the town of midland does not adopt or condone anything said in … documents/cip/cip sept 23... ·...

108
Council Information Package September 23 to September 27, 2019 k:\Council&By-laws\C03 Council Agenda\Council Information Packages List No. Date Sent Out (dd-mm-yy) Media Type From Subject 1 27-Sept-2019 Communications AMO AMO WatchFile - September 26, 2019 2 27-Sept-2019 Communications AMO Register Today for AMO's Fall Policy Forum: Still on the Front Lines 3 27-Sept-2019 Communications AMCTO AMCTO 2020 Conference - Sponsor & Exhibitor Opportunities Now Available! 4 27-Sept-2019 Communications Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario Information and Privacy Commissioner Coming to Sudbury - October 11, 2019 5 27-Sept-2019 Correspondence Simcoe County Road Supervisors Association of Ontario Road Supervisors (AORS) 2020 AORS Trade Show June 3 and 4, 2019 6 27-Sept-2019 Correspondence Township of Springwater Joint and Several Liability Consultation 7 27-Sept-2019 Correspondence Severn Sound Environmental Association DWSP update - Midland 8 27-Sept-2019 Correspondence Mr. D. Chapman Terry Fox Day in the Heart of Georgian Bay 9 27-Sept-2019 Correspondence Visitor of Midland Thank you letter regarding the Harbour Master's outstanding service provided during a vacation to Midland 10 27-Sept-2019 Correspondence Building Code Services Transformation Your're invited to Regional Information Sessions (Repeating Event - 16 Oct 2019) 11 27-Sept-2019 Invitation Township of Tiny Agenda - North Simcoe Agriculture Trends - September 26, 2019 12 27-Sept-2019 Minutes Midland Seniors Council Meeting held on September 4, 2019 13 27-Sept-2019 News Release OPP News Portal OPP Complete Investigation into Vandalism at the Wyevale Park 14 27-Sept-2019 News Release OPP News Portal Southern Georgian Bay OPP Marine Patrol Notes of Interest for September 16-22, 2019 15 27-Sept-2019 News Release OPP News Portal OPP Investigating Break and Enter Incidents at Two Midland Businesses 16 27-Sept-2019 News Release OPP News Portal OPP - Officers Running to Remember 17 27-Sept-2019 News Release OPP News Portal OPP Investigate Break and Enter Incident to Midland Home 18 27-Sept-2019 Notice Committee of Adjustment Notice of Public Hearing - Minor Variance Application - 461 Mundy's Bay Road 19 27-Sept-2019 Notice Committee of Adjustment Notice of Public Hearing - Permission to Expand Application - 714 Balm Beach Road 20 27-Sept-2019 Notice Committee of Adjustment Notice of Public Hearing - Consent to Sever Application - 736 King Street 21 27-Sept-2019 Report Economic Development Corporation of North Simcoe EDO Report dated September 25, 2019 "The Town of Midland does not adopt or condone anything said in correspondence or communications provided to it or its Council, and does not warrant the accuracy of statements made in such correspondence or communications. The Town believes it has a duty to ensure that its proceedings and deliberations are transparent, and that it foster public debate on issues of concern. One of the steps it takes to carry out this duty is to, wherever possible, make the material in its Council Information Packages available on its website."

Upload: others

Post on 21-Mar-2020

1 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: The Town of Midland does not adopt or condone anything said in … Documents/CIP/CIP Sept 23... · 2019-10-04 · "The Town of Midland does not adopt or condone anything said in correspondence

Council Information Package

September 23 to September 27, 2019

k:\Council&By-laws\C03 Council Agenda\Council Information Packages List

No.Date Sent Out

(dd-mm-yy) Media Type From Subject

1 27-Sept-2019 Communications AMO AMO WatchFile - September 26, 2019

2 27-Sept-2019 Communications AMO Register Today for AMO's Fall Policy Forum: Still on the Front Lines

3 27-Sept-2019 Communications AMCTO AMCTO 2020 Conference - Sponsor & Exhibitor Opportunities Now Available!

4 27-Sept-2019 CommunicationsInformation and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario Information and Privacy Commissioner Coming to Sudbury - October 11, 2019

5 27-Sept-2019 Correspondence Simcoe County Road Supervisors Association of Ontario Road Supervisors (AORS) 2020 AORS Trade Show June 3 and 4, 2019

6 27-Sept-2019 Correspondence Township of Springwater Joint and Several Liability Consultation

7 27-Sept-2019 Correspondence Severn Sound Environmental Association DWSP update - Midland

8 27-Sept-2019 Correspondence Mr. D. Chapman Terry Fox Day in the Heart of Georgian Bay

9 27-Sept-2019 Correspondence Visitor of Midland Thank you letter regarding the Harbour Master's outstanding service provided during a vacation to Midland

10 27-Sept-2019 Correspondence Building Code Services Transformation Your're invited to Regional Information Sessions (Repeating Event - 16 Oct 2019)

11 27-Sept-2019 Invitation Township of Tiny Agenda - North Simcoe Agriculture Trends - September 26, 2019

12 27-Sept-2019 Minutes Midland Seniors Council Meeting held on September 4, 2019

13 27-Sept-2019 News Release OPP News Portal OPP Complete Investigation into Vandalism at the Wyevale Park

14 27-Sept-2019 News Release OPP News Portal Southern Georgian Bay OPP Marine Patrol Notes of Interest for September 16-22, 2019

15 27-Sept-2019 News Release OPP News Portal OPP Investigating Break and Enter Incidents at Two Midland Businesses

16 27-Sept-2019 News Release OPP News Portal OPP - Officers Running to Remember

17 27-Sept-2019 News Release OPP News Portal OPP Investigate Break and Enter Incident to Midland Home

18 27-Sept-2019 Notice Committee of Adjustment Notice of Public Hearing - Minor Variance Application - 461 Mundy's Bay Road

19 27-Sept-2019 Notice Committee of Adjustment Notice of Public Hearing - Permission to Expand Application - 714 Balm Beach Road

20 27-Sept-2019 Notice Committee of Adjustment Notice of Public Hearing - Consent to Sever Application - 736 King Street

21 27-Sept-2019 ReportEconomic Development Corporation of North Simcoe EDO Report dated September 25, 2019

"The Town of Midland does not adopt or condone anything said in correspondence or communications provided to it or its Council, and does not warrant the accuracy of statements made in such correspondence or communications. The Town believes it has a duty to ensure that its proceedings and deliberations are transparent, and that it foster public debate on issues of concern. One of the steps it takes to carry out this duty is to, wherever possible, make the material in its Council Information Packages available on its website."

Page 2: The Town of Midland does not adopt or condone anything said in … Documents/CIP/CIP Sept 23... · 2019-10-04 · "The Town of Midland does not adopt or condone anything said in correspondence

From: AMO Communications <[email protected]> Sent: September 26, 2019 10:01 AM To: Catherine Lemesurier <[email protected]> Subject: AMO WatchFile - September 26, 2019

In This Issue - AMO’s 2020 Youth Fellows Program - Open for applications. - Save 15% off Deluxe Canada products. - Construction Act changes in force October 1. - Aggregate Resources Act consultation. - Don’t miss out! Register for AMO’s Fall Policy Forum. - AMO Conference 2019 - Evaluation. - ONE Investment Fall Workshops are around the corner - Register today! - LAS Blog: Confessions of a public-sector trade-show rookie. - Careers with Ajax Public Library, Toronto, Woolwich, Burlington and Thunder Bay. AMO Matters As part of AMO’s Youth Engagement Strategy, this fellowship provides three young people the opportunity to connect with the Board, learn more about municipal government and policy, and receive mentorship. Apply today! Enter promotion code 63647 when ordering and save 15% on Deluxe Canada products including customizable forms, cheques, print marketing, promo & apparel, and more. This continues AMO’s member discount with the company formerly known as NEBS. Provincial Matters The changes to the Construction Act are in force as of October 1. This has significant implications for all municipal governments. For more information contact Amber Crawford. MNRF has announced a consultation on changes to the Aggregates Resources Act which ends November 4. Key elements under consideration are the proposal to require a new application rather than an amendment if a producer wants to extract below water level, clarification around the limits to zoning and haul route agreements cannot be imposed by the LPAT. Eye on Events AMO is excited to host our first “Fall Policy Forum: Still on the Front Lines,” on October 24-25 in London, Ontario. Open to elected officials and senior management staff. For more information, click here. If you attended the AMO Conference 2019, we ask that you complete the evaluation form to assist in planning for the 2020 Conference. A winner will be drawn from all completions for a complimentary AMO Conference 2020 registration. Learn How, What and Why of Investing in the municipal sector. Learn Why municipalities need to invest. What are the different Investment Options available to your municipality? And how the release of the Prudent Investor Standard provides broader investment options. For registration and information click here. Need Help? Call us at 416.971.9856 x351. LAS LAS Blog: Ever wonder what it’s like on the other side of the table? Customer Service Rep Fernanda shares the candid story of her first trade show season as part of the team. Read it here. Careers Chief Librarian & Executive Officer - Ajax Public Library. Additional information about this position and our Library can be found on the Ajax Public Library website or via email to: [email protected]. Interested qualified applicants are invited to forward their resume and covering letter via email to: [email protected]. The deadline for applications is 4:30 pm, October 18, 2019.

Page 3: The Town of Midland does not adopt or condone anything said in … Documents/CIP/CIP Sept 23... · 2019-10-04 · "The Town of Midland does not adopt or condone anything said in correspondence

Director, Transit Expansion Program Planning - City of Toronto. For more information on this and other opportunities with the City of Toronto, visit us online. To apply online, submit your resume, quoting Job ID 221, by October 8, 2019. Administrative and Technical Assistant - Township of Woolwich. One (1) Non-union, Temporary Maternity Leave (up to 14 months). Interested applicants are invited to submit their resume prior to 4:30pm, October 10, 2019 to: Township of Woolwich, 24 Church Street West, P.O. Box 158, Elmira, ON N3B 2Z6; Fax: (519) 669-9348 or email: [email protected]. Financial Analyst (up to November 2020) - City of Burlington. To apply, please visit Burlington Careers and click on "View Jobs." Please note that applications are only accepted online. If you require assistance, please contact Human Resources at 905.335.7602. Posting closing date is October 1, 2019. Supervisor - Solid Waste Collection - City of Thunder Bay. To apply for this position, you must indicate competition # INF-115-19 on your application. For more information visit www.thunderbay.ca/jobs. Applications will be accepted until 11:59:00 pm (EST) on Monday, October 14, 2019. About AMO AMO is a non-profit organization representing almost all of Ontario's 444 municipal governments. AMO supports strong and effective municipal government in Ontario and promotes the value of municipal government as a vital and essential component of Ontario's and Canada's political system. Follow @AMOPolicy on Twitter! AMO Contacts AMO Watch File Tel: 416.971.9856 Conferences/Events Policy and Funding Programs LAS Local Authority Services MEPCO Municipal Employer Pension Centre of Ontario ONE Investment Media Inquiries Tel: 416.729.5425 Municipal Wire, Career/Employment and Council Resolution Distributions

*Disclaimer: The Association of Municipalities of Ontario (AMO) is unable to provide any warranty regarding the accuracy or completeness of third-party submissions. Distribution of these items does not imply an endorsement of the views, information or services mentioned.

Please consider the environment before printing this.

Association of Municipalities of Ontario 200 University Ave. Suite 801,Toronto ON Canada M5H 3C6

To unsubscribe, please click here

Page 4: The Town of Midland does not adopt or condone anything said in … Documents/CIP/CIP Sept 23... · 2019-10-04 · "The Town of Midland does not adopt or condone anything said in correspondence

From: AMO Communications <[email protected]> Sent: September 24, 2019 2:29 PM To: Karen Desroches <[email protected]> Subject: Register Today for AMO's Fall Policy Forum - Still on the Front Lines

One Month from AMO’s Fall Policy Forum: Still on the Front-Lines!

The AMO Conference is behind us, and the Fall is ramping up to be busy as ever.

That is why AMO is hosting a two-day Policy Forum in London, Ontario, on October 24 & 25, 2019. The Forum is open to elected officials and senior municipal staff who want to learn about key policy issues and questions confronting Ontario’s municipal governments.

This Forum will inform policy discussions and provide insights into advocacy strategies that you can put to work. The sessions we are working on include:

• Labour Market Challenges: How to Attract & Retain Talent • Municipal Money Matters: Our Fiscal Future

• Full Producer Responsibility for Waste is Here: Time to Get Plans in Order • Planning Processes: Best Management Practices • Lean in, Look Forward: A Youth Engagement Panel • Organizational Culture & Importance of Mental Health in the Workplace • Health Matters: Change & What You Need to Know

• Relationship Building with Indigenous Partners • Cybersecurity & Lessons Learned • Going Virtual: Region of York Remote Testimony Project • Building Resilience to Climate Change

• Lessons Learned & Municipal Opportunities Going Forward.

As well, we have a number of networking opportunities built into the program. With a number of local Ministers and AMO Executive Board members invited, this is not an event to miss.

Sponsors and Exhibitors

We have a number of Sponsorship and Exhibit opportunities available. Please email Poonam Ruparelia for further information.

We look forward to seeing you at AMO’s Fall Policy Forum.

Registration Fees:

Members: $325 + HST ($367.25) Non-Members: $375 + HST ($423.75)

Page 5: The Town of Midland does not adopt or condone anything said in … Documents/CIP/CIP Sept 23... · 2019-10-04 · "The Town of Midland does not adopt or condone anything said in correspondence

Accommodations:

DoubleTree by Hilton London Ontario 300 King Street, London, ON N6B 1S2 Tel: +1-519-439-1661 A block of rooms is available at the hotel for $135 plus taxes.

*Disclaimer: The Association of Municipalities of Ontario (AMO) is unable to provide any warranty regarding the accuracy or completeness of third-party submissions. Distribution of these items does not imply an endorsement of the views, information or services mentioned.

Please consider the environment before printing this.

Association of Municipalities of Ontario 200 University Ave. Suite 801,Toronto ON Canada M5H 3C6

Wish to Adjust your AMO Communication Preferences ? Click Here

Page 6: The Town of Midland does not adopt or condone anything said in … Documents/CIP/CIP Sept 23... · 2019-10-04 · "The Town of Midland does not adopt or condone anything said in correspondence

From: AMCTO <[email protected]> Sent: September 25, 2019 2:22 PM To: Karen Desroches <[email protected]> Subject: AMCTO 2020 Conference - Sponsor & Exhibitor Opportunities Now Available!

About AMCTO

| Education & Events

| Advocacy & Policy

2020 AMCTO Conference

Sponsor & Exhibitor Opportunities Now Available

We invite you to take part in AMCTO's upcoming 82nd Annual Conference and Professional

Development Institute June 7th to 10th, 2020, at Blue Mountain Resort in The Town of The Blue

Mountains, Ontario.

AMCTO’s members are the key decision makers in Ontario’s 444 municipalities. AMCTO is

Ontario’s largest voluntary municipal professional association with 2,200 members representing

95% of Ontario’s municipalities. Our members include, CAOs, Clerks, Directors of Finance, HR

Managers, Corporate Services Commissioners, Planners, Treasurers, Record Managers and other

key senior managers in a range of municipal operations areas.

The Conference Trade Show is being held on June 7th and 8th at The Courts, Conference Centre,

Blue Mountain Resort.

Don’t miss out on this great opportunity! For more information on sponsoring and/or exhibiting at

this upcoming event click on the link below.

AMCTO | The Municipal Experts

2680 Skymark Avenue, Suite 610, Mississauga, Ontario L4W 5L6

Tel: (905) 602-4294 | Fax: (905) 602-4295

www.amcto.com

Page 7: The Town of Midland does not adopt or condone anything said in … Documents/CIP/CIP Sept 23... · 2019-10-04 · "The Town of Midland does not adopt or condone anything said in correspondence

From: Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario <[email protected]> Sent: September 20, 2019 8:08 AM To: Karen Desroches <[email protected]> Subject: Information and Privacy Commissioner Coming to Sudbury - October 11, 2019

You are invited to a public event with Ontario’s Information and Privacy Commissioner

Friday, October 11, 2019 8:00 to 11:45 a.m. Collège Boréal 21 Lasalle Boulevard Salle Trisac Sudbury, ON

Commissioner Brian Beamish will host a special event in Sudbury on October 11, 2019, as part of the IPC’s Reaching Out to Ontario (ROTO) program.

Commissioner Beamish and IPC experts will use this occasion to update Ontarians on the emerging access and privacy issues facing the province’s health and public sectors and child and family services providers.

The morning will begin with a presentation by the commissioner that will examine key issues related to access to information, recent decisions, access and privacy implications of smart cities, big data and more. Two concurrent sessions will follow the commissioner's presentation. The first will discuss the latest issues affecting health privacy legislation and the protection of personal health information. The second will focus on the new responsibilities of Ontario's child and family service sectors under Part X of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act when it takes effect on January 1, 2020.

We hope you will join us, and please forward this invitation to any friends or colleagues you think may be interested.

Registration is free While there is no cost to attend, we kindly ask that you please RSVP by October 9. [www.ipc.on.ca]

Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario

If you have any questions, call us at 416.326.3333 / 1.800.387.0073, send us an email at [email protected], or write to us at: Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario, 2 Bloor St. East, Suite 1400, Toronto, ON, M4W 1A8.

To unsubscribe, please email [email protected] and include the word UNSUBSCRIBE in the subject line. © 2018 Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario. All rights reserved. IPC and related trademarks, names, and logos are the property of the Information and Privacy Commissioner and are registered and/or used in Canada, the U.S. and countries around the world. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners.

Page 8: The Town of Midland does not adopt or condone anything said in … Documents/CIP/CIP Sept 23... · 2019-10-04 · "The Town of Midland does not adopt or condone anything said in correspondence
Page 9: The Town of Midland does not adopt or condone anything said in … Documents/CIP/CIP Sept 23... · 2019-10-04 · "The Town of Midland does not adopt or condone anything said in correspondence
Page 10: The Town of Midland does not adopt or condone anything said in … Documents/CIP/CIP Sept 23... · 2019-10-04 · "The Town of Midland does not adopt or condone anything said in correspondence
Page 11: The Town of Midland does not adopt or condone anything said in … Documents/CIP/CIP Sept 23... · 2019-10-04 · "The Town of Midland does not adopt or condone anything said in correspondence
Page 12: The Town of Midland does not adopt or condone anything said in … Documents/CIP/CIP Sept 23... · 2019-10-04 · "The Town of Midland does not adopt or condone anything said in correspondence
Page 13: The Town of Midland does not adopt or condone anything said in … Documents/CIP/CIP Sept 23... · 2019-10-04 · "The Town of Midland does not adopt or condone anything said in correspondence

From: Melissa Carruthers <[email protected]> Sent: September 24, 2019 8:55 AM To: John Skorobohacz <[email protected]> Cc: J Cayley <[email protected]>; SSEA Student3 <[email protected]>; Deputy-Mayor Walma ([email protected]) <[email protected]>; Bill Thompson <[email protected]>; Karen Desroches <[email protected]>; Wes Crown <[email protected]>; Angela Zhao <[email protected]>; Andy Campbell <[email protected]>; Jeff Beauchamp <[email protected]> Subject: DWSP update - Midland Hi John, Please see the attached letter as a follow up to the letter that was sent to Karen Desroches from the Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority (via Trish Barnett on behalf of Wayne Emmerson) on September 10, 2019 regarding the status of Risk Management Plans within you municipality, as well as an update on the status of annual reporting requirements from 2018. I would like to express my confidence that the remaining Risk Management Plans will be complete by the July 1, 2020 deadline. The SSEA values the partnership we have developed with the Town of Midland over the last few years to protect municipal drinking water sources from overuse and contamination, and we look forward to continued success. If you have any questions, please don’t hesitate to contact me Melissa Carruthers Risk Management Official / Risk Management Inspector Severn Sound Environmental Association 489 Finlayson St, P.O. Box 460, Port McNicoll, ON L0K 1R0 P (705) 534-7283 ext. 205 / Fax (705) 534-7459 [email protected] | www.severnsound.ca | @SSEA_SSRAP

This message is intended for the individual to whom it is addressed and may contain information that is confidential and exempt from disclosure under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. If you are not the intended recipient, please do not forward, copy or disclose this message to anyone and delete all copies and attachments received. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately.

This email was scanned by Bitdefender

Page 14: The Town of Midland does not adopt or condone anything said in … Documents/CIP/CIP Sept 23... · 2019-10-04 · "The Town of Midland does not adopt or condone anything said in correspondence

1

489 Finlayson St PO Box 460 Port McNicoll ON L0K 1R0 Tel: 705-534-7283 Fax: 705-534-7459

www.severnsound.ca

September 23rd, 2019

John Skorobohacz, CAO

The Corporation of the Town of Midland

575 Dominion Avenue

Midland, ON

L4R 1R2

Dear Mr. Skorobohacz,

RE: 2018 Drinking Water Source Protection Annual Reporting update and status of Risk Management Plans within the Town of Midland as of September 15, 2019

Please accept the below letter as a status update regarding the 2018 Drinking Water Source Protection annual reporting requirements as part of policy MON-1 in the South Georgian Bay Lake Simcoe Source Protection Plan (SPP) and as an update on the work remaining by your Risk Management Official (RMO). Status of 2018 Annual Reporting According to policy MON-1 in the SPP, municipalities need to report to the local source protection authority (i.e., SSEA) by February 1st of each year. As a region, all annual reporting information needs to be submitted to the province by May 1st of each year. As your RMO I work with your staff to ensure this reporting is accurate and complete and meets the deadline. I am pleased to inform you that both of these requirements have been met either before or on the date required. Attached to this letter is the SPAR (Source Protection Annual Report) printout that contains the questions that each municipality is required to answer, your responses, as well as the regional “report card” that summarizes the good work that been accomplished throughout our region. Thank you to your staff for the hard work they do to accomplish such great work. Status of RMO work in 2019 The chart below summarizes that work that has been done by your Risk Management Official from January 1 to September 15, 2019. Note: RMPs = Risk Management Plans and numbers are on a per property basis.

RMPs

Outstanding

as of Jan 1,

2019

# of

RMPs no

longer

required

(removed)

# of site

visits

completed

# of

Development

Applications

commented

on

# of Inquries

answered

# of

RMPs

agreeded

to

# of

RMPs

currently

being

negotiated

# of

Prohibitions

in place

# of Pre-

consultation

meetings

# of RMPs

outstanding

as of Sept

15, 2019

22 0 0 16 5 1 0 0 0 21

Page 15: The Town of Midland does not adopt or condone anything said in … Documents/CIP/CIP Sept 23... · 2019-10-04 · "The Town of Midland does not adopt or condone anything said in correspondence

2

489 Finlayson St PO Box 460 Port McNicoll ON L0K 1R0 Tel: 705-534-7283 Fax: 705-534-7459

www.severnsound.ca

Status of Risk Management Plans remaining As of September 15, 2019 it is estimated there are 21 Risk Management Plans remaining to be negotiated for properties within the Town of Midland, however this number could change as the threat verification is updated. Plan for addressing remaining Risk Management Plans According to policy TIME-1 in the SPP, all risk management plans must be established no later than 5 years after the amended source protection plan takes effect - making the deadline July 1, 2020. In order to meet the July 1, 2020 deadline, all properties that are expected to need a Risk Management Plan, whether they have previously been visited or not, will be re-evaluated before the end of 2019, with negotiations with affected property owners to follow. Any property owners that still do not want to participate may need to be ordered to do so, but this will only be done as a last resort. This work will be done by your RMO, with assistance from Cody Avery, Drinking Water Source Protection Assistant at the SSEA, who is working as a part-time contact employee until the end of December 2019. Thank you for your support and cooperation. If you have any questions, or if you think there would be value in this information being presented to your council, please contact me at [email protected] or 705-534-7283 ext. 205 to make arrangements. Sincerely,

________________________

Melissa Carruthers,

Risk Management Official / Inspector for the Town of Midland

Severn Sound Environmental Association

[email protected]

Att: Municipal specific SPAR report; South Georgian Bay Lake Simcoe Source Protection Region Annual

Report Card CC: Julie Cayley, Executive Director, Severn Sound Environmental Association Steffen Walma, Chair, Severn Sound Environmental Association Cody Avery, Drinking Water Source Protection Assistant, Severn Sound Environmental Association Bill Thompson, Project Manager, Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority

Karen Desroches, Clerk, Midland Wes Crown, Director of Planning and Building Services, Midland Angela Zhao, Planner, Midland Andy Campbell, Director of Engineering/Water & Wastewater Services Jeff Beauchamp, Compliance Officer, Risk Management Inspector

Page 16: The Town of Midland does not adopt or condone anything said in … Documents/CIP/CIP Sept 23... · 2019-10-04 · "The Town of Midland does not adopt or condone anything said in correspondence

Cover

Spar Annual Report

Full Municipality Name MidlandName of SPA Submitted to: Severn Sound Source Protection Authority Year: 2018Submitted by: [email protected] Date Submitted: 01/30/2019

Page 1 of 62

2019-02-08http://spar.nvca.on.ca/SparRMOReport.aspx?RID=1590&MunId=32&Yr=2018

Page 17: The Town of Midland does not adopt or condone anything said in … Documents/CIP/CIP Sept 23... · 2019-10-04 · "The Town of Midland does not adopt or condone anything said in correspondence

MECP

Complete the table below for risk management plans that have been agreed to/established.

Total number of risk management plans agreed to or established within the source protection area/region since

effective date of the source protection plan July 1st 2015 (i.e. cumulative total)

(Column A)

Number of risk management plans agreed to or established within the source protection area/region (for

existing and future threats) during this reporting period (i.e. annual total)

(Column B)

Total number of properties (i.e. parcels) with risk management plans

agreed to or established since the effective date of the source

protection plan July 1st 2015 (Column C)

Estimated number of risk management plans to be

required to address significant drinking water

threats

1 1 1 22

How many existing* significant drinking water threats have been managed through the established risk management plans?

How many existing* significant drinking water threats have been managed through the established risk management plans? ( * meaning engaged in OR enumerated as existing significant threats)

Annual Count (During This Reporting Period) Cumulative Count (Since Effective Date of SPP July 1st 2015)

1 1

How many section 59 notices were issued in this reporting period?

How many section 59 notices were issued as per ss. 59(2)(a) and ss. 59(2)(b)?

Activities to which neither a prohibition (section 57) nor a risk management plan (section 58) policy applied, as per ss. 59(2)(a) of the Clean Water Act

Activities to which a risk management plan (section 58) policy applied, as per ss. 59(2)(b) of the Clean Water Act

0 0

How much progress has been made in updating Official Plans (OP) and Zoning By-Laws (ZBL)?

List the municipality(ies) (including upper-, lower-, and single-tier) within the source protection region/area that are required to complete Official Plan and Zoning By-Law conformity exercises for source protection and then select the status of those exercises in the table below for each municipality. Insert additional rows as needed . NOTE: Applied to every municipality affected by land use planning or Part IV type policies.

Municipality Name Status of Official Plan Conformity Exercise (Select a status from drop down list)

Status of Zoning By-Law Conformity Exercise (Select a status from drop down list)

Town of Midland In process Completed

How many times did the RMO receive a notice of conformity for a prescribed instrument?

For the purposes of section 61 of O.Reg. 287/07, how many notices and/or copies did the risk management official receive of prescribed instruments that state the prescribed instrument conforms with the significant drinking water threat policies in the source protection plan (i.e. statement of conformity confirms that instrument holder is exempt from requiring a risk management plan)?

0

How many inspections were carried out for activities that are prohibited for this reporting period?

The term inspection refers to those conducted under the authority of section 62 of the Clean Water Act, related to an activity to which section 56, 57, or 58 of the Clean Water Act applies. This includes inspections carried out for threat verification purposes. It does not include the delivery of documents such as notices or a signed risk management plan.

The term contravention as used in the context of inspections refers to activities being undertaken that are in violation of sections 57 and 58 of the Clean Water Act relative to the policies noted in the source protection plan.

Page 2 of 62

2019-02-08http://spar.nvca.on.ca/SparRMOReport.aspx?RID=1590&MunId=32&Yr=2018

Page 18: The Town of Midland does not adopt or condone anything said in … Documents/CIP/CIP Sept 23... · 2019-10-04 · "The Town of Midland does not adopt or condone anything said in correspondence

State the total number of inspections (including any follow-up site visits) that were carried out for activities (existing or future) that are prohibited under section 57 of the Clean Water Act for this reporting period

How many properties (i.e. parcels) had inspections for the purposes of section 57 for this

reporting period?

Among these inspections, how many showed that activities were taking place on the landscape even though they were prohibited (i.e. in contravention) under section 57 of the

Clean Water Act for this reporting period?

0 0 0

How many existing significant drinking water threats have been prohibited?

How many existing significant drinking water threats have been prohibited as a result of section 57 prohibitions?

Annual Count (This Reporting Period) Cumulative Count (Since Effective Date of SPP July 1st 2015)

0 0

How many inspections were carried out for activities that require a RMP for this reporting period?

The term inspection refers to those conducted under the authority of section 62 of the Clean Water Act, related to an activity to which section 56, 57, or 58 of the Clean Water Act applies. This includes inspections carried out for threat verification purposes. It does not include the delivery of documents such as notices or a signed risk management plan.

The term contravention as used in the context of inspections refers to activities being undertaken that are in violation of sections 57 and 58 of the Clean Water Act relative to the policies noted in the source protection plan.

State the total number of inspections (including any follow-up site visits) that were carried out

for activities that require a risk management plan under section 58

of the Clean Water Act for this reporting period

How many properties (i.e. parcels) had

inspections for the purposes of section 58 for this reporting

period?

Among these inspections, how many were in contravention with section 58 of

the Clean Water Act for this reporting period (i.e. person engaging in a

drinking water threat activity without a risk management plan as required by the

source protection plan)?

How many were in non-compliance with the specific contents of the risk management plan for this reporting period? NOTE: Please only include those inspections that showed non-

compliance with measures/conditions to manage the actual threat activity

0 0 0 0

What methods are being used to raise awareness about source water protection in the source protection area/region?

Indicate the methods by which education and outreach policies have been/are being implemented to raise knowledge and awareness about source water protection in the source protection region/area by all the relevant implementing bodies. Choose all that apply from the checklist below. If there are other methods that are not listed please describe them in the comment box below.

Use of educational materials for general public Use of educational materials for target audiences including developers, builders, landowners, farmers, etc. Workshops Site visits Source protection content for websites Educational videos (e.g., Drinking Water Source Protection video available Conservation Ontario) Collaboration with other bodies (e.g., ministries, local organizations, etc.) Social media promotion (e.g., use of Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, etc.) Information kiosks at events/festivals

Describe an exceptional E&O initiative that has had a positive impact on souce water.

From among the method(s) used to implement education and outreach policies by the implementing bodies, specifically, indicate the top one(s) used (please limit the selection of the top methods used to three choices maximum and insert additional rows as needed) that were found to be the most successful in meeting the intent of education and outreach policies (i.e., gains in source protection knowledge, behavior changes and/or commitments to maintain actions that are protective of source water).

Then, briefly explain how success was evaluated and any results achieved (e.g., landowners understand they are within or adjacent to a vulnerable area or highly vulnerable aquifer, classroom presentations on protecting water sources made to over 25 schools across source protection region reaching 750 students, farm operators install signs to identify areas to avoid nutrient application, homeowners pledge to properly dispose of hazardous waste products, etc.).

Page 3 of 62

2019-02-08http://spar.nvca.on.ca/SparRMOReport.aspx?RID=1590&MunId=32&Yr=2018

Page 19: The Town of Midland does not adopt or condone anything said in … Documents/CIP/CIP Sept 23... · 2019-10-04 · "The Town of Midland does not adopt or condone anything said in correspondence

In the explanation, where available, include the following details: Indicate target population (e.g., farmers, business, residents, municipalities, etc.), percentage of the target audience reached, outcomes that were achieved, whether these initiatives reached persons and/or businesses within geographic areas where threats could be significant or to wider areas (i.e., specific to areas with significant drinking water threats or general E/O)

Method(s) of implementation - Pick up to 3 of the most successful methods used by source

protection authority

Brief explanation of most successful education and outreach method(s) used - evaluation and results achieved (Maximum = 150 words for each response)

Use of educational materials for general pub An increased knowledge of the drinking water source protection program due to road signs highlighting vulnerable areas. More questions have been asked of staff when dealing with members of the public since the signs have been installed. Signage has spurred an increased awareness of the program.

How many signs have been installed on provincial highways?

How many signs have been installed on provincial highways in the SPA during this reporting period?

0

Were signs installed at other locations?

Were signs installed at other locations during this reporting period? If yes, please indicate how many and explain in the comment section below.

Not Applicable Comment :

not applicable in 2018

How many of the inspected on-site sewage systems required major maintenance (e.g., tank replacement, tile bed replacement etc.)?

How many of the inspected on-site sewage systems required major maintenance work (e.g., tank replacement, tile bed replacement etc.)?

n/a in mid

Complete the table below to provide details about all incentives that were made available to assist in source water protection.

If applicable, complete the table below indicating:

• The type of incentive(s) (e.g., prescribed instrument application fees waived, funding, other non-financial incentives, etc.) that was made available (whether as a policy in the SPP or not)

• The source that provided the incentive(s) • The prescribed drinking water threat activity(ies) to which it relates • The degree to which the incentive(s) assisted with the implementation of SPP policies that address significant drinking water threat activity(ies) • And, include any comments

Insert additional rows as needed in the table below.

Type of IncentiveSource of Incentive (i.e., Municipality, CA,

Provincial Ministry(ies), Other - please specify)

Prescribed Drinking Water Threat(s)

Addressed

Degree to which incentive assisted with the implementation of SPP policies addressing

SDWTComments

n/a in 2018 Not Applicable

How many on-site sewage systems require an inspection as a result of a source protection plan policy?

How many on-site sewage systems in your municipality require inspections in accordance with the Ontario Building Code (OBC) (i.e. once every five years)?

Page 4 of 62

2019-02-08http://spar.nvca.on.ca/SparRMOReport.aspx?RID=1590&MunId=32&Yr=2018

Page 20: The Town of Midland does not adopt or condone anything said in … Documents/CIP/CIP Sept 23... · 2019-10-04 · "The Town of Midland does not adopt or condone anything said in correspondence

0

How many on-site sewage systems requiring an inspection (as per previous question) have been inspected?

Please use the comment box section below to explain your answer, if you feel as though further explanation is required.

How many on-site sewage systems (identified as significant drinking water threats) were inspected (i.e., cumulative running tally of systems

inspected)?

If not all required on-site sewage systems were inspected, please indicate why they were not all inspected from among the options in the drop

down-list

0 Not Applicable Comment :

not applicable in Midland

How many of the inspected on-site sewage systems required minor maintenance (e.g., pump out, tank lid replacement etc.)?

How many of the inspected on-site sewage systems required minor maintenance (e.g., pump out, tank lid replacement etc.)?

n/a in mid

If applicable, complete the table below, where information about drinking water issues are available.

If applicable, complete the table below, where information about drinking water issues is available, indicating any drinking water issues/parameters (chemical or pathogen) that have been identified, whether an Issue Contributing Area was delineated for the identified issues, any observations in the concentration or trend for each issue. Insert additional rows as needed.

Optional: Describe the actions/behavioral changes in the ICA that might be contributing to the changes.

Drinking Water System Drinking Water Issue/Parameter

ICA Deliniated for this Issue? (Y/N) Observations Actions/Behavioural Changes Contributing to

Change in Observations (Optional)

Not Applicable Not Applicable

Are there any examples of successful municipal actions that the municipality wishes to highlight?

[OPTIONAL] Are there some unique examples of successful municipal actions that are being/have been undertaken to protect source water either directly because of plan policies or as a result of more broad integration of the science from source protection? If yes, please provide details in the comment section below.

Implementation of LUP-12 has brought a heightened awareness of the drinking water source protection program within council and the development community. Relined various municipal wells and added automatic depth sensors to ensure good water quality

Are there examples of successful residential and/or business actions that the authority wishes to highlight?

[OPTIONAL] Are there examples of local residents and/or businesses (including agriculture, salt applicator, fuel providers) who are taking successful concrete actions (e.g., engaged in more “green” behaviors that could protect water sources such as purchasing road salt alternatives, taking precautions when storing or disposing hazardous waste, organic solvents, etc.) to protect source water in their community(ies)? If yes, please provide details in the comment section below.

nothing to report for 2018

Explain the overall progress made in addressing these significant threats.

Please provide comments in the box below to explain the overall progress made in addressing these significant threats. Where possible, include an estimated percentage of overall progress made in the comments provided. (NOTE: This is intended to be the same as included in the Assessment Report Database)

The percentage of overall progress made in addressing local threats and conditions that are taking place on the landscape is determined by taking the total number in column D (i.e., SDWT addressed because policy is implemented) from the table in reportable #31a and dividing it into the number that is derived by adding the total numbers in columns A and B and then subtracting this sum total from the total in column C.

Page 5 of 62

2019-02-08http://spar.nvca.on.ca/SparRMOReport.aspx?RID=1590&MunId=32&Yr=2018

Page 21: The Town of Midland does not adopt or condone anything said in … Documents/CIP/CIP Sept 23... · 2019-10-04 · "The Town of Midland does not adopt or condone anything said in correspondence

In other words, overall progress made =D/A+B-C

Currently there are no completed RMPs for applicable SDWTs within the Town however the majority of the remaining SDWTs have been confirmed, on the ground, through field verification methods such as windshield surveys, site visits or phone calls with the owner/operator.

What positive outcomes have potentially resulted from the implementation of SPP policies?

What positive outcomes (e.g., less water consumption, changes in behaviour, reduction in phosphorus and nitrogen concentrations, less chloride from road salt, reduction in algal blooms, human health protected, etc.), if any, have potentially resulted from the implementation of SPP policies?

Please describe the outcomes in the comment section below.

Through education and outreach of the drinking water source protection program, the development and consultant community have become more aware of program specifically as it relates to water quantity concerns.

Complete the table below by indicating which of the listed significant drinking water threats were being engaged in at the time of SPP approval

Complete the table below by first indicating which of the listed significant drinking water threats were being engaged in (i.e., enumerated as ‘existing’ significant threats/threats) at the time of SPP approval . Then, using the formula for the running tally of enumerated threats as explained below, complete the columns in the table with the information for each SDWT indicated as existing in the SPR/A.

Lead SPAs will be maintaining a running tally of progress made in addressing significant threats that were on the ground before plans were approved. The running tally consists of the formula: A+B-C-D where:

• A = Original estimate of SDWT engaged in/enumerated when SPP approved

• B = Additional SDWT identified after first SPP approved as a result of verification (i.e., not part of original estimate of SDWT)

• C = SDWT included in enumeration estimates at time of plan approval but subsequently determined through verification that either: (i) it was not actually engaged in at a particular location after all OR(ii) it was no longer engaged in (e.g., land may still have an agricultural operation but owner no longer applying pesticides for their own reasons)

• D = SDWT addressed because policy is implemented* (*Note: Where multiple policy tools address any given threat sub-category, implemented means that actions associated with at least one policy tool have been completed/are in place)

Threat IDPrescribed Drinking Water Threat/Local Threat/Conditions

A B C D

No. Existing Threats still to be

addressed (A+B-C-D)

1

The establishment, operation or maintenance of a waste disposal site within the meaning of Part V of the Environmental Protection Act.

0.00

2

The establishment, operation or maintenance of a system that collects, stores, transmits, treats or disposes of sewage.

6 6.00

3The application of agricultural source material to land.

0.00

4The storage of agricultural source material.

0.00

5The management of agricultural source material

0.00

Page 6 of 62

2019-02-08http://spar.nvca.on.ca/SparRMOReport.aspx?RID=1590&MunId=32&Yr=2018

Page 22: The Town of Midland does not adopt or condone anything said in … Documents/CIP/CIP Sept 23... · 2019-10-04 · "The Town of Midland does not adopt or condone anything said in correspondence

6

The application of non-agricultural source material to land

0.00

7

The handling and storage of non-agricultural source material

0.00

8The application of commercial fertilizer to land

0.00

9The handling and storage of commercial fertilizer

0.00

10 The application of pesticide to land

0.00

11 The handling and storage of pesticide

0.00

12 The application of road salt

0.00

13 The handling and storage of road salt

0.00

14 The storage of snow 0.00

15 The handling and storage of fuel

2 2.00

16

The handling and storage of a dense non-aqueous phase liquid

32 9 1 22.00

17The handling and storage of an organic solvent

3 3 0.00

18

The management of runoff that contains chemicals used in the de-icing of aircraft

0.00

19

The use of land as livestock grazing or pasturing land, an outdoor confinement area or a farm-animal yard O. Reg. 385/08, s. 3.

0.00

20

Water taking from an aquifer without returning the water to the same aquifer or surface water body

0.00

21 Reducing recharge of an aquifer

0.00

22Establishment and operation of a liquid hydrocarbon pipeline

0.00

TOTAL 43.00 12.00 1.00 30.00

How many signs have been installed on municipal roads?

How many signs have been installed on municipal roads in the SPA during this reporting period?

0

How many inspections were carried out for activities that require a Interim RMP for this reporting period?

Page 7 of 62

2019-02-08http://spar.nvca.on.ca/SparRMOReport.aspx?RID=1590&MunId=32&Yr=2018

Page 23: The Town of Midland does not adopt or condone anything said in … Documents/CIP/CIP Sept 23... · 2019-10-04 · "The Town of Midland does not adopt or condone anything said in correspondence

How many inspections were carried out in respect of an activity to which section 56 of the CWA applies for this reporting period?

The term inspection refers to those conducted under the authority of section 62 of the Clean Water Act, related to an activity to which section 56, 57, or 58 of the Clean Water Act applies. This includes inspections carried out for threat verification purposes. It does not include the delivery of documents such as notices or a signed risk management plan.

Number of inspections carried out in respect of an activity to which section 56 of the CWA applies

Number of cases in which the person was not complying with a RMP agreed to or imposed under section 56 of the CWA

0 0

How many times has the RMO caused a thing to be done?

How many times has the RMO caused a thing to be done under section 64 of the CWA?

0

How many Risk Assessments have been submitted to the RMO for consideration?

How many Risk Assessments have been submitted to the RMO for consideration under section 60 of the Clean Water Act?

0

How many RMPs has the RMO refused to agree-to?

How many Risk Management Plans has the RMO refused to agree-to or establish under subsection 56(9), 58(15) or 58(16) of the CWA?

0

How many RMPs are considered in-progress as of December 31, 2018?

How many RMPs are considered in-progress as of December 31, 2018? These are RMPs that have been initiated with the landowner but not yet completed.

13

Inspections carried out under Section 62 of the CWA.

How many inspections were carried out under section 62 of the CWA for this reporting period?

The term inspection refers to those conducted under the authority of section 62 of the Clean Water Act, related to an activity to which section 56, 57, or 58 of the Clean Water Act applies. This includes inspections carried out for threat verification purposes. It does not include the delivery of documents such as notices or a signed risk management plan.

0

How many prosecutions have been made?

How many prosecutions have been made under section 106 of CWA?

0

How many prosecutions have resulted in a conviction?

How many prosecutions made under section 106 of the CWA have resulted in a conviction?

If a prosecution has resulted in a conviction, please use the comment box section below to provide a brief description of each offence.

0

How many Orders has the RMO issued (excluding orders to establish or amend an RMP)?

Page 8 of 62

2019-02-08http://spar.nvca.on.ca/SparRMOReport.aspx?RID=1590&MunId=32&Yr=2018

Page 24: The Town of Midland does not adopt or condone anything said in … Documents/CIP/CIP Sept 23... · 2019-10-04 · "The Town of Midland does not adopt or condone anything said in correspondence

How many orders has the RMO issued (excluding orders to establish or amend an RMP) under Part IV of the CWA?

0

RMO and RMI Contact Information

Provide the name and contact information of the appointed RMOs and RMIs by completing the table below. Insert additional rows as needed.

Staff Name Title/Role RMO/RMI Training Date (y/m)

Melissa Carruthers RMO/RMI 2014-Dec

Jeff Beauchamp RMI 2016-Dec (RMO/RMI) and Oct (property entry)

Comment :

Contact information for Melissa Carruthers: [email protected] 705-534-7283 ext. 205 Contact information for Jeff Beauchamp: [email protected] 705-526-4275 ext. 4209

Provide a brief overview of the progress made in managing significant drinking water threats.

[OPTIONAL] In summary of the reporting period activities, briefly describe in the comment section below, the progress made in managing significant drinking water threats (e.g. completing site visits and inspections, risk management plan development, development and delivery of education and outreach, participating in pre-consultation meetings with proponents or developing by-laws to screen certain building applications).

Most significant drinking water threats have been verified on the ground. Fact sheets are available at both the SSEA office and website, as well as within the Town for members of the public and various groups. A section 59 screening process had previously been set up to screen for future significant drinking water threats and continues to be followed. Attendance at pre-consultation meetings is done at the request of the municipality.

Provide details for each Risk Assessment that has been submitted to the RMO for consideration.

Provide details by completing the table below for each Risk Assessment that has been submitted to the RMO for consideration under section 60 of the Clean Water Act. Insert additional rows as needed.

Drinking Water System Name Street Name of Threat Property

Threat Activity(ies) to Which the Risk Assessment Relates

What is the Status of the Risk Assessment (being evaluated, accepted, not accepted) Comments

Not Applicable

How many RMPs has the RMO established as the result of a request from the person engaged in the threat activity?

How many Risk Management Plans has the RMO established by order under section 58(12) of the CWA, as a result of an application for a Risk Management Plan made by a person engaged in a threat activity under section 58(11) of the CWA?

0

Provide details for each RMP that has been agreed-to or established.

Provide details for each RMP that has been agreed-to or established within this reporting period by completing the table below.

Drinking Water System Name Street Name of Threat Property

Threat Activity(ies) to Which the RMP Relates Comment

Not Applicable

Provide details for each RMP the RMO has refused to agree-to?

Provide details in the table below for each RMP the RMO has refused to agree-to or establish under subsection 56(9), 58(15) or 58(16) of the CWA?

Drinking Water System Name Street Name of Threat Property

Threat Activities to Which the Refusal Relates

Describe the Reason for Refusing the RMP

Page 9 of 62

2019-02-08http://spar.nvca.on.ca/SparRMOReport.aspx?RID=1590&MunId=32&Yr=2018

Page 25: The Town of Midland does not adopt or condone anything said in … Documents/CIP/CIP Sept 23... · 2019-10-04 · "The Town of Midland does not adopt or condone anything said in correspondence

Not Applicable

Provide details for each of the orders issued by the RMO.

Provide details for each of the orders issued by the RMO by completing the table below.

Drinking Water System Name Street Name of Threat Property

Threat Activity(ies) to Which the Order Relates

Describe the Circumstances Surrounding the Order

Not Applicable

Provide details for each case where the RMO caused a thing to be done.

Provide details for each case where the RMO caused a thing to be done by completing the table below.

Drinking Water System Name Street Name of Threat Property

Threat Activity(ies) to Which the "Cause a Thing" Relates

Describe what was "Caused to be Done" and the Estimated Cost

Not Applicable

Complete the table below for each notice of conformity received for a prescribed instrument.

Complete the table below for each notice and/or a copy of the prescribed instrument received by the RMO (as per O. Reg. 287/07, ss. 65(1), p. 4

Drinking Water System Name

Street Name of Threat Property

Threat Activity(ies) to Which the Notice

Relates

Type of Prescribed Instrument Referred to

Prescribed Instrument

#/Approval #

Did the RMO Grant an Exemption as a Result of

the PI?

Not Applicable Not Applicable

Provide details in the table below for each inspection that was carried out in respect of a threat activity under section 62 of the CWA.

Provide details in the table below for each inspection that was carried out in respect of a threat activity under section 62 of the CWA.

Please insert additional rows as needed.

Subsection of the CWA to which an inspection was carried out in respect of an activity Inspection # The activity(ies) to which the inspection

relates to

Not Applicable

Have there been any occasions where processes set up to flag/catch the potential creation of significant drinking water threats have failed?

Have there been any occasions where processes set up to flag (catch) the potential creation of significant drinking water threats have failed? If yes, please provide a brief explanation in the comment section below about the circumstance of the situation and steps taken to correct the process.

Not Applicable Comment :

not applicable in 2018

Please complete the table below if a municipal drinking water system in your SPA is participating in the Drinking Water Surveillance Program.

[OPTIONAL] If you have a municipal drinking water system that is participating in the Drinking Water Surveillance Program and data is available, please complete the table below. Insert additional rows as necessary for each drinking water system.

Page 10 of 62

2019-02-08http://spar.nvca.on.ca/SparRMOReport.aspx?RID=1590&MunId=32&Yr=2018

Page 26: The Town of Midland does not adopt or condone anything said in … Documents/CIP/CIP Sept 23... · 2019-10-04 · "The Town of Midland does not adopt or condone anything said in correspondence

Participating Drinking Water System Name Parameter of Concern Describe changes in the concentration or loadings of the parameter(s) since the approval of the assessment report

MIDLAND WELL SUPPLY, Heritage Dr sodium increasing trend over last 5 years. Still well below ODWQS

MIDLAND WELL SUPPLY, Russell sodium increasing trend over last 5 years. Still well below ODWQS

MIDLAND WELL SUPPLY, Vindin Cr sodium increasing trend over last 5 years. Still well below ODWQS

What means are being used to finance source protection related costs?

Identify which of the following means are being used to finance source protection related costs within your municipality?

Cost recovery/user pay (e.g., RMP fees)

How long did it take to bring a major non-compliance with a section 57 prohibition back into compliance?

During inspections, where the RMI found a major non-compliance with a section 57 prohibition, indicate the length of time (answer in # of weeks) it took to bring the activity back into compliance with the source protection plan. In cases where it took more than 6 months, please describe the reasons why it took more than 6 months in the comment section below.

not applica

On average, how many days did it take to negotiate and complete a Risk Management Plan?

Generally, how many days on average did it take to negotiate and complete a Risk Management Plan for each of the following sectors: agricultural, industrial, commercial/institutional, municipal (include time spent in meetings, conversations with client, review/sign-off, etc.)

An approximation is acceptable. Suggested answer format for "Days to Negotiate RMP": <1 day, 1-3 days, 3-6 days, 6-10 days, >10 days If the process took more than 10 days, please comment as to the reason why.

Type of RMP Days to Negotiate RMP Comment

Agricultural not applicable for 2018

Commercial/Institutional 1-3 RMP was negotiated through corporate and with other stores across the province.

Industrial not applicable for 2018

Municipal not applicable for 2018

On average, how much time overall did it take to complete the RMP process?

Generally, how much time overall (from the time you first approached the person engaged, to RMP agreement/establishment) did it take to complete the RMP process? An approximation is acceptable. If the process took more than 1 year please comment as to the reason why.

RMP Type Months to Complete RMP Comment

Agricultural not applicable for 2018

Commercial/Institutional 10 RMP was negotiated through corporate and with other stores across the province.

Industrial not applicable for 2018

Municipal not applicable for 2018

Were any potential threat activities observed that could not be addressed (e.g. the activity wasn't one of the 21 prescribed threats)?

Were any potential threat activities observed that could not be addressed through the source water protection program because the activity could not be designated as a significant drinking water threat (e.g activity wasn’t one of the 21 prescribed threats, activity could only be designated as a moderate threat per the table of circumstances etc.)? If yes, please describe the type of threat activity and outline why you believe it should be addressed through the source protection program in the comment section below.

Page 11 of 62

2019-02-08http://spar.nvca.on.ca/SparRMOReport.aspx?RID=1590&MunId=32&Yr=2018

Page 27: The Town of Midland does not adopt or condone anything said in … Documents/CIP/CIP Sept 23... · 2019-10-04 · "The Town of Midland does not adopt or condone anything said in correspondence

Not Applicable Comment :

n/a for 2018

Are there any loopholes that you have identified/come across, which applicants are using to get around the source protection plan policy requirements?

In general, are there any loopholes or gaps that you have identified/come across (either in the tables of circumstances, source protection legislation, source protection plan, or other) that applicants are using to get around the requirements posed by the source protection plan policies? If yes, please describe these potential loopholes in the comment section below.

Yes Comment :

potential for loophole/reduced rigour of analysis based on policy wording i.e.requirements of water balance studies to be peer reviewed and qualifications of reviewer. Policy wording should ideally require that water balance studies be prepared by a qualified person, and reviewed by a qualified person based on a set of minimum requirements, and funded by the applicant. jurisdictional issues - MECP application, not municipal, Town staff not always aware of applications within Town boundaries. i.e. Permit to Take Water applicants within WHPA-Q1

How often were potential significant threat issues resolved through pre-consultation?

Generally, how often were potential significant threat issues resolved through pre-consultation?

Please use the comment section below to explain your answer, if you feel as though further explanation is required.

Most of the time

For section 59 applications where it was determined that neither section 57 nor section 58 apply, indicate the most common reasons why.

For section 59 applications where it was determined that neither section 57 nor section 58 apply, indicate the most common reasons why.

Please use the comment section below to explain your answer, if you feel as though further explanation is required OR if your answer does not fall within one of the reasons listed below.

Comment :

not applicable for 2018

Where a prohibited activity was proposed, how readily available were alternatives to the prohibited activity and how willing was the applicant to alter their application to meet SWP requirements?

Generally, in circumstances where a prohibited activity was proposed, how readily available were alternatives to the prohibited activity? How willing was the applicant to alter their application to meet source water protection requirements?

not applicable for 2018

How many application submissions, on average, were required before a section 59 Notice to Proceed could be issued?

In circumstances where applicants were required to alter their application in order to get a section 59 Notice to Proceed, how many application submissions, on average, were required before a notice could be issued?

not applica

How many times was the RMO unable to issue a section 59 Notice to Proceed?

Page 12 of 62

2019-02-08http://spar.nvca.on.ca/SparRMOReport.aspx?RID=1590&MunId=32&Yr=2018

Page 28: The Town of Midland does not adopt or condone anything said in … Documents/CIP/CIP Sept 23... · 2019-10-04 · "The Town of Midland does not adopt or condone anything said in correspondence

How many times was the RMO unable to issue a section 59 Notice to Proceed?

0

Is enforcing a prohibition more work than anticipated?

Is enforcing a prohibition more work than anticipated? (i.e. would negotiating a RMP have been simpler/achieved the same result in the end as prohibition?). If yes, please describe the challenges associated with enforcing a prohibition in the comment section below.

Not Applicable Comment :

not applicable for 2018

Were people accepting of the requirement to cease a prohibited activity?

Were people accepting of the requirement to cease a prohibited activity? Were applicants generally open to implementing alternatives or altering their application to satisfy prohibition policy requirements? If no, please describe the challenges associated with convincing applicants to cease a prohibited activity in the comment section below.

Not Applicable Comment :

not applicable for 2018

During inspections, how many times did the RMO/RMI come across new significant threat activities?

During inspections, how many times did the RMO/RMI come across new significant threat activities on site, that were previously not addressed through the implementation process?

0

How many notices have been received from a person engaged in an activity, notifying the RMO of their possession of a PI or their intention to get a PI to mitigate the threat.

For the purposes of section 61 of O.Reg. 287/07, how many notices were given to and the number of notices given by the risk management official under subsections 61(2), 61(7), and 61(10)?

0

Have there been any occasions where the Spills Action Centre had to be notified of a substance being discharged into the raw water supply of an existing municipal drinking water system considered in a established Assessment Report under section 89(1) of the CWA?

Please use the comment section below to explain your answer, if you feel as though further explanation is required.

Have there been any occasions where an incident report was sent to SAC regarding

a substance being discharged into an existing municipal drinking water system?

If yes, please provide a brief description of the

circumstances surrounding the incident.

Among the incident report to SAC, did the party responsible for the

drinking water health hazard have an RMP in place?

If yes, was the party who was responsible for the drinking water

health hazard, in compliance with the terms of the agreed upon RMP?

Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable

Comment :

not applicable for 2018

Complete this table to indicate what progress has been made to-date to implement the various policies in the South Georgian Bay Lake Simcoe Source Protection Region.

Page 13 of 62

2019-02-08http://spar.nvca.on.ca/SparRMOReport.aspx?RID=1590&MunId=32&Yr=2018

Page 29: The Town of Midland does not adopt or condone anything said in … Documents/CIP/CIP Sept 23... · 2019-10-04 · "The Town of Midland does not adopt or condone anything said in correspondence

Policy Number & Description Policy Implementation Status If no progress was made (i) explain why actions

were not taken and (ii) indicate the planned next steps to support implementation

WAST(b)-1: RMP for existing operation of waste disposal sites where EPA does not require an approval

No response required/not applicable

WAST(b)-2: Prohibition of future operation of waste disposal sites where EPA does not require an approval

Implemented

SEWG(b)-1: RMP for existing operation of wastewater treatment plants/sewer systems where OWRA does not require an approval

In progress/some progress made

ASM(App)-1: RMP for existing and future application of agricultural source material to land outside of WHPA-Aand IPZ-1

Implemented

ASM(App)-2: Prohibition of existing and future application of agricultural source material to land within WHPA-A and IPZ-1

Implemented

ASM(Store)-1: RMP for existing storage of agricultural source material

No response required/not applicable

ASM(Store)-2: Prohibition of future storage of agricultural source material

Implemented

ASM(ICA)-1: RMP for existing and future application and storage of agricultural source material - G.S and Lafontaine

No response required/not applicable

ASM(ICA)-2: Prohibition of existing and future storage of agricultural source material - G.S. and Lafontaine

No response required/not applicable

NASM(APP)-1: RMP for existing and future application of non-agricultural source material to land for areas outside WHPA-A and IPZ-1

Implemented

NASM(App)-2: Prohibition of existing and future application of non-agricultural source material to land within WHPA-A and IPZ-1

Implemented

NASM(H&S)-1: RMP for existing and future handling and storage of non-agricultural source material outside of WHPA-A and IPZ-1

Implemented

NASM(H&S)-2: Prohibition of existing and future handling and storage of non-agricultural source material within WHPA-A and IPZ-1

Implemented

FERT(App)-1: RMP for existing and future application of commercial fertilizer to land

Implemented

FERT(H&S)-1: RMP for existing handling and storage of commercial fertilizer

No response required/not applicable

FERT(H&S)-2: Prohibition for future handling and storage of commercial fertilizer

Implemented

FERT(ICA)-1: Application, handling and storage of commercial fertilizer - G.S. and Lafontaine

No response required/not applicable

FERT(ICA)-2: RMP for existing and future application, handling and storage of commercial fertilizer - G.S and Lafontaine

No response required/not applicable

PEST(App)-1: RMP for existing and future application of pesticides to land

Implemented

PEST(H&S)-1: RMP for future handling and storage of pesticides

Implemented

PEST(H&S)-2: RMP for existing handling and storage of pesticides

No response required/not applicable

SALT(App)-1: RMP for existing and future application of road salt

Implemented

SALT(H&S)-1: RMP for existing handling and storage of road salt

No response required/not applicable

SALT(ICA)-1: RMP for existing and future application, handling and storage of road salt within the WHPA-A of the ICA - Barrie

No response required/not applicable

Page 14 of 62

2019-02-08http://spar.nvca.on.ca/SparRMOReport.aspx?RID=1590&MunId=32&Yr=2018

Page 30: The Town of Midland does not adopt or condone anything said in … Documents/CIP/CIP Sept 23... · 2019-10-04 · "The Town of Midland does not adopt or condone anything said in correspondence

SALT(ICA)-2: RMP for existing and future application, handling and storage of road salt within the WHPA-A of the ICA and outside the WHPA-A where greater than 5 tonnes - Barrie

No response required/not applicable

SNOW-1: RMP for the existing storage of snow No response required/not applicable

SNOW-2: Prohibition of future storage of snow Implemented

SNOW(ICA)-1: RMP for the existing and future storage of snow within WHPA-A of the ICA - Barrie

No response required/not applicable

FUEL-1: RMP for existing handling and storage of fuel In progress/some progress made

FUEL-2: Prohibition of future handling and storage of fuel

Implemented

DNAPL-1: RMP for the existing handling and storage of DNAPLs

In progress/some progress made

DNAPL-2: Prohibition of future handling and storage of DNAPLs

Implemented

SOLV-1: RMP for existing handling and storage of organic solvents

No response required/not applicable

LSTOCK-1: Prohibition of existing and future use of land as livestock grazing or pasturing where the annual rate of nutrient generation is greater than 0.5 nutrient units/acre

No response required/not applicable

LSTOCK-2: RMP for existing and future use an outdoor confinement or a farm-animal yard outside of WHPA-A and IPZ-1

No response required/not applicable

LSTOCK-3: Prohibition of existing and future use an outdoor confinement or a farm-animal yard within WHPA-A and IPZ-1

No response required/not applicable

RLU-1: Restricted land use policies Implemented

Complete this table to indicate what progress has been made to-date to implement the various policies in the South Georgian Bay Lake Simcoe Source Protection Plan. Implementing Body: Municipality (Including Planning Approval Authority) - Lower Tier

Policy Number and Description Policy Implementation StatusIf no progress was made (i) explain why actions

were not taken and (ii) indicate the planned next steps to support implementation

WAST(b)-5: Municipal action on existing and future disposal of household hazardous waste

No response required/not applicable upper tier responsibility

SEWG(b)-5: Municipal action on existing combined sewers

In progress/some progress made design underway in 2018 work to be completed in 2019. Council has directed staff to create policy around backflow prevention.

SEWG(c)-3: Municipal action on existing on-site sewage systems where services and capacity exist

Implemented

SEWG(c)-4: Municipal action on existing and future small on-site sewage systems

No response required/not applicable

SALT(H&S)-2: RMP for future handling and storage of road salt

Implemented

SALT(ICA)-3: Specific action for existing and future application, handling and storage of road salt - Barrie

No response required/not applicable

FUEL-4: Municipal action by-law for removal of existing abandoned fuel tanks

No progress made Guidance and modeled by-law development would be helpful to allow Town staff to implement. Currently Town staff has limited information as to potential location of tanks and would have difficulty implementing a by-law.

SOLV-2: Prohibition of future handling and storage of DNAPLs

Implemented

Page 15 of 62

2019-02-08http://spar.nvca.on.ca/SparRMOReport.aspx?RID=1590&MunId=32&Yr=2018

Page 31: The Town of Midland does not adopt or condone anything said in … Documents/CIP/CIP Sept 23... · 2019-10-04 · "The Town of Midland does not adopt or condone anything said in correspondence

DEMD-2: Management plans for existing and future areas within the WHPA Q2 where water is taken from an aquifer without being returned to the same aquifer

Policy outcome(s) evaluated; No further action required

DEMD-3: Conservation plans for future areas within the WHPA Q2 where water is taken from an aquifer without being returned to the same aquifer

Policy outcome(s) evaluated; No further action required

DEMD-7: Specific action for existing municipalities within the Dufferin County that share a water source within a Tier 3

No response required/not applicable

COND-1: Monitoring of existing actions taken in relation to contaminated sites

No response required/not applicable

COND-2: Monitoring of existing changes in condition over time in relation to contaminated sites

No response required/not applicable

LUP-1: Land use planning policies for future activities In progress/some progress made

LUP-2: Land use planning to address future application of road salt

In progress/some progress made

LUP-3: Land use planning for future storm water management BMPs

In progress/some progress made

LUP-4: Land use planning for future sewage system infrastructure

In progress/some progress made

LUP-5: Land use planning for future master environmental servicing plans

In progress/some progress made

LUP-6:Land use planning for future small on-site sewage treatment systems

In progress/some progress made

LUP-7: Land use planning prohibition of future small on-site sewage systems in WHPA-A

In progress/some progress made

LUP-8: Land use planning for fututre small on-site sewage systems in issue contributing areas and outside the WHPA-A

No response required/not applicable

LUP-9: Land use planning for future taking of water from an aquifer or surface water feature without returning it to the same source - Orangeville

No response required/not applicable

LUP-10: Land use planning for future taking of water from an aquifer or surface water feature without returning it to the same source - York, Penetanguishene, Whip-Poor-Will

Policy outcome(s) evaluated; No further action required

LUP-11: Land use planning for significant groundwater recharge areas

In progress/some progress made

LUP-12: Land use planning for new development in WHPA-Q2

Implemented

LUP-13: BMP for Land use planning in WHPA-Q2 In progress/some progress made

LUP-14: Land use planning for municipal water supply in WHPA-Q2

No response required/not applicable

LUP-15: Land use planning of municipal water supply for an activity that reduces the recharge of an aquifer within a WHPA-Q2

Policy outcome(s) evaluated; No further action required

EDU-8: E/O for applying, handling and storing road salt -Barrie

No response required/not applicable

EDU-11: E/O through signage in wellhead protection areas

Implemented

INCENT-3: Incentives for septic systems, landownersPolicy outcome(s) evaluated; No further action required

INCENT-4: Incentives for effective storage of snowPolicy outcome(s) evaluated; No further action required

Page 16 of 62

2019-02-08http://spar.nvca.on.ca/SparRMOReport.aspx?RID=1590&MunId=32&Yr=2018

Page 32: The Town of Midland does not adopt or condone anything said in … Documents/CIP/CIP Sept 23... · 2019-10-04 · "The Town of Midland does not adopt or condone anything said in correspondence

RMO

Complete the table below for risk management plans that have been agreed to/established.

Total number of risk management plans agreed to or established within the source protection area/region since

effective date of the source protection plan July 1st 2015 (i.e. cumulative total)

(Column A)

Number of risk management plans agreed to or established within the source protection area/region (for

existing and future threats) during this reporting period (i.e. annual total)

(Column B)

Total number of properties (i.e. parcels) with risk management plans

agreed to or established since the effective date of the source

protection plan July 1st 2015 (Column C)

Estimated number of risk management plans to be

required to address significant drinking water

threats

1 1 1 22

How many existing* significant drinking water threats have been managed through the established risk management plans?

How many existing* significant drinking water threats have been managed through the established risk management plans? ( * meaning engaged in OR enumerated as existing significant threats)

Annual Count (During This Reporting Period) Cumulative Count (Since Effective Date of SPP July 1st 2015)

1 1

How many section 59 notices were issued in this reporting period?

How many section 59 notices were issued as per ss. 59(2)(a) and ss. 59(2)(b)?

Activities to which neither a prohibition (section 57) nor a risk management plan (section 58) policy applied, as per ss. 59(2)(a) of the Clean Water Act

Activities to which a risk management plan (section 58) policy applied, as per ss. 59(2)(b) of the Clean Water Act

0 0

How much progress has been made in updating Official Plans (OP) and Zoning By-Laws (ZBL)?

List the municipality(ies) (including upper-, lower-, and single-tier) within the source protection region/area that are required to complete Official Plan and Zoning By-Law conformity exercises for source protection and then select the status of those exercises in the table below for each municipality. Insert additional rows as needed . NOTE: Applied to every municipality affected by land use planning or Part IV type policies.

Municipality Name Status of Official Plan Conformity Exercise (Select a status from drop down list)

Status of Zoning By-Law Conformity Exercise (Select a status from drop down list)

Town of Midland In process Completed

How many times did the RMO receive a notice of conformity for a prescribed instrument?

For the purposes of section 61 of O.Reg. 287/07, how many notices and/or copies did the risk management official receive of prescribed instruments that state the prescribed instrument conforms with the significant drinking water threat policies in the source protection plan (i.e. statement of conformity confirms that instrument holder is exempt from requiring a risk management plan)?

0

How many inspections were carried out for activities that are prohibited for this reporting period?

The term inspection refers to those conducted under the authority of section 62 of the Clean Water Act, related to an activity to which section 56, 57, or 58 of the Clean Water Act applies. This includes inspections carried out for threat verification purposes. It does not include the delivery of documents such as notices or a signed risk management plan.

The term contravention as used in the context of inspections refers to activities being undertaken that are in violation of sections 57 and 58 of the Clean Water Act relative to the policies noted in the source protection plan.

Page 17 of 62

2019-02-08http://spar.nvca.on.ca/SparRMOReport.aspx?RID=1590&MunId=32&Yr=2018

Page 33: The Town of Midland does not adopt or condone anything said in … Documents/CIP/CIP Sept 23... · 2019-10-04 · "The Town of Midland does not adopt or condone anything said in correspondence

State the total number of inspections (including any follow-up site visits) that were carried out for activities (existing or future) that are prohibited under section 57 of the Clean Water Act for this reporting period

How many properties (i.e. parcels) had inspections for the purposes of section 57 for this

reporting period?

Among these inspections, how many showed that activities were taking place on the landscape even though they were prohibited (i.e. in contravention) under section 57 of the

Clean Water Act for this reporting period?

0 0 0

How many existing significant drinking water threats have been prohibited?

How many existing significant drinking water threats have been prohibited as a result of section 57 prohibitions?

Annual Count (This Reporting Period) Cumulative Count (Since Effective Date of SPP July 1st 2015)

0 0

How many inspections were carried out for activities that require a RMP for this reporting period?

The term inspection refers to those conducted under the authority of section 62 of the Clean Water Act, related to an activity to which section 56, 57, or 58 of the Clean Water Act applies. This includes inspections carried out for threat verification purposes. It does not include the delivery of documents such as notices or a signed risk management plan.

The term contravention as used in the context of inspections refers to activities being undertaken that are in violation of sections 57 and 58 of the Clean Water Act relative to the policies noted in the source protection plan.

State the total number of inspections (including any follow-up site visits) that were carried out

for activities that require a risk management plan under section 58

of the Clean Water Act for this reporting period

How many properties (i.e. parcels) had

inspections for the purposes of section 58 for this reporting

period?

Among these inspections, how many were in contravention with section 58 of

the Clean Water Act for this reporting period (i.e. person engaging in a

drinking water threat activity without a risk management plan as required by the

source protection plan)?

How many were in non-compliance with the specific contents of the risk management plan for this reporting period? NOTE: Please only include those inspections that showed non-

compliance with measures/conditions to manage the actual threat activity

0 0 0 0

What methods are being used to raise awareness about source water protection in the source protection area/region?

Indicate the methods by which education and outreach policies have been/are being implemented to raise knowledge and awareness about source water protection in the source protection region/area by all the relevant implementing bodies. Choose all that apply from the checklist below. If there are other methods that are not listed please describe them in the comment box below.

Use of educational materials for general public Use of educational materials for target audiences including developers, builders, landowners, farmers, etc. Workshops Site visits Source protection content for websites Educational videos (e.g., Drinking Water Source Protection video available Conservation Ontario) Collaboration with other bodies (e.g., ministries, local organizations, etc.) Social media promotion (e.g., use of Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, etc.) Information kiosks at events/festivals

Describe an exceptional E&O initiative that has had a positive impact on souce water.

From among the method(s) used to implement education and outreach policies by the implementing bodies, specifically, indicate the top one(s) used (please limit the selection of the top methods used to three choices maximum and insert additional rows as needed) that were found to be the most successful in meeting the intent of education and outreach policies (i.e., gains in source protection knowledge, behavior changes and/or commitments to maintain actions that are protective of source water).

Then, briefly explain how success was evaluated and any results achieved (e.g., landowners understand they are within or adjacent to a vulnerable area or highly vulnerable aquifer, classroom presentations on protecting water sources made to over 25 schools across source protection region reaching 750 students, farm operators install signs to identify areas to avoid nutrient application, homeowners pledge to properly dispose of hazardous waste products, etc.).

Page 18 of 62

2019-02-08http://spar.nvca.on.ca/SparRMOReport.aspx?RID=1590&MunId=32&Yr=2018

Page 34: The Town of Midland does not adopt or condone anything said in … Documents/CIP/CIP Sept 23... · 2019-10-04 · "The Town of Midland does not adopt or condone anything said in correspondence

In the explanation, where available, include the following details: Indicate target population (e.g., farmers, business, residents, municipalities, etc.), percentage of the target audience reached, outcomes that were achieved, whether these initiatives reached persons and/or businesses within geographic areas where threats could be significant or to wider areas (i.e., specific to areas with significant drinking water threats or general E/O)

Method(s) of implementation - Pick up to 3 of the most successful methods used by source

protection authority

Brief explanation of most successful education and outreach method(s) used - evaluation and results achieved (Maximum = 150 words for each response)

Use of educational materials for general pub An increased knowledge of the drinking water source protection program due to road signs highlighting vulnerable areas. More questions have been asked of staff when dealing with members of the public since the signs have been installed. Signage has spurred an increased awareness of the program.

How many signs have been installed on provincial highways?

How many signs have been installed on provincial highways in the SPA during this reporting period?

0

Were signs installed at other locations?

Were signs installed at other locations during this reporting period? If yes, please indicate how many and explain in the comment section below.

Not Applicable Comment :

not applicable in 2018

How many of the inspected on-site sewage systems required major maintenance (e.g., tank replacement, tile bed replacement etc.)?

How many of the inspected on-site sewage systems required major maintenance work (e.g., tank replacement, tile bed replacement etc.)?

n/a in mid

Complete the table below to provide details about all incentives that were made available to assist in source water protection.

If applicable, complete the table below indicating:

• The type of incentive(s) (e.g., prescribed instrument application fees waived, funding, other non-financial incentives, etc.) that was made available (whether as a policy in the SPP or not)

• The source that provided the incentive(s) • The prescribed drinking water threat activity(ies) to which it relates • The degree to which the incentive(s) assisted with the implementation of SPP policies that address significant drinking water threat activity(ies) • And, include any comments

Insert additional rows as needed in the table below.

Type of IncentiveSource of Incentive (i.e., Municipality, CA,

Provincial Ministry(ies), Other - please specify)

Prescribed Drinking Water Threat(s)

Addressed

Degree to which incentive assisted with the implementation of SPP policies addressing

SDWTComments

n/a in 2018 Not Applicable

How many on-site sewage systems require an inspection as a result of a source protection plan policy?

How many on-site sewage systems in your municipality require inspections in accordance with the Ontario Building Code (OBC) (i.e. once every five years)?

Page 19 of 62

2019-02-08http://spar.nvca.on.ca/SparRMOReport.aspx?RID=1590&MunId=32&Yr=2018

Page 35: The Town of Midland does not adopt or condone anything said in … Documents/CIP/CIP Sept 23... · 2019-10-04 · "The Town of Midland does not adopt or condone anything said in correspondence

0

How many on-site sewage systems requiring an inspection (as per previous question) have been inspected?

Please use the comment box section below to explain your answer, if you feel as though further explanation is required.

How many on-site sewage systems (identified as significant drinking water threats) were inspected (i.e., cumulative running tally of systems

inspected)?

If not all required on-site sewage systems were inspected, please indicate why they were not all inspected from among the options in the drop

down-list

0 Not Applicable Comment :

not applicable in Midland

How many of the inspected on-site sewage systems required minor maintenance (e.g., pump out, tank lid replacement etc.)?

How many of the inspected on-site sewage systems required minor maintenance (e.g., pump out, tank lid replacement etc.)?

n/a in mid

If applicable, complete the table below, where information about drinking water issues are available.

If applicable, complete the table below, where information about drinking water issues is available, indicating any drinking water issues/parameters (chemical or pathogen) that have been identified, whether an Issue Contributing Area was delineated for the identified issues, any observations in the concentration or trend for each issue. Insert additional rows as needed.

Optional: Describe the actions/behavioral changes in the ICA that might be contributing to the changes.

Drinking Water System Drinking Water Issue/Parameter

ICA Deliniated for this Issue? (Y/N) Observations Actions/Behavioural Changes Contributing to

Change in Observations (Optional)

Not Applicable Not Applicable

Are there any examples of successful municipal actions that the municipality wishes to highlight?

[OPTIONAL] Are there some unique examples of successful municipal actions that are being/have been undertaken to protect source water either directly because of plan policies or as a result of more broad integration of the science from source protection? If yes, please provide details in the comment section below.

Implementation of LUP-12 has brought a heightened awareness of the drinking water source protection program within council and the development community. Relined various municipal wells and added automatic depth sensors to ensure good water quality

Are there examples of successful residential and/or business actions that the authority wishes to highlight?

[OPTIONAL] Are there examples of local residents and/or businesses (including agriculture, salt applicator, fuel providers) who are taking successful concrete actions (e.g., engaged in more “green” behaviors that could protect water sources such as purchasing road salt alternatives, taking precautions when storing or disposing hazardous waste, organic solvents, etc.) to protect source water in their community(ies)? If yes, please provide details in the comment section below.

nothing to report for 2018

Explain the overall progress made in addressing these significant threats.

Please provide comments in the box below to explain the overall progress made in addressing these significant threats. Where possible, include an estimated percentage of overall progress made in the comments provided. (NOTE: This is intended to be the same as included in the Assessment Report Database)

The percentage of overall progress made in addressing local threats and conditions that are taking place on the landscape is determined by taking the total number in column D (i.e., SDWT addressed because policy is implemented) from the table in reportable #31a and dividing it into the number that is derived by adding the total numbers in columns A and B and then subtracting this sum total from the total in column C.

Page 20 of 62

2019-02-08http://spar.nvca.on.ca/SparRMOReport.aspx?RID=1590&MunId=32&Yr=2018

Page 36: The Town of Midland does not adopt or condone anything said in … Documents/CIP/CIP Sept 23... · 2019-10-04 · "The Town of Midland does not adopt or condone anything said in correspondence

In other words, overall progress made =D/A+B-C

Currently there are no completed RMPs for applicable SDWTs within the Town however the majority of the remaining SDWTs have been confirmed, on the ground, through field verification methods such as windshield surveys, site visits or phone calls with the owner/operator.

What positive outcomes have potentially resulted from the implementation of SPP policies?

What positive outcomes (e.g., less water consumption, changes in behaviour, reduction in phosphorus and nitrogen concentrations, less chloride from road salt, reduction in algal blooms, human health protected, etc.), if any, have potentially resulted from the implementation of SPP policies?

Please describe the outcomes in the comment section below.

Through education and outreach of the drinking water source protection program, the development and consultant community have become more aware of program specifically as it relates to water quantity concerns.

Complete the table below by indicating which of the listed significant drinking water threats were being engaged in at the time of SPP approval

Complete the table below by first indicating which of the listed significant drinking water threats were being engaged in (i.e., enumerated as ‘existing’ significant threats/threats) at the time of SPP approval . Then, using the formula for the running tally of enumerated threats as explained below, complete the columns in the table with the information for each SDWT indicated as existing in the SPR/A.

Lead SPAs will be maintaining a running tally of progress made in addressing significant threats that were on the ground before plans were approved. The running tally consists of the formula: A+B-C-D where:

• A = Original estimate of SDWT engaged in/enumerated when SPP approved

• B = Additional SDWT identified after first SPP approved as a result of verification (i.e., not part of original estimate of SDWT)

• C = SDWT included in enumeration estimates at time of plan approval but subsequently determined through verification that either: (i) it was not actually engaged in at a particular location after all OR(ii) it was no longer engaged in (e.g., land may still have an agricultural operation but owner no longer applying pesticides for their own reasons)

• D = SDWT addressed because policy is implemented* (*Note: Where multiple policy tools address any given threat sub-category, implemented means that actions associated with at least one policy tool have been completed/are in place)

Threat IDPrescribed Drinking Water Threat/Local Threat/Conditions

A B C D

No. Existing Threats still to be

addressed (A+B-C-D)

1

The establishment, operation or maintenance of a waste disposal site within the meaning of Part V of the Environmental Protection Act.

0.00

2

The establishment, operation or maintenance of a system that collects, stores, transmits, treats or disposes of sewage.

6 6.00

3The application of agricultural source material to land.

0.00

4The storage of agricultural source material.

0.00

5The management of agricultural source material

0.00

Page 21 of 62

2019-02-08http://spar.nvca.on.ca/SparRMOReport.aspx?RID=1590&MunId=32&Yr=2018

Page 37: The Town of Midland does not adopt or condone anything said in … Documents/CIP/CIP Sept 23... · 2019-10-04 · "The Town of Midland does not adopt or condone anything said in correspondence

6

The application of non-agricultural source material to land

0.00

7

The handling and storage of non-agricultural source material

0.00

8The application of commercial fertilizer to land

0.00

9The handling and storage of commercial fertilizer

0.00

10 The application of pesticide to land

0.00

11 The handling and storage of pesticide

0.00

12 The application of road salt

0.00

13 The handling and storage of road salt

0.00

14 The storage of snow 0.00

15 The handling and storage of fuel

2 2.00

16

The handling and storage of a dense non-aqueous phase liquid

32 9 1 22.00

17The handling and storage of an organic solvent

3 3 0.00

18

The management of runoff that contains chemicals used in the de-icing of aircraft

0.00

19

The use of land as livestock grazing or pasturing land, an outdoor confinement area or a farm-animal yard O. Reg. 385/08, s. 3.

0.00

20

Water taking from an aquifer without returning the water to the same aquifer or surface water body

0.00

21 Reducing recharge of an aquifer

0.00

22Establishment and operation of a liquid hydrocarbon pipeline

0.00

TOTAL 43.00 12.00 1.00 30.00

How many signs have been installed on municipal roads?

How many signs have been installed on municipal roads in the SPA during this reporting period?

0

How many inspections were carried out for activities that require a Interim RMP for this reporting period?

Page 22 of 62

2019-02-08http://spar.nvca.on.ca/SparRMOReport.aspx?RID=1590&MunId=32&Yr=2018

Page 38: The Town of Midland does not adopt or condone anything said in … Documents/CIP/CIP Sept 23... · 2019-10-04 · "The Town of Midland does not adopt or condone anything said in correspondence

How many inspections were carried out in respect of an activity to which section 56 of the CWA applies for this reporting period?

The term inspection refers to those conducted under the authority of section 62 of the Clean Water Act, related to an activity to which section 56, 57, or 58 of the Clean Water Act applies. This includes inspections carried out for threat verification purposes. It does not include the delivery of documents such as notices or a signed risk management plan.

Number of inspections carried out in respect of an activity to which section 56 of the CWA applies

Number of cases in which the person was not complying with a RMP agreed to or imposed under section 56 of the CWA

0 0

How many times has the RMO caused a thing to be done?

How many times has the RMO caused a thing to be done under section 64 of the CWA?

0

How many Risk Assessments have been submitted to the RMO for consideration?

How many Risk Assessments have been submitted to the RMO for consideration under section 60 of the Clean Water Act?

0

How many RMPs has the RMO refused to agree-to?

How many Risk Management Plans has the RMO refused to agree-to or establish under subsection 56(9), 58(15) or 58(16) of the CWA?

0

How many RMPs are considered in-progress as of December 31, 2018?

How many RMPs are considered in-progress as of December 31, 2018? These are RMPs that have been initiated with the landowner but not yet completed.

13

Inspections carried out under Section 62 of the CWA.

How many inspections were carried out under section 62 of the CWA for this reporting period?

The term inspection refers to those conducted under the authority of section 62 of the Clean Water Act, related to an activity to which section 56, 57, or 58 of the Clean Water Act applies. This includes inspections carried out for threat verification purposes. It does not include the delivery of documents such as notices or a signed risk management plan.

0

How many prosecutions have been made?

How many prosecutions have been made under section 106 of CWA?

0

How many prosecutions have resulted in a conviction?

How many prosecutions made under section 106 of the CWA have resulted in a conviction?

If a prosecution has resulted in a conviction, please use the comment box section below to provide a brief description of each offence.

0

How many Orders has the RMO issued (excluding orders to establish or amend an RMP)?

Page 23 of 62

2019-02-08http://spar.nvca.on.ca/SparRMOReport.aspx?RID=1590&MunId=32&Yr=2018

Page 39: The Town of Midland does not adopt or condone anything said in … Documents/CIP/CIP Sept 23... · 2019-10-04 · "The Town of Midland does not adopt or condone anything said in correspondence

How many orders has the RMO issued (excluding orders to establish or amend an RMP) under Part IV of the CWA?

0

RMO and RMI Contact Information

Provide the name and contact information of the appointed RMOs and RMIs by completing the table below. Insert additional rows as needed.

Staff Name Title/Role RMO/RMI Training Date (y/m)

Melissa Carruthers RMO/RMI 2014-Dec

Jeff Beauchamp RMI 2016-Dec (RMO/RMI) and Oct (property entry)

Comment :

Contact information for Melissa Carruthers: [email protected] 705-534-7283 ext. 205 Contact information for Jeff Beauchamp: [email protected] 705-526-4275 ext. 4209

Provide a brief overview of the progress made in managing significant drinking water threats.

[OPTIONAL] In summary of the reporting period activities, briefly describe in the comment section below, the progress made in managing significant drinking water threats (e.g. completing site visits and inspections, risk management plan development, development and delivery of education and outreach, participating in pre-consultation meetings with proponents or developing by-laws to screen certain building applications).

Most significant drinking water threats have been verified on the ground. Fact sheets are available at both the SSEA office and website, as well as within the Town for members of the public and various groups. A section 59 screening process had previously been set up to screen for future significant drinking water threats and continues to be followed. Attendance at pre-consultation meetings is done at the request of the municipality.

Provide details for each Risk Assessment that has been submitted to the RMO for consideration.

Provide details by completing the table below for each Risk Assessment that has been submitted to the RMO for consideration under section 60 of the Clean Water Act. Insert additional rows as needed.

Drinking Water System Name Street Name of Threat Property

Threat Activity(ies) to Which the Risk Assessment Relates

What is the Status of the Risk Assessment (being evaluated, accepted, not accepted) Comments

Not Applicable

How many RMPs has the RMO established as the result of a request from the person engaged in the threat activity?

How many Risk Management Plans has the RMO established by order under section 58(12) of the CWA, as a result of an application for a Risk Management Plan made by a person engaged in a threat activity under section 58(11) of the CWA?

0

Provide details for each RMP that has been agreed-to or established.

Provide details for each RMP that has been agreed-to or established within this reporting period by completing the table below.

Drinking Water System Name Street Name of Threat Property

Threat Activity(ies) to Which the RMP Relates Comment

Not Applicable

Provide details for each RMP the RMO has refused to agree-to?

Provide details in the table below for each RMP the RMO has refused to agree-to or establish under subsection 56(9), 58(15) or 58(16) of the CWA?

Drinking Water System Name Street Name of Threat Property

Threat Activities to Which the Refusal Relates

Describe the Reason for Refusing the RMP

Page 24 of 62

2019-02-08http://spar.nvca.on.ca/SparRMOReport.aspx?RID=1590&MunId=32&Yr=2018

Page 40: The Town of Midland does not adopt or condone anything said in … Documents/CIP/CIP Sept 23... · 2019-10-04 · "The Town of Midland does not adopt or condone anything said in correspondence

Not Applicable

Provide details for each of the orders issued by the RMO.

Provide details for each of the orders issued by the RMO by completing the table below.

Drinking Water System Name Street Name of Threat Property

Threat Activity(ies) to Which the Order Relates

Describe the Circumstances Surrounding the Order

Not Applicable

Provide details for each case where the RMO caused a thing to be done.

Provide details for each case where the RMO caused a thing to be done by completing the table below.

Drinking Water System Name Street Name of Threat Property

Threat Activity(ies) to Which the "Cause a Thing" Relates

Describe what was "Caused to be Done" and the Estimated Cost

Not Applicable

Complete the table below for each notice of conformity received for a prescribed instrument.

Complete the table below for each notice and/or a copy of the prescribed instrument received by the RMO (as per O. Reg. 287/07, ss. 65(1), p. 4

Drinking Water System Name

Street Name of Threat Property

Threat Activity(ies) to Which the Notice

Relates

Type of Prescribed Instrument Referred to

Prescribed Instrument

#/Approval #

Did the RMO Grant an Exemption as a Result of

the PI?

Not Applicable Not Applicable

Provide details in the table below for each inspection that was carried out in respect of a threat activity under section 62 of the CWA.

Provide details in the table below for each inspection that was carried out in respect of a threat activity under section 62 of the CWA.

Please insert additional rows as needed.

Subsection of the CWA to which an inspection was carried out in respect of an activity Inspection # The activity(ies) to which the inspection

relates to

Not Applicable

Have there been any occasions where processes set up to flag/catch the potential creation of significant drinking water threats have failed?

Have there been any occasions where processes set up to flag (catch) the potential creation of significant drinking water threats have failed? If yes, please provide a brief explanation in the comment section below about the circumstance of the situation and steps taken to correct the process.

Not Applicable Comment :

not applicable in 2018

Please complete the table below if a municipal drinking water system in your SPA is participating in the Drinking Water Surveillance Program.

[OPTIONAL] If you have a municipal drinking water system that is participating in the Drinking Water Surveillance Program and data is available, please complete the table below. Insert additional rows as necessary for each drinking water system.

Page 25 of 62

2019-02-08http://spar.nvca.on.ca/SparRMOReport.aspx?RID=1590&MunId=32&Yr=2018

Page 41: The Town of Midland does not adopt or condone anything said in … Documents/CIP/CIP Sept 23... · 2019-10-04 · "The Town of Midland does not adopt or condone anything said in correspondence

Participating Drinking Water System Name Parameter of Concern Describe changes in the concentration or loadings of the parameter(s) since the approval of the assessment report

MIDLAND WELL SUPPLY, Heritage Dr sodium increasing trend over last 5 years. Still well below ODWQS

MIDLAND WELL SUPPLY, Russell sodium increasing trend over last 5 years. Still well below ODWQS

MIDLAND WELL SUPPLY, Vindin Cr sodium increasing trend over last 5 years. Still well below ODWQS

What means are being used to finance source protection related costs?

Identify which of the following means are being used to finance source protection related costs within your municipality?

Cost recovery/user pay (e.g., RMP fees)

How long did it take to bring a major non-compliance with a section 57 prohibition back into compliance?

During inspections, where the RMI found a major non-compliance with a section 57 prohibition, indicate the length of time (answer in # of weeks) it took to bring the activity back into compliance with the source protection plan. In cases where it took more than 6 months, please describe the reasons why it took more than 6 months in the comment section below.

not applica

On average, how many days did it take to negotiate and complete a Risk Management Plan?

Generally, how many days on average did it take to negotiate and complete a Risk Management Plan for each of the following sectors: agricultural, industrial, commercial/institutional, municipal (include time spent in meetings, conversations with client, review/sign-off, etc.)

An approximation is acceptable. Suggested answer format for "Days to Negotiate RMP": <1 day, 1-3 days, 3-6 days, 6-10 days, >10 days If the process took more than 10 days, please comment as to the reason why.

Type of RMP Days to Negotiate RMP Comment

Agricultural not applicable for 2018

Commercial/Institutional 1-3 RMP was negotiated through corporate and with other stores across the province.

Industrial not applicable for 2018

Municipal not applicable for 2018

On average, how much time overall did it take to complete the RMP process?

Generally, how much time overall (from the time you first approached the person engaged, to RMP agreement/establishment) did it take to complete the RMP process? An approximation is acceptable. If the process took more than 1 year please comment as to the reason why.

RMP Type Months to Complete RMP Comment

Agricultural not applicable for 2018

Commercial/Institutional 10 RMP was negotiated through corporate and with other stores across the province.

Industrial not applicable for 2018

Municipal not applicable for 2018

Were any potential threat activities observed that could not be addressed (e.g. the activity wasn't one of the 21 prescribed threats)?

Were any potential threat activities observed that could not be addressed through the source water protection program because the activity could not be designated as a significant drinking water threat (e.g activity wasn’t one of the 21 prescribed threats, activity could only be designated as a moderate threat per the table of circumstances etc.)? If yes, please describe the type of threat activity and outline why you believe it should be addressed through the source protection program in the comment section below.

Page 26 of 62

2019-02-08http://spar.nvca.on.ca/SparRMOReport.aspx?RID=1590&MunId=32&Yr=2018

Page 42: The Town of Midland does not adopt or condone anything said in … Documents/CIP/CIP Sept 23... · 2019-10-04 · "The Town of Midland does not adopt or condone anything said in correspondence

Not Applicable Comment :

n/a for 2018

Are there any loopholes that you have identified/come across, which applicants are using to get around the source protection plan policy requirements?

In general, are there any loopholes or gaps that you have identified/come across (either in the tables of circumstances, source protection legislation, source protection plan, or other) that applicants are using to get around the requirements posed by the source protection plan policies? If yes, please describe these potential loopholes in the comment section below.

Yes Comment :

potential for loophole/reduced rigour of analysis based on policy wording i.e.requirements of water balance studies to be peer reviewed and qualifications of reviewer. Policy wording should ideally require that water balance studies be prepared by a qualified person, and reviewed by a qualified person based on a set of minimum requirements, and funded by the applicant. jurisdictional issues - MECP application, not municipal, Town staff not always aware of applications within Town boundaries. i.e. Permit to Take Water applicants within WHPA-Q1

How often were potential significant threat issues resolved through pre-consultation?

Generally, how often were potential significant threat issues resolved through pre-consultation?

Please use the comment section below to explain your answer, if you feel as though further explanation is required.

Most of the time

For section 59 applications where it was determined that neither section 57 nor section 58 apply, indicate the most common reasons why.

For section 59 applications where it was determined that neither section 57 nor section 58 apply, indicate the most common reasons why.

Please use the comment section below to explain your answer, if you feel as though further explanation is required OR if your answer does not fall within one of the reasons listed below.

Comment :

not applicable for 2018

Where a prohibited activity was proposed, how readily available were alternatives to the prohibited activity and how willing was the applicant to alter their application to meet SWP requirements?

Generally, in circumstances where a prohibited activity was proposed, how readily available were alternatives to the prohibited activity? How willing was the applicant to alter their application to meet source water protection requirements?

not applicable for 2018

How many application submissions, on average, were required before a section 59 Notice to Proceed could be issued?

In circumstances where applicants were required to alter their application in order to get a section 59 Notice to Proceed, how many application submissions, on average, were required before a notice could be issued?

not applica

How many times was the RMO unable to issue a section 59 Notice to Proceed?

Page 27 of 62

2019-02-08http://spar.nvca.on.ca/SparRMOReport.aspx?RID=1590&MunId=32&Yr=2018

Page 43: The Town of Midland does not adopt or condone anything said in … Documents/CIP/CIP Sept 23... · 2019-10-04 · "The Town of Midland does not adopt or condone anything said in correspondence

How many times was the RMO unable to issue a section 59 Notice to Proceed?

0

Is enforcing a prohibition more work than anticipated?

Is enforcing a prohibition more work than anticipated? (i.e. would negotiating a RMP have been simpler/achieved the same result in the end as prohibition?). If yes, please describe the challenges associated with enforcing a prohibition in the comment section below.

Not Applicable Comment :

not applicable for 2018

Were people accepting of the requirement to cease a prohibited activity?

Were people accepting of the requirement to cease a prohibited activity? Were applicants generally open to implementing alternatives or altering their application to satisfy prohibition policy requirements? If no, please describe the challenges associated with convincing applicants to cease a prohibited activity in the comment section below.

Not Applicable Comment :

not applicable for 2018

During inspections, how many times did the RMO/RMI come across new significant threat activities?

During inspections, how many times did the RMO/RMI come across new significant threat activities on site, that were previously not addressed through the implementation process?

0

How many notices have been received from a person engaged in an activity, notifying the RMO of their possession of a PI or their intention to get a PI to mitigate the threat.

For the purposes of section 61 of O.Reg. 287/07, how many notices were given to and the number of notices given by the risk management official under subsections 61(2), 61(7), and 61(10)?

0

Have there been any occasions where the Spills Action Centre had to be notified of a substance being discharged into the raw water supply of an existing municipal drinking water system considered in a established Assessment Report under section 89(1) of the CWA?

Please use the comment section below to explain your answer, if you feel as though further explanation is required.

Have there been any occasions where an incident report was sent to SAC regarding

a substance being discharged into an existing municipal drinking water system?

If yes, please provide a brief description of the

circumstances surrounding the incident.

Among the incident report to SAC, did the party responsible for the

drinking water health hazard have an RMP in place?

If yes, was the party who was responsible for the drinking water

health hazard, in compliance with the terms of the agreed upon RMP?

Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable

Comment :

not applicable for 2018

Complete this table to indicate what progress has been made to-date to implement the various policies in the South Georgian Bay Lake Simcoe Source Protection Region.

Page 28 of 62

2019-02-08http://spar.nvca.on.ca/SparRMOReport.aspx?RID=1590&MunId=32&Yr=2018

Page 44: The Town of Midland does not adopt or condone anything said in … Documents/CIP/CIP Sept 23... · 2019-10-04 · "The Town of Midland does not adopt or condone anything said in correspondence

Policy Number & Description Policy Implementation Status If no progress was made (i) explain why actions

were not taken and (ii) indicate the planned next steps to support implementation

WAST(b)-1: RMP for existing operation of waste disposal sites where EPA does not require an approval

No response required/not applicable

WAST(b)-2: Prohibition of future operation of waste disposal sites where EPA does not require an approval

Implemented

SEWG(b)-1: RMP for existing operation of wastewater treatment plants/sewer systems where OWRA does not require an approval

In progress/some progress made

ASM(App)-1: RMP for existing and future application of agricultural source material to land outside of WHPA-Aand IPZ-1

Implemented

ASM(App)-2: Prohibition of existing and future application of agricultural source material to land within WHPA-A and IPZ-1

Implemented

ASM(Store)-1: RMP for existing storage of agricultural source material

No response required/not applicable

ASM(Store)-2: Prohibition of future storage of agricultural source material

Implemented

ASM(ICA)-1: RMP for existing and future application and storage of agricultural source material - G.S and Lafontaine

No response required/not applicable

ASM(ICA)-2: Prohibition of existing and future storage of agricultural source material - G.S. and Lafontaine

No response required/not applicable

NASM(APP)-1: RMP for existing and future application of non-agricultural source material to land for areas outside WHPA-A and IPZ-1

Implemented

NASM(App)-2: Prohibition of existing and future application of non-agricultural source material to land within WHPA-A and IPZ-1

Implemented

NASM(H&S)-1: RMP for existing and future handling and storage of non-agricultural source material outside of WHPA-A and IPZ-1

Implemented

NASM(H&S)-2: Prohibition of existing and future handling and storage of non-agricultural source material within WHPA-A and IPZ-1

Implemented

FERT(App)-1: RMP for existing and future application of commercial fertilizer to land

Implemented

FERT(H&S)-1: RMP for existing handling and storage of commercial fertilizer

No response required/not applicable

FERT(H&S)-2: Prohibition for future handling and storage of commercial fertilizer

Implemented

FERT(ICA)-1: Application, handling and storage of commercial fertilizer - G.S. and Lafontaine

No response required/not applicable

FERT(ICA)-2: RMP for existing and future application, handling and storage of commercial fertilizer - G.S and Lafontaine

No response required/not applicable

PEST(App)-1: RMP for existing and future application of pesticides to land

Implemented

PEST(H&S)-1: RMP for future handling and storage of pesticides

Implemented

PEST(H&S)-2: RMP for existing handling and storage of pesticides

No response required/not applicable

SALT(App)-1: RMP for existing and future application of road salt

Implemented

SALT(H&S)-1: RMP for existing handling and storage of road salt

No response required/not applicable

SALT(ICA)-1: RMP for existing and future application, handling and storage of road salt within the WHPA-A of the ICA - Barrie

No response required/not applicable

Page 29 of 62

2019-02-08http://spar.nvca.on.ca/SparRMOReport.aspx?RID=1590&MunId=32&Yr=2018

Page 45: The Town of Midland does not adopt or condone anything said in … Documents/CIP/CIP Sept 23... · 2019-10-04 · "The Town of Midland does not adopt or condone anything said in correspondence

SALT(ICA)-2: RMP for existing and future application, handling and storage of road salt within the WHPA-A of the ICA and outside the WHPA-A where greater than 5 tonnes - Barrie

No response required/not applicable

SNOW-1: RMP for the existing storage of snow No response required/not applicable

SNOW-2: Prohibition of future storage of snow Implemented

SNOW(ICA)-1: RMP for the existing and future storage of snow within WHPA-A of the ICA - Barrie

No response required/not applicable

FUEL-1: RMP for existing handling and storage of fuel In progress/some progress made

FUEL-2: Prohibition of future handling and storage of fuel

Implemented

DNAPL-1: RMP for the existing handling and storage of DNAPLs

In progress/some progress made

DNAPL-2: Prohibition of future handling and storage of DNAPLs

Implemented

SOLV-1: RMP for existing handling and storage of organic solvents

No response required/not applicable

LSTOCK-1: Prohibition of existing and future use of land as livestock grazing or pasturing where the annual rate of nutrient generation is greater than 0.5 nutrient units/acre

No response required/not applicable

LSTOCK-2: RMP for existing and future use an outdoor confinement or a farm-animal yard outside of WHPA-A and IPZ-1

No response required/not applicable

LSTOCK-3: Prohibition of existing and future use an outdoor confinement or a farm-animal yard within WHPA-A and IPZ-1

No response required/not applicable

RLU-1: Restricted land use policies Implemented

Complete this table to indicate what progress has been made to-date to implement the various policies in the South Georgian Bay Lake Simcoe Source Protection Plan. Implementing Body: Municipality (Including Planning Approval Authority) - Lower Tier

Policy Number and Description Policy Implementation StatusIf no progress was made (i) explain why actions

were not taken and (ii) indicate the planned next steps to support implementation

WAST(b)-5: Municipal action on existing and future disposal of household hazardous waste

No response required/not applicable upper tier responsibility

SEWG(b)-5: Municipal action on existing combined sewers

In progress/some progress made design underway in 2018 work to be completed in 2019. Council has directed staff to create policy around backflow prevention.

SEWG(c)-3: Municipal action on existing on-site sewage systems where services and capacity exist

Implemented

SEWG(c)-4: Municipal action on existing and future small on-site sewage systems

No response required/not applicable

SALT(H&S)-2: RMP for future handling and storage of road salt

Implemented

SALT(ICA)-3: Specific action for existing and future application, handling and storage of road salt - Barrie

No response required/not applicable

FUEL-4: Municipal action by-law for removal of existing abandoned fuel tanks

No progress made Guidance and modeled by-law development would be helpful to allow Town staff to implement. Currently Town staff has limited information as to potential location of tanks and would have difficulty implementing a by-law.

SOLV-2: Prohibition of future handling and storage of DNAPLs

Implemented

Page 30 of 62

2019-02-08http://spar.nvca.on.ca/SparRMOReport.aspx?RID=1590&MunId=32&Yr=2018

Page 46: The Town of Midland does not adopt or condone anything said in … Documents/CIP/CIP Sept 23... · 2019-10-04 · "The Town of Midland does not adopt or condone anything said in correspondence

DEMD-2: Management plans for existing and future areas within the WHPA Q2 where water is taken from an aquifer without being returned to the same aquifer

Policy outcome(s) evaluated; No further action required

DEMD-3: Conservation plans for future areas within the WHPA Q2 where water is taken from an aquifer without being returned to the same aquifer

Policy outcome(s) evaluated; No further action required

DEMD-7: Specific action for existing municipalities within the Dufferin County that share a water source within a Tier 3

No response required/not applicable

COND-1: Monitoring of existing actions taken in relation to contaminated sites

No response required/not applicable

COND-2: Monitoring of existing changes in condition over time in relation to contaminated sites

No response required/not applicable

LUP-1: Land use planning policies for future activities In progress/some progress made

LUP-2: Land use planning to address future application of road salt

In progress/some progress made

LUP-3: Land use planning for future storm water management BMPs

In progress/some progress made

LUP-4: Land use planning for future sewage system infrastructure

In progress/some progress made

LUP-5: Land use planning for future master environmental servicing plans

In progress/some progress made

LUP-6:Land use planning for future small on-site sewage treatment systems

In progress/some progress made

LUP-7: Land use planning prohibition of future small on-site sewage systems in WHPA-A

In progress/some progress made

LUP-8: Land use planning for fututre small on-site sewage systems in issue contributing areas and outside the WHPA-A

No response required/not applicable

LUP-9: Land use planning for future taking of water from an aquifer or surface water feature without returning it to the same source - Orangeville

No response required/not applicable

LUP-10: Land use planning for future taking of water from an aquifer or surface water feature without returning it to the same source - York, Penetanguishene, Whip-Poor-Will

Policy outcome(s) evaluated; No further action required

LUP-11: Land use planning for significant groundwater recharge areas

In progress/some progress made

LUP-12: Land use planning for new development in WHPA-Q2

Implemented

LUP-13: BMP for Land use planning in WHPA-Q2 In progress/some progress made

LUP-14: Land use planning for municipal water supply in WHPA-Q2

No response required/not applicable

LUP-15: Land use planning of municipal water supply for an activity that reduces the recharge of an aquifer within a WHPA-Q2

Policy outcome(s) evaluated; No further action required

EDU-8: E/O for applying, handling and storing road salt -Barrie

No response required/not applicable

EDU-11: E/O through signage in wellhead protection areas

Implemented

INCENT-3: Incentives for septic systems, landownersPolicy outcome(s) evaluated; No further action required

INCENT-4: Incentives for effective storage of snowPolicy outcome(s) evaluated; No further action required

Page 31 of 62

2019-02-08http://spar.nvca.on.ca/SparRMOReport.aspx?RID=1590&MunId=32&Yr=2018

Page 47: The Town of Midland does not adopt or condone anything said in … Documents/CIP/CIP Sept 23... · 2019-10-04 · "The Town of Midland does not adopt or condone anything said in correspondence

SGB LS

Complete the table below for risk management plans that have been agreed to/established.

Total number of risk management plans agreed to or established within the source protection area/region since

effective date of the source protection plan July 1st 2015 (i.e. cumulative total)

(Column A)

Number of risk management plans agreed to or established within the source protection area/region (for

existing and future threats) during this reporting period (i.e. annual total)

(Column B)

Total number of properties (i.e. parcels) with risk management plans

agreed to or established since the effective date of the source

protection plan July 1st 2015 (Column C)

Estimated number of risk management plans to be

required to address significant drinking water

threats

1 1 1 22

How many existing* significant drinking water threats have been managed through the established risk management plans?

How many existing* significant drinking water threats have been managed through the established risk management plans? ( * meaning engaged in OR enumerated as existing significant threats)

Annual Count (During This Reporting Period) Cumulative Count (Since Effective Date of SPP July 1st 2015)

1 1

How many section 59 notices were issued in this reporting period?

How many section 59 notices were issued as per ss. 59(2)(a) and ss. 59(2)(b)?

Activities to which neither a prohibition (section 57) nor a risk management plan (section 58) policy applied, as per ss. 59(2)(a) of the Clean Water Act

Activities to which a risk management plan (section 58) policy applied, as per ss. 59(2)(b) of the Clean Water Act

0 0

How much progress has been made in updating Official Plans (OP) and Zoning By-Laws (ZBL)?

List the municipality(ies) (including upper-, lower-, and single-tier) within the source protection region/area that are required to complete Official Plan and Zoning By-Law conformity exercises for source protection and then select the status of those exercises in the table below for each municipality. Insert additional rows as needed . NOTE: Applied to every municipality affected by land use planning or Part IV type policies.

Municipality Name Status of Official Plan Conformity Exercise (Select a status from drop down list)

Status of Zoning By-Law Conformity Exercise (Select a status from drop down list)

Town of Midland In process Completed

How many times did the RMO receive a notice of conformity for a prescribed instrument?

For the purposes of section 61 of O.Reg. 287/07, how many notices and/or copies did the risk management official receive of prescribed instruments that state the prescribed instrument conforms with the significant drinking water threat policies in the source protection plan (i.e. statement of conformity confirms that instrument holder is exempt from requiring a risk management plan)?

0

How many inspections were carried out for activities that are prohibited for this reporting period?

The term inspection refers to those conducted under the authority of section 62 of the Clean Water Act, related to an activity to which section 56, 57, or 58 of the Clean Water Act applies. This includes inspections carried out for threat verification purposes. It does not include the delivery of documents such as notices or a signed risk management plan.

The term contravention as used in the context of inspections refers to activities being undertaken that are in violation of sections 57 and 58 of the Clean Water Act relative to the policies noted in the source protection plan.

Page 32 of 62

2019-02-08http://spar.nvca.on.ca/SparRMOReport.aspx?RID=1590&MunId=32&Yr=2018

Page 48: The Town of Midland does not adopt or condone anything said in … Documents/CIP/CIP Sept 23... · 2019-10-04 · "The Town of Midland does not adopt or condone anything said in correspondence

State the total number of inspections (including any follow-up site visits) that were carried out for activities (existing or future) that are prohibited under section 57 of the Clean Water Act for this reporting period

How many properties (i.e. parcels) had inspections for the purposes of section 57 for this

reporting period?

Among these inspections, how many showed that activities were taking place on the landscape even though they were prohibited (i.e. in contravention) under section 57 of the

Clean Water Act for this reporting period?

0 0 0

How many existing significant drinking water threats have been prohibited?

How many existing significant drinking water threats have been prohibited as a result of section 57 prohibitions?

Annual Count (This Reporting Period) Cumulative Count (Since Effective Date of SPP July 1st 2015)

0 0

How many inspections were carried out for activities that require a RMP for this reporting period?

The term inspection refers to those conducted under the authority of section 62 of the Clean Water Act, related to an activity to which section 56, 57, or 58 of the Clean Water Act applies. This includes inspections carried out for threat verification purposes. It does not include the delivery of documents such as notices or a signed risk management plan.

The term contravention as used in the context of inspections refers to activities being undertaken that are in violation of sections 57 and 58 of the Clean Water Act relative to the policies noted in the source protection plan.

State the total number of inspections (including any follow-up site visits) that were carried out

for activities that require a risk management plan under section 58

of the Clean Water Act for this reporting period

How many properties (i.e. parcels) had

inspections for the purposes of section 58 for this reporting

period?

Among these inspections, how many were in contravention with section 58 of

the Clean Water Act for this reporting period (i.e. person engaging in a

drinking water threat activity without a risk management plan as required by the

source protection plan)?

How many were in non-compliance with the specific contents of the risk management plan for this reporting period? NOTE: Please only include those inspections that showed non-

compliance with measures/conditions to manage the actual threat activity

0 0 0 0

What methods are being used to raise awareness about source water protection in the source protection area/region?

Indicate the methods by which education and outreach policies have been/are being implemented to raise knowledge and awareness about source water protection in the source protection region/area by all the relevant implementing bodies. Choose all that apply from the checklist below. If there are other methods that are not listed please describe them in the comment box below.

Use of educational materials for general public Use of educational materials for target audiences including developers, builders, landowners, farmers, etc. Workshops Site visits Source protection content for websites Educational videos (e.g., Drinking Water Source Protection video available Conservation Ontario) Collaboration with other bodies (e.g., ministries, local organizations, etc.) Social media promotion (e.g., use of Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, etc.) Information kiosks at events/festivals

Describe an exceptional E&O initiative that has had a positive impact on souce water.

From among the method(s) used to implement education and outreach policies by the implementing bodies, specifically, indicate the top one(s) used (please limit the selection of the top methods used to three choices maximum and insert additional rows as needed) that were found to be the most successful in meeting the intent of education and outreach policies (i.e., gains in source protection knowledge, behavior changes and/or commitments to maintain actions that are protective of source water).

Then, briefly explain how success was evaluated and any results achieved (e.g., landowners understand they are within or adjacent to a vulnerable area or highly vulnerable aquifer, classroom presentations on protecting water sources made to over 25 schools across source protection region reaching 750 students, farm operators install signs to identify areas to avoid nutrient application, homeowners pledge to properly dispose of hazardous waste products, etc.).

Page 33 of 62

2019-02-08http://spar.nvca.on.ca/SparRMOReport.aspx?RID=1590&MunId=32&Yr=2018

Page 49: The Town of Midland does not adopt or condone anything said in … Documents/CIP/CIP Sept 23... · 2019-10-04 · "The Town of Midland does not adopt or condone anything said in correspondence

In the explanation, where available, include the following details: Indicate target population (e.g., farmers, business, residents, municipalities, etc.), percentage of the target audience reached, outcomes that were achieved, whether these initiatives reached persons and/or businesses within geographic areas where threats could be significant or to wider areas (i.e., specific to areas with significant drinking water threats or general E/O)

Method(s) of implementation - Pick up to 3 of the most successful methods used by source

protection authority

Brief explanation of most successful education and outreach method(s) used - evaluation and results achieved (Maximum = 150 words for each response)

Use of educational materials for general pub An increased knowledge of the drinking water source protection program due to road signs highlighting vulnerable areas. More questions have been asked of staff when dealing with members of the public since the signs have been installed. Signage has spurred an increased awareness of the program.

How many signs have been installed on provincial highways?

How many signs have been installed on provincial highways in the SPA during this reporting period?

0

Were signs installed at other locations?

Were signs installed at other locations during this reporting period? If yes, please indicate how many and explain in the comment section below.

Not Applicable Comment :

not applicable in 2018

How many of the inspected on-site sewage systems required major maintenance (e.g., tank replacement, tile bed replacement etc.)?

How many of the inspected on-site sewage systems required major maintenance work (e.g., tank replacement, tile bed replacement etc.)?

n/a in mid

Complete the table below to provide details about all incentives that were made available to assist in source water protection.

If applicable, complete the table below indicating:

• The type of incentive(s) (e.g., prescribed instrument application fees waived, funding, other non-financial incentives, etc.) that was made available (whether as a policy in the SPP or not)

• The source that provided the incentive(s) • The prescribed drinking water threat activity(ies) to which it relates • The degree to which the incentive(s) assisted with the implementation of SPP policies that address significant drinking water threat activity(ies) • And, include any comments

Insert additional rows as needed in the table below.

Type of IncentiveSource of Incentive (i.e., Municipality, CA,

Provincial Ministry(ies), Other - please specify)

Prescribed Drinking Water Threat(s)

Addressed

Degree to which incentive assisted with the implementation of SPP policies addressing

SDWTComments

n/a in 2018 Not Applicable

How many on-site sewage systems require an inspection as a result of a source protection plan policy?

How many on-site sewage systems in your municipality require inspections in accordance with the Ontario Building Code (OBC) (i.e. once every five years)?

Page 34 of 62

2019-02-08http://spar.nvca.on.ca/SparRMOReport.aspx?RID=1590&MunId=32&Yr=2018

Page 50: The Town of Midland does not adopt or condone anything said in … Documents/CIP/CIP Sept 23... · 2019-10-04 · "The Town of Midland does not adopt or condone anything said in correspondence

0

How many on-site sewage systems requiring an inspection (as per previous question) have been inspected?

Please use the comment box section below to explain your answer, if you feel as though further explanation is required.

How many on-site sewage systems (identified as significant drinking water threats) were inspected (i.e., cumulative running tally of systems

inspected)?

If not all required on-site sewage systems were inspected, please indicate why they were not all inspected from among the options in the drop

down-list

0 Not Applicable Comment :

not applicable in Midland

How many of the inspected on-site sewage systems required minor maintenance (e.g., pump out, tank lid replacement etc.)?

How many of the inspected on-site sewage systems required minor maintenance (e.g., pump out, tank lid replacement etc.)?

n/a in mid

If applicable, complete the table below, where information about drinking water issues are available.

If applicable, complete the table below, where information about drinking water issues is available, indicating any drinking water issues/parameters (chemical or pathogen) that have been identified, whether an Issue Contributing Area was delineated for the identified issues, any observations in the concentration or trend for each issue. Insert additional rows as needed.

Optional: Describe the actions/behavioral changes in the ICA that might be contributing to the changes.

Drinking Water System Drinking Water Issue/Parameter

ICA Deliniated for this Issue? (Y/N) Observations Actions/Behavioural Changes Contributing to

Change in Observations (Optional)

Not Applicable Not Applicable

Are there any examples of successful municipal actions that the municipality wishes to highlight?

[OPTIONAL] Are there some unique examples of successful municipal actions that are being/have been undertaken to protect source water either directly because of plan policies or as a result of more broad integration of the science from source protection? If yes, please provide details in the comment section below.

Implementation of LUP-12 has brought a heightened awareness of the drinking water source protection program within council and the development community. Relined various municipal wells and added automatic depth sensors to ensure good water quality

Are there examples of successful residential and/or business actions that the authority wishes to highlight?

[OPTIONAL] Are there examples of local residents and/or businesses (including agriculture, salt applicator, fuel providers) who are taking successful concrete actions (e.g., engaged in more “green” behaviors that could protect water sources such as purchasing road salt alternatives, taking precautions when storing or disposing hazardous waste, organic solvents, etc.) to protect source water in their community(ies)? If yes, please provide details in the comment section below.

nothing to report for 2018

Explain the overall progress made in addressing these significant threats.

Please provide comments in the box below to explain the overall progress made in addressing these significant threats. Where possible, include an estimated percentage of overall progress made in the comments provided. (NOTE: This is intended to be the same as included in the Assessment Report Database)

The percentage of overall progress made in addressing local threats and conditions that are taking place on the landscape is determined by taking the total number in column D (i.e., SDWT addressed because policy is implemented) from the table in reportable #31a and dividing it into the number that is derived by adding the total numbers in columns A and B and then subtracting this sum total from the total in column C.

Page 35 of 62

2019-02-08http://spar.nvca.on.ca/SparRMOReport.aspx?RID=1590&MunId=32&Yr=2018

Page 51: The Town of Midland does not adopt or condone anything said in … Documents/CIP/CIP Sept 23... · 2019-10-04 · "The Town of Midland does not adopt or condone anything said in correspondence

In other words, overall progress made =D/A+B-C

Currently there are no completed RMPs for applicable SDWTs within the Town however the majority of the remaining SDWTs have been confirmed, on the ground, through field verification methods such as windshield surveys, site visits or phone calls with the owner/operator.

What positive outcomes have potentially resulted from the implementation of SPP policies?

What positive outcomes (e.g., less water consumption, changes in behaviour, reduction in phosphorus and nitrogen concentrations, less chloride from road salt, reduction in algal blooms, human health protected, etc.), if any, have potentially resulted from the implementation of SPP policies?

Please describe the outcomes in the comment section below.

Through education and outreach of the drinking water source protection program, the development and consultant community have become more aware of program specifically as it relates to water quantity concerns.

Complete the table below by indicating which of the listed significant drinking water threats were being engaged in at the time of SPP approval

Complete the table below by first indicating which of the listed significant drinking water threats were being engaged in (i.e., enumerated as ‘existing’ significant threats/threats) at the time of SPP approval . Then, using the formula for the running tally of enumerated threats as explained below, complete the columns in the table with the information for each SDWT indicated as existing in the SPR/A.

Lead SPAs will be maintaining a running tally of progress made in addressing significant threats that were on the ground before plans were approved. The running tally consists of the formula: A+B-C-D where:

• A = Original estimate of SDWT engaged in/enumerated when SPP approved

• B = Additional SDWT identified after first SPP approved as a result of verification (i.e., not part of original estimate of SDWT)

• C = SDWT included in enumeration estimates at time of plan approval but subsequently determined through verification that either: (i) it was not actually engaged in at a particular location after all OR(ii) it was no longer engaged in (e.g., land may still have an agricultural operation but owner no longer applying pesticides for their own reasons)

• D = SDWT addressed because policy is implemented* (*Note: Where multiple policy tools address any given threat sub-category, implemented means that actions associated with at least one policy tool have been completed/are in place)

Threat IDPrescribed Drinking Water Threat/Local Threat/Conditions

A B C D

No. Existing Threats still to be

addressed (A+B-C-D)

1

The establishment, operation or maintenance of a waste disposal site within the meaning of Part V of the Environmental Protection Act.

0.00

2

The establishment, operation or maintenance of a system that collects, stores, transmits, treats or disposes of sewage.

6 6.00

3The application of agricultural source material to land.

0.00

4The storage of agricultural source material.

0.00

5The management of agricultural source material

0.00

Page 36 of 62

2019-02-08http://spar.nvca.on.ca/SparRMOReport.aspx?RID=1590&MunId=32&Yr=2018

Page 52: The Town of Midland does not adopt or condone anything said in … Documents/CIP/CIP Sept 23... · 2019-10-04 · "The Town of Midland does not adopt or condone anything said in correspondence

6

The application of non-agricultural source material to land

0.00

7

The handling and storage of non-agricultural source material

0.00

8The application of commercial fertilizer to land

0.00

9The handling and storage of commercial fertilizer

0.00

10 The application of pesticide to land

0.00

11 The handling and storage of pesticide

0.00

12 The application of road salt

0.00

13 The handling and storage of road salt

0.00

14 The storage of snow 0.00

15 The handling and storage of fuel

2 2.00

16

The handling and storage of a dense non-aqueous phase liquid

32 9 1 22.00

17The handling and storage of an organic solvent

3 3 0.00

18

The management of runoff that contains chemicals used in the de-icing of aircraft

0.00

19

The use of land as livestock grazing or pasturing land, an outdoor confinement area or a farm-animal yard O. Reg. 385/08, s. 3.

0.00

20

Water taking from an aquifer without returning the water to the same aquifer or surface water body

0.00

21 Reducing recharge of an aquifer

0.00

22Establishment and operation of a liquid hydrocarbon pipeline

0.00

TOTAL 43.00 12.00 1.00 30.00

How many signs have been installed on municipal roads?

How many signs have been installed on municipal roads in the SPA during this reporting period?

0

How many inspections were carried out for activities that require a Interim RMP for this reporting period?

Page 37 of 62

2019-02-08http://spar.nvca.on.ca/SparRMOReport.aspx?RID=1590&MunId=32&Yr=2018

Page 53: The Town of Midland does not adopt or condone anything said in … Documents/CIP/CIP Sept 23... · 2019-10-04 · "The Town of Midland does not adopt or condone anything said in correspondence

How many inspections were carried out in respect of an activity to which section 56 of the CWA applies for this reporting period?

The term inspection refers to those conducted under the authority of section 62 of the Clean Water Act, related to an activity to which section 56, 57, or 58 of the Clean Water Act applies. This includes inspections carried out for threat verification purposes. It does not include the delivery of documents such as notices or a signed risk management plan.

Number of inspections carried out in respect of an activity to which section 56 of the CWA applies

Number of cases in which the person was not complying with a RMP agreed to or imposed under section 56 of the CWA

0 0

How many times has the RMO caused a thing to be done?

How many times has the RMO caused a thing to be done under section 64 of the CWA?

0

How many Risk Assessments have been submitted to the RMO for consideration?

How many Risk Assessments have been submitted to the RMO for consideration under section 60 of the Clean Water Act?

0

How many RMPs has the RMO refused to agree-to?

How many Risk Management Plans has the RMO refused to agree-to or establish under subsection 56(9), 58(15) or 58(16) of the CWA?

0

How many RMPs are considered in-progress as of December 31, 2018?

How many RMPs are considered in-progress as of December 31, 2018? These are RMPs that have been initiated with the landowner but not yet completed.

13

Inspections carried out under Section 62 of the CWA.

How many inspections were carried out under section 62 of the CWA for this reporting period?

The term inspection refers to those conducted under the authority of section 62 of the Clean Water Act, related to an activity to which section 56, 57, or 58 of the Clean Water Act applies. This includes inspections carried out for threat verification purposes. It does not include the delivery of documents such as notices or a signed risk management plan.

0

How many prosecutions have been made?

How many prosecutions have been made under section 106 of CWA?

0

How many prosecutions have resulted in a conviction?

How many prosecutions made under section 106 of the CWA have resulted in a conviction?

If a prosecution has resulted in a conviction, please use the comment box section below to provide a brief description of each offence.

0

How many Orders has the RMO issued (excluding orders to establish or amend an RMP)?

Page 38 of 62

2019-02-08http://spar.nvca.on.ca/SparRMOReport.aspx?RID=1590&MunId=32&Yr=2018

Page 54: The Town of Midland does not adopt or condone anything said in … Documents/CIP/CIP Sept 23... · 2019-10-04 · "The Town of Midland does not adopt or condone anything said in correspondence

How many orders has the RMO issued (excluding orders to establish or amend an RMP) under Part IV of the CWA?

0

RMO and RMI Contact Information

Provide the name and contact information of the appointed RMOs and RMIs by completing the table below. Insert additional rows as needed.

Staff Name Title/Role RMO/RMI Training Date (y/m)

Melissa Carruthers RMO/RMI 2014-Dec

Jeff Beauchamp RMI 2016-Dec (RMO/RMI) and Oct (property entry)

Comment :

Contact information for Melissa Carruthers: [email protected] 705-534-7283 ext. 205 Contact information for Jeff Beauchamp: [email protected] 705-526-4275 ext. 4209

Provide a brief overview of the progress made in managing significant drinking water threats.

[OPTIONAL] In summary of the reporting period activities, briefly describe in the comment section below, the progress made in managing significant drinking water threats (e.g. completing site visits and inspections, risk management plan development, development and delivery of education and outreach, participating in pre-consultation meetings with proponents or developing by-laws to screen certain building applications).

Most significant drinking water threats have been verified on the ground. Fact sheets are available at both the SSEA office and website, as well as within the Town for members of the public and various groups. A section 59 screening process had previously been set up to screen for future significant drinking water threats and continues to be followed. Attendance at pre-consultation meetings is done at the request of the municipality.

Provide details for each Risk Assessment that has been submitted to the RMO for consideration.

Provide details by completing the table below for each Risk Assessment that has been submitted to the RMO for consideration under section 60 of the Clean Water Act. Insert additional rows as needed.

Drinking Water System Name Street Name of Threat Property

Threat Activity(ies) to Which the Risk Assessment Relates

What is the Status of the Risk Assessment (being evaluated, accepted, not accepted) Comments

Not Applicable

How many RMPs has the RMO established as the result of a request from the person engaged in the threat activity?

How many Risk Management Plans has the RMO established by order under section 58(12) of the CWA, as a result of an application for a Risk Management Plan made by a person engaged in a threat activity under section 58(11) of the CWA?

0

Provide details for each RMP that has been agreed-to or established.

Provide details for each RMP that has been agreed-to or established within this reporting period by completing the table below.

Drinking Water System Name Street Name of Threat Property

Threat Activity(ies) to Which the RMP Relates Comment

Not Applicable

Provide details for each RMP the RMO has refused to agree-to?

Provide details in the table below for each RMP the RMO has refused to agree-to or establish under subsection 56(9), 58(15) or 58(16) of the CWA?

Drinking Water System Name Street Name of Threat Property

Threat Activities to Which the Refusal Relates

Describe the Reason for Refusing the RMP

Page 39 of 62

2019-02-08http://spar.nvca.on.ca/SparRMOReport.aspx?RID=1590&MunId=32&Yr=2018

Page 55: The Town of Midland does not adopt or condone anything said in … Documents/CIP/CIP Sept 23... · 2019-10-04 · "The Town of Midland does not adopt or condone anything said in correspondence

Not Applicable

Provide details for each of the orders issued by the RMO.

Provide details for each of the orders issued by the RMO by completing the table below.

Drinking Water System Name Street Name of Threat Property

Threat Activity(ies) to Which the Order Relates

Describe the Circumstances Surrounding the Order

Not Applicable

Provide details for each case where the RMO caused a thing to be done.

Provide details for each case where the RMO caused a thing to be done by completing the table below.

Drinking Water System Name Street Name of Threat Property

Threat Activity(ies) to Which the "Cause a Thing" Relates

Describe what was "Caused to be Done" and the Estimated Cost

Not Applicable

Complete the table below for each notice of conformity received for a prescribed instrument.

Complete the table below for each notice and/or a copy of the prescribed instrument received by the RMO (as per O. Reg. 287/07, ss. 65(1), p. 4

Drinking Water System Name

Street Name of Threat Property

Threat Activity(ies) to Which the Notice

Relates

Type of Prescribed Instrument Referred to

Prescribed Instrument

#/Approval #

Did the RMO Grant an Exemption as a Result of

the PI?

Not Applicable Not Applicable

Provide details in the table below for each inspection that was carried out in respect of a threat activity under section 62 of the CWA.

Provide details in the table below for each inspection that was carried out in respect of a threat activity under section 62 of the CWA.

Please insert additional rows as needed.

Subsection of the CWA to which an inspection was carried out in respect of an activity Inspection # The activity(ies) to which the inspection

relates to

Not Applicable

Have there been any occasions where processes set up to flag/catch the potential creation of significant drinking water threats have failed?

Have there been any occasions where processes set up to flag (catch) the potential creation of significant drinking water threats have failed? If yes, please provide a brief explanation in the comment section below about the circumstance of the situation and steps taken to correct the process.

Not Applicable Comment :

not applicable in 2018

Please complete the table below if a municipal drinking water system in your SPA is participating in the Drinking Water Surveillance Program.

[OPTIONAL] If you have a municipal drinking water system that is participating in the Drinking Water Surveillance Program and data is available, please complete the table below. Insert additional rows as necessary for each drinking water system.

Page 40 of 62

2019-02-08http://spar.nvca.on.ca/SparRMOReport.aspx?RID=1590&MunId=32&Yr=2018

Page 56: The Town of Midland does not adopt or condone anything said in … Documents/CIP/CIP Sept 23... · 2019-10-04 · "The Town of Midland does not adopt or condone anything said in correspondence

Participating Drinking Water System Name Parameter of Concern Describe changes in the concentration or loadings of the parameter(s) since the approval of the assessment report

MIDLAND WELL SUPPLY, Heritage Dr sodium increasing trend over last 5 years. Still well below ODWQS

MIDLAND WELL SUPPLY, Russell sodium increasing trend over last 5 years. Still well below ODWQS

MIDLAND WELL SUPPLY, Vindin Cr sodium increasing trend over last 5 years. Still well below ODWQS

What means are being used to finance source protection related costs?

Identify which of the following means are being used to finance source protection related costs within your municipality?

Cost recovery/user pay (e.g., RMP fees)

How long did it take to bring a major non-compliance with a section 57 prohibition back into compliance?

During inspections, where the RMI found a major non-compliance with a section 57 prohibition, indicate the length of time (answer in # of weeks) it took to bring the activity back into compliance with the source protection plan. In cases where it took more than 6 months, please describe the reasons why it took more than 6 months in the comment section below.

not applica

On average, how many days did it take to negotiate and complete a Risk Management Plan?

Generally, how many days on average did it take to negotiate and complete a Risk Management Plan for each of the following sectors: agricultural, industrial, commercial/institutional, municipal (include time spent in meetings, conversations with client, review/sign-off, etc.)

An approximation is acceptable. Suggested answer format for "Days to Negotiate RMP": <1 day, 1-3 days, 3-6 days, 6-10 days, >10 days If the process took more than 10 days, please comment as to the reason why.

Type of RMP Days to Negotiate RMP Comment

Agricultural not applicable for 2018

Commercial/Institutional 1-3 RMP was negotiated through corporate and with other stores across the province.

Industrial not applicable for 2018

Municipal not applicable for 2018

On average, how much time overall did it take to complete the RMP process?

Generally, how much time overall (from the time you first approached the person engaged, to RMP agreement/establishment) did it take to complete the RMP process? An approximation is acceptable. If the process took more than 1 year please comment as to the reason why.

RMP Type Months to Complete RMP Comment

Agricultural not applicable for 2018

Commercial/Institutional 10 RMP was negotiated through corporate and with other stores across the province.

Industrial not applicable for 2018

Municipal not applicable for 2018

Were any potential threat activities observed that could not be addressed (e.g. the activity wasn't one of the 21 prescribed threats)?

Were any potential threat activities observed that could not be addressed through the source water protection program because the activity could not be designated as a significant drinking water threat (e.g activity wasn’t one of the 21 prescribed threats, activity could only be designated as a moderate threat per the table of circumstances etc.)? If yes, please describe the type of threat activity and outline why you believe it should be addressed through the source protection program in the comment section below.

Page 41 of 62

2019-02-08http://spar.nvca.on.ca/SparRMOReport.aspx?RID=1590&MunId=32&Yr=2018

Page 57: The Town of Midland does not adopt or condone anything said in … Documents/CIP/CIP Sept 23... · 2019-10-04 · "The Town of Midland does not adopt or condone anything said in correspondence

Not Applicable Comment :

n/a for 2018

Are there any loopholes that you have identified/come across, which applicants are using to get around the source protection plan policy requirements?

In general, are there any loopholes or gaps that you have identified/come across (either in the tables of circumstances, source protection legislation, source protection plan, or other) that applicants are using to get around the requirements posed by the source protection plan policies? If yes, please describe these potential loopholes in the comment section below.

Yes Comment :

potential for loophole/reduced rigour of analysis based on policy wording i.e.requirements of water balance studies to be peer reviewed and qualifications of reviewer. Policy wording should ideally require that water balance studies be prepared by a qualified person, and reviewed by a qualified person based on a set of minimum requirements, and funded by the applicant. jurisdictional issues - MECP application, not municipal, Town staff not always aware of applications within Town boundaries. i.e. Permit to Take Water applicants within WHPA-Q1

How often were potential significant threat issues resolved through pre-consultation?

Generally, how often were potential significant threat issues resolved through pre-consultation?

Please use the comment section below to explain your answer, if you feel as though further explanation is required.

Most of the time

For section 59 applications where it was determined that neither section 57 nor section 58 apply, indicate the most common reasons why.

For section 59 applications where it was determined that neither section 57 nor section 58 apply, indicate the most common reasons why.

Please use the comment section below to explain your answer, if you feel as though further explanation is required OR if your answer does not fall within one of the reasons listed below.

Comment :

not applicable for 2018

Where a prohibited activity was proposed, how readily available were alternatives to the prohibited activity and how willing was the applicant to alter their application to meet SWP requirements?

Generally, in circumstances where a prohibited activity was proposed, how readily available were alternatives to the prohibited activity? How willing was the applicant to alter their application to meet source water protection requirements?

not applicable for 2018

How many application submissions, on average, were required before a section 59 Notice to Proceed could be issued?

In circumstances where applicants were required to alter their application in order to get a section 59 Notice to Proceed, how many application submissions, on average, were required before a notice could be issued?

not applica

How many times was the RMO unable to issue a section 59 Notice to Proceed?

Page 42 of 62

2019-02-08http://spar.nvca.on.ca/SparRMOReport.aspx?RID=1590&MunId=32&Yr=2018

Page 58: The Town of Midland does not adopt or condone anything said in … Documents/CIP/CIP Sept 23... · 2019-10-04 · "The Town of Midland does not adopt or condone anything said in correspondence

How many times was the RMO unable to issue a section 59 Notice to Proceed?

0

Is enforcing a prohibition more work than anticipated?

Is enforcing a prohibition more work than anticipated? (i.e. would negotiating a RMP have been simpler/achieved the same result in the end as prohibition?). If yes, please describe the challenges associated with enforcing a prohibition in the comment section below.

Not Applicable Comment :

not applicable for 2018

Were people accepting of the requirement to cease a prohibited activity?

Were people accepting of the requirement to cease a prohibited activity? Were applicants generally open to implementing alternatives or altering their application to satisfy prohibition policy requirements? If no, please describe the challenges associated with convincing applicants to cease a prohibited activity in the comment section below.

Not Applicable Comment :

not applicable for 2018

During inspections, how many times did the RMO/RMI come across new significant threat activities?

During inspections, how many times did the RMO/RMI come across new significant threat activities on site, that were previously not addressed through the implementation process?

0

How many notices have been received from a person engaged in an activity, notifying the RMO of their possession of a PI or their intention to get a PI to mitigate the threat.

For the purposes of section 61 of O.Reg. 287/07, how many notices were given to and the number of notices given by the risk management official under subsections 61(2), 61(7), and 61(10)?

0

Have there been any occasions where the Spills Action Centre had to be notified of a substance being discharged into the raw water supply of an existing municipal drinking water system considered in a established Assessment Report under section 89(1) of the CWA?

Please use the comment section below to explain your answer, if you feel as though further explanation is required.

Have there been any occasions where an incident report was sent to SAC regarding

a substance being discharged into an existing municipal drinking water system?

If yes, please provide a brief description of the

circumstances surrounding the incident.

Among the incident report to SAC, did the party responsible for the

drinking water health hazard have an RMP in place?

If yes, was the party who was responsible for the drinking water

health hazard, in compliance with the terms of the agreed upon RMP?

Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable

Comment :

not applicable for 2018

Complete this table to indicate what progress has been made to-date to implement the various policies in the South Georgian Bay Lake Simcoe Source Protection Region.

Page 43 of 62

2019-02-08http://spar.nvca.on.ca/SparRMOReport.aspx?RID=1590&MunId=32&Yr=2018

Page 59: The Town of Midland does not adopt or condone anything said in … Documents/CIP/CIP Sept 23... · 2019-10-04 · "The Town of Midland does not adopt or condone anything said in correspondence

Policy Number & Description Policy Implementation Status If no progress was made (i) explain why actions

were not taken and (ii) indicate the planned next steps to support implementation

WAST(b)-1: RMP for existing operation of waste disposal sites where EPA does not require an approval

No response required/not applicable

WAST(b)-2: Prohibition of future operation of waste disposal sites where EPA does not require an approval

Implemented

SEWG(b)-1: RMP for existing operation of wastewater treatment plants/sewer systems where OWRA does not require an approval

In progress/some progress made

ASM(App)-1: RMP for existing and future application of agricultural source material to land outside of WHPA-Aand IPZ-1

Implemented

ASM(App)-2: Prohibition of existing and future application of agricultural source material to land within WHPA-A and IPZ-1

Implemented

ASM(Store)-1: RMP for existing storage of agricultural source material

No response required/not applicable

ASM(Store)-2: Prohibition of future storage of agricultural source material

Implemented

ASM(ICA)-1: RMP for existing and future application and storage of agricultural source material - G.S and Lafontaine

No response required/not applicable

ASM(ICA)-2: Prohibition of existing and future storage of agricultural source material - G.S. and Lafontaine

No response required/not applicable

NASM(APP)-1: RMP for existing and future application of non-agricultural source material to land for areas outside WHPA-A and IPZ-1

Implemented

NASM(App)-2: Prohibition of existing and future application of non-agricultural source material to land within WHPA-A and IPZ-1

Implemented

NASM(H&S)-1: RMP for existing and future handling and storage of non-agricultural source material outside of WHPA-A and IPZ-1

Implemented

NASM(H&S)-2: Prohibition of existing and future handling and storage of non-agricultural source material within WHPA-A and IPZ-1

Implemented

FERT(App)-1: RMP for existing and future application of commercial fertilizer to land

Implemented

FERT(H&S)-1: RMP for existing handling and storage of commercial fertilizer

No response required/not applicable

FERT(H&S)-2: Prohibition for future handling and storage of commercial fertilizer

Implemented

FERT(ICA)-1: Application, handling and storage of commercial fertilizer - G.S. and Lafontaine

No response required/not applicable

FERT(ICA)-2: RMP for existing and future application, handling and storage of commercial fertilizer - G.S and Lafontaine

No response required/not applicable

PEST(App)-1: RMP for existing and future application of pesticides to land

Implemented

PEST(H&S)-1: RMP for future handling and storage of pesticides

Implemented

PEST(H&S)-2: RMP for existing handling and storage of pesticides

No response required/not applicable

SALT(App)-1: RMP for existing and future application of road salt

Implemented

SALT(H&S)-1: RMP for existing handling and storage of road salt

No response required/not applicable

SALT(ICA)-1: RMP for existing and future application, handling and storage of road salt within the WHPA-A of the ICA - Barrie

No response required/not applicable

Page 44 of 62

2019-02-08http://spar.nvca.on.ca/SparRMOReport.aspx?RID=1590&MunId=32&Yr=2018

Page 60: The Town of Midland does not adopt or condone anything said in … Documents/CIP/CIP Sept 23... · 2019-10-04 · "The Town of Midland does not adopt or condone anything said in correspondence

SALT(ICA)-2: RMP for existing and future application, handling and storage of road salt within the WHPA-A of the ICA and outside the WHPA-A where greater than 5 tonnes - Barrie

No response required/not applicable

SNOW-1: RMP for the existing storage of snow No response required/not applicable

SNOW-2: Prohibition of future storage of snow Implemented

SNOW(ICA)-1: RMP for the existing and future storage of snow within WHPA-A of the ICA - Barrie

No response required/not applicable

FUEL-1: RMP for existing handling and storage of fuel In progress/some progress made

FUEL-2: Prohibition of future handling and storage of fuel

Implemented

DNAPL-1: RMP for the existing handling and storage of DNAPLs

In progress/some progress made

DNAPL-2: Prohibition of future handling and storage of DNAPLs

Implemented

SOLV-1: RMP for existing handling and storage of organic solvents

No response required/not applicable

LSTOCK-1: Prohibition of existing and future use of land as livestock grazing or pasturing where the annual rate of nutrient generation is greater than 0.5 nutrient units/acre

No response required/not applicable

LSTOCK-2: RMP for existing and future use an outdoor confinement or a farm-animal yard outside of WHPA-A and IPZ-1

No response required/not applicable

LSTOCK-3: Prohibition of existing and future use an outdoor confinement or a farm-animal yard within WHPA-A and IPZ-1

No response required/not applicable

RLU-1: Restricted land use policies Implemented

Complete this table to indicate what progress has been made to-date to implement the various policies in the South Georgian Bay Lake Simcoe Source Protection Plan. Implementing Body: Municipality (Including Planning Approval Authority) - Lower Tier

Policy Number and Description Policy Implementation StatusIf no progress was made (i) explain why actions

were not taken and (ii) indicate the planned next steps to support implementation

WAST(b)-5: Municipal action on existing and future disposal of household hazardous waste

No response required/not applicable upper tier responsibility

SEWG(b)-5: Municipal action on existing combined sewers

In progress/some progress made design underway in 2018 work to be completed in 2019. Council has directed staff to create policy around backflow prevention.

SEWG(c)-3: Municipal action on existing on-site sewage systems where services and capacity exist

Implemented

SEWG(c)-4: Municipal action on existing and future small on-site sewage systems

No response required/not applicable

SALT(H&S)-2: RMP for future handling and storage of road salt

Implemented

SALT(ICA)-3: Specific action for existing and future application, handling and storage of road salt - Barrie

No response required/not applicable

FUEL-4: Municipal action by-law for removal of existing abandoned fuel tanks

No progress made Guidance and modeled by-law development would be helpful to allow Town staff to implement. Currently Town staff has limited information as to potential location of tanks and would have difficulty implementing a by-law.

SOLV-2: Prohibition of future handling and storage of DNAPLs

Implemented

Page 45 of 62

2019-02-08http://spar.nvca.on.ca/SparRMOReport.aspx?RID=1590&MunId=32&Yr=2018

Page 61: The Town of Midland does not adopt or condone anything said in … Documents/CIP/CIP Sept 23... · 2019-10-04 · "The Town of Midland does not adopt or condone anything said in correspondence

DEMD-2: Management plans for existing and future areas within the WHPA Q2 where water is taken from an aquifer without being returned to the same aquifer

Policy outcome(s) evaluated; No further action required

DEMD-3: Conservation plans for future areas within the WHPA Q2 where water is taken from an aquifer without being returned to the same aquifer

Policy outcome(s) evaluated; No further action required

DEMD-7: Specific action for existing municipalities within the Dufferin County that share a water source within a Tier 3

No response required/not applicable

COND-1: Monitoring of existing actions taken in relation to contaminated sites

No response required/not applicable

COND-2: Monitoring of existing changes in condition over time in relation to contaminated sites

No response required/not applicable

LUP-1: Land use planning policies for future activities In progress/some progress made

LUP-2: Land use planning to address future application of road salt

In progress/some progress made

LUP-3: Land use planning for future storm water management BMPs

In progress/some progress made

LUP-4: Land use planning for future sewage system infrastructure

In progress/some progress made

LUP-5: Land use planning for future master environmental servicing plans

In progress/some progress made

LUP-6:Land use planning for future small on-site sewage treatment systems

In progress/some progress made

LUP-7: Land use planning prohibition of future small on-site sewage systems in WHPA-A

In progress/some progress made

LUP-8: Land use planning for fututre small on-site sewage systems in issue contributing areas and outside the WHPA-A

No response required/not applicable

LUP-9: Land use planning for future taking of water from an aquifer or surface water feature without returning it to the same source - Orangeville

No response required/not applicable

LUP-10: Land use planning for future taking of water from an aquifer or surface water feature without returning it to the same source - York, Penetanguishene, Whip-Poor-Will

Policy outcome(s) evaluated; No further action required

LUP-11: Land use planning for significant groundwater recharge areas

In progress/some progress made

LUP-12: Land use planning for new development in WHPA-Q2

Implemented

LUP-13: BMP for Land use planning in WHPA-Q2 In progress/some progress made

LUP-14: Land use planning for municipal water supply in WHPA-Q2

No response required/not applicable

LUP-15: Land use planning of municipal water supply for an activity that reduces the recharge of an aquifer within a WHPA-Q2

Policy outcome(s) evaluated; No further action required

EDU-8: E/O for applying, handling and storing road salt -Barrie

No response required/not applicable

EDU-11: E/O through signage in wellhead protection areas

Implemented

INCENT-3: Incentives for septic systems, landownersPolicy outcome(s) evaluated; No further action required

INCENT-4: Incentives for effective storage of snowPolicy outcome(s) evaluated; No further action required

Page 46 of 62

2019-02-08http://spar.nvca.on.ca/SparRMOReport.aspx?RID=1590&MunId=32&Yr=2018

Page 62: The Town of Midland does not adopt or condone anything said in … Documents/CIP/CIP Sept 23... · 2019-10-04 · "The Town of Midland does not adopt or condone anything said in correspondence

Policy Implementation Status

Complete the table below for risk management plans that have been agreed to/established.

Total number of risk management plans agreed to or established within the source protection area/region since

effective date of the source protection plan July 1st 2015 (i.e. cumulative total)

(Column A)

Number of risk management plans agreed to or established within the source protection area/region (for

existing and future threats) during this reporting period (i.e. annual total)

(Column B)

Total number of properties (i.e. parcels) with risk management plans

agreed to or established since the effective date of the source

protection plan July 1st 2015 (Column C)

Estimated number of risk management plans to be

required to address significant drinking water

threats

1 1 1 22

How many existing* significant drinking water threats have been managed through the established risk management plans?

How many existing* significant drinking water threats have been managed through the established risk management plans? ( * meaning engaged in OR enumerated as existing significant threats)

Annual Count (During This Reporting Period) Cumulative Count (Since Effective Date of SPP July 1st 2015)

1 1

How many section 59 notices were issued in this reporting period?

How many section 59 notices were issued as per ss. 59(2)(a) and ss. 59(2)(b)?

Activities to which neither a prohibition (section 57) nor a risk management plan (section 58) policy applied, as per ss. 59(2)(a) of the Clean Water Act

Activities to which a risk management plan (section 58) policy applied, as per ss. 59(2)(b) of the Clean Water Act

0 0

How much progress has been made in updating Official Plans (OP) and Zoning By-Laws (ZBL)?

List the municipality(ies) (including upper-, lower-, and single-tier) within the source protection region/area that are required to complete Official Plan and Zoning By-Law conformity exercises for source protection and then select the status of those exercises in the table below for each municipality. Insert additional rows as needed . NOTE: Applied to every municipality affected by land use planning or Part IV type policies.

Municipality Name Status of Official Plan Conformity Exercise (Select a status from drop down list)

Status of Zoning By-Law Conformity Exercise (Select a status from drop down list)

Town of Midland In process Completed

How many times did the RMO receive a notice of conformity for a prescribed instrument?

For the purposes of section 61 of O.Reg. 287/07, how many notices and/or copies did the risk management official receive of prescribed instruments that state the prescribed instrument conforms with the significant drinking water threat policies in the source protection plan (i.e. statement of conformity confirms that instrument holder is exempt from requiring a risk management plan)?

0

How many inspections were carried out for activities that are prohibited for this reporting period?

The term inspection refers to those conducted under the authority of section 62 of the Clean Water Act, related to an activity to which section 56, 57, or 58 of the Clean Water Act applies. This includes inspections carried out for threat verification purposes. It does not include the delivery of documents such as notices or a signed risk management plan.

The term contravention as used in the context of inspections refers to activities being undertaken that are in violation of sections 57 and 58 of the Clean Water Act relative to the policies noted in the source protection plan.

Page 47 of 62

2019-02-08http://spar.nvca.on.ca/SparRMOReport.aspx?RID=1590&MunId=32&Yr=2018

Page 63: The Town of Midland does not adopt or condone anything said in … Documents/CIP/CIP Sept 23... · 2019-10-04 · "The Town of Midland does not adopt or condone anything said in correspondence

State the total number of inspections (including any follow-up site visits) that were carried out for activities (existing or future) that are prohibited under section 57 of the Clean Water Act for this reporting period

How many properties (i.e. parcels) had inspections for the purposes of section 57 for this

reporting period?

Among these inspections, how many showed that activities were taking place on the landscape even though they were prohibited (i.e. in contravention) under section 57 of the

Clean Water Act for this reporting period?

0 0 0

How many existing significant drinking water threats have been prohibited?

How many existing significant drinking water threats have been prohibited as a result of section 57 prohibitions?

Annual Count (This Reporting Period) Cumulative Count (Since Effective Date of SPP July 1st 2015)

0 0

How many inspections were carried out for activities that require a RMP for this reporting period?

The term inspection refers to those conducted under the authority of section 62 of the Clean Water Act, related to an activity to which section 56, 57, or 58 of the Clean Water Act applies. This includes inspections carried out for threat verification purposes. It does not include the delivery of documents such as notices or a signed risk management plan.

The term contravention as used in the context of inspections refers to activities being undertaken that are in violation of sections 57 and 58 of the Clean Water Act relative to the policies noted in the source protection plan.

State the total number of inspections (including any follow-up site visits) that were carried out

for activities that require a risk management plan under section 58

of the Clean Water Act for this reporting period

How many properties (i.e. parcels) had

inspections for the purposes of section 58 for this reporting

period?

Among these inspections, how many were in contravention with section 58 of

the Clean Water Act for this reporting period (i.e. person engaging in a

drinking water threat activity without a risk management plan as required by the

source protection plan)?

How many were in non-compliance with the specific contents of the risk management plan for this reporting period? NOTE: Please only include those inspections that showed non-

compliance with measures/conditions to manage the actual threat activity

0 0 0 0

What methods are being used to raise awareness about source water protection in the source protection area/region?

Indicate the methods by which education and outreach policies have been/are being implemented to raise knowledge and awareness about source water protection in the source protection region/area by all the relevant implementing bodies. Choose all that apply from the checklist below. If there are other methods that are not listed please describe them in the comment box below.

Use of educational materials for general public Use of educational materials for target audiences including developers, builders, landowners, farmers, etc. Workshops Site visits Source protection content for websites Educational videos (e.g., Drinking Water Source Protection video available Conservation Ontario) Collaboration with other bodies (e.g., ministries, local organizations, etc.) Social media promotion (e.g., use of Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, etc.) Information kiosks at events/festivals

Describe an exceptional E&O initiative that has had a positive impact on souce water.

From among the method(s) used to implement education and outreach policies by the implementing bodies, specifically, indicate the top one(s) used (please limit the selection of the top methods used to three choices maximum and insert additional rows as needed) that were found to be the most successful in meeting the intent of education and outreach policies (i.e., gains in source protection knowledge, behavior changes and/or commitments to maintain actions that are protective of source water).

Then, briefly explain how success was evaluated and any results achieved (e.g., landowners understand they are within or adjacent to a vulnerable area or highly vulnerable aquifer, classroom presentations on protecting water sources made to over 25 schools across source protection region reaching 750 students, farm operators install signs to identify areas to avoid nutrient application, homeowners pledge to properly dispose of hazardous waste products, etc.).

Page 48 of 62

2019-02-08http://spar.nvca.on.ca/SparRMOReport.aspx?RID=1590&MunId=32&Yr=2018

Page 64: The Town of Midland does not adopt or condone anything said in … Documents/CIP/CIP Sept 23... · 2019-10-04 · "The Town of Midland does not adopt or condone anything said in correspondence

In the explanation, where available, include the following details: Indicate target population (e.g., farmers, business, residents, municipalities, etc.), percentage of the target audience reached, outcomes that were achieved, whether these initiatives reached persons and/or businesses within geographic areas where threats could be significant or to wider areas (i.e., specific to areas with significant drinking water threats or general E/O)

Method(s) of implementation - Pick up to 3 of the most successful methods used by source

protection authority

Brief explanation of most successful education and outreach method(s) used - evaluation and results achieved (Maximum = 150 words for each response)

Use of educational materials for general pub An increased knowledge of the drinking water source protection program due to road signs highlighting vulnerable areas. More questions have been asked of staff when dealing with members of the public since the signs have been installed. Signage has spurred an increased awareness of the program.

How many signs have been installed on provincial highways?

How many signs have been installed on provincial highways in the SPA during this reporting period?

0

Were signs installed at other locations?

Were signs installed at other locations during this reporting period? If yes, please indicate how many and explain in the comment section below.

Not Applicable Comment :

not applicable in 2018

How many of the inspected on-site sewage systems required major maintenance (e.g., tank replacement, tile bed replacement etc.)?

How many of the inspected on-site sewage systems required major maintenance work (e.g., tank replacement, tile bed replacement etc.)?

n/a in mid

Complete the table below to provide details about all incentives that were made available to assist in source water protection.

If applicable, complete the table below indicating:

• The type of incentive(s) (e.g., prescribed instrument application fees waived, funding, other non-financial incentives, etc.) that was made available (whether as a policy in the SPP or not)

• The source that provided the incentive(s) • The prescribed drinking water threat activity(ies) to which it relates • The degree to which the incentive(s) assisted with the implementation of SPP policies that address significant drinking water threat activity(ies) • And, include any comments

Insert additional rows as needed in the table below.

Type of IncentiveSource of Incentive (i.e., Municipality, CA,

Provincial Ministry(ies), Other - please specify)

Prescribed Drinking Water Threat(s)

Addressed

Degree to which incentive assisted with the implementation of SPP policies addressing

SDWTComments

n/a in 2018 Not Applicable

How many on-site sewage systems require an inspection as a result of a source protection plan policy?

How many on-site sewage systems in your municipality require inspections in accordance with the Ontario Building Code (OBC) (i.e. once every five years)?

Page 49 of 62

2019-02-08http://spar.nvca.on.ca/SparRMOReport.aspx?RID=1590&MunId=32&Yr=2018

Page 65: The Town of Midland does not adopt or condone anything said in … Documents/CIP/CIP Sept 23... · 2019-10-04 · "The Town of Midland does not adopt or condone anything said in correspondence

0

How many on-site sewage systems requiring an inspection (as per previous question) have been inspected?

Please use the comment box section below to explain your answer, if you feel as though further explanation is required.

How many on-site sewage systems (identified as significant drinking water threats) were inspected (i.e., cumulative running tally of systems

inspected)?

If not all required on-site sewage systems were inspected, please indicate why they were not all inspected from among the options in the drop

down-list

0 Not Applicable Comment :

not applicable in Midland

How many of the inspected on-site sewage systems required minor maintenance (e.g., pump out, tank lid replacement etc.)?

How many of the inspected on-site sewage systems required minor maintenance (e.g., pump out, tank lid replacement etc.)?

n/a in mid

If applicable, complete the table below, where information about drinking water issues are available.

If applicable, complete the table below, where information about drinking water issues is available, indicating any drinking water issues/parameters (chemical or pathogen) that have been identified, whether an Issue Contributing Area was delineated for the identified issues, any observations in the concentration or trend for each issue. Insert additional rows as needed.

Optional: Describe the actions/behavioral changes in the ICA that might be contributing to the changes.

Drinking Water System Drinking Water Issue/Parameter

ICA Deliniated for this Issue? (Y/N) Observations Actions/Behavioural Changes Contributing to

Change in Observations (Optional)

Not Applicable Not Applicable

Are there any examples of successful municipal actions that the municipality wishes to highlight?

[OPTIONAL] Are there some unique examples of successful municipal actions that are being/have been undertaken to protect source water either directly because of plan policies or as a result of more broad integration of the science from source protection? If yes, please provide details in the comment section below.

Implementation of LUP-12 has brought a heightened awareness of the drinking water source protection program within council and the development community. Relined various municipal wells and added automatic depth sensors to ensure good water quality

Are there examples of successful residential and/or business actions that the authority wishes to highlight?

[OPTIONAL] Are there examples of local residents and/or businesses (including agriculture, salt applicator, fuel providers) who are taking successful concrete actions (e.g., engaged in more “green” behaviors that could protect water sources such as purchasing road salt alternatives, taking precautions when storing or disposing hazardous waste, organic solvents, etc.) to protect source water in their community(ies)? If yes, please provide details in the comment section below.

nothing to report for 2018

Explain the overall progress made in addressing these significant threats.

Please provide comments in the box below to explain the overall progress made in addressing these significant threats. Where possible, include an estimated percentage of overall progress made in the comments provided. (NOTE: This is intended to be the same as included in the Assessment Report Database)

The percentage of overall progress made in addressing local threats and conditions that are taking place on the landscape is determined by taking the total number in column D (i.e., SDWT addressed because policy is implemented) from the table in reportable #31a and dividing it into the number that is derived by adding the total numbers in columns A and B and then subtracting this sum total from the total in column C.

Page 50 of 62

2019-02-08http://spar.nvca.on.ca/SparRMOReport.aspx?RID=1590&MunId=32&Yr=2018

Page 66: The Town of Midland does not adopt or condone anything said in … Documents/CIP/CIP Sept 23... · 2019-10-04 · "The Town of Midland does not adopt or condone anything said in correspondence

In other words, overall progress made =D/A+B-C

Currently there are no completed RMPs for applicable SDWTs within the Town however the majority of the remaining SDWTs have been confirmed, on the ground, through field verification methods such as windshield surveys, site visits or phone calls with the owner/operator.

What positive outcomes have potentially resulted from the implementation of SPP policies?

What positive outcomes (e.g., less water consumption, changes in behaviour, reduction in phosphorus and nitrogen concentrations, less chloride from road salt, reduction in algal blooms, human health protected, etc.), if any, have potentially resulted from the implementation of SPP policies?

Please describe the outcomes in the comment section below.

Through education and outreach of the drinking water source protection program, the development and consultant community have become more aware of program specifically as it relates to water quantity concerns.

Complete the table below by indicating which of the listed significant drinking water threats were being engaged in at the time of SPP approval

Complete the table below by first indicating which of the listed significant drinking water threats were being engaged in (i.e., enumerated as ‘existing’ significant threats/threats) at the time of SPP approval . Then, using the formula for the running tally of enumerated threats as explained below, complete the columns in the table with the information for each SDWT indicated as existing in the SPR/A.

Lead SPAs will be maintaining a running tally of progress made in addressing significant threats that were on the ground before plans were approved. The running tally consists of the formula: A+B-C-D where:

• A = Original estimate of SDWT engaged in/enumerated when SPP approved

• B = Additional SDWT identified after first SPP approved as a result of verification (i.e., not part of original estimate of SDWT)

• C = SDWT included in enumeration estimates at time of plan approval but subsequently determined through verification that either: (i) it was not actually engaged in at a particular location after all OR(ii) it was no longer engaged in (e.g., land may still have an agricultural operation but owner no longer applying pesticides for their own reasons)

• D = SDWT addressed because policy is implemented* (*Note: Where multiple policy tools address any given threat sub-category, implemented means that actions associated with at least one policy tool have been completed/are in place)

Threat IDPrescribed Drinking Water Threat/Local Threat/Conditions

A B C D

No. Existing Threats still to be

addressed (A+B-C-D)

1

The establishment, operation or maintenance of a waste disposal site within the meaning of Part V of the Environmental Protection Act.

0.00

2

The establishment, operation or maintenance of a system that collects, stores, transmits, treats or disposes of sewage.

6 6.00

3The application of agricultural source material to land.

0.00

4The storage of agricultural source material.

0.00

5The management of agricultural source material

0.00

Page 51 of 62

2019-02-08http://spar.nvca.on.ca/SparRMOReport.aspx?RID=1590&MunId=32&Yr=2018

Page 67: The Town of Midland does not adopt or condone anything said in … Documents/CIP/CIP Sept 23... · 2019-10-04 · "The Town of Midland does not adopt or condone anything said in correspondence

6

The application of non-agricultural source material to land

0.00

7

The handling and storage of non-agricultural source material

0.00

8The application of commercial fertilizer to land

0.00

9The handling and storage of commercial fertilizer

0.00

10 The application of pesticide to land

0.00

11 The handling and storage of pesticide

0.00

12 The application of road salt

0.00

13 The handling and storage of road salt

0.00

14 The storage of snow 0.00

15 The handling and storage of fuel

2 2.00

16

The handling and storage of a dense non-aqueous phase liquid

32 9 1 22.00

17The handling and storage of an organic solvent

3 3 0.00

18

The management of runoff that contains chemicals used in the de-icing of aircraft

0.00

19

The use of land as livestock grazing or pasturing land, an outdoor confinement area or a farm-animal yard O. Reg. 385/08, s. 3.

0.00

20

Water taking from an aquifer without returning the water to the same aquifer or surface water body

0.00

21 Reducing recharge of an aquifer

0.00

22Establishment and operation of a liquid hydrocarbon pipeline

0.00

TOTAL 43.00 12.00 1.00 30.00

How many signs have been installed on municipal roads?

How many signs have been installed on municipal roads in the SPA during this reporting period?

0

How many inspections were carried out for activities that require a Interim RMP for this reporting period?

Page 52 of 62

2019-02-08http://spar.nvca.on.ca/SparRMOReport.aspx?RID=1590&MunId=32&Yr=2018

Page 68: The Town of Midland does not adopt or condone anything said in … Documents/CIP/CIP Sept 23... · 2019-10-04 · "The Town of Midland does not adopt or condone anything said in correspondence

How many inspections were carried out in respect of an activity to which section 56 of the CWA applies for this reporting period?

The term inspection refers to those conducted under the authority of section 62 of the Clean Water Act, related to an activity to which section 56, 57, or 58 of the Clean Water Act applies. This includes inspections carried out for threat verification purposes. It does not include the delivery of documents such as notices or a signed risk management plan.

Number of inspections carried out in respect of an activity to which section 56 of the CWA applies

Number of cases in which the person was not complying with a RMP agreed to or imposed under section 56 of the CWA

0 0

How many times has the RMO caused a thing to be done?

How many times has the RMO caused a thing to be done under section 64 of the CWA?

0

How many Risk Assessments have been submitted to the RMO for consideration?

How many Risk Assessments have been submitted to the RMO for consideration under section 60 of the Clean Water Act?

0

How many RMPs has the RMO refused to agree-to?

How many Risk Management Plans has the RMO refused to agree-to or establish under subsection 56(9), 58(15) or 58(16) of the CWA?

0

How many RMPs are considered in-progress as of December 31, 2018?

How many RMPs are considered in-progress as of December 31, 2018? These are RMPs that have been initiated with the landowner but not yet completed.

13

Inspections carried out under Section 62 of the CWA.

How many inspections were carried out under section 62 of the CWA for this reporting period?

The term inspection refers to those conducted under the authority of section 62 of the Clean Water Act, related to an activity to which section 56, 57, or 58 of the Clean Water Act applies. This includes inspections carried out for threat verification purposes. It does not include the delivery of documents such as notices or a signed risk management plan.

0

How many prosecutions have been made?

How many prosecutions have been made under section 106 of CWA?

0

How many prosecutions have resulted in a conviction?

How many prosecutions made under section 106 of the CWA have resulted in a conviction?

If a prosecution has resulted in a conviction, please use the comment box section below to provide a brief description of each offence.

0

How many Orders has the RMO issued (excluding orders to establish or amend an RMP)?

Page 53 of 62

2019-02-08http://spar.nvca.on.ca/SparRMOReport.aspx?RID=1590&MunId=32&Yr=2018

Page 69: The Town of Midland does not adopt or condone anything said in … Documents/CIP/CIP Sept 23... · 2019-10-04 · "The Town of Midland does not adopt or condone anything said in correspondence

How many orders has the RMO issued (excluding orders to establish or amend an RMP) under Part IV of the CWA?

0

RMO and RMI Contact Information

Provide the name and contact information of the appointed RMOs and RMIs by completing the table below. Insert additional rows as needed.

Staff Name Title/Role RMO/RMI Training Date (y/m)

Melissa Carruthers RMO/RMI 2014-Dec

Jeff Beauchamp RMI 2016-Dec (RMO/RMI) and Oct (property entry)

Comment :

Contact information for Melissa Carruthers: [email protected] 705-534-7283 ext. 205 Contact information for Jeff Beauchamp: [email protected] 705-526-4275 ext. 4209

Provide a brief overview of the progress made in managing significant drinking water threats.

[OPTIONAL] In summary of the reporting period activities, briefly describe in the comment section below, the progress made in managing significant drinking water threats (e.g. completing site visits and inspections, risk management plan development, development and delivery of education and outreach, participating in pre-consultation meetings with proponents or developing by-laws to screen certain building applications).

Most significant drinking water threats have been verified on the ground. Fact sheets are available at both the SSEA office and website, as well as within the Town for members of the public and various groups. A section 59 screening process had previously been set up to screen for future significant drinking water threats and continues to be followed. Attendance at pre-consultation meetings is done at the request of the municipality.

Provide details for each Risk Assessment that has been submitted to the RMO for consideration.

Provide details by completing the table below for each Risk Assessment that has been submitted to the RMO for consideration under section 60 of the Clean Water Act. Insert additional rows as needed.

Drinking Water System Name Street Name of Threat Property

Threat Activity(ies) to Which the Risk Assessment Relates

What is the Status of the Risk Assessment (being evaluated, accepted, not accepted) Comments

Not Applicable

How many RMPs has the RMO established as the result of a request from the person engaged in the threat activity?

How many Risk Management Plans has the RMO established by order under section 58(12) of the CWA, as a result of an application for a Risk Management Plan made by a person engaged in a threat activity under section 58(11) of the CWA?

0

Provide details for each RMP that has been agreed-to or established.

Provide details for each RMP that has been agreed-to or established within this reporting period by completing the table below.

Drinking Water System Name Street Name of Threat Property

Threat Activity(ies) to Which the RMP Relates Comment

Not Applicable

Provide details for each RMP the RMO has refused to agree-to?

Provide details in the table below for each RMP the RMO has refused to agree-to or establish under subsection 56(9), 58(15) or 58(16) of the CWA?

Drinking Water System Name Street Name of Threat Property

Threat Activities to Which the Refusal Relates

Describe the Reason for Refusing the RMP

Page 54 of 62

2019-02-08http://spar.nvca.on.ca/SparRMOReport.aspx?RID=1590&MunId=32&Yr=2018

Page 70: The Town of Midland does not adopt or condone anything said in … Documents/CIP/CIP Sept 23... · 2019-10-04 · "The Town of Midland does not adopt or condone anything said in correspondence

Not Applicable

Provide details for each of the orders issued by the RMO.

Provide details for each of the orders issued by the RMO by completing the table below.

Drinking Water System Name Street Name of Threat Property

Threat Activity(ies) to Which the Order Relates

Describe the Circumstances Surrounding the Order

Not Applicable

Provide details for each case where the RMO caused a thing to be done.

Provide details for each case where the RMO caused a thing to be done by completing the table below.

Drinking Water System Name Street Name of Threat Property

Threat Activity(ies) to Which the "Cause a Thing" Relates

Describe what was "Caused to be Done" and the Estimated Cost

Not Applicable

Complete the table below for each notice of conformity received for a prescribed instrument.

Complete the table below for each notice and/or a copy of the prescribed instrument received by the RMO (as per O. Reg. 287/07, ss. 65(1), p. 4

Drinking Water System Name

Street Name of Threat Property

Threat Activity(ies) to Which the Notice

Relates

Type of Prescribed Instrument Referred to

Prescribed Instrument

#/Approval #

Did the RMO Grant an Exemption as a Result of

the PI?

Not Applicable Not Applicable

Provide details in the table below for each inspection that was carried out in respect of a threat activity under section 62 of the CWA.

Provide details in the table below for each inspection that was carried out in respect of a threat activity under section 62 of the CWA.

Please insert additional rows as needed.

Subsection of the CWA to which an inspection was carried out in respect of an activity Inspection # The activity(ies) to which the inspection

relates to

Not Applicable

Have there been any occasions where processes set up to flag/catch the potential creation of significant drinking water threats have failed?

Have there been any occasions where processes set up to flag (catch) the potential creation of significant drinking water threats have failed? If yes, please provide a brief explanation in the comment section below about the circumstance of the situation and steps taken to correct the process.

Not Applicable Comment :

not applicable in 2018

Please complete the table below if a municipal drinking water system in your SPA is participating in the Drinking Water Surveillance Program.

[OPTIONAL] If you have a municipal drinking water system that is participating in the Drinking Water Surveillance Program and data is available, please complete the table below. Insert additional rows as necessary for each drinking water system.

Page 55 of 62

2019-02-08http://spar.nvca.on.ca/SparRMOReport.aspx?RID=1590&MunId=32&Yr=2018

Page 71: The Town of Midland does not adopt or condone anything said in … Documents/CIP/CIP Sept 23... · 2019-10-04 · "The Town of Midland does not adopt or condone anything said in correspondence

Participating Drinking Water System Name Parameter of Concern Describe changes in the concentration or loadings of the parameter(s) since the approval of the assessment report

MIDLAND WELL SUPPLY, Heritage Dr sodium increasing trend over last 5 years. Still well below ODWQS

MIDLAND WELL SUPPLY, Russell sodium increasing trend over last 5 years. Still well below ODWQS

MIDLAND WELL SUPPLY, Vindin Cr sodium increasing trend over last 5 years. Still well below ODWQS

What means are being used to finance source protection related costs?

Identify which of the following means are being used to finance source protection related costs within your municipality?

Cost recovery/user pay (e.g., RMP fees)

How long did it take to bring a major non-compliance with a section 57 prohibition back into compliance?

During inspections, where the RMI found a major non-compliance with a section 57 prohibition, indicate the length of time (answer in # of weeks) it took to bring the activity back into compliance with the source protection plan. In cases where it took more than 6 months, please describe the reasons why it took more than 6 months in the comment section below.

not applica

On average, how many days did it take to negotiate and complete a Risk Management Plan?

Generally, how many days on average did it take to negotiate and complete a Risk Management Plan for each of the following sectors: agricultural, industrial, commercial/institutional, municipal (include time spent in meetings, conversations with client, review/sign-off, etc.)

An approximation is acceptable. Suggested answer format for "Days to Negotiate RMP": <1 day, 1-3 days, 3-6 days, 6-10 days, >10 days If the process took more than 10 days, please comment as to the reason why.

Type of RMP Days to Negotiate RMP Comment

Agricultural not applicable for 2018

Commercial/Institutional 1-3 RMP was negotiated through corporate and with other stores across the province.

Industrial not applicable for 2018

Municipal not applicable for 2018

On average, how much time overall did it take to complete the RMP process?

Generally, how much time overall (from the time you first approached the person engaged, to RMP agreement/establishment) did it take to complete the RMP process? An approximation is acceptable. If the process took more than 1 year please comment as to the reason why.

RMP Type Months to Complete RMP Comment

Agricultural not applicable for 2018

Commercial/Institutional 10 RMP was negotiated through corporate and with other stores across the province.

Industrial not applicable for 2018

Municipal not applicable for 2018

Were any potential threat activities observed that could not be addressed (e.g. the activity wasn't one of the 21 prescribed threats)?

Were any potential threat activities observed that could not be addressed through the source water protection program because the activity could not be designated as a significant drinking water threat (e.g activity wasn’t one of the 21 prescribed threats, activity could only be designated as a moderate threat per the table of circumstances etc.)? If yes, please describe the type of threat activity and outline why you believe it should be addressed through the source protection program in the comment section below.

Page 56 of 62

2019-02-08http://spar.nvca.on.ca/SparRMOReport.aspx?RID=1590&MunId=32&Yr=2018

Page 72: The Town of Midland does not adopt or condone anything said in … Documents/CIP/CIP Sept 23... · 2019-10-04 · "The Town of Midland does not adopt or condone anything said in correspondence

Not Applicable Comment :

n/a for 2018

Are there any loopholes that you have identified/come across, which applicants are using to get around the source protection plan policy requirements?

In general, are there any loopholes or gaps that you have identified/come across (either in the tables of circumstances, source protection legislation, source protection plan, or other) that applicants are using to get around the requirements posed by the source protection plan policies? If yes, please describe these potential loopholes in the comment section below.

Yes Comment :

potential for loophole/reduced rigour of analysis based on policy wording i.e.requirements of water balance studies to be peer reviewed and qualifications of reviewer. Policy wording should ideally require that water balance studies be prepared by a qualified person, and reviewed by a qualified person based on a set of minimum requirements, and funded by the applicant. jurisdictional issues - MECP application, not municipal, Town staff not always aware of applications within Town boundaries. i.e. Permit to Take Water applicants within WHPA-Q1

How often were potential significant threat issues resolved through pre-consultation?

Generally, how often were potential significant threat issues resolved through pre-consultation?

Please use the comment section below to explain your answer, if you feel as though further explanation is required.

Most of the time

For section 59 applications where it was determined that neither section 57 nor section 58 apply, indicate the most common reasons why.

For section 59 applications where it was determined that neither section 57 nor section 58 apply, indicate the most common reasons why.

Please use the comment section below to explain your answer, if you feel as though further explanation is required OR if your answer does not fall within one of the reasons listed below.

Comment :

not applicable for 2018

Where a prohibited activity was proposed, how readily available were alternatives to the prohibited activity and how willing was the applicant to alter their application to meet SWP requirements?

Generally, in circumstances where a prohibited activity was proposed, how readily available were alternatives to the prohibited activity? How willing was the applicant to alter their application to meet source water protection requirements?

not applicable for 2018

How many application submissions, on average, were required before a section 59 Notice to Proceed could be issued?

In circumstances where applicants were required to alter their application in order to get a section 59 Notice to Proceed, how many application submissions, on average, were required before a notice could be issued?

not applica

How many times was the RMO unable to issue a section 59 Notice to Proceed?

Page 57 of 62

2019-02-08http://spar.nvca.on.ca/SparRMOReport.aspx?RID=1590&MunId=32&Yr=2018

Page 73: The Town of Midland does not adopt or condone anything said in … Documents/CIP/CIP Sept 23... · 2019-10-04 · "The Town of Midland does not adopt or condone anything said in correspondence

How many times was the RMO unable to issue a section 59 Notice to Proceed?

0

Is enforcing a prohibition more work than anticipated?

Is enforcing a prohibition more work than anticipated? (i.e. would negotiating a RMP have been simpler/achieved the same result in the end as prohibition?). If yes, please describe the challenges associated with enforcing a prohibition in the comment section below.

Not Applicable Comment :

not applicable for 2018

Were people accepting of the requirement to cease a prohibited activity?

Were people accepting of the requirement to cease a prohibited activity? Were applicants generally open to implementing alternatives or altering their application to satisfy prohibition policy requirements? If no, please describe the challenges associated with convincing applicants to cease a prohibited activity in the comment section below.

Not Applicable Comment :

not applicable for 2018

During inspections, how many times did the RMO/RMI come across new significant threat activities?

During inspections, how many times did the RMO/RMI come across new significant threat activities on site, that were previously not addressed through the implementation process?

0

How many notices have been received from a person engaged in an activity, notifying the RMO of their possession of a PI or their intention to get a PI to mitigate the threat.

For the purposes of section 61 of O.Reg. 287/07, how many notices were given to and the number of notices given by the risk management official under subsections 61(2), 61(7), and 61(10)?

0

Have there been any occasions where the Spills Action Centre had to be notified of a substance being discharged into the raw water supply of an existing municipal drinking water system considered in a established Assessment Report under section 89(1) of the CWA?

Please use the comment section below to explain your answer, if you feel as though further explanation is required.

Have there been any occasions where an incident report was sent to SAC regarding

a substance being discharged into an existing municipal drinking water system?

If yes, please provide a brief description of the

circumstances surrounding the incident.

Among the incident report to SAC, did the party responsible for the

drinking water health hazard have an RMP in place?

If yes, was the party who was responsible for the drinking water

health hazard, in compliance with the terms of the agreed upon RMP?

Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable

Comment :

not applicable for 2018

Complete this table to indicate what progress has been made to-date to implement the various policies in the South Georgian Bay Lake Simcoe Source Protection Region.

Page 58 of 62

2019-02-08http://spar.nvca.on.ca/SparRMOReport.aspx?RID=1590&MunId=32&Yr=2018

Page 74: The Town of Midland does not adopt or condone anything said in … Documents/CIP/CIP Sept 23... · 2019-10-04 · "The Town of Midland does not adopt or condone anything said in correspondence

Policy Number & Description Policy Implementation Status If no progress was made (i) explain why actions

were not taken and (ii) indicate the planned next steps to support implementation

WAST(b)-1: RMP for existing operation of waste disposal sites where EPA does not require an approval

No response required/not applicable

WAST(b)-2: Prohibition of future operation of waste disposal sites where EPA does not require an approval

Implemented

SEWG(b)-1: RMP for existing operation of wastewater treatment plants/sewer systems where OWRA does not require an approval

In progress/some progress made

ASM(App)-1: RMP for existing and future application of agricultural source material to land outside of WHPA-Aand IPZ-1

Implemented

ASM(App)-2: Prohibition of existing and future application of agricultural source material to land within WHPA-A and IPZ-1

Implemented

ASM(Store)-1: RMP for existing storage of agricultural source material

No response required/not applicable

ASM(Store)-2: Prohibition of future storage of agricultural source material

Implemented

ASM(ICA)-1: RMP for existing and future application and storage of agricultural source material - G.S and Lafontaine

No response required/not applicable

ASM(ICA)-2: Prohibition of existing and future storage of agricultural source material - G.S. and Lafontaine

No response required/not applicable

NASM(APP)-1: RMP for existing and future application of non-agricultural source material to land for areas outside WHPA-A and IPZ-1

Implemented

NASM(App)-2: Prohibition of existing and future application of non-agricultural source material to land within WHPA-A and IPZ-1

Implemented

NASM(H&S)-1: RMP for existing and future handling and storage of non-agricultural source material outside of WHPA-A and IPZ-1

Implemented

NASM(H&S)-2: Prohibition of existing and future handling and storage of non-agricultural source material within WHPA-A and IPZ-1

Implemented

FERT(App)-1: RMP for existing and future application of commercial fertilizer to land

Implemented

FERT(H&S)-1: RMP for existing handling and storage of commercial fertilizer

No response required/not applicable

FERT(H&S)-2: Prohibition for future handling and storage of commercial fertilizer

Implemented

FERT(ICA)-1: Application, handling and storage of commercial fertilizer - G.S. and Lafontaine

No response required/not applicable

FERT(ICA)-2: RMP for existing and future application, handling and storage of commercial fertilizer - G.S and Lafontaine

No response required/not applicable

PEST(App)-1: RMP for existing and future application of pesticides to land

Implemented

PEST(H&S)-1: RMP for future handling and storage of pesticides

Implemented

PEST(H&S)-2: RMP for existing handling and storage of pesticides

No response required/not applicable

SALT(App)-1: RMP for existing and future application of road salt

Implemented

SALT(H&S)-1: RMP for existing handling and storage of road salt

No response required/not applicable

SALT(ICA)-1: RMP for existing and future application, handling and storage of road salt within the WHPA-A of the ICA - Barrie

No response required/not applicable

Page 59 of 62

2019-02-08http://spar.nvca.on.ca/SparRMOReport.aspx?RID=1590&MunId=32&Yr=2018

Page 75: The Town of Midland does not adopt or condone anything said in … Documents/CIP/CIP Sept 23... · 2019-10-04 · "The Town of Midland does not adopt or condone anything said in correspondence

SALT(ICA)-2: RMP for existing and future application, handling and storage of road salt within the WHPA-A of the ICA and outside the WHPA-A where greater than 5 tonnes - Barrie

No response required/not applicable

SNOW-1: RMP for the existing storage of snow No response required/not applicable

SNOW-2: Prohibition of future storage of snow Implemented

SNOW(ICA)-1: RMP for the existing and future storage of snow within WHPA-A of the ICA - Barrie

No response required/not applicable

FUEL-1: RMP for existing handling and storage of fuel In progress/some progress made

FUEL-2: Prohibition of future handling and storage of fuel

Implemented

DNAPL-1: RMP for the existing handling and storage of DNAPLs

In progress/some progress made

DNAPL-2: Prohibition of future handling and storage of DNAPLs

Implemented

SOLV-1: RMP for existing handling and storage of organic solvents

No response required/not applicable

LSTOCK-1: Prohibition of existing and future use of land as livestock grazing or pasturing where the annual rate of nutrient generation is greater than 0.5 nutrient units/acre

No response required/not applicable

LSTOCK-2: RMP for existing and future use an outdoor confinement or a farm-animal yard outside of WHPA-A and IPZ-1

No response required/not applicable

LSTOCK-3: Prohibition of existing and future use an outdoor confinement or a farm-animal yard within WHPA-A and IPZ-1

No response required/not applicable

RLU-1: Restricted land use policies Implemented

Complete this table to indicate what progress has been made to-date to implement the various policies in the South Georgian Bay Lake Simcoe Source Protection Plan. Implementing Body: Municipality (Including Planning Approval Authority) - Lower Tier

Policy Number and Description Policy Implementation StatusIf no progress was made (i) explain why actions

were not taken and (ii) indicate the planned next steps to support implementation

WAST(b)-5: Municipal action on existing and future disposal of household hazardous waste

No response required/not applicable upper tier responsibility

SEWG(b)-5: Municipal action on existing combined sewers

In progress/some progress made design underway in 2018 work to be completed in 2019. Council has directed staff to create policy around backflow prevention.

SEWG(c)-3: Municipal action on existing on-site sewage systems where services and capacity exist

Implemented

SEWG(c)-4: Municipal action on existing and future small on-site sewage systems

No response required/not applicable

SALT(H&S)-2: RMP for future handling and storage of road salt

Implemented

SALT(ICA)-3: Specific action for existing and future application, handling and storage of road salt - Barrie

No response required/not applicable

FUEL-4: Municipal action by-law for removal of existing abandoned fuel tanks

No progress made Guidance and modeled by-law development would be helpful to allow Town staff to implement. Currently Town staff has limited information as to potential location of tanks and would have difficulty implementing a by-law.

SOLV-2: Prohibition of future handling and storage of DNAPLs

Implemented

Page 60 of 62

2019-02-08http://spar.nvca.on.ca/SparRMOReport.aspx?RID=1590&MunId=32&Yr=2018

Page 76: The Town of Midland does not adopt or condone anything said in … Documents/CIP/CIP Sept 23... · 2019-10-04 · "The Town of Midland does not adopt or condone anything said in correspondence

DEMD-2: Management plans for existing and future areas within the WHPA Q2 where water is taken from an aquifer without being returned to the same aquifer

Policy outcome(s) evaluated; No further action required

DEMD-3: Conservation plans for future areas within the WHPA Q2 where water is taken from an aquifer without being returned to the same aquifer

Policy outcome(s) evaluated; No further action required

DEMD-7: Specific action for existing municipalities within the Dufferin County that share a water source within a Tier 3

No response required/not applicable

COND-1: Monitoring of existing actions taken in relation to contaminated sites

No response required/not applicable

COND-2: Monitoring of existing changes in condition over time in relation to contaminated sites

No response required/not applicable

LUP-1: Land use planning policies for future activities In progress/some progress made

LUP-2: Land use planning to address future application of road salt

In progress/some progress made

LUP-3: Land use planning for future storm water management BMPs

In progress/some progress made

LUP-4: Land use planning for future sewage system infrastructure

In progress/some progress made

LUP-5: Land use planning for future master environmental servicing plans

In progress/some progress made

LUP-6:Land use planning for future small on-site sewage treatment systems

In progress/some progress made

LUP-7: Land use planning prohibition of future small on-site sewage systems in WHPA-A

In progress/some progress made

LUP-8: Land use planning for fututre small on-site sewage systems in issue contributing areas and outside the WHPA-A

No response required/not applicable

LUP-9: Land use planning for future taking of water from an aquifer or surface water feature without returning it to the same source - Orangeville

No response required/not applicable

LUP-10: Land use planning for future taking of water from an aquifer or surface water feature without returning it to the same source - York, Penetanguishene, Whip-Poor-Will

Policy outcome(s) evaluated; No further action required

LUP-11: Land use planning for significant groundwater recharge areas

In progress/some progress made

LUP-12: Land use planning for new development in WHPA-Q2

Implemented

LUP-13: BMP for Land use planning in WHPA-Q2 In progress/some progress made

LUP-14: Land use planning for municipal water supply in WHPA-Q2

No response required/not applicable

LUP-15: Land use planning of municipal water supply for an activity that reduces the recharge of an aquifer within a WHPA-Q2

Policy outcome(s) evaluated; No further action required

EDU-8: E/O for applying, handling and storing road salt -Barrie

No response required/not applicable

EDU-11: E/O through signage in wellhead protection areas

Implemented

INCENT-3: Incentives for septic systems, landownersPolicy outcome(s) evaluated; No further action required

INCENT-4: Incentives for effective storage of snowPolicy outcome(s) evaluated; No further action required

Page 61 of 62

2019-02-08http://spar.nvca.on.ca/SparRMOReport.aspx?RID=1590&MunId=32&Yr=2018

Page 77: The Town of Midland does not adopt or condone anything said in … Documents/CIP/CIP Sept 23... · 2019-10-04 · "The Town of Midland does not adopt or condone anything said in correspondence

SPAR System Generated. -rb- Report v1.0.0

End of Line.

Page 62 of 62

2019-02-08http://spar.nvca.on.ca/SparRMOReport.aspx?RID=1590&MunId=32&Yr=2018

Page 78: The Town of Midland does not adopt or condone anything said in … Documents/CIP/CIP Sept 23... · 2019-10-04 · "The Town of Midland does not adopt or condone anything said in correspondence

Source Protection Annual Progress ReportSouth Georgian Bay Lake Simcoe Region

ourwatershed.ca

Annual Progress Report on Implementation of the South Georgian Bay Lake Simcoe Region Source Protection Plan.

Reporting period | January 1, 2018 - December 31, 2018

Page 79: The Town of Midland does not adopt or condone anything said in … Documents/CIP/CIP Sept 23... · 2019-10-04 · "The Town of Midland does not adopt or condone anything said in correspondence

1

Source Protection Annual Progress Report |

I. Introduction

Page 80: The Town of Midland does not adopt or condone anything said in … Documents/CIP/CIP Sept 23... · 2019-10-04 · "The Town of Midland does not adopt or condone anything said in correspondence

2

II. A message from your local Source Protection Committee

Our progress score on achieving source protection plan objectives this reporting period:

P : Progressing Well/On Target – The majority of the source protection plan policies have been implemented and/or are progressing.

S : Satisfactory – Some of the source protection plan policies have been implemented and/or are progressing.

L : Limited progress – A few of source protection plan policies have been implemented and/or are progressing.

TaraH
Highlight
Page 81: The Town of Midland does not adopt or condone anything said in … Documents/CIP/CIP Sept 23... · 2019-10-04 · "The Town of Midland does not adopt or condone anything said in correspondence

3

III. Our Watershed

To learn more, please read our assessment report(s) and source protection plan(s).

Page 82: The Town of Midland does not adopt or condone anything said in … Documents/CIP/CIP Sept 23... · 2019-10-04 · "The Town of Midland does not adopt or condone anything said in correspondence

4

IV. At a Glance: Progress on Source Protection Plan Implementation

1. Source Protection Plan Policies

2. Municipal Progress: Addressing Risks on the Ground

Page 83: The Town of Midland does not adopt or condone anything said in … Documents/CIP/CIP Sept 23... · 2019-10-04 · "The Town of Midland does not adopt or condone anything said in correspondence

5

4. Risk Management Plans

3. Septic Inspections

Page 84: The Town of Midland does not adopt or condone anything said in … Documents/CIP/CIP Sept 23... · 2019-10-04 · "The Town of Midland does not adopt or condone anything said in correspondence

6

5. Provincial Progress: Addressing Risks on the Ground

6. Source Protection Awareness and Change in Behaviour

Page 85: The Town of Midland does not adopt or condone anything said in … Documents/CIP/CIP Sept 23... · 2019-10-04 · "The Town of Midland does not adopt or condone anything said in correspondence

7

7. Source Protection Plan Policies: Summary of Delays

Page 86: The Town of Midland does not adopt or condone anything said in … Documents/CIP/CIP Sept 23... · 2019-10-04 · "The Town of Midland does not adopt or condone anything said in correspondence

8

8. Source Water Quality: Monitoring and Actions

Page 87: The Town of Midland does not adopt or condone anything said in … Documents/CIP/CIP Sept 23... · 2019-10-04 · "The Town of Midland does not adopt or condone anything said in correspondence

9

10. More from the WatershedTo learn more about our source protection region/area, visit our Homepage.

9. Science-based Assessment Reports: Work Plans

Page 88: The Town of Midland does not adopt or condone anything said in … Documents/CIP/CIP Sept 23... · 2019-10-04 · "The Town of Midland does not adopt or condone anything said in correspondence

10

Place photos here

Page 89: The Town of Midland does not adopt or condone anything said in … Documents/CIP/CIP Sept 23... · 2019-10-04 · "The Town of Midland does not adopt or condone anything said in correspondence

I have attached a brief overview regarding our wonderful recent TFD event. I would be pleased to share more details upon request. Thank you and Midland Council for your continued support Don Chapman

------------------

Terry Fox Day in the Heart of Georgian Bay

September 15th, 2019

Terry Fox Day in the Heart of Georgian Bay was held on Sunday, September 15, 2019. The selected host

site was once again Perkinsfield Park in Tiny. The covered pavilion there certainly came in handy as it

rained off and on throughout the program. The rain did not dampen the enthusiasm of the participants

as together they raised funds for life-saving cancer research.

The agenda for the day consisted of check-in, a brief but inspiring opening ceremony, followed by a huge

silent auction for adults, and KidZone for the younger set. The “runners” left at 10 AM to do the circuit

based on their chosen route, mode of transport, and pace. They followed the same popular two-way

design as last year with optional choices of 2, 5 or 10K distances. When the “runners” came back in they

were treated to a banquet of free refreshments (fruit, bars, candy, hot dogs, pizza, juice, water). While

they were being fed, three different musical acts entertained our participants.

Some numeric highlights:

• We had 844 participants (excluding 25 dogs, and 2 horses) despite the weather

• 43 teams ran together

• We raised over $95000 (so far) for cancer research without spending a cent

o Roughly 200 organizations or individuals donated goods and/or services to make

this event possible

o The auction alone brought in almost $11000 of revenue with bids on nearly 200

donated items

It is never too late to donate www.terryfox.ca/terryfoxrun/heartofgeorgianbay

In 2020 we will celebrate the 40th anniversary of the Marathon of Hope…Please join us in

making this a very special occasion in the quest to outrun cancer.

Page 90: The Town of Midland does not adopt or condone anything said in … Documents/CIP/CIP Sept 23... · 2019-10-04 · "The Town of Midland does not adopt or condone anything said in correspondence

Mayor Stewart Strathearn

Town of Midland, Ontario

Dear. Mr. Mayor,

TOWN OF MIDLAND ADMINISTRATION

SEP 2 3 2019

Rc:CF.:IVED

Rock Island, IL

Sept. 12, 2019

In July we cruised the Erie Canal in our boat and encountered a great number of nice, helpful

people. In August and September, we cruised the Trent Severn Waterway and again experienced an

incredible number of similar people.

Among the best of them was Rick Dalziel, the Harbor Master at your marina. His patience,

guidance, expertise and help went far beyond what we expected as transient boaters.

We want to express our thanks again to him and also to your city for having such an outstanding

person in that position.

Sincerely,

� -r 0 o, 1 l}' {,w,,YGary and Carol Kramer

Odduck

/4 of1 K \c.,\(_ l) A l -z..i 11{.

W�ll clO'tJE l.

Page 91: The Town of Midland does not adopt or condone anything said in … Documents/CIP/CIP Sept 23... · 2019-10-04 · "The Town of Midland does not adopt or condone anything said in correspondence

From: Building Code Services Transformation - Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing <[email protected]> Sent: September 25, 2019 4:08 PM To: Karen Desroches <[email protected]> Subject: You're invited to Regional Information Sessions (Repeating Event - 16 Oct 2019)

You are invited to the following event:

REGIONAL INFORMATION SESSIONS

Multiple events from: Friday, 4 October 2019 at 1:00 PM - to - Wednesday, 16 October 2019 at 3:00 PM (EDT)

Event registration is by invitation only. Register with your email address to attend this event.

Eventbrite – Regional Information Sessions

On September 24, 2019, the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing released a discussion paper: Transforming and Modernizing the Delivery of Ontario’s Building Code Services. The government has heard from stakeholders about the need for better, modern, and timely services to support the building sector’s ability to understand and apply building code requirements.

To learn more about our transformation initiative, your organization is invited to attend one of four regional information sessions in October. These in-person sessions will include an informational session with a presentation for the sector earlier in the afternoon (1:00-3:00pm) and provide you with an opportunity to meet with ministry staff to ask questions and give us your thoughts and comments. The evening component will consist of a public open house (5:30-7:00pm). Sessions will be held on the following dates:

• City of Belleville: Friday, October 4, 2019

Belleville Lions Club, 119 Station St., Belleville • City of North Bay: Monday, October 7, 2019

North Bay Memorial Gardens, 100 Chippewa St. W., North Bay • Municipality of Chatham-Kent: Wednesday, October 9, 2019

Chatham-Kent Cultural Centre, 75 William Street N, Chatham-Kent • City of Vaughan: Wednesday, October 16, 2019

Vellore Hall, 9541 Weston Road, Woodbridge For more information about this consultation and for additional ways to participate, please visit http://www.ontario.ca/buildingtransformation We hope you can make it! Cheers, Building Code Services Transformation - Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing

Page 92: The Town of Midland does not adopt or condone anything said in … Documents/CIP/CIP Sept 23... · 2019-10-04 · "The Town of Midland does not adopt or condone anything said in correspondence

AGENDA NORTH SIMCOE AGRICULTURE TRENDS

Thursday, September 26, 2019 from 7:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. Township of Tiny Community Centre

91 Concession 8 East, Tiny, ON L0L 2J0

MC Councillor Cindy Hastings, Township of Tiny 7:00 p.m. Introduction Paul Maurice, EDCNS Board Vice Chair

Video: Farm Fresh Food Fest Welcome

George Cornell, Warden, County of Simcoe; Mayor, Township of Tiny 7:10 p.m. BR+E Study Results Becky Breedon, Economic Development Officer, County of Simcoe 7:30 p.m. Municipal Agricultural Profiling Research Project Deborah Clyne, EDCNS Agriculture Specialist 7:50 p.m. Guest Presentation Paul Moyer, Founder, Clēan Works 8:20 p.m. Q&A Councillor Cindy Hastings, Township of Tiny 8:55 p.m. Closing Remarks Paul Maurice, EDCNS Board Vice Chair Video: The Magic of North Simcoe

Page 93: The Town of Midland does not adopt or condone anything said in … Documents/CIP/CIP Sept 23... · 2019-10-04 · "The Town of Midland does not adopt or condone anything said in correspondence

Midland Seniors Council Meeting 1 September 4, 2019

Midland Seniors Council Minutes from the Midland Seniors Council (MSC) Meeting held Wednesday September 4, 2019, at 11:00 a.m. at the Municipal Office Council Chambers. Present: Larry Ferris (Chair), Barbara Knechtel, Frieda Baldwin, Christine Johnston,

Bryde Desroches, Deb Dion-Smith, Judy Contin Regrets: Judy Clapperton, Diane Enns Absent: Jo-Anne Knicely Also in Attendance: Cher Cunningham, Councillor

1. Call to Order

The Chair called the meeting to order.

2. Declarations of pecuniary interest

Judy Contin declared a conflict if any financial matters relating to Askennonia are discussed. No other members declared a conflict.

3. Adoption of Minutes

Moved by B. Knechtel Seconded by D. Dion-Smith

That the Minutes of the Midland Seniors Council Meeting held June 20, 2020, be adopted as printed and circulated.

CARRIED.

4. Business arising

• The roundtable with MPP Jill Dunlop on June 25. The meeting was cancelled. The MSC may wish to ask for a one-on-one with the MPP at some point.

• Seniors Luncheon o Karen Desroches presented a document with the results from the June

Senior’s luncheon. There were about 100 participants, and we got 85 surveys back. The major issue was Housing, and specifically Affordable Housing. It was also commented that most people get their information mostly by “Word of Mouth” and from the Newspapers.

o June 10, 2020 will be the date for the 2020 Seniors Luncheon. Save the date. Judy has booked the community hall at the NSSRC.

o As a potential theme, “Aging at home & Affordable Housing” was suggested.

Page 94: The Town of Midland does not adopt or condone anything said in … Documents/CIP/CIP Sept 23... · 2019-10-04 · "The Town of Midland does not adopt or condone anything said in correspondence

Midland Seniors Council Meeting 2 September 4, 2019

• Free Transit for Seniors o The MSC’s request for free transit for seniors for the month of June

2019 (which is Senior’s Month) was rejected by council, due to anticipated loss of revenue. It was noted that the City of Barrie did provide free transit for the month of June.

o Larry agreed to further discuss with Shawn Berriault, and possibly with the Midland BIA to see if possibly 1 day a week may be feasible.

• Grants o New Horizon’s grant for subsidy for free Transit for seniors was

submitted by Karen Desroches o Karen to advise if a grant to the County’s Age Friendly granting

program for a Midland specific Age Friendly Needs Assessment was submitted. Deadline is September 15, 2019.

• Name tags for MSC members o A request was made earlier for name tags, but none have been

received. Karen Desroches to advise. (Magnetic type preferred)

Brainstorming session

The purpose of today’s meeting was to brainstorm activities for the Midland Seniors Council and develop a work plan. As such the “Unfinished Business” items of the previous MSC were reviewed and their status discussed. Topic Status Action by Seniors Directory Efforts were underway to work with

neighbouring municipalities to further develop and update the Tiny Township Seniors Directory and make it available to Midland residents as well

C. Johnson to check with Tiny Township

Library partnership In partnership with the Midland library, programs such as the Seniors Drop In were initiated in 2018

Joanne Knicely to advise status.

Senior Health Care The previous MSC wanted to make sure Senior Health Care, and geriatric services, were considered in the Physician Recruitment process.

Deferred until after the Needs Assessment. David Gravelle could potentially provide an update in the interim

Information Sessions

Deferred until after Needs Assessment.

Page 95: The Town of Midland does not adopt or condone anything said in … Documents/CIP/CIP Sept 23... · 2019-10-04 · "The Town of Midland does not adopt or condone anything said in correspondence

Midland Seniors Council Meeting 3 September 4, 2019

Members of the MSC also expressed interest in learning more about the following topics and would like to invite the following to a future MSC meeting: Affordable Housing Mayor Stewart Strathearn

& Wes Crown Cher to invite

Transportation Shawn Berriault Larry to invite (through CAO)

Civic Engagement Randy – Town of Midland social media Faith - Midland Library

Larry to invite Randy (through CAO) Bryde to invite Faith

Ontario Health Team TBA Cher to invite someone and send “Community Engagement Strategy” to MSC members

Needs Assessment process

To find out how the County of Simcoe supports local initiatives

Larry to enquire.

New Business

• MSC representative on the County’s Age Friendly council o Deb Dion-Smith is interested, however, cannot attend the next meeting. o Larry Ferris will attend the Sep 17 at 10 AM meeting in Midhurst.

• Deputation to council

According to the terms of reference, deputations to Midland Town Council are encouraged. Action: Frieda to arrange for a deputation in October to update Council on progress so far (incl. grants, luncheon, needs assessment, transit request, 2020 Luncheon date, civic engagement, facebook page, etc.). Frieda also to draft actual deputation text.

• Town Hall Meetings on Senior Issues It was suggested that Mayor and members of council may want to host a Town Hall Meeting to learn about the issues of local seniors. Suggested location: Midland library or NSSRC as they are less formal than at the Town Hall. Action: Cher to invite the Mayor to our next meeting.

5. Adjournment

Meeting adjourned at 1:05 am.

Next Meeting: Thursday, September 19, 2019 at 10:00 am in the Council Chambers. Larry J. Ferris, Chair Frieda Baldwin

Page 96: The Town of Midland does not adopt or condone anything said in … Documents/CIP/CIP Sept 23... · 2019-10-04 · "The Town of Midland does not adopt or condone anything said in correspondence

From: OPP News Portal <[email protected]> Sent: September 20, 2019 1:50 PM Subject: News release from the OPP - OPP Complete Investigation into Vandalism at the Wyevale Park

A new media release has been made by the OPP for Southern Georgian Bay. The release content is

below. If you wish to unsubscribe from these alerts, log into the OPP News Release Portal and select

"Manage Account".

FROM/DE: Southern Georgian Bay OPP Detachment DATE: September 20, 2019

OPP Complete Investigation into Vandalism at the Wyevale Park

(TINY TOWNSHIP, ON)- Members of the Ontario Provincial Police (OPP) Southern Georgian Bay

detachment responded to a report of overnight vandalism at the Wyevale Park, Tiny Township on

September 8, 2019. The attending officer noted the damage to the baseball diamond area in the

general park area. Through investigation the officer was able to identify and locate the local

responsible youths whom have been spoken to by the officer and the matter is now closed. The

investigating officer appreciates the community's assistance and involvement in this investigation.

Officers always appreciate assistance information in solving a community crime and if you have

information that may solve a crime please support your community and contact the OPP at 1-888-

310-1122, [email protected] or by calling Crime Stoppers at 1-800-222-TIPS

(8477). You can submit your information online at www.p3tips.com. Crime Stoppers does not

subscribe to call display and you will remain anonymous. Being anonymous, you will not testify in

court and your information may lead to a cash reward of up to $2,000.00. You can follow Crime

Stoppers of Simcoe Dufferin Muskoka www.crimestopperssdm.com on Twitter or Facebook.

- 30 -

Media Contact - Provincial Constable David Hobson

705-733-5440

[email protected]

Follow Us

#SGBOPP

twitter.com/OPP_CR

facebook.com/OPPCentralRegion

Road Closures

twitter.com/OPP_COMM_CR

http://511on.ca

Twitter @OPP_CR

Facebook

Ontario Provincial Police-Central Region

Attachments:

CrimeStoppers

Page 97: The Town of Midland does not adopt or condone anything said in … Documents/CIP/CIP Sept 23... · 2019-10-04 · "The Town of Midland does not adopt or condone anything said in correspondence

From: OPP News Portal <[email protected]> Sent: September 23, 2019 2:36 PM Subject: News release from the OPP - Southern Georgian Bay OPP Marine Patrol Notes of Interest for September 16-22, 2019 A new media release has been made by the OPP for Southern Georgian Bay. The release content is below. If you wish to unsubscribe from these alerts, log into the OPP News Release Portal and select "Manage Account".

FROM/DE: Southern Georgian Bay Detachment DATE: September 23, 2019

Southern Georgian Bay OPP Marine Patrol Notes of Interest for September 16-22, 2019

(MIDLAND, ON) -Members of the OPP Marine Unit attached to the Southern Georgian Bay Detachment of the Ontario Provincial Police (OPP) checked area boaters for proper vessel equipment and driver sobriety while on patrol aboard the OPP patrol Vessel Thomas P. Coffin over the past week of September 16-22, 2019.

Officers stopped and checked 39 vessels during their 36.5 hours of patrol on the waters of Georgian Bay resulting in four charges under the Canada Shipping Act for failing to have lifejackets for all persons aboard and four charges for failing to provide proper vessel and operator documentation. One operator was charged under the Liquor Licence Act (LLA) for operating a vessel with open liquor. One vessel operator was required to submit to a Roadside Screening Device test with a "pass" result.

Officers also conducted joint foot patrols with Georgian Bay Islands Park Wardens on Beausoleil Island along with conducting seven property checks at cottages while on patrol. The marine crew remind cottagers to practise Lock It or Lose It especially now as cottage close up season is nearing.

Officers crewing the OPP Patrol Vessel Thomas P. Coffin remind all vessel operators that they are checking for vessel equipment and for liquor offences which they are vigorously enforcing in an effort to reduce injuries and fatalities on our area waterways. For more information on safe vessel operation and equipment please view the following web sites.

https://www.tc.gc.ca/en/services/marine/getting-started-safe-boating/choosing-lifejackets-personal-flotation-devices.html

https://www.tc.gc.ca/fr/services/maritime/concepts-base-securite-nautique/choisir-gilets-sauvetage-vetements-flottaison-individuels.html

Educational links from the Office of Safe Boating -

https://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/marinesafety/debs-obs-menu-1362.htm

https://www.tc.gc.ca/fra/securitemaritime/desn-bsn-menu-1362.htm

Page 98: The Town of Midland does not adopt or condone anything said in … Documents/CIP/CIP Sept 23... · 2019-10-04 · "The Town of Midland does not adopt or condone anything said in correspondence

For anyone who is unsure of the equipment required for their vessel please view the following link to get the "APP" for their mobile device https://csbc.ca/en/ or https://csbc.ca/fr/ or view the Transport Canada Safe Boating Guide at http://www.tc.gc.ca/documents/TP-511e.pdfhttp://www.tc.gc.ca/documents/tp511f.pdf

Police remind vessel operators that an essential part of our enforcement effort is to save lives and reduce injuries on our waterways while promoting and educating the public about safe boating practices. Your Lifejacket only works if YOU'RE WEARING IT!

(30)

Media Contact Provincial Constable David Hobson 705-733-5440 [email protected] Follow Us #SGBOPP twitter.com/OPP_CR facebook.com/OPPCentralRegion Road Closures twitter.com/OPP_COMM_CR http://511on.ca Ontario Provincial Police-Central Region

Page 99: The Town of Midland does not adopt or condone anything said in … Documents/CIP/CIP Sept 23... · 2019-10-04 · "The Town of Midland does not adopt or condone anything said in correspondence

From: OPP News Portal <[email protected]> Sent: September 23, 2019 4:21 PM Subject: News release from the OPP - OPP Investigating Break and Enter Incidents at Two Midland Businesses

A new media release has been made by the OPP for Southern Georgian Bay. The release content is

below. If you wish to unsubscribe from these alerts, log into the OPP News Release Portal and

select "Manage Account".

FROM/DE: Southern Georgian Bay OPP Detachment DATE: September 23, 2019

OPP Investigating Break and Enter Incidents at Two Midland Businesses

(MIDLAND, ON) - Members of the Ontario Provincial Police (OPP) Southern Georgian Bay

detachment were dispatched at 9:10 am September 21, 2019 to a report of a break and enter that

had occurred at Jakes Car Wash on King Street, Midland. The incident occurred between 2:00 am

and 3:00 am September 21, 2019 as person(s) unknown forced a side window and entered the

business removing an unknown amount of store contents.

Earlier in the day at 6:21 am OPP uniform officers were dispatched to a break and enter at the

Bestway Rentals Store on Vindin Street Midland as person(s) unknown forced the front door of the

store and made off with a number of store retail items. One of those items stolen has been

identified as an Honda generator model 2200 EU Companion serial # EAMT1336672.

Investigators are asking if anyone observed any unusual activity in the area of either store around

that time to please contact the OPP at 1-888-310-1122, [email protected] or by

calling Crime Stoppers at 1-800-222-TIPS (8477). You can submit your information online

at www.p3tips.com. Crime Stoppers does not subscribe to call display and you will remain

anonymous. Being anonymous, you will not testify in court and your information may lead to a

cash reward of up to $2,000.00. You can follow Crime Stoppers of Simcoe Dufferin

Muskoka www.crimestopperssdm.com on Twitter or Facebook.

- 30 -

Media Contact - Provincial Constable David Hobson

705-733-5440

[email protected]

Follow Us

#SGBOPP

twitter.com/OPP_CR

facebook.com/OPPCentralRegion

Road Closures

twitter.com/OPP_COMM_CR

http://511on.ca

Twitter @OPP_CR

Facebook

Ontario Provincial Police-Central Region

Page 100: The Town of Midland does not adopt or condone anything said in … Documents/CIP/CIP Sept 23... · 2019-10-04 · "The Town of Midland does not adopt or condone anything said in correspondence

From: OPP News Portal <[email protected]> Sent: September 25, 2019 10:00 PM Subject: News release from the OPP - OPP - OFFICERS RUNNING TO REMEMBER

A new media release has been made by the OPP for Southern Georgian Bay. The release content

is below. If you wish to unsubscribe from these alerts, log into the OPP News Release Portal and

select "Manage Account".

From: OPP East Region Headquarters Date: September 25, 2019

OFFICERS RUNNING TO REMEMBER

(TORONTO, ON) - On Thursday, September 26, 2018 at 8:00 a.m. law enforcement officers from

across the province will commence a three day run from the Ontario Police Memorial in Toronto

to Ottawa to coincide with the National Peace Officer Memorial on Parliament Hill Sunday,

September 29.

The run was created in 2005 when a small group of Peel Region Police Service officers wanted

to raise awareness of the annual service and those officers who have made the ultimate sacrifice

in the line of duty. The run has now grown to over 200 runners including federal, provincial and

municipal police services, probation, corrections and Canadian Forces as well as some American

Officers, all who cover the 460-kilometre route, raising awareness and funds for the victims'

families and reflecting on those who are no longer with us.

The route follows Highway-2 for the majority of the 3 days, going through numerous

communities along the way. Police escort vehicles will accompany the group to ensure runner

safety. All attempts will be made to ensure traffic flows smoothly however it is possible there will

be short delays in some areas.

On Thursday afternoon, runners will travel through Port Hope and continue into Cobourg. On

Friday morning, runners commence at 7:00 a.m. on Highway-2 east of Cobourg and continue

toward Brockville. On Saturday morning, runners commence at 8:00 a.m. heading east on

Highway-2 from the town of Brockville.

The OPP requests that motorists be aware of the runners and vehicles on the highway to ensure

that everyone arrives safely.

Further information will follow regarding the daily routes.

- 30 -

Contact: Sergeant Tammy Bradley

(807) 356-3928

opp.ca

Twitter: OPP_ER

Page 101: The Town of Midland does not adopt or condone anything said in … Documents/CIP/CIP Sept 23... · 2019-10-04 · "The Town of Midland does not adopt or condone anything said in correspondence

From: OPP News Portal <[email protected]> Sent: September 27, 2019 10:40 AM Subject: News release from the OPP - OPP Investigate Break and Enter Incident to Midland Home

A new media release has been made by the OPP for Southern Georgian Bay. The release content is

below. If you wish to unsubscribe from these alerts, log into the OPP News Release Portal and select

"Manage Account".

FROM/DE: Southern Georgian Bay OPP Detachment DATE: September 27, 2019

OPP Investigate Break and Enter Incident to Midland Home

(MIDLAND, ON) - Members of the Ontario Provincial Police (OPP) Southern Georgian Bay detachment

were dispatched at 9:27 am September 24, 2019 to investigate a report of a residential break and

enter to a home on Yonge Street between Simcoe Boulevard and Hamelin Lane, Town of Midland.

Person(s) unknown forced a screen window and entered the home between 7:00 pm and 10:00 pm

September 23, 2019 removing a jewelry box and jewelry from a bedroom and fled the scene.

Investigators ask that anyone who may have seen suspicious activity in that area or has information

about the stolen property to contact the OPP at 1-888-310-

1122, [email protected] or by calling Crime Stoppers at 1-800-222-TIPS

(8477). You can submit your information online at www.p3tips.com. Crime Stoppers does not

subscribe to call display and you will remain anonymous. Being anonymous, you will not testify in

court and your information may lead to a cash reward of up to $2,000.00. You can follow Crime

Stoppers of Simcoe Dufferin Muskoka www.crimestopperssdm.com on Twitter or Facebook.

OPP officers urge home and business owners to make themselves aware of the property security tips found in the following link- OPP SafeGuard Ontario Property Security Program

- 30 -

Media Contact - Provincial Constable David Hobson

705-733-5440

[email protected]

Follow Us

#SGBOPP

twitter.com/OPP_CR

facebook.com/OPPCentralRegion

Road Closures

twitter.com/OPP_COMM_CR

http://511on.ca

Twitter @OPP_CR

Facebook

Ontario Provincial Police-Central Region

Attachments:

CrimeStoppers

Page 102: The Town of Midland does not adopt or condone anything said in … Documents/CIP/CIP Sept 23... · 2019-10-04 · "The Town of Midland does not adopt or condone anything said in correspondence

THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWN OF MIDLAND

Please see the opposite side of this Notice for more information

575 Dominion Avenue Midland, ON L4R 1R2 Phone: 705-526-4275

Fax: 705-526-9971 www.midland.ca

NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT

Minor Variance Application A.21/2019 461 Mundy’s Bay Road

TAKE NOTICE that an application to the Committee of Adjustment has been submitted for a minor variance to Zoning By-law 2004-90, as amended, pursuant to Section 45 of the Planning Act, c.P.13, R.S.O. 1990 as amended for lands known municipally as 461 Mundy’s Bay Road and legally described as Part Lot 75 and Water Lot in Front of Lot 75 on Plan 69 located in the Town of Midland. The property is designated Residential District in the Official Plan and zoned Residential – R5 in Zoning By-law 2004-90, as amended. THE PURPOSE OF THE APPLICATION is for multiple variances to permit a Second Unit in an accessory building. The following variances are requested: an increase in accessory building coverage from 5% to 9.3%; an increase to the permitted Second Unit size from 40% of the Floor Area of the Dwelling to 42%; and to permit a secondary unit in an accessory building, where it would otherwise only be permitted on a corner lot, through lot or a laneway lot. A location map and application sketch are provided on the back of this Notice.

There are no associated files/applications. This is a Public Hearing and persons wishing to support or oppose this application are permitted to attend, or if unable to attend, may submit comments in writing to the Secretary-Treasurer of the Committee or via e-mail to [email protected], indicating the application number and address of the property, prior to the date and time of the Hearing. When complete, and at least 5 days prior to the hearing, staff reports will be made available to the public and can be found on the Town’s website at: https://www.midland.ca/Pages/coa.aspx. For more information about this matter, contact the Planning and Building Services Department at the Municipal Office, 575 Dominion Avenue, during regular business hours. AND FURTHER TAKE NOTICE that pursuant to Section 44(10) of the Planning Act, the Application file is part of the public record and is available to the public for inspection. If you are submitting letters, faxes, emails, presentations or other communications with the Town concerning this application, you should be aware that your name and the fact you communicated with the Town will become part of the public record. The Town will also make your communication and any personal information in it available to the public, unless you expressly request the Town to remove it. A copy of the decision of the Committee of Adjustment will be sent to the applicant and to each person who appeared in person or by counsel at the hearing and who filed with the Secretary-Treasurer a written request for a copy of the Notice of Decision. It is requested that this Notice of Public Hearing be posted in a location visible to all residents if there are seven (7) or more residential units at this location.

The Committee of Adjustment will hold a Public Hearing on Thursday, October 10, 2019 at 4:30 p.m. or as soon thereafter as practical in the Council Chambers of the Municipal Building, 575 Dominion Avenue, Midland to consider this application.

Page 103: The Town of Midland does not adopt or condone anything said in … Documents/CIP/CIP Sept 23... · 2019-10-04 · "The Town of Midland does not adopt or condone anything said in correspondence

Please see the opposite side of this Notice for more information

Dated this 24th day of September, 2019. Natalie Murdock Secretary-Treasurer, Midland Committee of Adjustment

Minor Variance Application No. A.21/2019

Location Map

Applicant Sketch

Proposed Second Unit

Page 104: The Town of Midland does not adopt or condone anything said in … Documents/CIP/CIP Sept 23... · 2019-10-04 · "The Town of Midland does not adopt or condone anything said in correspondence

THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWN OF MIDLAND

Please see the opposite side of this Notice for more information

575 Dominion Avenue Midland, ON L4R 1R2 Phone: 705-526-4275

Fax: 705-526-9971 www.midland.ca

NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT

Permission to Expand Application A.22/2019 714 Balm Beach Road

TAKE NOTICE that an application to the Committee of Adjustment has been submitted for a minor variance to Zoning By-law 2004-90, as amended, pursuant to Section 45 of the Planning Act, c.P.13, R.S.O. 1990 as amended for lands known municipally as 714 Balm Beach Road located in the Town of Midland. The property is designated Employment Area in the Official Plan and zoned Highway Commercial - HC in Zoning By-law 2004-90, as amended. THE PURPOSE OF THE APPLICATION is for a permission to expand a Legal Non-Conforming Self-Storage use on the property for the purpose of the development of four (4) single storey Self-Storage Buildings. A location map and application sketch are provided on the back of this Notice.

There are no associated files/applications. This is a Public Hearing and persons wishing to support or oppose this application are permitted to attend, or if unable to attend, may submit comments in writing to the Secretary-Treasurer of the Committee or via e-mail to [email protected], indicating the application number and address of the property, prior to the date and time of the Hearing. When complete, and at least 5 days prior to the hearing, staff reports will be made available to the public and can be found on the Town’s website at: https://www.midland.ca/Pages/coa.aspx. For more information about this matter, contact the Planning and Building Services Department at the Municipal Office, 575 Dominion Avenue, during regular business hours. AND FURTHER TAKE NOTICE that pursuant to Section 44(10) of the Planning Act, the Application file is part of the public record and is available to the public for inspection. If you are submitting letters, faxes, emails, presentations or other communications with the Town concerning this application, you should be aware that your name and the fact you communicated with the Town will become part of the public record. The Town will also make your communication and any personal information in it available to the public, unless you expressly request the Town to remove it. A copy of the decision of the Committee of Adjustment will be sent to the applicant and to each person who appeared in person or by counsel at the hearing and who filed with the Secretary-Treasurer a written request for a copy of the Notice of Decision. It is requested that this Notice of Public Hearing be posted in a location visible to all residents if there are seven (7) or more residential units at this location.

Dated this 25th day of September, 2019.

The Committee of Adjustment will hold a Public Hearing on Thursday, October 10, 2019 at 4:30 p.m. or as soon thereafter as practical in the Council Chambers of the Municipal Building, 575 Dominion Avenue, Midland to consider this application.

Page 105: The Town of Midland does not adopt or condone anything said in … Documents/CIP/CIP Sept 23... · 2019-10-04 · "The Town of Midland does not adopt or condone anything said in correspondence

Please see the opposite side of this Notice for more information

Natalie Murdock Secretary-Treasurer, Midland Committee of Adjustment

Permission to Expand Application No. A.22/2019

Location Map

Applicant Sketch

Permission to Expand

Page 106: The Town of Midland does not adopt or condone anything said in … Documents/CIP/CIP Sept 23... · 2019-10-04 · "The Town of Midland does not adopt or condone anything said in correspondence

THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWN OF MIDLAND

Please see the opposite side of this Notice for more information

575 Dominion Avenue Midland, ON L4R 1R2

Phone: 705-526-4275 Fax: 705-526-9971

www.midland.ca NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING - COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT Consent to Sever Application B.4/2019

TAKE NOTICE that an application to the Committee of Adjustment has been submitted for a Provisional Consent to Sever pursuant to Section 53 of the Planning Act, c.P.13, R.S.O. 1990 as amended for lands known municipally as 736 King Street (Smith’s Trailer Park and Camp) and legally described as Part of Lot 102, Concession 1 located in the Town of Midland.

The property is designated Residential District and Employment Area in the Official Plan and zoned RM – Residential Mobile Home and HC – Highway Commercial in Zoning By-law 2004-90, as amended.

THE PURPOSE OF THE APPLICATION is for consent to sever a portion of land at 736 King Street, for lot addition purposes, having an area of 1860 square metres which will be merged with the adjacent property at 806 King Street. No new lots will be created. A location map and application sketch are provided on the back of this Notice.

There are no associated files/applications.

This is a Public Hearing and persons wishing to support or oppose this application are permitted to attend, or if unable to attend, may submit comments in writing to the Secretary-Treasurer of the Committee or via e-mail to [email protected], indicating the application number and address of the property, prior to the date and time of the Hearing. When complete, and at least 5 days prior to the hearing, staff reports will be made available to the public and can be found on the Town’s website at: https://www.midland.ca/Pages/coa.aspx. For more information about this matter, contact the Planning and Building Services Department during regular business hours.

AND FURTHER TAKE NOTICE that pursuant to Section 53(8) of the Planning Act, the Application file is part of the public record and is available to the public for inspection. If you are submitting letters, faxes, emails, presentations or other communications with the Town concerning this application, you should be aware that your name and the fact you communicated with the Town will become part of the public record. The Town will also make your communication and any personal information in it available to the public, unless you expressly request the Town to remove it. A copy of the decision of the Committee of Adjustment will be sent to the applicant and to each person who appeared in person or by counsel at the hearing and who filed with the Secretary-Treasurer a written request for a copy of the Notice of Decision. If a person or public body that files an appeal of a decision of the Committee of Adjustment in respect of the proposed consent does not make written submissions to the Committee of Adjustment before it gives or refuses to give a provisional consent, the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal may dismiss the appeal. It is requested that this Notice of Public Hearing be posted in a location visible to all residents if there are seven or more residential units at this location.

Dated this 25th day of September, 2019. Natalie Murdock Secretary-Treasurer, Midland Committee of Adjustment

The Committee of Adjustment will hold a Public Hearing on Thursday, October 10, 2019 at 4:30 p.m. or as soon thereafter as practical in the Council Chambers of the Municipal Building at 575 Dominion Avenue, Midland to consider this application.

Page 107: The Town of Midland does not adopt or condone anything said in … Documents/CIP/CIP Sept 23... · 2019-10-04 · "The Town of Midland does not adopt or condone anything said in correspondence

THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWN OF MIDLAND

Please see the opposite side of this Notice for more information

575 Dominion Avenue Midland, ON L4R 1R2

Phone: 705-526-4275 Fax: 705-526-9971

www.midland.ca Consent to Sever Application No. B.4/2019

Location Map

Applicant Sketch

Proposed Severance

Benefitting Lands

Page 108: The Town of Midland does not adopt or condone anything said in … Documents/CIP/CIP Sept 23... · 2019-10-04 · "The Town of Midland does not adopt or condone anything said in correspondence

Economic Development Office (EDO) ReportSharon Vegh, September 25, 2019

FOCUS ON BUSINESS RETENTION AND EXPANSION (BR+E) & INVESTMENT ATTRACTION

Lead Generation/Investment

Remaining in the pipeline:• Medical building expansion, two-acre industrial site, 25-acre land investment, storage lease 10,000 sq. ft.• Three converging sector opportunities (healthcare, agriculture, manufacturing) and a micro-brewery.

Marketing and MediaWe Live It, You’ll Love It!Three videos have been released to date showing North Simcoe success.Visit www.edcns.ca, YouTube or our social media channels

1. Marlon Gibbons, music producer2. Makk Design, manufacturer3. Georgian Reinforcement Fabrics, manufacturerTune in every Tuesday at Two, for new videos.Click the bell to subscribe to the EDCNS YouTube Channel.https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC6GH7H8uacFzZ7MVevbGnuA

National Award “Best of the Best” in economic development from EDAC.caMidland, Penetanguishene, Tay, and Tiny were awarded “best of the best”for the EDCNS Agriculture and Agri-food economic profile. North Simcoewas among the 22 award recipients from provincial, regional and cityeconomic development delivery agencies across the country!