Lake Simcoe Archives - Rescue Lake Simcoe Coalition

When the Snow Melts, the Salt Remains

by Rescue Lake Simcoe CoalitionFebruary 9, 2023February 22, 2023

Salt levels in our freshwater is such a pervasive issue affecting so many lakes that it deserves attention. Canada uses five million tonnes of road salt every year. Once the snow and ice melt the chloride flows into streams, rivers and eventually into our lakes and groundwater. Unfortunately, that chloride will stick around all year, long after winter ends. Researchers have found that some freshwater bodies experience salinity levels that are 25% the concentration of seawater.

At the current rate of increasing salt use and concentration, Lake Simcoe could reach the long-term exposure threshold by 2058, which is 120 mg/L. This is approximately 11 years earlier than previously anticipated by scientists. Despite salt application training and best practices being used more widely than ever, salt levels are on the rise. There is a relationship between the growth of the road network and increases in chloride concentrations in Lake Simcoe.

Source: https://www.lsrca.on.ca/watershed-health/salt

We know that highways play a part in this nightmare scene. For instance, according to the Lake Simcoe Regional Conservation Authority, prior to the 404 extension being built in 2014, 12% of samples taken from the Maskinonge River (over which the 404 travels) exceeded the chronic (or long term) chloride level. Between 2014 and 2019 that number increased to 84% of samples!

This issue is of real interest to those concerned with the health of Lake Simcoe and the impacts of the Bradford Bypass. Ontario’s fast tracked Environmental Assessment process does not look at the operation of the highway, only its construction, and it does not look at the health of Lake Simcoe, at all. Their solution for dealing with salt contaminated soil is just to remove it. Out of sight out of mind? We should be doing more to reduce the use of salt, and we should seriously consider whether it makes sense to put this highway here, where the salt levels in the East Holland River already exceed the chronic long term exposure limit. (See the next chart!)

Chloride Concentrations in Lake Simcoe Tributaries (rivers that flow into the lake)

Note the East Holland River above has exceeded the chronic chloride threshold (120 mg/L) for more than 20 years.
Source: Increasing chloride concentrations in Lake Simcoe and its tributaries – Jennifer G. Winter, Amanda Landre, David Lembcke, Eavan M. O’Connor and Joelle D. Young

Some of the adverse effects of increased chloride concentrations in freshwater include:

Changes to the structure of the lake because salt water is denser than freshwater.
Helping invasive saltwater species to survive in our lakes.
Reducing the abundance and biodiversity of microscopic plants and animals. This has a cascading effect on the rest of the food web.
With less competition from species sensitive to chloride, we will see an increase in mosquitoes.
Exposure to high (acute) concentrations of salt is deadly to fish and amphibians but lower (chronic) concentrations affect how they reproduce, grow, and thrive.

How Salt Affects a Lake Ecosystem

Freshwater in Ontario, including Lake Simcoe, is not being prioritized and protected by our provincial or federal governments. The Province has refused to classify salt as a toxic substance under the Environmental Protection Act. The Federal Minister of Environment and Climate Change could use the Fisheries Act to fight the excessive use of salt because its application and movement into waterways can be toxic to fish if levels are high enough.

There are ways to mitigate and reduce toxic chloride concentrations. According to the Lake Simcoe Conservation Authority many times there is just too much salt being applied. They have noted a drastic reduction in salt used in parking lots following training and education. A common salt alternative is sand, which is widely used in colder climates where salt is ineffective. Additionally, beet juice and brine have been implemented with success in cities like Calgary and Winnipeg.

For more information about the Bradford Bypass or to get involved see: https://rescuelakesimcoe.org/bbp/

We will be posting social media about salt and its impacts during the month of February – please follow and share.

To donate to our work please visit www.rescuelakesimcoe.org/donate

_____________________________________________________________________________

Sources:
https://www.canada.ca/en/environment-climate-change/services/pollutants/road-salts/frequently-asked-questions.html https://georginapost.com/2021/07/22/the-river-has-become-an-industrial-inlet-residents-call-for-maskinonge-river-to-be-restored-and-protected/ https://www.thestar.com/news/insight/2012/05/26/blue_crabs_in_mimico_creek_an_urban_mystery.html https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2115033119 https://environmentaldefence.ca/2019/02/06/salt-ernatives-options-keep-roads-clear-freshwater-clean-winter/

Albecker, M. A., & McCoy, M. W. (2017) Adaptive responses to salinity stress across multiple life stages in anuran amphibians. Frontiers in Zoology, 14, 40. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12983-017-0222-0

In Praise of Wild Places

by Rescue Lake Simcoe CoalitionDecember 10, 2020February 22, 2023

An essay by Nari Hwang, Grade 8 student from Shanty Bay Public School.

The author

A map of Lake Simcoe made from pictures taken on a trip around the Lake

“To many a city person there comes a time when the great town wearies them. They hate its sights and smells and clangor. Every duty is a task, and every caller is a bore. There come visions of green fields and far rolling hills, of tall forests and cool, swift flowing streams.”

This excerpt from “Camping and Woodcraft” by Horace Kephart, a book first published in 1917 and given by my grandfather to his father, still speaks to me over the years. It is still true for many of us. It explains that sometimes we need to go out into the wild places and do whatever we wish; to be free and to breathe in the clear wilderness air.

Wild places have the power to make us feel alive and free, they are vital to the health of the environment, and they have been a source of inspiration over the centuries for countless artists, scientists, free spirits and even office bound bankers like my great grandpa.

Feeling a little pull to the outdoors? Let’s go on a little journey and explore the importance of wild places…

Like so many adventures, ours starts… on the couch! Boredom rules! Someone suggests a walk and everyone sluggishly puts on their boots, squints into the sun and heads off to countless possibilities.

The cool air tingles our cheeks and our hearts start beating a little faster. In a moment, I am climbing a tree with my brother and sister. We are pirates! Hey, you grab a stick sword too and join in! With no laundry to do, or calls to make, the grown-ups loosen up too and we run and laugh and seek and look at teeny tiny inch worms, and feel the soft poofiness of mossy fairy places. Other times, we can just sit quietly and soak in the green earthiness. Experts in mental health even recommend that kids have the chance to get bored, get outside, and get creative. Whether to try new things, bond with those you love or enjoy some solitude and time to think, wild places, big or small are just the place to do it.

Let’s turn onto a new path, because wild places aren’t only good for encouraging that feeling of awesomeness! They are also a source of creative inspiration. Without the wild places, where would the wild things be? This is a question answered in Maurice Sendak’s children’s story, Where the Wild Things Are. Here, a boy travels to a fantasy land full of weird beasts, becomes king and then heads home in time for dinner. Wild places have been the source of creative inspiration in many books for young people — The Call of the Wild, Lost in the Barrens, and The Jungle Book are a few that I have read with my family. You can probably think of others too.

Think also of the music, dance, theatre and poetry that was inspired by singing birds, rolling hills or dancing leaves. Canadian visual artists like Tom Thomson, Emily Carr, the Group of Seven, Bill Reid and Kenojuak Ashevak have shown us the rough beauty of our landscape and have inspired many to pack lightly, put on some good hiking shoes, or slide into a tippy canoe to go see more of Canada. Each of these creative works asks us, to hear the call, to come along, to join in the adventure and experience a little wild — even if only in our imaginations.

However, we need wild places, not just because they are inspiring, but also for environmental reasons. Forests are good for filtering ground and surface water as it moves through toward bodies of water. They also absorb unwanted carbon dioxide and provide safe habitats and food for native animals and plants. Wetlands and marshes also provide important biodiverse ecosystems and form the main filtration systems in nature! Other places like wild fields or meadows are good for native pollinators, and a whole different ecosystem of creatures and native weeds that are vital to our earth.

Each wild place is a unique ecosystem that produces its own unique cycle and flow of nutrients. Plants and animals live, and serve a special purpose, then once they die and decompose, they turn once again into soil. New plants use that soil to grow, and whatever eats that plant will have new energy and the cycle will continue. It is miraculous and inspiring!

According to the Canadian Wildlife Federation, Canada is home to more than 70 000 wild species and 43 national parks and reserves that cover nearly a quarter million square kilometres. It’s also home to 30 percent of the world’s boreal forests and 25 percent of the world’s wetlands.

But, our wild places are in danger because of us. We need to take action against things like climate change and pollution.

David Attenborough’s new film called “David Attenborough: A life on our Planet” talks about how our earth is changing because we take more than the earth can afford to give. He says, “The true tragedy of our time is still unfolding across the globe, barely noticeable from day to day. I’m talking about the loss of our planet’s wild places, its biodiversity… We cut down over 15 billion trees each year. We reduced freshwater populations by over 80% replacing the wild, with the tame… We must restore the biodiversity; the very thing that we’ve removed, it’s the only way out of this crisis we have created. We must re-wild the world.”

So, how do we do that? Most of us don’t own a big area of untouched land so how can we create our own little backyard wild place? Think about leaving an area in your yard un-mowed and plant some native wildflowers there. Leave the ditch near your home alone and let the native weeds grow for pollinators. Live near water? Consider a natural shoreline. If you need to remove an old tree, leave about ten feet of it behind and you will be supporting an insect and fungi high-rise condominium!

Wild places have the power to encourage adventure and fun, to improve mental health, to inspire great works of creativity and to sustain and strengthen biodiverse environments.

Remember I began with talking about my great grandpa’s book that has been passed down to my family? It also says that “this instinct for a free life in the open is as natural and wholesome as the gratification of hunger and thirst and love.” I can imagine him reading these words that also make me excited about wild places and thankful that we still have so many to enjoy. But with that comes a responsibility to protect those places and the species that live there. Let’s leave the wild places wild and ensure that generations to come can know their glory and wonder!

What’s wrong with Innisfil’s Orbit Ministers Zoning Order request?

by Rescue Lake Simcoe CoalitionNovember 13, 2020February 22, 20231 Comment

Innisfil Council has approved a draft Minister’s Zoning Order (MZO) for the Orbit, a massive development planned for the location of a GO train stop, the 6th line, between the 20th sideroad and Lake Simcoe.

It’s off to Simcoe County Council to approve on November 24th.

County Council is made up of the Mayors from all around the County. For the sake of sane regional planning, we are asking Simcoe County residents to tell their Mayor and Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing not to approve the Orbit MZO proposal.

We hear there are some chinks in the armor and that some Simcoe County Mayors / Deputy Mayors are opposed.

An explanation and points to make are below.

But first of all, in the context of an alarming loss of farmland and natural areas in Southern Ontario, this does not represent environmental planning. This is a new city in greenfields, which is the opposite of Smart Growth. The Orbit plan looks like this:

The proposed site now looks like this:

Why oppose the Orbit MZO proposal?

Using an MZO is totally inappropriate for a proposal that would facilitate the development of a new city of 150,000 people way outside Innisfil’s current settlement boundaries. Innisfil’s population is 36,000. A proposal of this scale must go through democratic planning channels like an Official Plan Amendment.

Innisfil Council and staff are lying about public support for the proposed use of an MZO. While there is some community support for the Orbit, based on the claims that it would get a GO station in place by 2022, preserve other farmlands (ironic to the 9th degree) and protect the environment by putting what would have to be all future growth around the Orbit, Innisfil Council has not addressed the public’s concerns about using an MZO and has mischaracterized a frenzy of interest (actually alarm) as public support. There are worrying irregularities in the introduction of the motion that Council approved (just 7 days after the first MZO draft was made public), to use an MZO. Cynically, Council voted to use an MZO immediately after they had voted to extend the public input period, ignoring the fact that most public comments were objecting to the use of an MZO.

This proposal sets in motion developers’ dreams of developing Innisfil 6th line all the way to Hwy 400, where they want to build up new employment areas (like what we see on the 400 north of the 8th line where employers / businesses can locate ) for which there is no market research.

An MZO is a blunt planning tool that leaves no opportunity for public input or public or Town appeal. If the Minister approves this concept, the Zoning Order will be written by the Minister. Based on how MZOs have been used so far by the Ford Government, it does not have to include conditions requested by the Town or County Council.

Nothing in the draft MZO guarantees that the Orbit would be built as pitched. Because there is no market research supporting the viability of people buying condos in a farm field, we have grave concerns that this is greenwash, and that the ultimate build out will not be dense or environmentally friendly. Despite reassurances from Town staff we remain concerned that provincial policies like the Lake Simcoe Protection Plan could be ignored. For instance, MZOs have already been issued in the past few months to destroy at least 6 Provincially Significant Wetlands in favour of development in other parts of Southern Ontario, overriding provincial policy.

Typically, Simcoe County must share new population allocations with all of their 18 municipalities. Innisfil’s MZO request for 20,000 people for the first phase of the Orbit dilutes the marketability of what other municipalities can build. It also means that developers who went through the proper channels and own land within Innisfil’s settlement area boundaries could not see their plans realized for many years; this is totally unfair, rewards cheaters, and punishes those who followed the Planning Act.

Frankly, the province is showing their true colours now, and are using COVID-19 as cover for giving gifts to developers (many of whom are PC party donors) all over Southern Ontario. They have done nothing to protect Lake Simcoe except fund a couple of studies.

It’s time to get angry and use your democratic rights. Make a call! Looks like it’s up to us to try to protect Ontario’s environment.

Find your Mayor here and please call or send them a personalized email. https://www.simcoe.ca/Clerks/Pages/councilmembers.aspx
If you’re emailing, please cc the ultimate decision-maker, Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, Steve Clark. minister.mah@ontario.ca
There’s not much point asking Innisfil Mayor Lynn Dollin or Deputy Mayor Dan Davidson as they are in support. If you’re from Innisfil, call / email the Warden, top of the list in the link above.

For more information please see the Rescue Lake Simcoe Coalition’s submission to Innisfil Council on the MZO proposal here: https://rescuelakesimcoe.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/RLSC-Submission-on-MZO-Innisfil-Oct-2020.pdf

www.rescuelakesimcoe.org

If municipalities truly want a clean Lake Simcoe they need more than hope

by Rescue Lake Simcoe CoalitionAugust 28, 2020February 22, 20231 Comment

Municipal Response to Protect Our Plan delegations to Council

As the Rescue Lake Simcoe Coalition prepares for the Lake Simcoe Protection Plan’s statutory review to begin this fall, we’ve been making delegations to Councils around the watershed, with about half complete so far. Along with Coalition member group leaders, we are ensuring that Councils know what the Lake Simcoe Protection Plan does, and about the lake’s stressors.

We also asked for Council support for a resolution [https://rescuelakesimcoe.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/Rescue_Lake_Simcoe_Coalition_Proposed_Resolution.pdf] that calls on the province to implement and resource the Lake Simcoe Protection Plan. This blog summarizes Council responses so far, and what that might tell us about municipal priorities.

Only two of eight municipalities that we approached so far have strongly supported our motion requesting that the province do its job on Lake Simcoe. Why? The most generous possibility is that they want to provide feedback to the province one time when the LSPP review is taking place and the province’s proposals are clear. At the same time, if these Councils were serious about Lake Simcoe’s health they would preemptively ask the province to not touch the LSPP’s targets, as our model resolution outlines.

The conflict is this: municipalities are, to varying degrees, addicted to growth. Limited in their powers of taxation, they seek to cover the costs of building a bigger and better community on the back of new development and the associated Development Cost Charges collected by the municipality.

Saving Lake Simcoe runs afoul of the growth agenda that drives many municipalities. It requires maintaining today’s tough caps on sewage treatment plants’ phosphorus pollution, building with a lower environmental impact, and offsetting phosphorus pollution generated by construction or the land use change, or both. None of these choices thrill developers or municipalities responsible for paying for sewage treatment.

But the reality is that the watershed’s population is projected to double by 2041 while the current provincial government is leading an unabashed pro-growth agenda, going so far as to re-brand our license plates for consistency. Development certainly contributes to phosphorus loads, and the change in land use and hardening of surfaces is usually not good for water quality or flow. As it all flows downstream, these impacts will negatively affect Lake Simcoe’s health.

Knowing what we know, and limited by the technology we have today, doubling down on development impacts is necessary to save Lake Simcoe. It is a “polluter pay” approach, which is being applied already in the Lake Simcoe watershed, and which Ontario’s Conservative government theoretically supports. Ultimately the choice for elected officials and their administrations amounts to admitting that development hurts the lake and recouping costs for remediation and hope it works; or sticking one’s head in the sand while saying that you love Lake Simcoe and hoping that future generations can undo the mess we are making.

We thought it would be pretty easy to get municipal support for this motion, since we are really just asking the province to just do its job. The Rescue Lake Simcoe Coalition’s model resolution can be read in full here [https://rescuelakesimcoe.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/Rescue_Lake_Simcoe_Coalition_Proposed_Resolution.pdf] , but the substantial parts are these:

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, THAT the Town of XXXX calls on the Ontario Government to demonstrate its commitment to clean water and protecting what matters most in the provincial statutory review of the Lake Simcoe Protection Plan, by ensuring that provisions in the Lake Simcoe Protection Plan that protect water quality are not weakened and that policies protecting natural heritage be strengthened, in order to meet the targets of the Lake Simcoe Protection Plan; and
THAT the Ontario Government be requested to work collaboratively with affected Provincial Ministries and all levels of government, including First Nations and Métis, to achieve the goals and targets of the Lake Simcoe Protection Plan and to resource the programs that improve Lake Simcoe’s water quality during the provincial statutory review of the Lake Simcoe Protection Plan;

So far, only two of the eight Councils we’ve approached have fully endorsed our resolution. Unsurprisingly, the places that aren’t desperate to attract new growth have responded most positively to the Rescue Lake Simcoe Coalition’s pro-environment position. Those are the Barrie City Council and Georgina Island First Nation Band Council.

Orillia’s Environmental Advisory Committee supported our resolution and we are hoping for some action now at the Council level.

Oro-Medonte’s Council resolution committed the municipality to continue to support the LSPP in its review year.

Whitchurch Stouffville Council’s resolution said the same, and they directed staff to continue to work with the Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority to implement best practices in order to minimize the impacts on Lake Simcoe and the surrounding watershed.

In East Gwillimbury, following a presentation by a well known local naturalist, a staff planner prepared a thoughtful summary for Council, but ultimately the conclusion was: “Staff will report back to Council when the Province issues updates regarding the LSPP, as well as opportunities to provide comment.” This characterizes the responses from Innisfil and BWG too.

Innisfil: nothing

Bradford West Gwillimbury: nothing

Looking forward, the Rescue Lake Simcoe Coalition and allies are going to make another eight delegations to Council this fall about the upcoming review of the Lake Simcoe Protection Plan, in Simcoe County, Durham Region, Newmarket, Aurora, King, Brock, Uxbridge, and Georgina. Residents can support our campaign by calling their Councillor and asking them to support our resolution and protect Lake Simcoe.

We hope it is now clearer to Councils that the environment is a low priority for the province, and that any municipal politician making promises about protecting the environment should take some time to both push the province to implement the Lake Simcoe Protection Plan, and do the same with their own municipal plans and processes. While the Rescue Lake Simcoe Coalition is doing what it can to push the province to implement the Lake Simcoe Protection Plan, and not weaken it, the lake needs all the municipal help it can get.

Protect Our Plan, Protect Lake Simcoe!

by Rescue Lake Simcoe CoalitionAugust 18, 2020August 18, 20201 Comment

Minister’s Ten Year Report on Lake Simcoe Obscures Progress by Mixing Science and Politics

by Rescue Lake Simcoe CoalitionAugust 7, 2020February 22, 2023

August 7, 2020

On July 17th Barrie-Innisfil MPP Andrea Khanjin released the Minister of the Environment’s Ten Year report on Lake Simcoe and made a $581,000 funding announcement for Lake Simcoe research. The Minister was nowhere to be seen. Also missing were a credible science monitoring report and the 2018 and 2019 Ministers reports on Lake Simcoe.

We should take this investment to mean that the province is very aware that there are people like you and me who are going to make them wear the impacts of their decisions and actions on Lake Simcoe. We are a strong constituency, and we need to keep it that way. Public pressure is the Lake’s best defence.

I will focus my questions and comments on Lake Simcoe, but the Lake does not exist in a geographical or policy vacuum. Recent and proposed changes to the Growth Plan are going to perpetuate suburban sprawl until 2051 and beyond. The changes virtually guarantee that the scarce remaining farmland in southern Ontario will be bought by land speculators, threatening the viability of local food production. Recent policy changes and proposals also threaten the protection of more natural areas as aggregate extraction will soon be permitted in habitats of endangered species and other natural features outside the Greenbelt and possibly the Lake Simcoe watershed. The Environmental Assessment process is a shell of what it used to be. I could go on. The point is that the environmental policy regime in Ontario has been shattered. This will naturally affect Lake Simcoe.

Now, to the substance of the Minister’s Ten Year Report on Lake Simcoe. The Ten Year Report is far rosier than it should be. There are more unknowns, strange changes, and looming disasters than the report lets on. While I agree that the remedial actions have been helping the lake, there is an obvious editorial slant towards the bright side. I find this problematic because this report forms the backdrop to the review of the Lake Simcoe Protection Plan. I worry that it will lead readers to think that the Lake is doing well and needs less protection.

Indeed, fishing and swimming is the way most people use the lake, and the Ten Year Report underreports downward trends and / or existing poor conditions at beaches and regarding fish health. People who use Lake Simcoe have a right to know the truth, warts and all.

If I authored the report it would highlight:

Phosphorus loads have skyrocketed in recent years; new development and its impacts are increasing pressure on the lake, and the remedial actions are not keeping up with the need to drive down phosphorus loads;
The nearshore area is a mess of invasive species, and the nearshore ecology has undergone massive changes in the past ten years; impacts are yet inadequately studied;
We don’t know why dissolved oxygen levels have gone up (good) while phosphorus loads have gone up (bad). This result is the opposite of what lake modelling told us to expect. The most likely explanations involve positive changes brought on by invasive species absorbing, consuming and / or moving phosphorus from one part of the lake to another. The long-term consequences of this are unknown;
We are not achieving the Lake Simcoe Protection Plan’s natural heritage targets for forests, wetlands and shorelines, which are, essentially, to protect what we have and increase the size and quality of natural heritage features. Instead, we have lost wetland and forest cover across the watershed. The legal mechanisms in place will not achieve the Lake Simcoe Protection Plan’s natural heritage targets;
Remedial actions are working but they are not compensating for the impacts of development and climate change. The Lake’s health will not improve without limits to growth, a strong emphasis on restoration, natural heritage protection, and invasive species control.

The most important point, however, is one of transparency. One should not blend science and politics in such an impenetrable way. The Minister of Environment, Conservation and Parks is a politician, not a scientist. Yet the Minister’s report says, “This consolidated report, which addresses both five-year and annual reporting requirements under the Lake Simcoe Protection Act, 2008, describes the collaborative efforts taken to implement the Lake Simcoe Protection Plan, as well as results of monitoring programs and progress towards the plan’s objectives.” It reports on the results of monitoring and progress towards objectives inconsistently and inadequately. If the province intended to produce more scientific reports to support the review of the Lake Simcoe Protection Plan, which we now understand they will do, they should have been clear about that when the Minister’s report was released.

Here’s what is expected: The Lake Simcoe Protection Act, 2008, which has legal effect, lays out some reporting requirements requiring “the Minister of the Environment to prepare a report that, describes the results of any monitoring programs; and describes the extent to which the objectives of the Lake Simcoe Protection Plan are being achieved at least once every five years.” 1 The Lake Simcoe Protection Plan says, less forcefully, that the “Ministry of the Environment in partnership with other ministries will produce a report that describes the results of monitoring programs as well as the extent to which the objectives of the Plan are being achieved.”

The Minister’s combo Science and Politics report of 2020 simply does not provide the analysis needed to evaluate the extent to which the objectives of the Plan are being achieved, and does not meet the reporting requirements of the Lake Simcoe Protection Act.

It is not appropriate to put all of this information into one report with little to no citations, and with no editorial input from the Lake Simcoe Science Committee. There is a totally unscientific catch-all reassuring the reader that, “Each priority area is supported by data and trends collected from several provincial monitoring programs, and supplemented with data from partners such as the Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority.” I do not mean to diminish the work of these conservation professionals. But the Minister’s report is not a science report without citations. In the absence of any other public explanation, the reader concludes that the province is trying to take the shortest route possible to meet the reporting requirements of the Lake Simcoe Protection Act and Plan by jamming it all into one inadequately sourced document.

The last comprehensive monitoring report on Lake Simcoe was released in 2014. It had been discussed and developed by the Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change in collaboration with the Lake Simcoe Science Committee over many months. The Minister’s 2014 Five Year Report on Lake Simcoe appropriately followed the Five Year Comprehensive Monitoring Report. It highlighted the good news, like the Minister of the Environment, Conservation and Parks in 2020, but at least it referenced an independent science report. The 2014 Comprehensive Monitoring Report has authors, citations, and references listed. It includes standard “science stuff” like clearly identifying progress against targets, which is inconsistent at best and deliberately misleading at worst in the 2020 report.

For instance, although the overall watershed trend is a LOSS of forests and wetlands (1% loss each over a ten year time period) what is highlighted in the press release of July 17 is, “The 10-year report on Lake Simcoe shows the restoration of more than 15 kilometres of degraded shorelines, the planting of more than 55,000 trees and shrubs, and the creation and restoration of 120 hectares of wetlands…” 2. Highlighting successes without context is misleading, and is the reason why blending politics and science in one report is problematic.

Related to the loss of natural heritage is development, the only growing source of phosphorus loading at Lake Simcoe. Ten years ago the province acknowledged that approved development to 2031 in the watershed would ADD up to 15.3 Tonnes per year Phosphorus to the lake. 3 The provincial Lake Simcoe Science and Coordinating Committees’ formal advice to the Minister cautioned that development threatens the Lake’s health, advising, “Ensure that the assimilative capacity and ecosystem health of the watershed are considered prior to any amendments to future growth projections.” 4 In contrast, the province has recently inflated growth projections using market demand and land needs assessment methodologies that have been called speculative and flawed by critics. The province has allowed municipalities to expand their settlement boundaries more easily and more often, and has allowed developers to build fewer homes per acre. This new growth will double the watershed’s population by 2041 and add stress to the lake via phosphorus loads from construction in the watershed, and from land converted to urban uses. Therefore we absolutely need to maintain the development and construction policies, practices and offsets programs that reduce the pollution from development at Lake Simcoe.

This is a relatively minor point but I am truly puzzled by this one. The Minister’s 2020 remarks end with: “I want to thank the local conservation authorities, Indigenous communities, municipalities, agricultural and commercial sectors and residents who have worked tirelessly on implementing actions to protect and restore the ecological health of Lake Simcoe. I also want to thank the Lake Simcoe Coordinating Committee and the Lake Simcoe Science Committee for their advice on where our efforts need to be focused. This ongoing work requires collaboration and I look forward to continuing this important partnership with you.”

I just do not believe this. It’s polite to thank everyone, it’s true, but this is disingenuous considering what has happened under this administration. To date, the Conservation Authorities budgets’ have been slashed and their powers are expected to be severely curtailed in yet unreleased regulations; there is no Indigenous representation on the Lake Simcoe Science and Coordinating committees, and local Indigenous communities are poised to oppose the new Upper York Sewage System going into Lake Simcoe; the Lake Simcoe Science and Coordinating committees have not met since the current provincial government came to power; municipalities have less ability now to collect development cost charges from developers on some growth-related costs; farmers are furious with the province for basically putting housing development ahead of farmland protection; and frankly, to date commercial and residents have not been publicly engaged by the province.

Lake Simcoe is not a political pawn. It’s a living thing that heals when the right conditions are in place. We need to engage experts in determining what the Ten Year monitoring results mean before contemplating any changes to the Lake Simcoe Protection Plan.

TAKE ACTION: If you share my concern that the government’s LSPP Ten Year Review this fall will leave the lake more vulnerable, you can take action now through this 1-click letter campaign.

—

Claire Malcolmson is the Executive Director of the Rescue Lake Simcoe Coalition. She has worked and volunteered on Lake Simcoe issues since 2001. Claire sat on provincial committees established to develop and then implement the Lake Simcoe Protection Act and Plan from 2008 – 2018.

The Rescue Lake Simcoe Coalition represents 26 groups around the Lake Simcoe watershed, and spearheaded the campaign to get the Lake Simcoe Protection Act in 2008. www.rescuelakesimcoe.org

S. 12. 2. Lake Simcoe Protection Act
Ontario newsroom. July 17, 2020. Ontario Taking Action to Further Protect Lake Simcoe. https://news.ontario.ca/ene/en/2020/07/ontario-taking-action-to-further-protect-lake-simcoe.html
Ontario, 2010. Lake Simcoe Phosphorus Reduction Strategy. https://www.ontario.ca/page/lake- simcoe-phosphorus-reduction-strategy
Minister’s Ten Year Report on Lake Simcoe, 2020 https://www.ontario.ca/page/ministers-10-year-report- lake-simcoe

What would a Lake Simcoe Protection Plan review look like during a pandemic?

by Rescue Lake Simcoe CoalitionJuly 9, 2020February 22, 2023

What does legitimate public consultation on the Lake Simcoe Protection Plan look like in the middle of a global pandemic? In April, the Rescue Lake Simcoe Coalition asked its 26 member groups to discuss this question, and we have been sharing the opinion below with the province since.

The province missed the 2019 deadline for the statutory review of the Lake Simcoe Protection Plan, an indication (among many) that protecting the environment is not a priority for this administration. Too bad, because in retrospect it would have been simpler to get experts together starting in 2018 to produce and review the science that should inform proposals to change Lake Simcoe Protection Plan (LSPP) policies.

Instead, the government is caught on its back foot, behind schedule, and lacking expert advice, having cut funding that allowed two mostly-volunteer committees of experts to advise the province on both the evolving science of the lake, and the implementation of the LSPP.

I know, because I sat on these committees. They were starting to prepare advice for the minister of the environment and climate change to guide the LSPP review in 2018. But committees like these stopped meeting, all over the province, as the government cut “red tape,” no longer funding the cost of travel or food for meetings. The tap of practically-free advice was turned off. Not wanting to stand idly by, I stepped down as chair of the Lake Simcoe Coordinating Committee in late 2018.

The province doesn’t have the conditions in place, or the expert advice it needs, to do a major policy review of the Lake Simcoe Protection Plan any time soon. The province has two basic choices:

A. Do an administrative review of the Lake Simcoe Protection Plan, tidying up redundant or out-of-date regulations, but not touching the policies or targets of the LSPP. Focus instead on implementation, specifically better protecting and restoring forests and wetlands, and aggressively bringing down phosphorus loads through a strengthened Phosphorus Reduction Strategy. Phosphorus loads to the lake have gone up since the Lake Simcoe Protection Plan came into force.

B. Take the time to get it right. For a robust and legitimate review of the Lake Simcoe Protection Plan and its policies the Rescue Lake Simcoe Coalition and its 26 member groups suggest that the following conditions are needed:

1. The Lake Simcoe science and co-ordinating committees need three days of meetings, with scientists, to get up to speed and have their questions answered, to provide their feedback to the province on the scope of the review. Some members of the committees are new; it is not reasonable or responsible to expect them to provide good advice about a plan they are not yet familiar with.

2. If the Lake Simcoe Science Committee endorses the release of a current Lake Simcoe Monitoring Report, which provides adequate information upon which to make adaptive management decisions (i.e. tracks progress toward targets), we suggest that the review can start three months later. This gives analysts and the government the necessary time to evaluate progress and make thoughtful recommendations.

3. Environmental Bill of Rights and the Environmental Registry of Ontario must be up and running. The Statement of Environmental Values must be considered by decision-makers. In April, 2020, the Ontario government passed a regulation under the Environmental Bill of Rights (EBR) that exempts new laws, regulations, or policies that will impact Ontario’s land, air, water and/or wildlife from going through a 30-day consultation period. The optics are simply not good for the government if they proceed with a major piece of environmental policy review without adequate public consultation.

4. Social distancing measures must have eased such that people would attend open houses. The province could use online consultations only, and certainly this will be part of the solution. But one of the essential components of public participation in policy review is the ability to ask questions, and equally, hearing other people’s questions is an important part of public debate. Without the ability to hold open houses, and engage people in dialogue, feedback is more likely to be from paid professionals, a dynamic that supports profit-oriented interests more than non-profit and public ones.

5. There must be First Nations representation on the Lake Simcoe Coordinating Committee and the Lake Simcoe Science Committee.

The Lake Simcoe Protection Plan includes “principles to guide our efforts.” These are self-explanatory, but it is worth reminding the province that they are expected to use them. For instance, the review process should use the Adaptive Management Approach of the Lake Simcoe Protection Plan, which is to:

Continuously improve and adapt our approaches, policies and management by incorporating new knowledge and innovative design, practices and technology from ongoing science and monitoring. This will allow the plan to evolve and improve over time based on new science and implementation experience.

It is not easy to do adaptive management. Monitoring data and implementation analysis must precede proposals to change management actions or policies.

And finally, despite budget crises and competing views on economic recovery, the health and prosperity of communities across the Lake Simcoe watershed still depends on a healthy environment. Indeed, the watershed’s sustainable recreation sector generates $420 million per year. Luckily for us, the LSPP’s first objective is to “protect, improve or restore the elements that contribute to the ecological health of the Lake Simcoe watershed, including, water quality, hydrology, key natural heritage features and their functions, and key hydrologic features and their functions.”

If we achieve this objective, Lake Simcoe will be a model for living within the limits of nature, which is ultimately the challenge of our time.

Written by Claire Malcolmson, the executive director of the Rescue Lake Simcoe Coalition.

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

by Rescue Lake Simcoe CoalitionSeptember 25, 2019February 22, 2023

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

Identifying priority lands for protection in Simcoe County

by Rescue Lake Simcoe CoalitionSeptember 17, 2019February 22, 2023

Through the summer of 2019, the Rescue Lake Simcoe Coalition undertook an important project: to map the parts of Simcoe County’s landscape that are protected, highlight vulnerabilities, and make recommendations on how to further protect them for future generations, with strengthened policies, property acquisitions and conservation easements.

The maps and report are timely, as the Lake Simcoe Protection Plan is up for review late in 2019, and there is a consultation underway on proposed changes to the Provincial Policy Statement. Both provincial policies could be strengthened to increase the amount of land that is protected from land use changes.

The cartographers employed in the research found that just 14% of the total land area in Simcoe County is in the “best protected” category, and 58% is “somewhat protected.” Some of the “best protected” areas are vulnerable to permits for aggregate extraction.And 99% of the area in the “best protected” category is protected by the Province’s natural heritage protection policies. If these policies were weakened, we would be left with a much smaller and weaker Natural Heritage System in Simcoe County.

While all involved in the business of protecting natural areas understand that the policies that protect natural features may change, the Coalition suggests that linkages between the patches that are well-protected by policy are the top priorities for protection. These linkages create a cohesive, protected network through which water and wildlife can move, rather than disconnected patches. It is a “death by a thousand cuts” to the Natural Heritage System that worries the Coalition; those cuts tend to occur in areas identified as “somewhat protected” in the report. These include the crucial linkages between well-protected patches of forest and wetland.

The Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority updated their Natural Heritage System and Strategy in 2018; it includes these linkage areas, but does not change the policies applied to the landscape unless a municipality adopts the NHS in their Official Plan. This is our recommendation to all Simcoe County municipalities that have not done so already.

Protecting greenlands is good for our water, our economy, and our way of life: wetlands regulate water flow, filter water, help control flooding, and provide wildlife habitat and recreational opportunities. Forests also help filter water and regulate water flow, create oxygen, and provide habitat for wildlife. And healthy, naturalized shorelines and river banks shade and cool the water while also protecting from soil erosion, slowing erosion’s contributions to the lake’s phosphorus pollution problem.

RLSC’s report also contrasts Environment Canada’s “How Much Habitat is Enough?” recommendations for Southern Ontario with Simcoe County’s current wetland and forest cover. While wetlands coverage is within Environment Canada’s recommended range, wetlands are being lost, and forest cover of 22% is nowhere near the forest cover target for healthy aquatic ecosystems of 50%. Further, forest cover is unevenly distributed across the County. Developing local and specific targets for forest cover and wetlands would be a good next step towards increasing the resiliency of Simcoe County’s landscape and water quality.

There is absolutely reason for hope: because Simcoe County’s Natural Heritage System is so big, there is ample opportunity to increase the amount of land that is permanently protected, if the County, municipalities or the province go beyond what today’s Natural Heritage protection policies require. The report provides recommendations for the province, municipalities, and landowners, ranging from expanding the Greenbelt into Simcoe County, maintaining or strengthening the provincial policies that protect wetlands, forests, and shorelines, developing strong tree-cutting bylaws and exploring land trust options.

The opportunity to get it right in Simcoe County should inspire engaged citizens, planners, and our governments, to develop an approach to land use planning that permanently protects an adequate amount of green space, and prepares us for an uncertain future.

The Coalition hopes its maps and research will be useful for land trusts’ identification of priority areas for protection. The Coalition is presenting the results of its research to land trusts on November 7, 2019, by Zoom webinar. Please contact us if you would like to be included. We want to collaborate with land trusts and share our results.

The report and maps are available for download here.

Written by Claire Malcolmson, Executive Director, Rescue Lake Simcoe Coalition

The Rescue Lake Simcoe Coalition is a lake-wide member-based organization, representing 22 groups in the Lake Simcoe watershed, that provides leadership and inspires people to take action to protect Lake Simcoe. www.rescuelakesimcoe.org

The Real Lake Monster

by Rescue Lake Simcoe CoalitionJanuary 27, 2019February 22, 2023

‘Can we conquer Lake Simcoe’s phosphorus monster?’ Philip Brennan asks on the 10th anniversary of the Lake Simcoe Protection Act

Reprinted with permission from the July 2018 Lake Simcoe Living magazine

We all know how important water is to life itself and many of us take for granted that it will always be plentiful and of good quality. Others are shocked and dismayed at how much water we waste on such processes as bottling water and washing gravel. There are significant indications that we are not doing enough to protect our precious water and the benefits it provides.
In a 2016 review of the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe (GGH) in 2016, Kevin Eby, from Friends of the Greenbelt, noted that the GGH is forecast to grow by almost four million people over the next 25 years, many attracted by the high quality of life — a quality of life that depends on a sustainable supply of clean water. A great place to look for clues regarding the health and nature of our water supply is the Lake Simcoe Watershed, home of the “gold standard” in watershed planning in Ontario.
Lake Simcoe is the fourth-largest lake wholly in the province of Ontario. For many, it is our summer and winter playground; for the very fortunate among us, it is home. But here is the kicker: studies say that new development in the Watershed could add 18-percent to 25-percent more phosphorus to the lake by 2031. If that is not chilling enough, the Five-Year Review of the Lake Simcoe Plan notes that chloride concentrations (primarily from road salt) have increased four-fold since 1971.
Pollution problems in Lake Simcoe were already severe in the 1970s, and scientists determined then that the most likely cause was eutrophication — excess nutrients, mostly phosphorus, entering the lake. Because the lake was so important to the many people using it, the Ministry of the Environment started monitoring the water in 1971. The Lake Simcoe Environmental Management Strategy program, which started in 1981, contributed to lowering phosphorus inputs. Phosphorus levels decreased further after 1989 when the Canadian Environmental Protection Act set limits on phosphate concentration in laundry detergent.
The next major step toward protecting Lake Simcoe’s health came with the development of the 2008 Lake Simcoe Protection Act — the first lake-specific legislation of its kind in this country. The act led to the creation of the 2009 Lake Simcoe Protection Plan for the almost 3,000-square-kilometre Watershed. Responsibility for implementation is shared between the province, the Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority and the municipalities. The Chippewas of Georgina Island First Nation also strongly support the Plan and its initiatives. In addition to the policies, regulations, monitoring and studies that were developed to improve the health of the lake, the value of acting locally has been critical to the success of the plan, with 35 of the policies being the responsibility of Watershed municipalities. At the local level, through stewardship activities, hundreds of restoration and on-farm projects have been completed to reduce nutrient loading to the lake.
The Phosphorus Reduction Strategy Implementation Plan was released on July 7, 2010, and a new strategy will formally begin in June 2019. The strategy states that for the period 2004 to 2007, the average annual phosphorus load to the lake was approximately 72 tonnes per year(T/yr), coming from several sources. The strategy notes that prior to major settlement and land clearing in the 1800s, the annual phosphorus load going into the lake was about 32 T/yr. The Lake Simcoe Phosphorus Load Update for 2012/13 to 2014/15 by LSRCA notes a five-year average of 85.5 T/yr. The strategy calls for a long term goal of 44 T/yr to support a naturally reproducing and self-sustaining lake trout population. In his 2016 Annual Report, Glen Murray, then-Minister of the Environment and Climate Change, reported that between the 1980s and 2016, water quality showed signs of improvement with springtime phosphorus levels decreased, while the end-of-summer deepwater dissolved oxygen level increased.
Phosphorus levels, however, have been rising overall, and should serve as a warning that we need to do much more to improve water quality in the Lake Simcoe Watershed. The bottom line is that even with the “gold standard” in watershed planning, Lake Simcoe’s phosphorus monster is a challenge to conquer. At stake are millions of dollars in tourism business, tens of thousands of jobs, safe, clean drinking water for local communities, and our quality of life.
Let’s review where the phosphorus strategy and our changing landscape have taken us. What battles are we winning? Where are we losing ground? Some great work has been done to improve the health of the Watershed. In addition, new science and technology is emerging that promises to make a significant contribution. But a close look reveals that we need to be very careful and determined to have the Watershed we all hope for.
To begin with, let’s look at the information that we have on hand from the Phosphorus Reduction Strategy. We know that when the volume was 72 T/yr, 31-percent was from urban runoff and stormwater; 27-percent from the atmosphere; 25-percent from rural and agricultural sources; 7-percent from sewage treatment plants; 5-percent from septics; and 4-percent from the Holland Marsh and smaller polders. The best success story in implementing the Phosphorus Strategy to date has been the reductions in loads from sewage treatment plants, as reported in the 2016 Annual Report on Lake Simcoe. Improvements in treatment technology and upgrades to existing plants have resulted in a significant decline in the phosphorus load generated by these facilities.
Another tool that seems to have made a significant contribution to reducing phosphorus is the new building code regulation that requires the inspection of septic systems every five years. These systems were estimated to contribute 5-percent of the phosphorous load (there are almost 4,000 septic systems within 100 metres of the lake). There is also an associated incentive program to repair, upgrade and replace faulty systems.
Then there is the Holland Marsh, which contributes 4-percent of the phosphorus going into the lake. It consists of five polders that are about 3,000 hectares of former wetlands drained between 1925 and 1930 for agricultural use. As part of the Phosphorus Strategy, a significant effort has been made to ensure that farmers and vegetable washing operators wash, process and discharge the water according to the requirements of the Ontario Water Resources Act.
The Holland Marsh this year played a part in one of the most innovative approaches ever for dealing with phosphorus management when it hosted the top 10 contenders in a global water contest that pitted successful phosphorus reduction technologies against one another. The team that demonstrates the safest, most affordable and scalable means of removing phosphorus from waterways will be awarded $10-million. Now that is motivation!
So, what about the estimated 25-percent of phosphorus loading from rural and agricultural sources? The Five-Year Report Card on Lake Simcoe does not provide a quantitative conclusion on this matter so it is prudent to assume that this is still a serious problem.
There is a surefire way to have clean water and healthy soil. That is to follow through on the Ontario Federation of Agriculture’s election campaign priority — Producing Prosperity in Ontario. The thrust of the document is to secure greater access to infrastructure investments for rural communities and farmers. This vision for prosperity, however, is missing a key ingredient as presented. If we want to move forward with infrastructure investment we should be planning to protect our good farm land above all else. Protecting farm land will enable a healthy sustainable agri-food sector and provide multiple environmental benefits. For instance, if farm land is protected through the extension of the Greenbelt into the rest of the Lake Simcoe Watershed, our farmers will have incentive and confidence to invest in farm infrastructure.
A Greenbelt designation forces others to work with existing agriculture operations rather than forcing farmers to adapt to development, aggregate operations or infrastructure, potentially negatively impacting their farms’ viability, as has been the case in the past. Losing good agricultural land to urban sprawl is not consistent with a healthy Watershed. We need to give farmland the respect it deserves. We need to protect farms and the important contribution good farmers make to a quality environment.
There are two more sources of phosphorus to consider in looking at the future of Lake Simcoe: the 27-percent that comes from the atmosphere and the 31-percent from urban runoff and stormwater. Major sources of atmospheric phosphorus come from unpaved roads, construction sites, agriculture, aggregate operations, burning fossil fuels, pollen and generally exposed soils. The Report suggests there is significant room for improvement in this area.
Finally, the 31-percent that comes from urban runoff and stormwater may be the most offensive chemical cocktail that washes into our creeks, rivers and Lake Simcoe. New development, poor and inadequate stormwater infrastructure, improperly maintained stormwater ponds, significant increases in the amount of paved areas, loss of vegetation along streams, loss of wetlands and forest areas, and the failure to plan for the challenges of climate change make this the single biggest challenge for the survival of Lake Simcoe. The good news is that lots of good work has been done to deal with urban runoff and stormwater management. The LSRCA has been working to incorporate low impact development practices into new developments. The goal is to reduce the amount of stormwater by minimizing impervious surfaces, treating stormwater as a resource rather than a waste product.
The final piece of the war chest available to reduce runoff from urban, rural and agricultural sources is to protect and enhance the natural cover in the Watershed. The Lake Simcoe Plan establishes a target of 40-percent quality natural vegetative cover in the Watershed. Ideally, this would be proportioned into each of the 21 sub-watersheds that make up the whole system. Eight sub-watersheds have low levels of cover, however, and there is a need to improve and protect wetlands that can filter out phosphorus.
There is also a great need to rehabilitate natural cover in developed environments. This natural cover is critical for mitigating the effects of intense storms that we are already experiencing as a result of climate change. It is a fundamental requirement for protecting our cold water streams that are critical to having a healthy ecosystem. The pre-election proposal by the Ministry of Municipal Affairs to study the possibility of extending the Greenbelt was an exciting and timely one. This would be strong legislation — far better than any of the existing greenland designations now in place.

Philip Brennan retired from public service after 35 years, including 14 years with the Ontario Ministry of the Environment where he managed a team to implement the Lake Simcoe Protection Plan. He is a volunteer with the Simcoe County Greenbelt Coalition. Read his complete article at lakesimcoeliving.com. He can be reached at pbrennan@rogers.com.
—–

Johanna Powell
Publisher, Lake Simcoe Living
Lake Simcoe Living Magazine + Website
Cell 289-221-2910 • info@LakeSimcoeLiving.com
Daily News • LSRCA Media Award • Facebook • Twitter

Connecting Community and Business within the Lake Simcoe Watershed
Barrie, Innisfil, Bradford West Gwillimbury, King, Aurora, Newmarket,
East Gwillimbury, Georgina, Uxbridge, Brock, Kawartha Lakes,
Ramara, Oro-Medonte, Orillia