1 of 28

Lake Simcoe

Update

2023

Claire Malcolmson

Executive Director

June 28, 2023

2 of 28

Overview of presentation

State of the lake, response from province, what we are doing
Problems with current land use planning policy direction provincially: implications for cost and environment
Bradford Bypass - our campaign, what are we doing
Upcoming events, activities, learning opportunities

3 of 28

Lake Simcoe watershed �and �sub-watersheds

4 of 28

5 of 28

Overview of stressors

Phosphorus (nutrient) pollution - oxygen levels

stormwater, sewage, septics, farm fertilizer, airborne dust from development, aggregate, agriculture, farms.

Invasive Species
Salt
Forests & wetlands fragmentation
Climate Change

6 of 28

Cold Water Fish Catch �2003 - 2018

Source: Minister's 10 year Report on Lake Simcoe. https://www.ontario.ca/page/ministers-10-year-report-lake-simcoe#section-2

7 of 28

Dissolved oxygen

�

Fish health is related to oxygen levels

Source: The status of coldwater fishes of Lake Simcoe. 2018. Science and Research Branch.

Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry. By Paul Finigan, Lisa Graham, and Todd Langley.

Dissolved oxygen

Dissolved oxygen in the water is a key measure of our lake’s health. Dissolved oxygen levels are somewhat improved. But don’t get too excited; we have only met the LSPP’s dissolved oxygen target in two of the past 23 years or more.

The Lake Simcoe Protection Plan’s (LSPP) phosphorus load targets are based on the oxygen needs of our Lake Trout and Whitefish, because phosphorus stimulates plant growth, and the decomposition of the plants consumes oxygen.

The province is overstating the gains and underplaying the weird new relationship between high phosphorus loads (bad), lower phosphorus concentrations in the lake (good) and slightly improved dissolved oxygen. Early research indicates that some invasive species may have affected this highly unusual result. That is cause for concern, and precaution, not celebration and a relaxing of rules.

From LSRCA’s website: In more recent years, we are seeing a change in the relationship between phosphorus loads and dissolved oxygen. Deepwater dissolved oxygen has improved in the long term despite some years with high phosphorus loads (e.g., 2008). Targeted studies are being undertaken to understand the role of climate, invasive species, and other biological changes that may be influencing the relationship between phosphorus loads and dissolved oxygen. These studies may inform the Lake Simcoe Protection Plan adaptive management approach by providing new information about the effect of emerging issues on the total phosphorus loads needed to achieve and sustain dissolved oxygen of 7 mg/L.

The interactions of climate change, invasive species, and biological changes in Lake Simcoe have changed how phosphorus is being used in the lake, and how the lake responds to changing phosphorus loads.

8 of 28

Phosphorus loads

https://www.lsrca.on.ca/Pages/Phosphorus-Loads-Update-2018-2020.aspx

9 of 28

Sources of Phosphorus

Phosphorus is in soils, sewage, & fertilizers
You can eliminate fertilizers use; use biodegradable and phosphate free cleaners, & control soil erosion

10 of 28

Multiple stresses occurring simultaneously

Lake Simcoe Protection Plan review;
Pressure on Sewage Treatment Plants from doubling population in 30 years;
Orbit MZO proposal for 150,000 in Innisfil, near shore of Lake Simcoe;
Growth Plan requires municipalities to plan for sprawling growth to 2051;

adding anticipated another 30 tonnes of phosphorus/ year to Lake Simcoe, 2011 – 2051.

Bradford Bypass adding salt and fueling sprawling development.

11 of 28

Land Use Planning Matters! ��- Approximately ⅔ of the �Lake Simcoe Watershed is in the Greenbelt��- Absolutely no guarantees the Greenbelt will be protected;�- Expect (not accept) more Greenbelt development.

12 of 28

Natural Cover

LSPP target is 40% of watershed in high quality natural cover;
We JUST observed a trend away from losses of Natural Cover

13 of 28

400

LEVEL OF ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY PROTECTION

BEST POLICY PROTECTION: These features are subject to policies that prevent or tightly restrict development or other land cover change on them.

MODERATE POLICY PROTECTION: These features are subject to policies that allow some site alterations or land cover change, having met criteria and conditions.

Proportion of total land area in each ‘level of protection’.

NOT PROTECTED: These areas are already developed and / or are not subject to environmental protections.

Map produced by Assim Sayed Mohammed and Kirby Calvert, Department of Geography, Environment and Geomatics, University of Guelph. On behalf of the Rescue Lake Simcoe Coalition

Lake

Simcoe

400

89

404

48

12

7

12

11

Lake Simcoe

Watershed

Map of Environmental

Policy

Protections

August 2019

Barrie

Orillia

Bradford

Beaverton

****WATER IS NOT INCLUDED IN THE PIE CHART

This is a map we created to help people see how well our natural heritage is protected, and challenges.

In the lead up to the LSPP review, the RLSC questioned how well protected our watershed’s greenspaces are. We used existing mapping data, and analyzed how well various policies actually protect the natural feature.

The RLSC and U of Guelph mapped the policies that apply to landscape features across Simcoe County and the Lake Simcoe watershed, using County/Region and provincial maps and data sources. Reports are here: https://rescuelakesimcoe.org/about-us/accomplishments/lake-simcoe-greenlands-project/#more-256

The maps show us how much of our landscape is “best protected” by strong provincial policies that protect PSWs, significant woodlands, ANSIs etc. (14% in Simcoe County, 21% in the LS watershed).

Point is, we do not have a plan to achieve 40% high quality natural cover, and 21% well protected is still a ways away from 40% high quality, protected.

We are calling for an increase in the amount of land that is essentially permanently protected by provincial policies, through the LSPP review, as well as an increased focus on protecting the linkages between well-protected patches of natural heritage.

We do see a higher percentage of lands in the best protected category in the LS watershed vs Simcoe County.

This is thought to be due in part to the LSPP, GB Plan, and the Oak Ridges Moraine CP, which both require the ID and protection of Natural Heritage features. The degree to which lands are protected from land use changes in the “moderate policy protection” category varies, as this category includes a large number of policies, from those that protect setbacks around “best protected” areas, to ORMCP to LSPP policies. The full legend is available in the report.

One of the key findings of this research was that regions and municipalities’ own identification and protection of natural features varies greatly, with York Region appearing to be a good example of investing in the protection of trees and natural cover. Their strategy is one to examine and use as a model.

York Region Forest Management Plan 2016 https://www.york.ca/wps/wcm/connect/yorkpublic/b2d2d00f-9736-4ae5-b459-b67c55da8f97/York_Region_Forest_Management_Plan+2017.pdf?MOD=AJPERES&CVID=mu9cLan

The LSRCA has a robust Natural Heritage System and strategy, which aims to increase natural cover, and beef up the protection and restoration of linkages between protected features. The Rescue Lake Simcoe Coalition would like to see all Municipalities adopt the LSRCA’s NHS. https://www.lsrca.on.ca/Shared%20Documents/board/SHAUNA%20-%20NSHRS%20Presentation-BOD_June%2022,%202018.pdf

14 of 28

15 of 28

Impacts of Growth

Phosphorus Reduction Strategy acknowledged… “significant phosphorus loadings from development will occur and should be offset in some way.”

Based on the development approved as of 2010 the impact was expected to be 9.2 – 15.3 T/yr of P loading.

No update has been provided.

Growth has the biggest growing impact of the lake of any of the sources of P.

Province’s PRS says,

“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.” (PRS pg 30)

16 of 28

Provincial Policy Statement review until August 4

17 of 28

Summary of impact of policy changes

Conservation Authorities have no say in planning and permitting;
Conservation Authorities cannot protect natural areas or endangered species;

LSRCA can still comment on planning as it relates to Natural Heritage (NH) features (LSPP);

No more ecological offsetting allowed to compensate for removals of NH;
Wetland complexing no longer allowed: more development in wetlands;
Provincial Policy changes erase density & intensification targets, and planning justification requirements for settlement area boundary expansions;
Allowing communal water / wastewater servicing – risk to municipalities and tax-payers;
Municipalities cannot collect DCCs on many types of housing, so less $ to spend on making great communities;
Gutting Greenbelt while doing almost nothing that would create more affordable housing.

18 of 28

"A shortage of land isn't the cause of the problem. Land is available, both inside the existing built-up areas and on undeveloped land outside greenbelts. We need to make better use of land.“

Ontario Housing Affordability Taskforce.

A minimum of 3 reports counter this narrative. This is perhaps the most important thing for you to know and to share with your people.

This headline is about a report by Former Waterloo director of community planning and author of the report, Kevin Eby.

“It found that about 1.3 million units could be erected in existing “built-up areas” inside GGH municipalities. An additional 700,000 units could be built either on “designated greenfield areas” or rural land.

“We found that they've had existing capacity for years and have failed to deliver the supply and especially the affordable supply that's required,” Eby said.

“What the report does is it demonstrates that if we're building the type of housing that we actually need in Ontario, to accommodate future growth, at a level that's affordable for people, we already have enough capacity.”

--

Ontario Regional Planning Commissioners of Ontario RPCO announced their finding that there were already 1.5M homes in the development pipeline before Bill 23 was enacted. The municipalities surveyed by RPCO constitute approximately 70% of Ontario’s population. This means that the development inventory for municipalities representing the remaining 30% of Ontario’s population were not included, but would be expected to raise the aggregated numbers even higher, beyond 1.5M homes.

"RPCO reports over 1,250,000 housing units approved and proposed to be built prior to Provincial Bill 23, and encourages all stakeholders to work together, as supply alone will not solve Ontario’s housing affordability crisis. Data shows there are already over 1 million approved and proposed housing units in the development approval process. If a proxy of as-of-right accessory units is added, this number totals more than 1.25 million potential new homes. In year two of the Province’s ten-year goal to build 1.5 million homes, the Regional Planning Commissioners of Ontario (RPCO) has undertaken a housing supply inventory, which already constitutes 85% the Provincial 2032 goal. Some proposed units will require infrastructure, but these numbers are intended to provide an indication of the status of units already approved and in the formal approval process. Municipalities representing the remaining 30% of Ontario’s population would also have approved and proposed housing unit inventories. If they were included, the approved and proposed supply of housing units in the development approval process could exceed the 1.5 million Provincial target."

Says:

Ontario’s Housing Affordability Taskforce;

Regional Planning Commissioners of Ontario issue inventory of Ontario’s unbuilt housing supply

And Kevin Eby

19 of 28

WHY?

Why waste our money, our farmland, our climate, water quality?
Gutting planning policy is costing all of us for the benefit of few landowners and developers.

20 of 28

Bradford Bypass

21 of 28

The project is anticipated to negatively impact:

 22.1 hectares of high-quality woodlands;

 17.2 hectares of Holland Marsh (designated environmentally sensitive area);

 9.5 hectares of designated provincially significant wetlands; and

 and 32.7 hectares of significant wildlife habitat.

This is no way to save Lake Simcoe.

“The environmental assessment (EA) for the project was completed in 1997. The 1997 EA for the

project was superficial in nature. It did not consider cumulative effects, climate change, or detail

the impacts on natural heritage, migratory birds, fisheries, First Nations or discuss air pollution.

The 1997 EA was approved by the Ontario Minister of the Environment under the Ontario

Environmental Assessment Act in 2002. The 2002 Notice of Approval conditions required

upgraded studies on archaeological resources, storm water management, groundwater protection

plan, noise, and compliance monitoring.2”

“On July 8, 2020 the Ontario Government proposed to exempt the Bradford Bypass from

completion of any environmental assessment updates, and to exempt the project from all existing

conditions of approval including those mentioned above for stormwater management and

groundwater protection. The project is exempted from further environmental

assessment studies before construction begins on early works, such as bridges and water Crossings.3

- no further legally-mandated public consultation or

environmental assessment requirements under the Ontario Environmental Assessment Act.

- There is no provincial regulatory process addressing the

impacts to federal aspects of the project such as migratory birds, species at risk, and fish habitat.

Many of the species at risk potentially impacted by the project have been exempted from

approvals under the Ontario Endangered Species Act. The project is also exempt from

conservation authority approvals for wetland and floodplain development under the

Conservation Authorities Act. There is no regulatory requirement that climate change or air

pollution would be addressed. No air pollution approvals would be required. There is no

indication that the proposed provincial study, if completed, would assess climate change, noise

impacts or impacts on migratory birds and fish habitat. ” From EA request letter linked above

Mayors of East Gwillimbury and Bradford WG are on record supporting the Bradford Bypass, and are providing false information, suggesting the province is going to take care of the environment and do the required studies. There is nothing to substantiate these claims.

22 of 28

Watch on our Youtube channel

23 of 28

Townhalls in June

24 of 28

25 of 28

Upcoming activities & volunteer opportunities

Volunteer:

Outreach at farmers markets and fairs this summer;

Support fundraising team at RLSC with events planning;

Educate school aged kids and families in Orillia

Help distribute info;

Engage:

Lake Simcoe Defenders;

Protect the Lake Paddle: August 23^rd evening

26 of 28

What you can do for Lake Simcoe

Use Phosphate free cleaners & detergents

Take care of your septic system with regular pump outs

Plant native species on your property

Reduce your GHG emissions

Reduce residential salt use

27 of 28

Follow us on facebook, �twitter & Instagram��rescuelakesimcoecoalition@ gmail.com��www.rescuelakesimcoe.org��

28 of 28

Watershed streams breakdown: ��31% Urban runoff and stormwater ��25% Rural and agricultural��

Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks, Lake Simcoe Phosphorus Reduction Strategy (Toronto: MECP, 2010) page 12. Online: https://www.ontario.ca/page/lake-simcoe-phosphorus-reduction-strategy