Join The Rescue Lake Simcoe Coalition Today!

Rescue Lake Simcoe Coalition

Rescue, Restore and Rehabilitate Lake Simcoe — Imagine the Future

Home » phosphorus problem

Tag: phosphorus problem

Lake Simcoe Health Update: 2024 

by

How is Lake Simcoe’s health, and what are our governments doing about it?

Numbers of factors contribute to lake health, including adequate forest and wetland cover, manageable phosphorus loads, controlling invasive species, and a healthy climate. Some of these are easier to manage than others.

In this update we provide our readers with high level observations about many factors affecting the lake, and we demonstrate where scientific advice on phosphorus loads and lake management differs from the province’s machinations.  


Forest cover has been stable, with opinions differing about whether it has increased or not, since 2018. (LSRCA says it has improved; Lake Simcoe Science Committee says it has not.) But around Lake Simcoe land is so expensive that it’s hard to add parks and protected areas. The government of Ontario is loath to use policy (like the Greenbelt and Oak Ridges Moraine) to better protect land, so we should expect nothing significant on that front in the near future.

Climate change, while a massive threat to planetary health, is even harder to manage when the government suppresses information about it. The provincial government is essentially presenting as climate deniers, which does not bode well for action.  

Invasive species management in Ontario was reviewed in 2023, by then Auditor General Bonnie Lysyk, who said “Overall, our audit found the Natural Resources Ministry is not effectively managing and monitoring the introduction and spread of harmful invasive species in Ontario.” Ok, so no real reason for optimism there either. 

However! It’s not all bad news. 

We have reason to believe that Ontario is going to take some action on road salt this year. Read more here and take action to support the change!

Phosphorus 

You have heard much crowing about the Federal and provincial commitments to building a phosphorus recycling plant on the Holland River. This IS in fact a great piece of news, and we applaud those who are trying to make this happen, fast. We should have a plan, a location, and a host for this water treatment facility within six months: Minister Khanjin’s orders! You may recall that the Federal government announced its intention to spend $16 million on this in 2020. Why it has taken four years to light a fire is a question perhaps best asked of Wayne Emmerson, who has recently stepped down as Chair of the Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority (LSRCA), after he tried unsuccessfully to tie the ability to pay for this plant to the approval of the Upper York Sewage System, (UYSS), while wearing his Chair of York Region hat. (An excellent example of the inherent conflict of interest faced by elected officials pushing for development while sitting on the Board of the LSRCA.)

This plant is anticipated to stop 2.5 tonnes of phosphorus / year from entering the lake. The most recent 10 year average phosphorus load average is 97.5 tonnes / year and the Lake Simcoe Protection Plan’s (LSPP) target is 44 tonnes / year. You will observe that 2.5 of 97.5 is just 2.5% of the total load. So in fact this will be a minor, while needed, improvement. 

Our other ray of sunshine is to remind you that Georgina Island First Nation and EcoJustice, with ours and others support, made sure the Upper York Sewage Solution was not approved to add treated sewage to the lake. This will slow down sprawl there, hopefully until such a time that municipalities and the province listen to reason and stop the perpetuation of this damaging form of housing development, and instead focus on building a greater share of more compact and affordable homes in more compact towns and cities. 

Recently the LSRCA released the latest phosphorus load numbers, shown below:

Source: https://lsrca.on.ca/index.php/watershed-health/phosphorus/ 

If you compare the two most recent decades, phosphorus loads are increasing. And yet, the Ontario government spins the information to claim otherwise, such as: “Routine monitoring and research indicate that substantial progress has been made to improve water quality in Lake Simcoe as a result of the investments made in Lake Simcoe. While phosphorus loadings fluctuate, phosphorus concentrations continue to decline.” “Fluctuate” is true, but so too is “an overall increase”. 

Dissolved oxygen (DO) levels are another target of the LSPP, and they are typically tied to phosphorus loads and concentrations. We are concerned that the positive improvements in DO are being overly attributed to management actions. What is not made clear at provincial news conferences is that invasive species are thought to be responsible for the improvements in phosphorus concentrations and DO. Not quite the same as “as a result of the investments.” Point is, the investments are great, but controlling pollution is essential, and is not being adequately managed.

What did the independent members of the Lake Simcoe Science Committee say? 

In their 2021 advice to the Minister of Environment, Conservation and Parks, scientists noted a number of cautions: 

“While Dissolved Oxygen (DO) levels have increased and are now closer to the 7 mg/L target…the recent improvements…should not be considered permanent or stable.”

“Despite improvements in DO levels, the cold-water fish community is not restored or recovered.  Lake trout have been showing some decline in abundance and recruitment.”

“Small blooms of harmful (i.e., toxic) cyanobacteria have been reported in Lake Simcoe recently, which, if they were to increase could threaten drinking water supplies and recreational opportunities… Expansion of urban development in the watershed also increases the risk of harmful blooms through higher Total Phosphorus (TP) loads. While little can be done to alter climate at the watershed level, the additional stress from increased TP loading can be avoided.”

“Invasive species represent a significant threat to both aquatic and terrestrial habitats. Policies should be strengthened to detect and eradicate invasive species before and as they become establish[ed]”

“…future urban developments could impair the progress made to date and ability to further protect the lake from low dissolved oxygen, loss of cold-water fish populations and harmful cyanobacteria blooms”.

These sobering comments are very much in line with the presentation of facts made by the Rescue Lake Simcoe Coalition, and we thank those members for noting their well-informed concerns. We expect these to be the last robust recommendations made by the Lake Simcoe Science Committee as it is now headed by development lawyer Marvin Geist, not a scientist. The scientists whose tenures began before the Ford administration’s appointments expire in March of this year. 

What is being said about the 44 tonne phosphorus load target?

There is some debate at local Councils, and apparently at the province and the LSRCA, about whether the LSPP’s 44 tonne / year phosphorus target is worth keeping. Those who want to ditch it say it’s not achievable, with some ominously claiming that the target “is going to change”, a charge the Province has yet to deny. All players agree that interim targets and an updated Phosphorus Reduction Strategy or plan are needed.

For the Rescue Lake Simcoe Coalition’s part, we do not support changing the phosphorus target. There has been no thorough analysis of the achievement of the Lake Simcoe Protection Plan’s targets and objectives that must justify such a significant change. We strongly oppose making it easier to pollute Lake Simcoe in the absence of any measurable or sustainable improvements in any of the indicators of lake health. There is no independent science that says we can achieve the targeted dissolved oxygen levels, sustainably, with higher phosphorus inputs. We will wait for that. 

The image below is from the Lake Simcoe Phosphorus Reduction Strategy, 2011. We are in the adaptive management phase but no revised plan has been developed. 

Read Ontario’s Lake Simcoe Phosphorus Reduction Strategy here https://www.ontario.ca/page/lake-simcoe-phosphorus-reduction-strategy

Conclusion 

At Lake Simcoe we have a shot at protecting our waters, with strong legislation and almost adequate natural cover. (See the LSRCA’s watershed report card, 2023, for local details.)

But the Lake Simcoe Science Committee members’ comments make clear that the Ministry of Environment, Conservation and Parks needs to roll up its sleeves and get to work on an updated Phosphorus Reduction Strategy. We need a plan to control existing sources of phosphorus from urban and suburban stormwater, farms, and those outdated sewage systems, without opening up Pandora’s Box and allowing an unsustainable amount of sprawl in the watershed. 

Help us do this important work!

DONATE HERE

We appreciate media interest in Lake Simcoe, and stories like these from the National Observer:

https://www.nationalobserver.com/2023/11/10/news/ontario-plunges-13-million-lake-simcoe-cleanup

https://www.nationalobserver.com/2023/10/04/news/environmental-advocates-sound-alarm-lake-simcoe-phosphorus-pollution

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

Threats to Lake Simcoe: Development planned for the Lake Simcoe area is unsustainable.

by

Part 1 of our series Who Will Save Lake Simcoe? Read the full report here.

Housing and development growth is at the top of the list because everything else flows from this.

In the year since our initial report, we are not aware of any public assessment regarding the sustainability of the planned development, and its sewage and stormwater requirements, in the Lake Simcoe watershed. This growth is anticipated to negatively affect both water quality and housing affordability.

How does growth affect Lake Simcoe?

One of Lake Simcoe’s biggest environmental issues is Phosphorus pollution. We are currently doubling the Lake Simcoe Protection Plan’s target maximum load of 44 tonnes per year.

Phosphorus is in fertilizer, poop, and dirt! Where does it come from? See green graphic.

The impacts of development are not limited to sewage. Any water that drains across the watershed’s land picks up Phosphorus and other pollutants. Untreated, it becomes part of the stormwater pollution that accounts for a stunning 31% of the estimated Phosphorus loads to Lake Simcoe, the highest contributing source.

The stripping of land and development processes themselves contribute to Lake Simcoe’s pollution. Readers should note that advanced sewage treatment will not address all of the impacts of development.

The Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority (LSRCA) says the watershed is now home to 465,000 people, and, “based on the Province of Ontario’s Places to Grow Plan and municipal official plans, it’s projected that the urban area within our watershed will increase by approximately 50% by the year 2041 and the population will nearly double.” [1]

Extrapolating from government estimates for development planned from 2008 to 2031, [2] the development projected for the Lake Simcoe watershed will increase Phosphorus loads by at least 15 tonnes per year.

It is an exercise in futility to fight the population growth across the province, but we should be careful about where it will go, what form it will take, and how much land will be disturbed in the process. As explained above, sprawling development will eat up more farmland and contribute more Phosphorus to the lake. So we must consider the denser alternatives to new subdivisions of single-family homes in farm fields.

The way the Municipal Comprehensive Reviews (part of the Official Plan review process) are rolling out, it appears that the initial allocation of land for new development will occur before climate change and water/wastewater capacity analyses are complete, thereby repeating the mistakes that put us in a situation of having development approvals without sewage treatment plant approvals. More on this in the Upper York Sewage Solution section.

But it gets worse. The province has called for an even higher population for the watershed while weakening the Environmental Assessment process for building new highways and sewage treatment plants. Conservation Authorities’ and municipalities’ ability to spend time getting excellent, environmentally-friendly development proposals has been curtailed. The province has also limited the time allowed for proposal review. [3] Municipalities that exceed the shorter review period will face new financial penalties, and the independence of Conservation Authorities’ decisions on some land use matters has been

undermined with new laws allowing ministers to override Conservation Authority requirements. That is a non-exhaustive list of how Ontario laws have changed since 2018 to limit environmental protections and facilitate development.

Sprawl is also bad for residents’ and municipalities’ finances. An exacerbating factor for both environmental and housing affordability concerns is the province’s entrenchment in “market-based” analysis to determine the correct mix of housing in the future. This approach uses old market preferences favouring single-family home development over more compact and affordable housing options. In today’s housing market, this is a missed opportunity to build what mid- and lower-income Ontarians can afford. Research from York Region shows that it is increasingly difficult to buy a home for the average York Region resident. [4] Smaller, more affordable, and family-friendly units are urgently needed.

Chart 1. York Region Affordable Housing Threshold and Average Cost of New Homes (2019) [4]

Sprawling neighbourhoods rely on sprawling infrastructure for water, wastewater, and hydro. Ottawa analyzed the impacts of sprawl vs. infill development scenarios. Their consultant, Hemson, “found it now costs the City of Ottawa $465 per person each year to serve new low-density homes built on undeveloped land, over and above what it receives from property taxes and water bills….On the other hand, high-density infill development, such as apartment buildings, pays for itself and leaves the city with an extra $606 per capita each year.” [5] This leaves sprawling municipalities with fewer dollars to spend on services that make people’s lives better as they try to cover the long-term maintenance costs of sprawling infrastructure that are not covered by development charges.

Although there is absolutely a way forward that would create complete communities, increase affordability, and reduce environmental impacts of new development, the government is passing on the options that would build “the missing middle,” typified by 3 – 6 story, small buildings of condos, apartments and/or townhouses. This is the way we used to build our communities before we succumbed to the sprawl experiment. In Bill 109, the More Homes for Everyone Act [6] which received Royal Assent on April 14th, 2022, the province did not take important steps recommended by experts, academics, and housing advocates to allow more gentle density to existing neighbourhoods. [7]

Strangely, the province is pushing sprawl and massive density at the same time. The province is forcing massively dense tower projects such as those at Yonge St. and Hwy 407 in Richmond Hill, using Enhanced Minister’s Zoning Orders to permit what would be the highest density development in the western hemisphere. [8]

When it comes to the long-term protection of farmland, water quality, and housing affordability, there is a lot to criticize in the province’s frequent changes to the Planning Act. Development lobby groups love it. [9] So far, it’s hard to tell who else does.

Footnotes:

[1] Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority, 2021. Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority, Approved Budget, 2021. p. 5.

[2] Re development to 2031: “Under the Plan all new developments are required to have enhanced stormwater management controls in place, subject to limited exceptions. Accounting for these controls, analysis indicates the Phosphorus load from these new developments would be 15.3 T/yr. Additional analysis indicates that combining “Enhanced” stormwater management controls with LID practices would reduce the Phosphorus load from new development to 9.2 T/yr. While the Strategy and the Plan strongly encourage that effective measures are taken to mitigate and reduce Phosphorus contributions from new development wherever possible, significant Phosphorus loadings from development will occur and should be offset in some way.” (Lake Simcoe Phosphorus Reduction Strategy, p. 30)

[3] This change was made on April 14, 2022, in the More Homes for Everyone Act.

[4] York Region Staff Report: Regional Official Plan Update: Housing Challenges and Opportunities. January 14, 2021. https://yorkpublishing.escribemeetings.com/filestream.ashx?DocumentId=18865

[5] Porter, Kate. Sept 9, 2021. Suburban expansion costs increase to $465 per person per year in Ottawa. CBC news.

[6] Proposed Planning Act changes (the proposed More Homes for Everyone Act, 2022) https://www.ontariocanada.com/registry/view.do?postingId=41487&language=en

[7] Xing, Lisa. March 31, 2022. Ford government left key strategies out of housing legislation, critics say. CBC news. https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/housing-crisis-doug-ford-municipalities-1.6403221?fbclid=IwAR0SktZPpUpfXlwj5paX_XXXhZhU9kGr-jLLmqYPejJ0FwKXRV_BUJDovCs

[8] MZOs issued April 14, 2021, for massive density in York Region: https://www.ontario.ca/laws/regulation/r22345 & https://www.ontario.ca/laws/regulation/r22344

[9] BILD influencing policy development, politics and voters: https://bildgta.ca/voteforhousing

Watershed protection this amazing needs to stand

by

Ontario’s Lake Simcoe Protection Act and Plan represents the best watershed policy in Canada. It’s a model so good it’s been replicated in Ontario’s Great Lakes Protection Act. The Lake Simcoe experience is leading the way for reducing stormwater impacts in a high urban growth context, using low impact development techniques, and adaptive watershed management. As global climate change impacts grow, algae blooms and flooding will get worse in many waterbodies; Lake Simcoe’s Protection Plan offers a model for reducing nutrients and contaminants and protecting and restoring the watershed’s flood-absorbing wetlands and forests. It’s a hard-fought model worthy of protection.

But the Rescue Lake Simcoe Coalition is concerned that the Lake Simcoe Protection Plan (LSPP) could be weakened in 2021, and that’s why we are asking water protectors across Ontario and Canada to help us Protect Our Plan.

The Lake Simcoe Protection Plan is up for statutory review by the Province of Ontario; the public consultation period ends March 3rd, 2021, and the province says that by the summer, amendments to the Plan will be made.

The Coalition and its 26 member groups are campaigning to Protect Our Plan, urging the Province to leave the Plan’s targets and objectives alone, and focus on the Plan’s implementation.

Protect Our Plan Priorities in brief:

  1. Improve water quality by reducing Phosphorus loads to the lake, to 44 tonnes per year, as soon as possible, from urban and agricultural areas, and from aggregate and construction sites;
  2. Support a healthy environment around the lake and reduce flooding impacts by protecting 40% of the watershed area’s forests and wetlands;

If enough people support excellent watershed protection, it will be possible to raise the bar for watershed health in Ontario. Groups and organisations can support strong watershed protection by signing onto our Lake Simcoe Protection Plan review priorities, and individuals can sign our petition and / or use our template to send a letter to their MPP here: https://rescuelakesimcoe.org/take-action-2/

Lake Simcoe is an hour’s drive north of Toronto, and its watershed population of nearly 500,000 includes Barrie, Orillia, Bradford, Newmarket, Orillia, Sutton and Beaverton. The watershed / drainage basin is 3,400 square kilometres, about five times the size of the lake itself, and is between the GTA’s Oak Ridges Moraine and Greenbelt, and “cottage country” to the north. The watershed is under intense development pressure, with its population is projected to double by 2051. See maps here.

It’s practically impossible to imagine today that the Lake Simcoe Protection Act received UNANIMOUS ALL PARTY SUPPORT a short thirteen years ago at Queen’s Park. The largely Conservative voter base around the lake cares about protecting our water and a quality natural environment. Protecting the environment is not a partisan issue at the local level. That’s why we are reaching out to people of all stripes to join us in Protecting Our Plan.

Ice fishermen and women love Lake Simcoe too. They need it to stay healthy and clean to support the watershed’s $420 million sustainable recreation sector.
Conservative MPP Garfield Dunlop, Simcoe North, at Queen’s Park in 2006, introducing Lake Simcoe Protection Act as a Private Members Bill, with heads of Environmental Defence, Ontario Nature, and Rescue Lake Simcoe Coalition.

The Lake Simcoe Protection Act was the brainchild of the Rescue Lake Simcoe Coalition’s founding Chair (and Environmental Defence and Ontario Nature Board member), progressive developer Bobby Eisenberg; and environmental lawyer David Donnelly, who was working for citizens protecting the environment in Oro-Medonte (Simcoe County) at the time. Supporting his constituents, Conservative MPP Garfield Dunlop (Simcoe North) introduced what became the Lake Simcoe Protection Act as a private member’s bill as a member of the opposition at Queen’s Park. Two years later, Premier Dalton McGuinty’s government introduced and passed the legislation, but Dunlop’s lead made protecting Lake Simcoe a non-partisan issue. Will it remain so?

But while both the Province of Ontario and the Government of Canada pledge to protect Lake Simcoe, the threats keep coming. Changes to growth planning rules in Ontario, a proposed highway across a sensitive wetland and wildlife area of the Holland Marsh, and the Minister’s Zoning Order, (MZO) requested for the gigantic Orbit development in Innisfil all highlight the challenges of accommodating growth while protecting the environment.

What happens at Lake Simcoe is a bellweather for our ability to protect water quality in urbanizing areas. Let’s keep the protections at Lake Simcoe strong so other areas can catch up. Take action before April 2021 to defend best-in-class environmental watershed policy.

Lake Simcoe seen from the site of the proposed Bradford Bypass / Holland Marsh Highway, looking north east towards Cooks Bay and Georgina. Photo Credit Jeff Laidlaw.

Explainer video: What is the Lake Simcoe Protection Plan? https://rescuelakesimcoe.org/

More on the history of the LSPP https://rescuelakesimcoe.org/2018/12/08/history-of-the-lake-simcoe-protection-plan-vision-leadership-and-listening/

The Real Lake Monster

by

‘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