Join The Rescue Lake Simcoe Coalition Today!

Rescue Lake Simcoe Coalition

Rescue, Restore and Rehabilitate Lake Simcoe — Imagine the Future

Home » rescue lake simcoe coalition

Tag: rescue lake simcoe coalition

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

Take Action To Protect Our Forests and Natural Spaces!

by

**Updated November 25, 2021**

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

**Please only submit one form.

Or email kristin.pechkovsky@simcoe.ca.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Big Bay Point: Tiles 28 & 29 

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

Additional details on BBP locations of concern:

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

Gilford: Tile 22 

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

Oro-Medonte:  Tiles 36, 37 & 48

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

Additional details on Oro-Medonte locations of concern: 

Tile 48

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

Tile 47

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

Tile 36 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

– it is under consideration and not yet approved.

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

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

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

Ramara: Tile 50

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

GENERAL COMMENTS ABOUT SIMCOE COUNTY’S NATURAL HERITAGE SYSTEM MAPPING

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

WHAT HAPPENS NEXT?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

LEARN MORE 

A Place to Grow Act 2020

“Other implementation” policy 5.2.8.4

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

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/

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

by

Hello Lake Lovers,

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

Public survey: Lake Simcoe Protection Plan 10-year review

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

4. Encouraging agricultural stewardship of the environment

Choose Other and add: Reduce Phosphorus loading. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Choose Yes. Please provide details: 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

by 1 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.

Proposed site of the Orbit: See Lake Simcoe in the background!?
Proposed site of the Orbit: See Lake Simcoe in the background!?

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:

Orbit proposal and natural features: Image by Adam Ballah, Simcoe County Greenbelt Coalition.
Orbit proposal and natural features: Image by Adam Ballah, Simcoe County Greenbelt Coalition.

The proposed site now looks like this:

Why oppose the Orbit MZO proposal?

  1. 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.

 

  1. 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.

 

  1. 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.

 

  1. 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.

 

  1. 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.

 

  1. 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.

 

  1. Find your Mayor here and please call or send them a personalized email. https://www.simcoe.ca/Clerks/Pages/councilmembers.aspx
  2. If you’re emailing, please cc the ultimate decision-maker, Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, Steve Clark. minister.mah@ontario.ca
  3. 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 1 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.

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

by

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

  1. S. 12. 2. Lake Simcoe Protection Act
  2. 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
  3. Ontario, 2010. Lake Simcoe Phosphorus Reduction Strategy. https://www.ontario.ca/page/lake- simcoe-phosphorus-reduction-strategy
  4. 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

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

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

2023 Rescue Lake Simcoe Coalition