nutrient Management Act and other Acts into account when SP is implemented. He noted prevalent issues such as neonicotinoid offsets and phosphorous. Don is attending the 2015 United Nations Climate Change Conference in Paris in November which he believes will be a strong indicator of where things are going. Don s hope is that the committee will stay in tune with climate change, phosphorous and filtration. He said OFA completed a study with Environmental Defense and that a hard line needs to be drawn to ensure the land base is not being reduced that will help deal climate change and phosphorous. Darlene Whitecalf- thanked Chris Tasker, Brian McDougall and Steve Clark for all the support and of the acceptance of the First Nations at the table. She spoke of the First Nations councils and Chiefs changing but scientific facts do not and her hope is that SP is implemented in the First Nations areas. Charles Sharina- reported he was approached by a Strathroy-Caradoc council member who asked if there will be any improvements planned for the Head Street dam in Strathroy. Pat Sobeski- commented about the science being an important part of the SP process and that it was not a one size fits all approach. Pat relayed he along with John Van Dorp were fortunate to represent Oxford County to keep council informed. Additional money will be put into SWP via waste water rates. Pat said he has enjoyed time spent with this group. Chris Tasker reported that Oxford County council approved funding for additional staffing to assist in SP implementation and also support for stewardship incentives. 13) Adjournment There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 11:30 a.m. PLEASE NOTE: The next SPC meeting is scheduled for January 15, 2016 and meeting location is to be at the St. Clair Region Conservation Authority office. Page 8 of 8

11 Thames-Sydenham and Region Source Protection Discussion Paper on Participation in the Source Protection Planning Process Addendum January 2016

12 1. Purpose This addendum is intended to update the Thames-Sydenham and Region (TSR) Discussion Paper on Participation in the Source Protection Planning Process (June 2007) based on recently implemented revisions to O Reg 288/07 (the regulation). This addendum will be used to consult on the resulting revisions to the SPC size and member appointments. It is intended to be read in conjunction with the Discussion Paper on Participation in the Source Protection Planning Process. 2. Background In November 2007, the Source Protection Committee (SPC) was formed. The SPC s formation was based on the rigid requirements of O.Reg. 288/07. This regulation established most of the requirements for the formation of the SPC including notification and consultation, size, sector representation, and term of appointment. As the SPCs in the province have completed their initial primary goal of developing local Source Protection Plans, revisions to the regulation were recently implemented by the province. Based on the original regulation the Source Protection Authorities (SPA) in the Thames-Sydenham and Region developed the Discussion Paper on Participation in the Source Protection Planning Process (June 2007). This discussion paper was used for consultation with stakeholders and municipalities on the representation on the committee. It identifies the sectors which would be represented on the committee. It also proposed groupings of municipalities which the 7 municipal members were to represent. The regulation required a committee of 22 members including the chair. As the Thames-Sydenham and Region (TSR) includes First Nation reserves within the region, the regulation allowed for the appointment of an additional 3 First Nations members to the committee. In addition to the members of the committee the regulation also allowed for 3 liaisons. Liaisons were allowed to participate in committee discussions in the same manner as SPC members, however they were not allowed to vote nor do they count towards quorum. One liaison represented each of the province, the SPA and the medical officers of health. The term of the original SPC members was required to be until the approval of the first Source Protection Plan for the Thames-Sydenham and Region. The regulation required that one third of the members, and all of the First Nation members, terms would expire on approval of the SPP. Each of the following years, one third of the members were to be renewed. This was intended to allow for retention of experience but allow for new participants. There was no limit to the number of terms that a member could sit on the committee so re-appointment of a member is allowed. O Reg 288/07 was recently amended to allow, among other things, greater flexibility in the SPC size and the term of appointment. Prior to making changes to the regulation, the province posted a discussion paper and questions on the EBR for broader input. The Ministry of Environment and Climate Change also consulted with SPC chairs and Conservation Authorities (CA). While there was Discussion Paper on the Source Protection Planning Process Addendum Thames-Sydenham and Region Drinking Water Source Protection January 2016 Page 2

13 general support for flexibility, concern was expressed over requiring reductions in size and changes in representation. The resulting regulation allows flexibility to make adjustments to the committee at any time, allowing the committee size and makeup to be responsive to the work that they were engaged in. While the large size and broad representation were beneficial during the development of the SPP, it was generally believed that this was not necessary during periods when the implementation of the plan was being monitored. It may be advisable, during periods when significant revisions to the SPP are being considered, that the committee return to its original size and composition. The regulation allows for many changes, but does not require changes other than those affecting appointment terms. Even those required changes now include greater flexibility. The revisions to the regulation allow for flexibility to adjust the committee size to reflect the work of the committee. The lead SPA is given the responsibility for making changes if they determine they are advisable Notable Revisions to O Reg 288/07 SPC Size - The previous regulation required a committee size of 22 including the chair. With the changes made to the regulation, the SPC size in the Thames-Sydenham and Region can now be as large as 21 members or as small as 9 members. The chair is no longer included in the sizes specified in the regulation. The committee size can now be changed at any time to further reduce or increase the size. It is possible that the size of the committee would be increased again to its original size during revisions to the SPP and ARs. This may depend on the magnitude of the policy revisions envisioned and the breadth of the technical work planned for the Assessment Reports. Representation - The revised regulation retains the requirement for maintaining balance between the committee thirds identified in the original regulation. One third of the committee will continue to represent municipalities. One third will represent sectors in the region such as agriculture or industry. One third will continue to represent other public and environmental interests. In this way the balance of the committee will be retained with any revisions to size. First Nation Members - The criteria for including First Nations members remain unchanged allowing for additional SPC members in areas/regions where there are First Nation reserves. The previous regulation allowed for 3 First Nations members to be included on the SPC. With the proposed change, depending on the size of the SPC, the committee could have First Nations members (1 for a 9 member committee, 2 for a 12 or 15 member committee, or 3 for an 18 or 21 member committee). In this way, the First Nation representation remains proportional to the size of the committee. Term of Appointment - The original regulation required member appointments to expire following the approval of the SPP. The Source Protection Plan has now been approved and came into effect December 31, Member appointments were to be phased in such a way that only one third of the members were replaced in any year. The revised regulation now allows for flexibility in member appointment length. The term of all current members must expire before January 1, The term Discussion Paper on the Source Protection Planning Process Addendum Thames-Sydenham and Region Drinking Water Source Protection January 2016 Page 3

14 of any members appointed after this revised regulation came into effect must be between 6 months and 5 years. Based on the original regulation, First Nation members were to all be replaced in the year of the plan approval. Based on the revised regulation, the term of appointment for First Nations members is now determined by the First Nations. If a term is not provided by the First Nation as part of the appointment, the term is until a replacement is provided. Consultation - The revised regulation would require that prior to changes to the committee size the chair and each of the SPAs be consulted. The lead SPA (UTRSPA) would then be able to pass a resolution to change the committee size. While the regulation does not require broad public consultation the TSR is utilizing this addendum to the Discussion Paper as a means of engaging the community in the SPA s decision to adjust SPC representation. While the notable revisions to the regulation have been discussed, the revised regulation should be consulted to determine if other revisions warrant consideration. 3. Discussion 3.1. Committee Size and Representation While the broad representation allowed by the larger committee size was helpful during the initial development of the Source Protection Plan and technical work of the Assessment Reports, the size of the committee is larger than necessary for its current role to monitor and report on the implementation of the Source Protection Plan. As such many Source Protection Regions requested the ability to have a smaller SPC. The revised regulation now allows the lead SPA to determine the appropriate size of the SPC within the range allowed for in the new regulation The minimum size for the Thames-Sydenham and Region (9) is felt to be far too small to allow adequate representation of the various sectors that have an interest in Source Protection Planning in a region of this size. This would be especially true for municipalities who would have to be organized into 3 groups with one member representing each group. While the minimum size is not felt to be appropriate in the TSR a smaller committee is preferred during this stage of Source Protection Planning. The following table summarizes the representation allowed for by some of the possible committee sizes. Potential representations are presented for 9, 12 and 18 members as well as the recommended 15 member SPC. Committee size is indicated consistent with the revised regulation with the chair not included in the size. The resulting quorum is indicated. First Nations members allowed for a committee of the specified size are also indicated for each alternative. The liaisons, although unchanged are also indicated as is the chair. The committee participants are totaled for each alternative presented. These alternatives were considered by the striking committee. The recommended alternative was approved for the purposes of consultation. Discussion Paper on the Source Protection Planning Process Addendum Thames-Sydenham and Region Drinking Water Source Protection January 2016 Page 4

15 Table 1 Committee size and representation options Current (21) Possible Alternatives Small (9) A (12) B (18) Recommended Alternative Medium(15) Municipalities Agriculture Sectors Industry/Commercial Aggregate and Quarries Oil and Gas 1 Landowners, public and environmental Committee Size Quorum First Nations Liaisons Medical Officers of Health Province Source Protection Authority Chair Total SPC participants With a smaller committee size the municipal, sectorial and public/environmental thirds of the committee must still remain evenly represented. The table above shows how the even representation can be maintained for a smaller committee size. While the regulation does not specify the sectors to be represented, these were discussed in the Discussion Paper on Participation in the Source Protection Planning Process and are presented again in this addendum. The recommended alternative maintains the representation of all of the sectors previously represented, reducing only those sectors which had multiple representation Municipal Groupings A reduced committee size would require a revision to the grouping of municipalities. Municipalities are currently grouped in 7 groups as proposed in the Discussion Paper on Participation in the Source Protection Planning Process. With the proposed committee size of 15, there would be 5 municipal members representing a group of municipalities. The following table illustrates the current groupings (left column) and 3 options for the municipal groupings. Discussion Paper on the Source Protection Planning Process Addendum Thames-Sydenham and Region Drinking Water Source Protection January 2016 Page 5

16 Table 2 Municipal grouping options for a 15 member committee Current (7) Option A (5) Option B (5) Option C (5) 1 Chatham-Kent, Essex Chatham-Kent, Essex, Elgin Chatham-Kent, Essex Chatham-Kent, Essex, Lambton 2 Elgin London, Middlesex London, Elgin London, Elgin 3 London Lambton Lambton, Middlesex Middlesex 4 Middlesex Oxford Oxford Oxford 5 Lambton Perth, Stratford, St. Marys, Huron Perth, Stratford, St. Marys, Huron Perth, Stratford, St. Marys, Huron 6 Oxford 7 Perth, Stratford, St. Marys, Huron The striking committee accepted option A for the purposes of consultation. Option A grouping combines municipalities with similar interests and which are geographically close to each other. Elgin, which has no significant threats at their intakes in the TSR, is added to the Chatham-Kent Essex group which also includes intakes. London and Middlesex which both have wells are combined. In addition to sharing an interest in groundwater sources these municipalities are also presented with options for connection to the pipelines from the Huron and Erie joint boards water supplies. Options B and C were also considered and they have similar benefits to the preferred option Term of Appointment Under the new regulation, the SPA determines when and which appointments expire. SPC appointments have to expire by January 1st of the year the third annual progress report is due (2020), but they can expire before While the revisions to the regulation allow for more flexibility in how many appointments expire and at what time, the original concept of retaining experienced members on the committee with new members is still important. By expiring the appointments of half of the members at a time, adequate experience could be left on the committee for appropriate continuity. By expiring the remaining half 2 years later and appointing members for a 4 year term it would provide for an appropriate balance of turnover and retention of experience. The previous regulation required that a third expired each year. The committee may only meet a couple times in the year. The continual turnover of members required by the previous regulation would be extremely disruptive to the work of the committee. The proposed committee renewal schedule, illustrated in the table below, should allow for a reasonable balance between continuity and fresh members. Table 3 Committee renewal schedule Size reduced ½ expire June 1 ½ expire June appt s expire 2018 appt s expire 2012 appt s expire Discussion Paper on the Source Protection Planning Process Addendum Thames-Sydenham and Region Drinking Water Source Protection January 2016 Page 6

17 While a 5 year appointment would allow for the same pattern, it is a concern that a 5 year term may be too long and may also limit the number who may consider reappointment for an additional term. A 4 year term is therefore proposed. The SPC has been polled to determine who wishes to step down sooner and who is willing to remain on the committee longer. Members were asked to engage their nominating agencies in responding to the survey. It is important that there is a balance of new participants and those who were around for the technical work and detailed policy discussions. It is expected that once the committee size has been determined, the members desire could be used to determine which members appointments would expire to reduce the committee to the smaller size. Meeting attendance and the desire of nominating organizations (such as municipalities) are also factors which would be used to determine which members appointments would expire in a given year. Once the renewal schedule is established appointments would be for a fixed 4 year term. As such the process would not require further engagement of the members or their nominating organizations (except to provide input into the replacement as appropriate). Although appointments must be for a fixed term there is no maximum time on the committee (or number of terms). As such past members could re-apply to remain on the committee. The striking committee would then consider the returning member with any other applicants. For municipal members, the group of municipalities would determine if they would provide the same or new member to fill the seat of the member whose appointment has expired. The revised regulation allows for the First Nations to specify the term of their member appointments. 4. Consultation The revised regulation requires that the lead SPA consult with the SPC chair and the other SPA in the region before passing a regulation to increase or reduce the size of the SPC. Although the revisions to the regulations do not require additional consultation with stakeholders, it is suggested that stakeholders be engaged in this process. When forming the SPC, considerable effort was expended on engaging the community. While the same level is not felt to be necessary at this point, it is still important to engage the community. The Discussion Paper on Participation in the Source Protection Planning Process played a key role in consulting stakeholders on the SPC establishment. The discussion paper focused on the local flexibility provided in the original regulation. This addendum is intended to do the same for the revisions to the regulation. As such it will be posted on the Source Protection website. Comments will be received for a period of not less than 30 days. The striking committee, on behalf of the 3 Source Protection Authorities in the Thames-Sydenham and Region has approved, for the purposes of consultation, the reduction of the size of the SPC to 15 members with option A as the municipal groupings. In their approval of this change they required that staff develop this addendum to the Discussion Paper on Participation in the Source Protection Planning Process. This addendum is intended to facilitate consultation on proposed revisions to the SPC. The addendum outlines the proposed changes to the SPC size, representation and term. The addendum is to be posted to the TSR Source Protection web site, with the original discussion paper, Discussion Paper on the Source Protection Planning Process Addendum Thames-Sydenham and Region Drinking Water Source Protection January 2016 Page 7

18 for a comment period of not less than 30 days. Comments received will be summarized and presented to the striking committee. To facilitate input into the committee size, the posting on the web site will invite comments. Various stakeholder groups should be informed of the posting. Chiefs of the First Nations and the London District Chief s Council will be informed that the paper is posted for comment. Consideration was also given to publishing notices in newspapers within the region; however it is not felt that this level of advertising is necessary or effective. Local agricultural groups and other sectorial groups currently represented on the SPC will be informed of the posting. This targeted engagement should be far more cost effective and result in better engagement of those committed to involvement in the source protection planning process. Municipal representation on the Source Protection Committee is important to the success of the Source Protection Plan. When establishing the SPC, groupings of municipalities were necessary to provide for the representation of 49 municipalities in the region by the 7 municipal members previously allowed on the committee. It will be important that the municipal input into the revised groupings of municipalities be considered. The CWA and regulations require specified notifications to be provided to municipal clerks. One such specification was related to the original appointment of members to the SPC. As such municipal clerks will be informed that this addendum is posted and that their input is welcomed. This addendum will also be circulated to the chair of the SPC for his comments. It is anticipated that the chair may provide the addendum to the SPC and may wish to include feedback from the SPC in his comments on the proposed revisions. The SPC members are expected to facilitate engagement of the interest groups that they represent on the SPC. Where feasible these interest groups may be contacted directly so that they are made aware of the posting of this addendum. The Upper Thames River, Lower Thames Valley and St Clair Region Source Protection Authorities will also be contacted for comments within posting period. While the striking committee represents the interests of all 3 SPA and was established by the 3 SPA for the purposes of forming the SPC, this additional consultation is intended to clearly address the requirement that the lead Source Protection Authority consult with the other SPA in the Thames-Sydenham and Region. Comments received would be summarized and presented to the striking committee with appropriate revisions. The resulting striking committee recommendations would be presented to the lead SPA (UTRSPA) for a resolution to revise the size of the SPC. The comments would include an indication of the support of the partner SPAs. Discussion Paper on the Source Protection Planning Process Addendum Thames-Sydenham and Region Drinking Water Source Protection January 2016 Page 8

19 Thames Sydenham and Region Drinking Water Source Protection Source Protection Committee Discussion Paper Report to Chair and members Thames Sydenham and Region Source Protection Committee Agenda # a Cc SP Management Committee Date January 11, 2016 Prepared By Re: Michelle Fletcher, Source Protection Coordinator Thames-Sydenham and Region RMO Reporting Guidance Background The Clean Water Act Regulation 287/07, section 65, contains specific annual reporting requirements directed at Risk Management Officials. The first report for each RMO applies to the period beginning the day the RMO is appointed and ending December 31 of that year. The regulation sets out eight specific sets of information that must be reported on: the number of Risk Management Plans the RMO agreed to the number of Risk Management Plans the RMO refused to agree to the number of Orders issued the number of Notices given to and by the RMO the number of Inspections carried out the number of Risk Assessments submitted, accepted and not accepted the number of times the RMO Caused a Thing To Be Done the total number or Prosecutions and the number that resulted in a Conviction Discussion 1. In order to make this reporting consistent across the Thames-Sydenham Region source protection staff have provided RMOs across the region with a reporting template to use for their submission. 2. The Lake Erie Region working group developed an initial reporting template for RMOs in their region. 3. Thames-Sydenham Region source water staff have worked with the Lake Erie group to modify the template to work for both regions. 4. This will help to provide reporting consistency for municipalities that need to provide RMO reports for both of these regions. 5. This reporting template is a working draft. It is expected that this template will change once the draft annual reporting template that was provided by MOECC is finalized. 6. The intention is to have the RMOs in the region use it for their January 1, 2015 to December 31, 2015 report submission. 7. It will also be used to give them a template to use for the recording of their 2016 activities in the interim until we can finalize the reporting template.

20 2015 Risk Management Official (RMO) Annual Report Template: Thames Sydenham Protection Region This template is being provided to satisfy the Risk Management Official (RMO) annual reporting requirements of the Source Protection Plans in the Lake Erie Source Protection Region, in accordance with Section 81 of the Clean Water Act, Section 65 (1) of O. Reg 287/07 specifies the information that must be contained in the Annual Report. RMOs with responsibilities in multiple Source Protection Regions should check with the other regions for their reporting requirements. The RMO Annual Report is comprised of this General Information worksheet and eight (8) worksheets containing the legislated reportables. Name of Municipality: Staff Contact Name Submitted By: Date of Submission: signed a delegation agreement with, or passed by law number # to appoint a Risk Management Official, an alternate Risk Management Official and Risk Management Inspectors, as per the table below. Certificates of appointment were issued to each RMO and RMI by the SPA or Municipal Clerk. Provide name(s) and contact information of appointed RMOs and RMIs Staff name Title/Role Contact The Risk Management Officials and Risk Management Inspectors have completed Director approved training courses as per Ontario Regulation 287/07 under the Clean Water Act, 2006 ; as shown in the table below: Provide name(s) of RMOs and RMIs who have completed the Part IV and S. 88 training courses Staff name RMO/RMI training Date [Year/Month/Day] Property entry training date Year/Month/Day 06/01/2016 General Information Page 1 of 9

21 2015 Risk Management Official (RMO) Annual Report Template: Thames Sydenham Protection Region 1. Annual Report S. 65 (1) Risk Management Plans agreed or established Enter value below The number of Risk Management Plans (RMP) agreed to by the RMO under subsection 56 (1) or 58 (5) of the Act: The number of RMPs established by the RMO under subsection 56 (6), 58 (10) or (12) of the Act: The location of the property to which the RMP relates For each plan, record the location of the property as coordinates, e.g., , The wellhead protection area or surface water intake protection zone where the property is located Vulnerable Areas include WHPA A E and IPZ 1 3 The activity to which the RMP relates Enter the corresponding Prescribed Drinking Water Threat Activity as described in Ontario Regulation 287/07, /01/2016 S. 65, 1. Risk Management Plans Page 2 of 9

22 2015 Risk Management Official (RMO) Annual Report Template: Thames Sydenham Protection Region 2. Annual Report S. 65 (1) Risk Management Plans refused Enter value below The number of RMPs the RMO refuses to agree to or to establish under subsection 56 (9), 58 (15) or (16) of the Act: The location of the property to which the RMP relates The wellhead protection area or surface water intake protection zone where the property is located The activity to which the RMP relates The reasons for the refusal For each plan refused, record the location of the property as coordinates, e.g., , Locations include WHPA A E and IPZ 1 3 Enter the corresponding Prescribed Drinking Water Threat Activity as described in Ontario Regulation 287/07, 1.1 List corresponding reasons in point form 06/01/2016 S. 65, 2. Risk Management Plans Page 3 of 9

23 2015 Risk Management Official (RMO) Annual Report Template: Thames Sydenham Protection Region 3. Annual Report S. 65 (1) Orders Enter value below The number of orders issued under Part IV of the Act: A brief description of the circumstances related to the order The location of the property to which the order relates The wellhead protection area or surface water intake protection zone where the property is located The activity to which the order relates List circumstances related to each order in point form For each order, record the location of the property as coordinates, e.g., , Locations include WHPA A E and IPZ 1 3 Enter the corresponding Prescribed Drinking Water Threat Activity as described in Ontario Regulation 287/07, /01/2016 S. 65, 3. Orders Page 4 of 9

24 2015 Risk Management Official (RMO) Annual Report Template: Thames Sydenham Protection Region 4. Annual Report S. 65 (1) Notices Enter value below The number of notices given to the risk management official under subsections 61 (2), (7) and (10): The number of notices given by the risk management official under subsections 61 (2), (7) and (10): The location of the property to which the notice relates The wellhead protection area or surface water intake protection zone where the property is located The activity to which the notice relates The type of prescribed instrument, if any, referred to in the notice and any information needed to identify the prescribed instrument For each notice, record the location of the property as coordinates, e.g., , Locations include WHPA A E and IPZ 1 3 Enter the corresponding Prescribed Drinking Water Threat Activity as described in Ontario Regulation 287/07, 1.1 Enter the corresponding prescribed instrument as described in Ontario Regulation 287/07, /01/2016 S. 65, 4. Notices Page 5 of 9

25 2015 Risk Management Official (RMO) Annual Report Template: Thames Sydenham Protection Region 5. Annual Report S. 65 (1) Inspections The number of inspections carried out under section 62 of the Act: Enter value below Reportables 5. ii iv The number of inspections carried out in respect of an activity to which section 56 of the Act applies and; The number of those cases in which the person was not complying with a risk management plan agreed to or imposed under section 56 of the Act The number of inspections carried out in respect of an activity to which section 58 of the Act applies and; The number of those cases in which the person was not complying with a risk management plan agreed to or imposed under section 58 of the Act and; The number of those cases in which the person was carrying out an activity in contravention of subsection 58 (1) of the Act The number of inspections carried out in respect of an activity to which section 57 of the Act applies and; The number of those cases in which the person was carrying out an activity in contravention of subsection 57 (1) of the Act Enter value below For each inspection, the activity to which the inspection is related Inspection number Enter the corresponding Prescribed Drinking Water Threat Activity as described in Ontario Regulation 287/07, /01/2016 S. 65, 5. Inspections Page 6 of 9

26 2015 Risk Management Official (RMO) Annual Report Template: Thames Sydenham Protection Region 6. Annual Report S. 65 (1) Risk Assessments Enter value below The number of risk assessments submitted under section 60 of the Act: The number of risk assessments accepted: The number of risk assessments not accepted: The location of the property to which the risk assessment relates For each assessment, record the location of the property as coordinates, e.g., , The wellhead protection area or surface water intake protection zone where the property is located Locations include WHPA A E and IPZ 1 3 The activity to which the risk assessment relates Enter the corresponding Prescribed Drinking Water Threat Activity as described in Ontario Regulation 287/07, /01/2016 S. 65, 6. Risk Assessments Page 7 of 9

27 2015 Risk Management Official (RMO) Annual Report Template: Thames Sydenham Protection Region 7. Annual Report S. 65 (1) causing a thing to be done Enter value below The number of times the RMO caused a thing to be done under s.64 of the Act: The location of the property to which the notice under section 64 of the Act relates For each thing, record the location of the property as coordinates, e.g., , The wellhead protection area or surface water intake protection zone where the property is located Locations include WHPA A E and IPZ 1 3 The activity to which the notice under section 64 of the Act relates Enter the corresponding activity as described in Ontario Regulation 287/07, /01/2016 S. 65, 7. Things Page 8 of 9

28 2015 Risk Management Official (RMO) Annual Report Template: Thames Sydenham Protection Region 1. Annual Report S. 65 (1) Prosecutions Enter value below The total number of prosecutions: The number of prosecutions that resulted in a conviction under section 106 of the Act: For each prosecution: in point form, provide a brief description of each offense Did the corresponding prosecution result in a conviction? Yes or No 06/01/2016 S. 65, 8. Prosecutions Page 9 of 9

29 Thames Sydenham and Region Drinking Water Source Protection Source Protection Committee Discussion Paper Report to Chair and members Thames Sydenham and Region Source Protection Committee Agenda # b Cc SP Management Committee Date January 8, 2016 Prepared By Re: Michelle Fletcher, Source Protection Coordinator Transport Pathways Reporting Guidance for Municipalities Background The Clean Water Act Regulation 287/07 contains specific notification requirements directed at municipalities related to transport pathways. Subsection 27(3): If a person applies to a municipality for approval of a proposal to engage in an activity in a wellhead protection area or a surface water intake protection zone that may result in the creation of a new transport pathway or the modification of an existing transport pathway, the municipality shall give the Source Protection Authority and the Source Protection Committee notice of the proposal and shall include a description of the proposal, the identity of the person responsible for the proposal and a description of the approvals the person requires to engage in the proposed activity. Subsection 27(4): If a municipality gives a notice described in subsection (3), the municipality shall give a copy of the notice to the person responsible for the proposal. These subsections took effect on July 1, The notification is required because an activity that creates a new transport pathway may affect the groundwater vulnerability, which can increase the vulnerability score within a Wellhead Protection Area. Similarly, a new transport pathway can expand the Intake Protection Zone. If this happens, when the Assessment Report is updated it would need to identify the location as a new area where activities are or may be significant drinking water threats. Policy 4.07 New Transport Pathway Reporting Guidance, in Volume 3 of the TSR Source Protection Plan, states that The Conservation Authorities within the Source Protection Region shall work collaboratively with the municipalities of the Source Protection Region to develop guidance to identify the activities that will create transport pathways and the locations within which municipalities are required to provide notification of such new or altered pathways in accordance with Section 27(3) of O. Reg 287/07 of the Clean Water Act. Discussion 1. Several SPAs have begun to require their municipalities to report on transport pathways. Staff have collected available examples to determine what level of information is being asked for in these SPAs. 2. The types of transport pathways that municipalities are being asked to report on vary across the SPAs. 3. Another area where SPAs are varying is on what they are doing with this information. Some SPAs are simply recording the information being submitted while others are evaluating the potential impacts the new transport pathway could have and advising the proponent of the potential impact of the transport pathway (e.g. increased vulnerability resulting in policies now applying to that area). The intention of this commenting function is to avoid increases in where SDWT policies will apply if possible. 4. Some SPAs that have developed this guidance without municipal input are finding that municipalities are unhappy with this reporting requirement. 5. Staff have developed an initial draft reporting form and fact sheet for the municipal audience. For the initial year of reporting the documents do not indicate that the SPA will be providing comment on these reports. The intention is to collect notifications for the first year in order to determine how many and what types of new transport pathways are being reported on. With that knowledge in had the SPA can determine what level of