Module 12 – Strategies – Protect Water

Strategies for Action Module.

Protecting Our Water – An Active Learning Program for Source Protection – Module 12

Module 12 – Strategies for Action: Addressing and Managing the Strategic Issues

“We can change the way we think and behave in decades, which is just as well, because if we don’t change fast, we will be very sorry . . .”
– Gwynn Dyer, taken from Part Two, Message in the Bones, ‘Thinking Like a Mountain,’ by Robert Bateman, 2000.

Learning Expectations

Review actions required under Ontario Clean Water Act, 2006
Review strategic actions to date of the Source Protection Committee (SPC)
Identify social or economic impacts of actions
Propose strategies to mitigate against any impacts
Develop strategies for public engagement and information
Understand processes in addressing a strategic issue
Develop a ranking system for strategy priorities
Clarify mission, vision and future direction for local drinking water source protection efforts.

Section One – Module Content

Learning Expectations and Learning Activities

Source Protection Plan Chapter 4 is called Plan Policies.

Chapter 7 of the Maitland Valley and Ausable Bayfield Assessment Reports is called Considering the Great Lakes.

Review Part IV Tools under the Ontario Clean Water Act, 2006.

Field Learning Assignment

There is one field learning assignment to complete for next session. Review your discussion notes from today’s session and consider whether any strong point was missed. Be prepared to discuss adding your point(s) to the submission we will be compiling for the SPC at next session.

Unit 1 – Thinking About Issues and Actions

Activity 1 – Group Activity

Title: Planning Strategically

In pairs or small break-out groups develop your own definition of ‘strategic planning.’
After you have developed your definition, read a dictionary definition or a definition provided by your facilitator.

a) How is your definition similar?

b) Different?

Compare long-range planning and strategic planning.
What are the limitations, if any, of strategic planning?
How can strategic planning help the source protection committee in its work?
Where do you think Working Groups fit into the source protection strategic planning process?
What aspects of drinking water source protection are best achieved through planning?
What aspects of drinking water source protection are best achieved through other means?

a) Community-Based Social Marketing:

b) Regulations and enforcement:

c) Other:

Our strategic planning process focuses on finding and addressing key (or strategic) issues. Identify the strategic issues in the Ausable Bayfield Maitland Valley Source Protection Region by asking these questions:

What are the conditions in our watersheds (the Watershed Characterization process)?

Activity 2 – Small Group Activity

Title: How do we best choose priorities?

How are strategic priority actions sorted out?

How do you choose, prioritize?

In small break-out groups, take an issue supplied by your facilitator and decide:

1) Its urgency

2) Its strategic importance

3) Whether it is in your control

4) How easy it will be to address

Urgency

What are the consequences of delay?

Strategic importance

How far will action on the issue advance the goals?

Control

Do you have jurisdiction? Influence?

Is action required?

Does legislation require action on this issue? (for example)

How easy or difficult is action?

Enough data?

Enough expertise?

Enough resources or capacity?

Activity 3 – Title: What is a strategic (or core) priority action?

1) Develop a concern ranking system to guide your actions.

Resources are not available to address all strategic concerns immediately.

The purpose of a ranking system is to prioritize – to help us decide where to devote resources and in what order issues should be tackled.

Are the concerns or issues?

Urgent

Strategically important

Within our control or influence

Easily accomplished

Inexpensive to resolve.

Are there other criteria?

Do any criteria involve simple yes or no answers?

Are any criteria comparative: e.g., can one issue be more urgent than another?
(Suggestive of a scale)

Are any criteria more important than another? (Suggestive of weighting)

Sample ranking systems:

Start with four most important criteria.

Example one – Simple ranking: (An issue that satisfies all 4 criteria is ranked high priority.)

What are the criteria – the five mentioned above?

The four you have below came from where?

Urgent

Advances Vision

Easy

Cost-Effective

Is this simple priority ranking system good enough?

What if the ranking results in more high priority issues than there are resources to respond? (e.g., Are all issues equally urgent?)

Approach two – Accounting for relative differences between issues (moving beyond the most simple of priority or ranking systems)

Urgent
High –3
Medium – 2
Low – 1
Not urgent – 0

Advances Vision
High –3
Medium – 2
Low – 1
Not relevant to vision – 0

Easy
High –3
Medium – 2
Low – 1
Difficult – 0

Cost-Effective
High –3
Medium – 2
Low – 1
Expensive – 0

Approach three – Where some criteria are more important than others

Weighting criteria

Urgent
High –3
Medium – 2
Low – 1
Not urgent – 0

Multiply score by 2

Advances Vision
High –3
Medium – 2
Low – 1
Not relevant to vision – 0
Multiply score by 2

Easy
High –3
Medium – 2
Low – 1
Difficult – 0
Inexpensive
High –3
Medium – 2
Low – 1
Expensive – 0

Activity 4 – Sub-Group Activity

Assessing and Ranking Strategies

Instruction: Break into groups of three (or four) persons. Groups are to take the list of previously compiled non-mandated Strategic Issues and rank them using the above system (Approach 3).

Half the groups start at the top and the other half start at the bottom of the list.

Make a list of items where there is consensus in your group.

Make a list of items where there are differing rankings.

Unit 2 – Defining Your Role in Setting Strategy – Part I – Required Strategic Actions

Activity 5 – Individual Activity

Review Preliminary Source Protection Committee (SPC)

Strategic Directions and Goals

Activity 6 – Group Dialogue

Contemplating Revision

The Facilitator guides discussion around:

Clarifying Strategic Directions and Goals

Adding Strategic Directions and Goals

Activity 7 – Small Group Activity

Logging and Linking

Instruction:
Each group is to identify additional strategic directions and goals (i.e., beyond that which is identified by the source protection committee) from past logging and linking exercises. Then your group will identify their top ‘additional direction or goal.’

Distinguishing among strategic priority actions

There are two main types of strategic priority actions (and therefore two types of actions):

Concerns or issues which are strategic but required by law and regulation.
Concerns or ssues which are strategic but are not mandated. Frequently, there will be options and discretion (e.g., with respect to timing) in adopting action strategies.

Activity 8 – Facilitated Group Dialogue

Review your field learning assignment findings having taken a look at guidance from the Ontario Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks (MECP) and made a list of some of the strategic actions which could be taken under a local, science-based Source Protection Plan.

A Role-Playing Game

The role-playing game which follows highlights the complexities and difficulties of managing strategic issues in drinking water source protection planning.

Instructions: Role cards are distributed one per sub-group per issue. The subgroups answer the questions reflecting the role they are playing.

Each issue or action has a dimension that connects to drinking water source protection. However, participants will also see the political, economic and social implications.

Issue: Water quality threat and economic impacts

Scenario A:

A major food processor wants to locate in your town. The biological oxygen demand (BOD) of its industrial effluent is very high. The town’s sewage lagoon system operates at 50 per cent of its capacity. The new business would use almost all the treatment system’s ‘spare capacity,’ leaving only limited potential to service new residential growth. The plant will create 50 new jobs.
The plant may go elsewhere if it is forced to ‘buy the capacity’ in order to locate in your town.

Role Cards:

Business owner or developer
Chamber of Commerce representative
Citizen concerned for the environment
Municipal Council

Questions:

What if there is a miscalculation? How might the receiving stream be impacted?
What are the economic consequences of saying yes? Of saying no?
Who should pay for the new capacity when the Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) needs to expand as growth (generated by the new food processor and by spin-off) occurs?
What should the municipal council do? (Should the business be approved?)

Why? (On what basis?) Why not?

Scenario B:

The lagoon system is at capacity.
The food processor will not pay for the expansion.
Council has to decide whether to do the expansion.

Scenario C:

Issue and Action: Protecting a Vulnerable Area
A 200-acre cash crop farm is in a vulnerable area. The farmer is contemplating a change to a livestock operation. Tiling is only permitted under a drainage plan that includes an outlet detention pond and buffer space that consumes five acres of otherwise usable crop land.

Role Cards:

Aricultural producer
Citizen concerned for the environment
Municipal Council
Minister of Agriculture and Food

Questions:

What are the implications for the producer?
What are the benefits for the environment of the new drainage plan or implications of not following the new requirements?
What position should the council take?
What support if any should be given?

Scenario D:

Issue: Need for Improved Practices in an Intake Protection Zone

A county septic re-inspection program shows your cottage septic system and others in your area have to be replaced. Effluent is escaping into the adjacent gully flowing into Lake Huron, which in turn is within the surface water intake protection zone (IPZ).

Role Cards:

Cottage owner
Citizen concerned for the environment
County Health Unit (Responsible for septic inspections)
Minister of the Environment and Climate Change

Questions:

What are the benefits for the environment of the requiring septic system upgrades or implications of not following the new requirements?
What position should the municipal council take?
What are the cost implications for the cottage owner?
What compensation/support if any should be given?

Scenario E:

Issue and Actions: Protecting a highly vulnerable aquifer

Under your nutrient management plan, you can use your 200 acres for spreading animal waste but the underlying aquifer has now been found to be highly vulnerable.

The choices given are to discontinue operations or to install an experimental and expensive treatment system.

Role Cards:

Farmer
Citizen concerned for the environment
Municipal Council
Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs

Questions:

Comment on the environmental considerations.
What are the implications for the farmer?
What compensation/support if any should be given?
If the experimental treatment system works, how should the system be paid for when installed on other farms in the future?

Scenario F:

Issue: Wastewater Treatment Plant Overflow Impacting Surface Water

Your municipality’s sewage treatment plant overflows into the receiving stream in heavy storms. The capacity of the plant and the storm sewer system both need upgrading.

Role Cards:

Local Ratepayer
Citizen concerned for the environment
Municipal Council
Minister of the Environment, Conservation and Parks

Questions:

Where should the money come from for the upgrades?

Users only (all or select users)

All property owners in the municipality (whether connected to the system or not)

Provincial grants

County

What did you learn about the challenges faced by others?
Was it uncomfortable or easy portraying the person in your role-play card?

Mandated Strategic Actions under the Ontario Clean Water Act, 2006 (Source Protection Plans Progress Report Part II)
Facilitated Dialogue: Review of Mandated Strategic Actions

Activity 9 – Sub-Group Activity

Review Strategic Actions for Merit and Feasibility

Instructions:

Break into groups of three or four and assess strategies using the following chart and definitions.

Action

Effectiveness

Consistency

Viability

Effectiveness:

An action is effective if it:

Contributes to the science-based planning goals and is likely to protect drinking water source supply.

Consistency: An action should be consistent and complementary to other initiatives.

Viability: An action should be within the capacity of the organization and, ideally,acceptable to partners and where possible to stakeholders.

Linking and Logging – Identifying and Evaluating Additional Non-Mandated Strategic Actions (Beyond CWA)

Unit 3 – Defining Your Role in Setting Strategy – Part II – Optional Strategic Actions

Activity 10 – Facilitated Dialogue

Identifying new Actions

Questions:

Are there additional actions or initiatives that will further strategic issue resolution (complementing already identified actions)?

Are there actions or initiatives for unaddressed strategic issues?

Activity 11 – Small Group Activity

Action Idea Evaluation

Instruction: The working group will divide in half, groups A and B. The two halves will divide into smaller groups of three or four.

The Group A groups will ‘Quick Scan’ for action plan merit using the method described above.

The Group B groups will use the ‘Stop or Go’ evaluation method described below:

The Action Plan Idea …

No – STOP

Yes – GO

Is consistent with vision of the source protection committee / source protection plans

Is consistent with the research findings

Achieves goals cost effectively

Has a good chance of succeeding

Involves acceptable risk

Has acceptable issue coverage or participation rate

Compile a list of viable recommended action plans for submission to the Source Protection Committee (SPC). The participants may use the space under columns two and three to elaborate/give example/explain if necessary.

Activity 12 – Group Activity

Implications

Comment on:

Instruction: Form three groups.

Group 1, the ‘Rose-Coloured Glasses’ group, will describe the various positive impacts of a recommended drinking water source protection action.

Group 2, the ‘Sceptics,’ will describe the potentially negative effects of a recommended Drinking Water Source Protection action.
Each group will, at a minimum, consider the possible perspectives of these sectors and stakeholders (other sectors or stakeholders may be added for
consideration.):

The general taxpayer

The industrial, commercial, tourism and recreation sectors

The Labour market

Agriculture and food production

A third group will also be formed. They are the ‘Bridge-Builders’ – their role is one of synthesizer or mediator.

Activity 13 – Group Activity

Methods for Informing the Public

The groups will identify three preferred methods.

Instruction: Each group will appoint a presenter who will advance his/her group’s:

Five key impacts or comments and

Three preferred methods for informing the public.

Unit 4 – Community Participation

Activity 14 – Individual or Pair Activity (Answer, Pair and Share):

a) Identifying and Engaging Current Participants, and;

b) Finding New Partnerships

Instruction:

Fill in the blanks using the list of agencies and organizations providing, adding your own recommendations for partners as appropriate. In addition to agency and organization roles, be prepared to discuss the role of the individual in any listed activity.

2 Pair up with another to review and revise

Share your answers with the Working Group or Committee

Activities in Drinking Water Source Protection

Agency or Organization with present role

Agency or Organization with mandated future role

Potential new partners

Plan preparation and administration

Plan implementation

Enactment of bylaws, regulations

Administration of regulations (e.g., permits)

Capital projects – infrastructure

Capital projects – specific to source protection

Action Program Development

Program administration

Education (e.g., re Best practices, lifestyle change)

Public relations/Communications

Fundraising

Issues Research

Research and Innovation

Monitoring, tracking issues and progress

Partial Agency and Organization List:

Source Protection Committee

Local Municipality

County

Province

Federal Government

Conservation Authorities

Community Organization (Name: ___________________)

Business Organization (Name: ___________________)

Charitable Foundations

Universities

Others

Activity 15 – Small Group Activity

Your facilitator will give the large group a case-study example of a risk. You will be asked to consider an identified risk and the role of risk management planning.

Group One will look at the role of public education in safe management of the risk.

Group Two will look at the role of regulation – when and how should regulation be used to ensure safe management of the risk.

Group Three will look at the role of compensation and funding – how can compensation and funding be used to ensure safe management of the risk.

Group Four will look at the role of cooperation – how can government and stakeholders work together to ensure safe management of the risk.

Unit 5 – Filling the Gaps

Activity 16 – Facilitated Dialogue

Prioritizing Further Study Topics

Instruction: Identify and prioritize recommended new strategic issues by the following simple rating system:

The resolution of this drinking water source protection issue is urgent (score 0 to 4 where 0 is “not urgent” and 4 is “extremely urgent”).
The resolution of this drinking water source protection issue advances our mission (score 0 to 4).

Submit these scores to the Source Protection Committee for input.

Unit 6 – Wrapping it up

Activity 17 – Summarizing and Looking Ahead to Module 13.

Answer Pair and Share

Instruction: Write down up to five of the strongest points that arise from the session, points you feel it essential to convey to the Source Protection Committee (SPC). Review these thoughts with a partner (or two) and reduce your list to the three that you and your partner(s) feel are the most important.
Share the results with the group. The Facilitator and/or Recorder collects or records the results for the SPC.

More Help

Do you want more information? Do you want to learn more? Your facilitator is prepared to discuss any topic or question with the goal of helping you move to the next module. Alternatively, write down your thoughts on the ‘Parking Lot’ to be answered at a later date.

SECTION TWO

Priming the Pump

Notes, Definitions, Fact sheets

We have learned some of the science behind drinking water source protection and to the conditions and dynamics of surface and groundwater in the Ausable Bayfield Maitland Valley Source Protection Region. Understanding the geological background was a necessary prerequisite in order to provide informed input to the Source Protection Committee (SPC). The knowledge we have acquired can assist us in providing science-based input of value to the SPC.

Your strategic input can help the SPC determine its strategic direction for source protection planning in this source protection region.

Our feedback may include:
Refining and defining the local vision for drinking water source protection planning;
Reviewing strategic priorities facing us in the planning region, and;
Recommendation of strategic directions and goals.

We may also:
Review action plans under the Ontario Clean Water Act, 2006 (CWA)
Identify and prioritize additional action plans beyond the CWA
Advise on socio-economic implications of selected action programs
Recommend ways to better inform and involve the public
Identify additional study topics

We may also provide input into:
Monitoring and tracking progress in Source Protection Planning, based on the needs of the local Source Protection Committee in exercising its mandate.
Strategic actions are directed by the Source Protection Committee (SPC), as part of a science-based process.

Strategic issues and actions are to be provided by the Source Protection Committee (SPC)
Review will focus on identified issues and strategic directions.
The final modules provide enhanced opportunities for members of Working Groups to provide input to the Source Protection Committee (SPC).

Strategic Priority Actions in Overview

Mini Lecture

What is a strategic (or core) priority action? [A concern that must be resolved to advance your vision/goals.]

Mini Lecture – What is the process for Addressing a Strategic Priority Action?

Strategic Priority Action identified
Goals and Objectives are set for resolving/addressing.
Priority rating.
Tasks, Actions and Programs are chosen and implemented.
Yielding results
Monitoring and tracking progress and results.
Revision as necessary.

SECTION THREE

Handouts, Additional Readings, Field Learning Assignments, Findings

Reading Viewing and Listening Resources:

Basics of Identifying Strategic Issues and Goals, Written by Carter McNamara, MBA, PhD, Authenticity Consulting, LLC. Copyright 1997-2007.
http://www.authenticityconsulting.com. Adapted from
http://www.authenticityconsulting.com/pubs/SP_gdes/SP_pubs.htm in Field Guide to Nonprofit Strategic Planning and Facilitation.

Field Learning Assignment

Review your discussion notes from today’s session and consider whether any strong point was missed. Be prepared to discuss adding your point(s) to the submission we will be compiling for the SPC at next session.

Unit 1 – Thinking About Priorities and Actions

Unit 2 – Defining Your Role in Setting Strategy – Part I – Required Strategic Actions

Review of Mandated Strategic Actions
Logging and Linking – Additional Action Plans/programs?
Recommendations on Priority Setting
Socio-Economic Implications
Informing the Public

Unit 3 – Defining Your Role in Setting Strategy – Part II – Optional Strategic Actions

Review SPC Strategic Actions
Logging and Linking – Identifying Additional Candidate Strategic Actions
Evaluating Effectiveness of Actions
Socio-Economic Implications
Informing the Public

Unit 4 – Community Participation

Current Participants
New Partnerships

Unit 5 – Filling the Gaps

Identifying Topics for Further Study
Prioritizing

Unit 6 – Wrapping it up

Summarizing and Looking Ahead to Module 13.
Field Learning
Self Assessment
More Help

Information here is provisional, subject to change, and posted for local information and education purposes. For current information visit Ontario.ca and sourcewaterinfo.on.ca. We would like to acknowledge the support of the Government of Ontario. Such support does not indicate endorsement of the contents of this material.