Join The Rescue Lake Simcoe Coalition Today!

Rescue Lake Simcoe Coalition

Rescue, Restore and Rehabilitate Lake Simcoe — Imagine the Future

Home » get involved

Tag: get involved

Epic People: Honouring the Rescue Lake Simcoe Coalition’s decorated heroes Bobby Eisenberg and Annabel Slaight

by
Robert (Bobby) Eisenberg, founding member of the Rescue Lake Simcoe Coalition and a recipient of the Order of Canada.

Recently, I’ve been wondering ‘what motivates people to go that extra mile to make a difference?’ And naturally, I’ve been wondering, how can people sit on their duff as the world burns and our water turns green? If you want to be inspired by a couple of outstanding people who really went that extra mile for the Rescue Lake Simcoe Coalition (RLSC), Bobby Eisenberg and Annabel Slaight, keep reading. 

The Rescue Lake Simcoe Coalition was started almost 20 years ago now by some truly remarkable people who made a difference by providing a framework for positive change, and then surrounding themselves with people they respected, and wanted to work with. Two pioneers of our work, Robert (Bobby) Eisenberg, and Annabel Slaight both received one of the greatest acknowledgements of their selfless contributions to the world by being appointed to the Order of Canada, the Governor General’s award! In writing this I discovered that no less than three people who have been on the Board of the RLSC have received the Order of Canada. Wowza! What a legacy! I am really proud to know them and to share with you some of the talent we have had on our team. 

What sets these people apart? Let me start with Bobby. This guy is simultaneously one of the friendliest and most tenacious people I know. For Bobby, friendship and loyalty are at the core of everything he does and the way he does it. For instance, we still get together for social visits and reminisce about all the amazing work we have done together: The Lake Simcoe Protection Act (2008), banning corporate contributions to Municipal Election campaigns (2016), and contributing to anti-SLAPP legislation in Ontario in Protection of Public Participation Act, (2015). Whenever we talk, Bob brings up the (dearly departed) gentlemen George Connel (also an Order of Canada recipient) and Jack MacDonald, and my distant relative (and alive) Bob Matthews, all of whom led the Board with dignity, calm, and such grace. The manners and the lack of ego, despite their massive accomplishments, that these men brought to the organization are something to really cherish. Bob always reflects his deep respect for these mens’ intellect, hard work, and friendship. In a word: teamwork. 

What these guys had in common was a real clarity of purpose, and absolute reliability. At a time that almost pre-dates the wide use of email and lost links and the chaos that all of that brings, it makes me wonder if we weren’t better off meeting in a room together once a month to talk, be passionate, argue our points, then go away, do our work, and report back, rather than firing off dozens of emails a day. 

Being a good friend of mine, Bob has continued to be a supporter of my work at the RLSC even though his focus has shifted to other work, supporting Sistema, a free after-school music and social development program for children living in underserved communities with the end goal of transformative social change. I am needless to say, grateful. It is in part thanks to Bobby that we are offering matching donations in the months of November and December 2022, up to $15,000! 

The most astonishing thing to me about Bob is his incredible breadth of talent. Although writing fiction has become a recent focus, his main gig is being a partner at York Heritage Properties; they mostly redevelop urban heritage buildings, like the Carpet Factory in Southwest Toronto, pictured below. He told me a story about him and his then work partner at Intra Urban Properties, at an earlier point in his career, buying the building I later lived in (as a co-op) and deciding that they would not develop the property as had been their intention. Instead, they were moved by the residents’ wish to turn the building into a co-op. They didn’t renovict the tenants. They sold them the building and let the tenants be! These guys seriously have heart. In the context of today’s gong show provincial government, and the development industry’s clear influence on their policy development, it is good to know that there are in fact good developers out there.

Headquarters and example of the restoration development work of York Heritage Properties.

Until this point, I haven’t described Bobby’s tenacity. Well. Anyone on the provincial Lake Simcoe Advisory Committee knows Bobby is like a dog with a bone. He was unrelenting in making key points that remain critical today:

1. Phosphorus load measurements in the main lake are not a reflection of the health of the lake; nearshore areas are a mess and show it! The details surrounding the presentation of information are critical. 

2. That the actual sources of phosphorus pollution must be identified (ie. agricultural source vs. “tributaries of the lake”, which on their own are not a source of pollution!) You have no idea how hard we had to fight to get that information! But the province finally did it in the Phosphorus Reduction Strategy, 2011.

I believe more people are aware of Annabel Slaight because she has been the main spokesperson, and the driving force, of the Ladies of the Lake since it began in the mid- 2000’s. Annabel was on the Board of the RLSC, not the first, but an early BoD member. Selling a canoe as a fundraiser for the RLSC was considered, and then in typical Annabel style, the lid came off what was possible, and some women decided to do the famous “cheeky but not cheesy” nude calendars in 2006 and 2009. Their runaway success meant the group spun off and spent the $400,000 they earned not with the RLSC, but with their own organization. “The Ladies of the Lake” later merged with Slaight’s Ontario Water Centre, which is now focused on the Clearwater Farm. The lady just does. Not. Give. Up. And for that we thank her.

In recent weeks, with the provincial government attacking environmental protections in ways I have never experienced, we thankfully have some new volunteers stepping up to help the Rescue Lake Simcoe Coalition. It is important that people understand that that is the only way local advocacy efforts can be sustained. The RLSC being still “active” 20 years after it was conceived by Bobby Eisenberg and the other founders is testament to the power of people. 

It is clear to me now that the powers of destruction are persistent and well-heeled. Within our network, we have these qualities too. Let’s use them, and live our lives to our highest purpose, to carry on the legacy that people like Bobby started. To remain a force for good, more people need to emulate the grit of the Bobbies and Annabels of the world, roll our sleeves up and get to work. 

______

Are you interested in volunteering? We need the following roles to be filled in 2023 because we do not have the funds to pay someone to perform these roles. If you have experience in these areas put your skills to use while meeting like-minded citizens, dedicated to good deeds. 

  • Website updates
  • Treasurer
  • A leader for our fundraising team
  • Event planning 
  • Marketing
  • Corporate relations
  • Government relations

Donations can be made in a variety of ways here.

Thank you! 

Confessions of a Grassroots Intern

by

Guest post by RLSC’s valued intern, Alessia.

Alessia along with volunteers from Drawdown at the Aurora Farmers Market, Summer 2022.

It was the end of 2020, an awful year of isolation and disaster all over the world. My contract job was coming to an end and I was having nightmares of not finding another gig. I decided to apply for a Master’s degree. I felt that I had so much more to learn about what sustainability means, and also thought going back to school might put a pause on the whole “becoming an adult” thing I was supposed to be doing. 

So here I am, finishing my first year of a Master’s in Environmental Studies, lucky enough to have gotten a summer internship with the Rescue Lake Simcoe Coalition; a charity I never heard of before April of this year. I thought it would be an experience in skills I was already pretty “good” at: communication, outreach, social media. I was hit with a steep learning curve when faced with the challenges that came with working for a grassroots, activist organization. 

RLSC is a small organization that runs on volunteer work which meant that I was left to problem solve, and was trusted with the solutions I proposed. Despite the challenges, it was extremely rewarding being responsible for the tasks I’d undertaken, coming up with creative solutions and given freedom to follow through with my ideas.

RLSC should be the first thing that comes up when you google search  “small but mighty.” Despite limited funding and resources, RLSC seems to be the loudest in the room when speaking about environmental issues, especially those that impact the watershed. 

The Lake Simcoe Protection Act, for those who don’t know, is the strongest watershed-based legislation in Canada! And little RLSC was involved in passing this act and developing its plan. The act was passed in 2008. The act was followed by the Lake Simcoe Protection Plan to implement the protection legislated in the act. The RLSC is still fighting for the Plan to be reviewed and improved. It is important for the health of the lake for communities throughout the watershed to understand the LSPP so that the legislation is upheld and collective pressure is put on the provincial government to review and strengthen the plan. 

RLSC is working on expanding and sharing their mission with people who live around the watershed; that includes some of York Region, Durham Region, and Simcoe County. RLSC is improving their reach to new and existing audiences to strengthen their goals of improving Lake Simcoe. That’s where I’ve come in to research innovative ways to engage audiences in our work. 

If you’re familiar with the Rescue Lake Simcoe Coalition at all, then you probably know Claire, the Executive Director of RLSC, a quick, dedicated woman who’s last breath will probably be “WE NEED TO RESCUE LAKE SIMCOE!!!” Claire has been running the coalition, going to council meetings, speaking to politicians, leading protests, and unapologetically calling out leaders for their lack of concern about the health of the lake. Claire has also mobilized a force of volunteers who similarly seem to eat, sleep and breathe all things Lake Simcoe. 

During several community events, I worked with many volunteers who had a distinct energy to educate and inspire anyone who looked our way. I witnessed Wilma (a long-time volunteer), and Mary Jane, gracefully take on several residents who visited our booth at a community fair to share their “beef” with the coalition. I cowardly watched from the sidelines and listened to their encyclopedia of facts about irresponsible development and water pollution. Wilma and MJ were seriously fulfilling their roles as water defenders. They showed me the importance of knowing your facts and sources and not running away when someone disagrees with you. 

It has become clear to me that if I want to pursue a career in environmental outreach, I need to get more comfortable with talking to people who don’t think of the environment the same way I do. This also opened my eyes to what it means to be an activist organization, being center stage at community events and having tough conversations with people who make decisions, whether through their position on council, boards, or through their vote for government. 

As an environmental student, it is hard not to feel hopeless at times, constantly discussing the impending impacts of the climate emergency. However, being a part of an activist organization has allowed me to channel my fears and worries into manageable action that can be seen at the local level. 

An example of this is helping to campaign against the Bradford Bypass project. Having conversations with community members, working with RLSC’s member groups or other organizations, and intentionally reviewing jargon-filled public reports of the project has actually given me some feeling of hope. I have felt a fulfilling sense of belonging, and being an important part of a large community fighting against this destructive project. 

Being a steward to nature does not only mean changing your own behaviours and signing petitions. It also means having difficult, and sometimes scary conversations, to educate and defend the environment that in many ways cannot defend itself. Maybe my individual work has not put a stop to urban sprawl, or reduced phosphorus pollution in the lake, but the feeling that I might have educated a few people on these topics has encouraged me to keep fighting for change. 

What Lake Simcoe Needs Now: Keep the Lake Simcoe Protection Plan Strong

by

Part 5 of our series Who Will Save Lake Simcoe? Read the full report here.

Thanks to the Lake Simcoe Protection Act (2008) and Plan (2009) the Lake Simcoe watershed is subject to some of Ontario’s strongest environmental policies, meant to protect its water for all its inhabitants, human and non, and the sensitive cold-water fishery, an economic driver in the area. All of the province’s 2018 – 2022 communications about Lake Simcoe have been rather rosy. [28] This is not unique to this government, but it is greenwashing, and it worries us.

Lake Simcoe Protection Plan review

The Lake Simcoe Protection Act requires the Minister of Environment, Conservation and Parks to review the Lake Simcoe Protection Plan every ten years to determine if its targets are being met, and whether its policies need to change.

Although it should have started in 2019, the province launched the Lake Simcoe Protection Plan review in late December 2020 and had finished consultation by mid-2021. [29] Despite the Lake Simcoe Protection Plan review being complete, the province has been silent on the results of the Lake Simcoe Protection Plan review for more than a year while it “sits on the Minister’s desk” for a decision.

Why not release its findings? We worry it is because the province plans to weaken protection in favour of development. In effect, by being silent on the coordination of sewage treatment plant allocations that would flow from the watershed’s population explosion outlined in A Place to Grow, 2020, that is what the province is already doing.

The Rescue Lake Simcoe Coalition has been sounding the alarm about the Lake Simcoe Protection Plan’s 40% “High Quality Natural Cover” target, which is a target without any implementation policies.

In addition to years of letters, research, mapping, reporting, policy analysis and briefs, [30] the we suggested that the province could use the Municipal Comprehensive Review’s provincial Natural Heritage System mapping process to bring us closer to this target. [31] They said, no thanks, and cc’d the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing on their reply to the Coalition.

Footnotes:

[28] Ontario, 2022. Connecting the GGH: A Transportation Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe. https://www.ontario.ca/page/connecting-ggh-transportation-plan-greater-golden-horseshoe

[29] Ontario. Protecting Lake Simcoe. https://www.ontario.ca/page/protecting-lake-simcoe#section-5

[30] Rescue Lake Simcoe Coalition. Reports & resources page. https://rescuelakesimcoe.org/resources/

[31] Malcolmson, Claire. December 10, 2021. Letter to Minister Piccini, Minister of Environment, Conservation and Parks. https://rescuelakesimcoe.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/letter-to-Province-re-P-reduction-and-NHS-w-SC-Submission-attached.pdf

Threats to Lake Simcoe: The approval of the risky and irreversible Upper York Sewage Solution would prioritize development ahead of lake health.

by

Part 4 of our series Who Will Save Lake Simcoe? Read the full report here.

With the Upper York Sewage Solution (UYSS), York Region Council is poised—dangerously—to encourage the development of a new sewage treatment plant (STP) in Northern York Region. The UYSS will add Phosphorus (P), a fertilizer and pollutant that will harm fisheries, to Lake Simcoe.

York Region recommends that the STP’s Phosphorus pollution be offset by projects that remove Phosphorus from the water, specifically agricultural and stormwater infrastructure improvements. However, there is little evidence that offsets from agricultural projects can be relied on as long-term P offsets. The reduction in family farms and the related increase in corporate-owned farms (mainly land speculators) also means there are fewer farmers who are land stewards and fewer farmers willing to undertake remediation on their farms at the scale required to offset the UYSS.

The problem started in the 1990’s, when development was approved in Northern York Region without water and wastewater servicing. The original plan to send it south to Lake Ontario at Durham region’s Duffins Creek wastewater plant was thwarted in 2010 when the provincial government of the day supported an examination of a Lake Simcoe “solution.” This was odd, given that the same government introduced the Lake Simcoe Protection Act in 2008, with a prohibition on new sewage treatment plants as a way to control the extent and impact of new development in the watershed.

It is possible that both Lake Simcoe and the Lake Ontario Duffins outlets are being considered to accommodate all the growth planned. It is impossible to know exactly what is happening since the province had the affected regions sign Non-Disclosure Agreements (never a good sign) regarding their conversations about the UYSS.

It has been speculated that the province passed legislation to prohibit the approval of the UYSS to shield themselves from legal liability stemming from development hold-ups due to the lack of servicing.

Affected municipalities and developers are understandably tired of this game. We are concerned that the province will approve this at some point.

The one positive piece that came from this is that in response to public and municipal pressure, [25] the province agreed to pay the balance of the cost of a Phosphorus Recycling Facility on the Holland River, which could remove 2.5 tonnes of P per year from that river as it flows into Lake Simcoe. [26] This would be the single largest P reduction project completed at Lake Simcoe!

This Phosphorus Recycling Facility was first proposed as a P offset for the UYSS. The federal government promised $16 million toward the facility’s construction in 2020. [27] York Region wants the UYSS, and they want the Phosphorus Recycling Facility to be one of its offsets. Other Lake Simcoe municipalities want P reduction to come at this scale, regardless of the outcome of the UYSS. Indeed, their municipal motions requested that:

… York Region, the Government of Canada and the Province of Ontario work collaboratively to move the Holland Marsh Polder Phosphorous Recycling Facility forward notwithstanding the “paused” status of the broader Upper York Sewage Solutions Project, including proceeding to an Environmental Assessment for the Facility commencing in 2021…[28]

The provincial funding announcement did not include any reference to this facility’s connection to the UYSS. We hope that they will decide against the UYSS; but if they do approve it, the province and York Region must develop more enduring and measurable offsets like the Phosphorus Recycling Facility.

Footnotes:

[25] Broadley, Laura. YorkRegion.com. Sept 15, 2021. Phosphorus recycling facility for Lake Simcoe ‘overdue’: Bradford councillor. https://www.thestar.com/local-bradford/news/2021/09/15/phosphorus-recycling-facility-for-lake-simcoe-overdue-bradford-councillor.html

[26] Philpot, Natasha. Bradford Today. April 20, 2022. Province commits to $24M in funding for Holland Marsh Phosphorus Recycling Facility project https://www.bradfordtoday.ca/local-news/province-commits-to-24m-in-funding-for-holland-marsh-phosphorus-recycling-facility-project-5281398

[27] Georgina Post. November 13, 2020. Feds provide $16 million to build facility that reduces Phosphorus levels in Lake Simcoe. https://georginapost.com/2020/11/13/feds-provide-16-million-to-build-facility-that-reduces-Phosphorous-levels-in-lake-simcoe/

[28] Brock Council meeting Minutes September 27, 2021. https://pub-townshipofbrock.escribemeetings.com/Meeting.aspx?Id=bef78e7b-6eb1-45f6-9ccd-f37352f67f82&Agenda=PostMinutes&lang=English&Item=29&Tab=attachments

Take Action To Protect Our Forests and Natural Spaces!

by

**Updated November 25, 2021**

Please provide your feedback to Simcoe County by December 3rd about the changes proposed to the province’s Natural Heritage System (NHS). We’ve created this guide to help you.

WHY? In 2008 all parties unanimously supported the passage of the Lake Simcoe Protection Plan. It is now in effect but more needs to be done to achieve its objectives. For instance, the Lake Simcoe Protection Plan identifies that 40% “high quality natural cover” (HQNC)  is needed to protect and restore the watershed’s ecological health. A low estimate is that hundreds of thousands of dollars have been spent identifying and mapping these areas. We want them protected, not just studied!

Putting these features in the province’s new Natural Heritage System will give some green spaces MORE policy protection than they now receive. But Simcoe County has recommended more areas get removed from the province’s Natural Heritage System map than we think the province’s criteria and laws recommend. For example, they have taken out registered plans of subdivision from the NHS. But some of those won’t get developed for 30+ years, if ever. We think those should remain as the province mapped them, IN the Natural Heritage System. 

CLICK ON A HOTSPOT BELOW TO SEE DETAILED MAPS AND BRIEF CONCERNS.

Green indicates the province mapped it as part of the Natural Heritage System. Red means it is proposed to be taken out. Blue means additions to the NHS.

Right-click on the small maps that pop up above to zoom in, or download this map and find the tile for your location.

WRITING YOUR SUBMISSION: WHAT TO SAY & HOW TO SAY IT

Use the County’s form, and don’t give up! Despite appearances, it is not just for developers to use. Tips for specific questions are below.

**Please only submit one form.

Or email kristin.pechkovsky@simcoe.ca.

***Comments must be received by 4:30 pm on December 03, 2021

Question 3. Subject Lands (ARN) Area Roll Number (optional). Find them here.

If you don’t have the roll number or locates exactly, provide an address for the property you are referring to, or many addresses, or road intersection, or the tile number from the 87-page map below. Tile numbers are listed below for each area of concern.

Question 9. Which criteria for refinement applies to your property? Check all that apply.

Do not be deterred – this is not just about your property.  None of the options really apply. Instead, fill out the field –  Other – and say “Mapped areas of high quality natural cover should be included in the NHS” or something similar. 

Question 10. Describe the area or natural feature on your property which you would like refined and provide the reason(s) for the refinement.

Insert all or part of the following text depending on your area of concern.

Big Bay Point: Tiles 28 & 29 

Most of Big Bay Point was mapped and identified as “High Quality Natural Cover” by the province of Ontario in 2011; the province found that the BBP area was worthy of inclusion in the NHS. Any components of the Point that are not approved plans of subdivision must be included in the Natural Heritage System. There is no guidance in the province’s NHS Technical Criteria that suggests that registered plans of subdivision should be removed from the NHS. 

Additional details on BBP locations of concern:

  • Two areas north shore of BBP, on the edge of Barrie: Both areas are mapped as Significant Woodlands in Innisfil Natural Heritage Discussion paper Final, pg. 14. North South Environmental. These are in the High Quality Natural Cover map from the province. Indicated as “shoreline residential” with Natural Heritage overlay on Innisfil OP 2017 Land Use Schedule. Not in a settlement area.
    • Area 1 – west side – 3655 20 Sideroad, Innisfil;  3699 20 Sideroad, Innisfil, 3718 Fairway Road, Innisfil,  1344 Robinson Place, Innisfil, over to roll # 431601005411070, All of Longwood road, down to Big Bay Point rd. 3710 Strathallan Woods Lane South, Innisfil, lands southwest of Longwood, to Stathallen woods. As a whole these are all large enough to keep in the NHS. 
    • Area 2 – east side – the area between the Silverbirch and Whitecap Dr subdivision, and the next NHS area. Roughly from 1215 Shoreview Drive, Innisfil on the west end of this section, to along Shoreview Dr., to Guest Rd – hard to believe these are less than 50% forested. These should remain in the NHS. 
  • Friday Harbour Golf Course – put it back IN the NHS since it is large, not a subdivision, has some natural cover and could have more, and is part of a “high quality natural cover” area
  • Church compound –  3857 30 Sideroad, Innisfil. Currently a collection of cabins, but is not a subdivision. Would like as much as possible to remain in the NHS.
  • Crescent Harbour, South corner – landowner starting to alter landscape, may be looking to build. Crescent Harbour Rd (titled Block Plan-area and shoreline highlighted) and also Plans 675 from 1923 and Plan 1016 from 1951 that confirm the designation as a subdivision. It has not been developed.
  • Leonard’s beach wetland- make sure this remains IN the NHS

Gilford: Tile 22 

  • 1284 Shore Acres Drive, Innisfil. Roll # 431601000400200 Large “unevaluated” wetland proposed to be removed – this must be protected in the NHS. It borders a large privately held conservation area at DeGrassi Point, and abuts the historic Walker Farm, a heritage site, and helps to reduce flooding in Gilford which is already a problem. It “…has been a draft plan of subdivision for executive estates since around 1986” according to the local Councillor. It is included as “estate residential” in Innisfil OP 2005 Land Use Schedule. In the 2017 OP it is not in the Gilford settlement area boundary. 

Oro-Medonte:  Tiles 36, 37 & 48

Almost the entire Oro Medonte shoreline is identified by the province as High Quality Natural Cover. 8 Mile Point has a conservation area that should be included in the NHS. Only remove the built-up areas that are approved plans of subdivision. There is no guidance in the province’s NHS Technical Criteria that suggests that registered plans of subdivision should be removed from the NHS. 

Additional details on Oro-Medonte locations of concern: 

Tile 48

  • 8 Mile Point 
  • Has a conservation area that should be included in the NHS. They did not request that this conservation area be removed from the NHS. 
  • Just north of 2880 Lakeshore Rd E is the Carthew Bay Wetland. Roll #434603 001 206 500. Take care not to remove this from the NHS, and only take out the housing on Lakeshore.
  • 2553, 2501, 2461 Lakeshore Rd E – these are large woodlands and should not be removed from the NHS. 
  • 820 Memorial Ave. Subdivision between Woodland Dr and Memorial Ace on outskirts of Orillia. Shoreline wetland must be protected. 

Tile 47

  • Roll # 434603001213860 – shoreline habitat with no road access. Keep in NHS. Just west of Line 15 S. 
  • Just north of 538 Line 12 South, Oro-Medonte, NHS wooded area should remain in NHS. Roll # 434 60106 1044300
  • 16 Taras Boulevard. Held by “Ukrainian Park”. Appear to be looking for Zoning change, from EP2 to EP1 for seasonal trailer and or cabins. ZBA 10 – but no application – This is currently forested, should remain so, is in the HQNC area mapped by the province. Does not appear to be “community area” in the Simcoe County GIS. 

Tile 36 

UCCI / Greenwood Forest Road – Registered Plan 51M-187, Block 43

– Residents are opposing the development; it’s a significant woodland connected to the NHS; it is mapped by the province as an area of High Quality Natural Cover; it should not be removed from the NHS

– Not proposed as a subdivision, but it meets the criteria of a subdivision. Therefore there is no registered plan of subdivision.

– The proposed 10 proposed UCCI development lots would have these approximate addresses:  

– proposed lot 9 lots on Greenwood Forest Road attached would be approximately 30 Greenwood Forest Rd (lot 9 attached) thru to lot 2 attached would be approximately 60 Greenwood Forest Road

– the one lot on Windfields (lot 1) that are situated directly beside the cold water creek would be approximately  23 or 25 Windfield Dr West

– the developer UCCI has submitted to Township of Oro Medonte in June 2020 this request:

– Applications 2020-B-04 to 2020-B-12 and Notice of Public Meeting Zoning By-law Amendment (“ZBA”) Application 2020-ZBA-05, for the lands described as Registered Plan 51M-187, Block 43, in the Township of Oro-Medonte, County of Simcoe.

– it is under consideration and not yet approved.

– 691 LINE 9 SOUTH, should remain in NHS, not developed. May be part of the same proposal.

– Assessment # 434601000830000, just east of line 5, also unsubdivided, forested, should remain in NHS. 21 Windfields Dr. 

  • Near Lakeshore E and Orillia St, West of Line 7, just east of where line 8 would be. Roll # 434601000955002, 434601000955001, 434601000955000, 434601000954904, 434601000954911, 434601000954912 undeveloped subdivision contiguous with NHS, keep in NHS. 
  • Red removal outline on water – is this to remove water rights? Close to Line 7, 131 Lakeshore Rd. E. 
  • Roll # 434601000935500 and 118 Lakeshore Road West, Oro-Medonte – super rare undeveloped shoreline lots – this must not be removed from the NHS. This is a common Beach property for community park! This is connected to the north to the NHS and HQNC. 
  • Line 2 area – Roll # 434601000711100 “Shanty Bay Church Woods”. Seriously people. This was saved BY THE COMMUNITY, BY RESCUE LAKE SIMCOE COALITION DIRECTOR TIM CROOKS. RIP. This must stay. It is protected by a covenant with the Couchiching Conservancy. 

Ramara: Tile 50

There should be a buffer on the north side of the Canal Lake along the Trent-Severn Waterway abutting the Greenbelt. Ensure that all of the province’s High Quality Natural Cover is included in the province’s NHS. Only remove the built-up areas that are approved plans of subdivision. There is no guidance in the province’s NHS Technical Criteria that suggests that registered plans of subdivision should be removed from the NHS.  

GENERAL COMMENTS ABOUT SIMCOE COUNTY’S NATURAL HERITAGE SYSTEM MAPPING

  • There is a challenge acknowledged, and identified in the province’s NHS technical guidance, around the protection of NH in a highly fragmented landscape. That defines the Lake Simcoe watershed and Innisfil in particular. This guidance recommends the protection of smaller patches in fragmented landscapes. Thus I am asking that North South Environmental, then Simcoe County and finally the Ministry of Environment, Conservation and Parks ensure that no small patches of natural cover that are close to areas of “high quality natural cover” are removed from the NHS. 
  • Refinements of NHS mapping must aim for a net increase in protected NHS lands and must capture the entirety of all local PSWs and locally significant wetlands as this natural infrastructure is integral to climate adaptation and mitigation. These are also goals of the Lake Simcoe Protection Plan.  More specifically I recommend these targets:
    • Forest cover: 50% forest cover or more of the watershed is likely to support most potential species,and healthy aquatic systems. Simcoe County has 22%, but is losing forest cover.
    • Wetlands: The greater of (a) 10% of each major watershed and 6% of each subwatershed, or (b) 40% of the historic watershed wetland coverage, should be protected and restored, and no net loss of wetlands. Simcoe County has 14% wetland cover based on our analysis, and approximately half of its historic wetland cover. Simcoe County is losing wetlands. 
    • Achieve the LSPP’s 40% High Quality Natural Cover target: The NHS refinement opportunity must result in the protection of all mapped High Quality Natural Cover in the Simcoe County portion of  Lake Simcoe watershed. The maps have been available on LIO since 2011, and can also be found here along with the technical guidance for identifying these features.
  • I support the inclusion of the LSRCA’s Natural Heritage System Restoration Strategy recommended areas for an NHS, and the inclusion of the LSRCA’s recommended areas for restoration in the SC NHS. 
  • Registered plans of subdivision  that were not brought into the settlement area boundary by July 1, 2017 or that are not going to be developed with the 2022 MCR updates to 2051 should remain in the provincial NHS. As per the Growth Plan policies, if they are not contiguous with existing settlement area boundaries there is no justification at this time for their removal from the NHS as they should not be approved for development. See Growth Plan policy 5.2.8.4. and 4.2.2.5
  • The MNRF has mapped all Lake Simcoe watershed wetlands. It is up to the County to now apply appropriate protection through this process. SC mapping does not include all mapped wetlands. 

WHAT HAPPENS NEXT?

Consultants and County planners review public comments, and propose a final NHS map.

Municipalities have until January 12, 2022 to provide comments and feedback to the County. A report will go to County Council for approval likely in Jan or Feb. Then to the Province for approval. We have been told that public comments will all in be included in the public report. We have also been told that questions will be answered at one time, and that time is not now.

WATCH FOR THIS
Here are some recommendations or statements from North South Environmental’s Review and Refinements to the Growth Plan’s NHS that we will expect to see in Simcoe County’s OP, as they support the County’s decision to remove registered plans of subdivision from the NHS: 

“It is anticipated that the County Official Plan will require that all draft approvals have lapsing dates and will include policies that indicate that when determining whether a draft approval should be extended for lapsing draft plans of subdivision, the policies of the Growth Plan must be considered in the development review process.” (p 12)

“…municipalities may refine the NHS for the Growth plan at the time of initial implementation in their official plans.”  (p 8) so there could be opportunities for improvements and removals later on in your municipality.

“In some cases, portions of registered Plans of Subdivision remain undeveloped and there are portions of key natural heritage features and key hydrologic features located within these subdivisions; these key natural heritage features and key hydrologic features are currently protected by in-effect zoning and Official Plan designations and relevant policies. It is anticipated that the County Official Plan will include policies that direct the local municipalities to establish appropriate policies in their Official Plans that control how development and redevelopment occurs in these subdivisions.” (p 11)

Simcoe County is recommending removing 7000 sites from the NHS where there are “minor discrepancies” in mapping of areas less than 1 hectare. Rationale is ease of administration. We need to respond to this approach. I think we should use the province’s Lake Simcoe High Quality Natural Cover map as the rationale for keeping some in the NHS mapping. (p. 21)

LEARN MORE 

A Place to Grow Act 2020

“Other implementation” policy 5.2.8.4

If a plan of subdivision or part thereof has been registered for eight years or more and does not meet the growth management objectives of this Plan, municipalities are encouraged to use their authority under subsection 50(4) of the Planning Act to deem it not to be a registered plan of subdivision and, where appropriate, amend site-specific designations and zoning accordingly.

Rescue Lake Simcoe Coalition guidance on the province’s Lake Simcoe Protection Plan Review survey

by

Hello Lake Lovers,

The Province released a public survey about the Lake Simcoe Protection Plan on Friday December 18th:

Public survey: Lake Simcoe Protection Plan 10-year review

If you really want to do the province’s survey we have suggested answers for some of the questions, here: 

Q. 2. What do you think about the current policies in the Lake Simcoe Protection Plan?

Choose OTHER and add: I think the policies of the Lake Simcoe Protection Plan need to be implemented and financially resourced. 

Q. 5. Which of the following policy areas do you think need improvement to better protect the health of the Lake Simcoe watershed? Rank them in order of importance, with 1 being the most important to improve and 10 being the least important to improve.

1. Protecting natural areas or features such as wetlands and forest cover

2. Improving development practices (such as site alteration or resource extraction)

3. Improving municipal infrastructure (such as stormwater ponds and sewage plants)

4. Encouraging agricultural stewardship of the environment

Choose Other and add: Reduce Phosphorus loading. 

Q. 6. Please share any details on the policy areas you identified as most important.   

  1. Reach Phosphorus reduction target: Consult widely then revise the Lake Simcoe Phosphorus Reduction Strategy to make it actionable, with interim targets and funding solutions for each sector. Maintain the prohibition on new Sewage Treatment Plants discharging to Lake Simcoe. 
  2. Strengthen Natural Heritage policy: The LSPP has a target of 40% high quality natural cover (HQNC) but there are no policies to achieve the target. 28% of the watershed is “high quality natural cover” but only half of that is well protected by provincial policies. Achieving natural heritage targets can be improved by focusing research and analysis on the land around the areas that qualify as high quality natural cover but are not well protected by policy.  

Increase policy protections, prohibiting site alteration and development, for these unprotected or somewhat protected areas, to protect all of the High Quality Natural Cover that we have.

Focus Traditional Ecological Knowledge study, restoration, and land trust property acquisition efforts around those areas that are HQNC but not protected and areas that are almost big enough to qualify as HQNC (25 hectares plus).

The Province must review Official Plans for conformity to the Lake Simcoe Protection Plan, and specifically to the technical Natural Heritage guidelines for the Lake Simcoe watershed.

  1. Development practices: The results of the Phosphorus Offset Program must be analyzed to determine how well the remediation actions (AKA Best Management Practices) are working, and to determine how long the offsets last. Consider strengthening development offsets to achieve Phosphorus reduction targets.
  2. Improving municipal infrastructure: Financially support the improvement of ineffective or absent municipal stormwater facilities. 
  3. Give the LSRCA all the powers it had before December 2020. Deny the use of Minister’s Zoning Orders in the Lake Simcoe watershed, particularly if Natural Heritage is affected. Disable the ability of the Minister to override science based decisions of the Conservation Authority in the Lake Simcoe watershed. 
  4. Agriculture: Pay farmers for agricultural riparian / shoreline areas planting and rehabilitation. Maintain / fund programs that assist in reducing fertilizer application, and no-till practices. 

Q. 7. Are there new policy areas that we should consider?

Choose Yes. Please provide details: 

Determine cost of achieving the phosphorus reduction target, and allow development cost charges for new developments in the Lake Simcoe watershed to pay for the remediation of the lake. Amend  the Development Charges Act to allow municipalities to recover 100% of their additional infrastructure costs to service new residential and commercial projects from their developers. 

Q. 8. Do you have any ideas to share with us about how the province along with its partners can implement the Lake Simcoe Protection Plan more consistently and effectively?

Review all OPs for conformity to LSPP, and make the results and recommendations public.

Develop subwatershed targets and aggressive timelines for achieving Natural Heritage targets. Work with municipalities, Conservation Authorities and land trusts to achieve them.

Protect wetlands and wetland complexes of all sizes in all situations.

Have the Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority (LSRCA) review all development permit applications, as per their pre-December 2020 powers. Make Ramara a member of the LSRCA.

Only permit new development where municipal water and sewer servicing allocation exists, where an assessment of cumulative impacts determines that there will be a net benefit to water quality, and where the development will reduce phosphorus loads to the lake, from both sewage and stormwater.

Do a 360 review of Innisfil’s Our Shore policy (with affected members of the public); Develop a shoreline policy for all municipalities.

Determine cost of achieving the phosphorus reduction target, and assign an increased development cost charge for new developments in the Lake Simcoe watershed to pay for the remediation of the lake. 

Communicate with the public about action taken, costs, rationale.

Q. 10. How can the government improve the way we report on the health of Lake Simcoe?

Systematically track and report progress against the targets of the Lake Simcoe Protection Plan. 

Identify costs per Kg of phosphorus reduced of all actions taken, and the source of revenue for that action or Best Management Practice (BMP).

Take the next step with subwatershed plans by developing targets and action plans and report on the achievement of those in that subwatershed.

Barillia Beach Park Association makes shoreline improvements look easy, because it is

by

If you lament that you want to improve Lake Simcoe’s health but don’t know how, then read this  pick me up! 

Barrillia Park Beach Association in Oro-Medonte, on the north shore of  Lake Simcoe, recently applied for and was granted almost $2,000 worth of native shrubs and trees. This program, called LEAP, offered by the Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority, is available to any Lake Simcoe lakefront property holder wishing to plant native shrubs and trees. 

Our community of 40 families co-own our beach access common lot. The property bakes in the afternoon sun and has a flat grass lawn leading to the minimal sandy beach area and is needing a bit of privacy. We are ripe for beautifying, naturalizing and shade providing to create beauty, help pollinators, provide food for birds and feed our souls.  We will also be cleaning the air, stopping erosion and increasing soil fertility.

During a work week in September, eleven neighbours cleared the sides of the lot of bindweed, unruly non native scrub and old cedar hedges that had grown through our fences. In the process we gained about 12 feet of width that will receive most of the trees and shrubs. We chose 3 species of tree: Tulip, Bur Oak and Hackberry. The shrubs include Chokeberry, Amelanchier, Nannybush, Ninebark and Fragrant Sumac. All will grow well in our sandy soil plus they produce flowers in spring, berries and fruit in summer and gorgeous reds and oranges in fall. They were all chosen from a list provided by  the Restoration Specialist for Simcoe County, Peter Shuttleworth. Peter was super helpful and will bring the plant material to our community planting date in November. 

So Lake Simcoe shoreliners take a look around your property and imagine how beautiful your property would look with a boost of native shrubs and trees. Bravo Conservation Authority for supporting the watershed in this way!

Written by Linda Wells, Rescue Lake Simcoe Coalition Board member

POP! Protect Our Plan in the 2019 Review of the Lake Simcoe Protection Plan

by

When the Lake Simcoe Protection Act was passed in 2008, the Rescue Lake Simcoe Coalition, its member groups, Environmental Defense, and Ontario Nature celebrated the passage of the best watershed-based legislation in Canada. Ten years later, the Province is getting ready to review the Lake Simcoe Protection Plan (LSPP). It’s time to learn what the Lake Simcoe Protection Act and Plan do, and how they are performing.

This article first appeared in the spring 2019 edition of Lake Simcoe Living magazine: https://www.lakesimcoeliving.com/

We will all have an opportunity to voice our support, concerns, and priorities for the LSPP to the Province when they announce their LSPP Review consultation plans. The Rescue Lake Simcoe Coalition will keep its members up to date on this file.

What does the Lake Simcoe Protection Plan do?

The science-based plan aims to restore Lake Simcoe’s incredible cold-water fishery. To do this, phosphorus levels have to come down significantly in order to increase the oxygen available to fish in the deeper parts of the lake. It’s an all-hands-on deck exercise, since we need to cut phosphorus loads from farms and developments, urban run-off, streams, septic systems and sewage treatment plants, while doing a better job of protecting the watershed’s forests, wetlands, shoreline and stream bank vegetation.

What was strengthened under the Lake Simcoe Protection Plan?

  • Better protection of forests, wetlands (and buffer zones around those features), shorelines and stream banks from development and site alteration. The RLSC’s research finds that 26% of the watershed’s land is well protected natural cover, but this falls well short of the LSPP target of 40% “high quality natural cover” in the watershed;
  • Tougher Sewage Treatment Plant phosphorus caps. Municipalities are improving the technologies used to remove phosphorus and other nutrients and pollutants from their wastewater plants’ effluent. The greatest reductions in phosphorus loads between 2005 and 2015 came from improved treatment technologies at sewage treatment plants, down 46%;
  • The Lake Simcoe Phosphorus Reduction Strategy, 2010, should lay out a plan to achieve the target phosphorus load of 44 tonnes per year by 2045, but doesn’t quite. The annual phosphorus load is not going down enough; 2005 – 2010 and 2010 – 2015 periods both averaged 85 tonnes / year;
  • Systems to reduce the growing phosphorus load from new development: Improved stormwater management and development guidelines must be followed in new development applications. If phosphorus still flows off the site, the developer pays $35,000 / kg of phosphorus exported / year. Revenues of the Lake Simcoe Phosphorus Offset Program are used locally for retrofits of existing developments and stormwater management systems that pollute the lake;
  • Provincial staff at the Ministry of Environment, Conservation and Parks and $20 million in Provincial funding, for LSPP implementation;
  • Mandatory inspections of septic systems within 100 meters of water features, every 5 years;
  • Mandatory inclusion of subwatershed plans in municipal Official Plans. Subwatershed plans outline actions to be taken locally, to achieve the objectives of the LSPP;
  • Better science, monitoring, and oversight by Lake Simcoe Science Committee and the multi-stakeholder Lake Simcoe Coordinating Committee. These committees meet quarterly to review and comment on scientific research and LSPP implementation actions, and provide yearly advice to the Minister of the Environment, Conservation and Parks.

Despite these amazing efforts, particularly by the Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority, Lake Simcoe’s phosphorus levels are not going down as much as expected. The LSPP review provides an opportunity to say, “more funding, and better implementation plans are needed to achieve key ecological targets in the Lake Simcoe Protection Plan.” Let’s do that, together.  

Download the Rescue Lake Simcoe Coalition’s “Protect Our Plan” priorities and the Lake Simcoe Protection Plan at: https://rescuelakesimcoe.org/resources-2/

Author: Claire Malcolmson is the Executive Director of the Rescue Lake Simcoe Coalition (RLSC). The RLSC is a lake-wide citizens’ umbrella group that provides leadership and motivates people to take action to protect Lake Simcoe. RLSC represents 22 local organizations and clubs in the watershed. For more information, and to join the RLSC email list, see www.RescueLakeSimcoe.org

2023 Rescue Lake Simcoe Coalition