the town of midland does not adopt or condone anything said in … documents/cip/cip sept 23... ·...
TRANSCRIPT
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."
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.
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
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)
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
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
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
1
Source Protection Annual Progress Report |
I. Introduction
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.
3
III. Our Watershed
To learn more, please read our assessment report(s) and source protection plan(s).
4
IV. At a Glance: Progress on Source Protection Plan Implementation
1. Source Protection Plan Policies
2. Municipal Progress: Addressing Risks on the Ground
5
4. Risk Management Plans
3. Septic Inspections
6
5. Provincial Progress: Addressing Risks on the Ground
6. Source Protection Awareness and Change in Behaviour
7
7. Source Protection Plan Policies: Summary of Delays
8
8. Source Water Quality: Monitoring and Actions
9
10. More from the WatershedTo learn more about our source protection region/area, visit our Homepage.
9. Science-based Assessment Reports: Work Plans
10
Place photos here
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.
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.
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
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
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.
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.
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
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
Follow Us
#SGBOPP
twitter.com/OPP_CR
facebook.com/OPPCentralRegion
Road Closures
twitter.com/OPP_COMM_CR
http://511on.ca
Twitter @OPP_CR
Ontario Provincial Police-Central Region
Attachments:
CrimeStoppers
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
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
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
Follow Us
#SGBOPP
twitter.com/OPP_CR
facebook.com/OPPCentralRegion
Road Closures
twitter.com/OPP_COMM_CR
http://511on.ca
Twitter @OPP_CR
Ontario Provincial Police-Central Region
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
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
Follow Us
#SGBOPP
twitter.com/OPP_CR
facebook.com/OPPCentralRegion
Road Closures
twitter.com/OPP_COMM_CR
http://511on.ca
Twitter @OPP_CR
Ontario Provincial Police-Central Region
Attachments:
CrimeStoppers
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.
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
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.
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
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.
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
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!