2011/10/24 Ad Hoc Committee Meeting - Part 1 00:00:010 1. Call to Order 00:00:00 2. Attendance 00:00:20 3. Declaration of Pecuniary Interest 4. Adoption of Minutes 00:00:35 Minutes of the meeting held on October 3, 2011 Leveck asks about interim report Gary Roberts submitted without circulation to committee Bowman speaks Leveck says members need time to review documents before submission Kirkland speaks 00:07:26 Roberts accepts responsibility for comments sent to council. Excuse he was rushed. 00:10:00 Members speaking to the press CAO authorised Roberts to speak to press Statements come across as biased Roberts says he could not care less if there are sewers at Sauble Members are not supposed to talk to the press (from one of firsts meetings) 00:14:20 Leveck/Clayton motion for two weeks circulation More discussion Kirkland "we must have faith in the chair" Bowman not in favour of motion Leveck wants chance to review interim report Revision to wording 00:27:00 Motion re-read 00:27:39 carried 00:27:50 Motion to accept the minutes as circulated 00:28:30 carried 5. Delegations 00:28:50 a) 9:00 am Garry Palmateer-Microbiologist (2 hours) 00:33:05 Palmateer begins 00:34:33 Look for septic leachate that appears to be affecting wells Storm drain runoff If fecal waste is found in ground or storm water need to determine origin 00:36:10 Geese are a problem for bacteria and protazoa; Seagulls are also a problem particularly if fed by people or garbage 00:37:40 AFR's Accidental Fecal Release from a young child dogs defecating on the beach 00:38:40 How to get started with testing discussion with other folks (who) 00:39:40 Slide 4 - defining sampling program 00:40:15 control samples required 00:40:40 Slide 5 - should test for Pseudomonas, Enterococci, and Yellow-pigmented Enterococci 00:50:30 chemical tests should also be done 00:55:25 Slide 6 00:56:49 Slide 7 00:59:40 Slide 8 01:04:30 Slide 9 01:09:00 Slide 10 01:10:15 Slide 11 01:10:38 Slide 12 01:17:44 Slide 13 01:21:40 Slide 14 01:25:04 Slide 15 01:26:22 Slide 16 01:27:25 Slide 17 01:33:42 Slide 18? 01:34:00 Slide 19? 01:37:57 Slide 20? 01:42:25 Slide 21 01:44:15 Slide 22 01:46:00 Slide 23 01:47:45 Slide 24 01:51:30 suggests not doing microbial source tracking 01:52:00 jump to Slide 31 01:53:40 back to Slide 26 01:55:30 Slide 27 01:57:11 Slide 28 01:59:00 Slide 29? 02:00:45 Leveck asks if costs include field work; not included 02:01:28 Palmateer suggests training students 02:02:35 Where samples should be taken 02:03:33 Kirkland suggests county mapping 02:03:48 Kirkland this is not a full time job for summer student; train staff instead 02:05:35 Schofield asks about sandpoint contamination 02:06:48 Quality control 02:07:30 Leveck asks about initial control sample 02:08:50 Beach samples are transient; bacteria gets resuspended in water 02:11:50 Mentions Dr Allan Crowe study 02:14:40 Mr Edge expert in 02:15:10 Bowman questions bacteriophage safety 02:15:45 Bowman questions pollution survey; does it include native 02:16:41 Bowman questions projected costs; what is ball park total $20,000 total = pollution survey plus some additinal testing 02:18:10 Microbial Source Tracking would cost $100,000 02:19:00 Bowman asks about storm drains 02:20:56 Cindy asks about increased sensitivity in testing 02:28:15 Gary Palmateer speaks 02:28:58 Schofield talks about Tara sewage dumped into Sauble River 02:31:45 Bowman asks about terms for Request for Quote 02:34:40 Kirkland asks about how to determine the sites 02:35:15 Palmateer - beware of consultants 02:35:57 Cindy should we use Dr Crowe's sites? 02:36:40 Where you sample makes a difference 02:40:00 Kirkland asks if committee is clear on next steps 02:42:40 Schofield asks about phage testing 02:44:00 Bowman asks about pollution study; bad results; is it enough to proceed with EA BREAK FOR LUNCH