New: Facebook has blocked all Canadian news. Join our mailing list to stay in the loop.

New: Facebook has blocked all Canadian news. Join our mailing list to stay in the loop.

The Friends of the Tay Watershed Association has announced the recipients of their 2018 Environmental Awards, recognising three individuals and organisations that have made a significant contribution to the protection and care of the Tay watershed and the environment in general.

Noelle Reeves, Tay Valley Township Planner, received the association’s award for Contribution to the Tay Watershed. As the municipal planner for a rural municipality with 26 lakes and several rivers, Noelle has taken to heart her very important responsibility for guiding the sustainability of those tremendous assets for the public benefit of the residents of Tay Valley Township and the natural environment which forms such an integral part of what makes the Township so special.

For ‘Contribution to Water Resources at the provincial, national or international level’ the recipient was Ontario Nature. Ontario Nature was one of the leaders in the province-wide movement that resulted in the removal of Schedule 10 from Bill 66. Schedule 10 of the “Open-for-Business” Act would have permitted development to bypass the legislative protection in several provincial acts, for water, natural heritage and farmland in municipalities across Ontario, undermining safeguards to our environment and the health of our communities.

Graham Beck, Little Stream Bakery, was the recipient of the award for ‘Contribution to the General Environment’. For many years, Little Stream Bakery has quietly provided grants to area organisations as a member of the international organisation known as “1% for the Planet”, a volunteer community of businesses dedicated to increasing charitable assistance to the environment, with the donation of 1% of their revenue.

These 2018 award recipients were voted the best in their categories from a list of 10 dedicated candidate individuals and organisations. The Friends of the Tay Watershed thank the recipients for their significant contributions to the stewardship of our natural environment.

The Friends of the Tay Watershed is a non-profit charitable association founded in 2001 to deliver programs and activities, and cooperate with other organizations with complementary interests, to ensure the health of the water and related natural resources of the Tay Watershed for present and future generations.

Published in General Interest

There are a range of syrup makers in our part of the world. Syrup is, at its core, a very simple process, a lot of home syrup makers are able to make enough for family and friends with a one time investment of anywhere from a couple of hundred dollars to a few thousand depending on how they want to go about it.

It is also a bigger business. Commercial syrup makers can invest in the hundreds of thousands and bring in extended family or paid labourers for several weeks for 10,000 + tap operations, reverse osmosis machines and high end tanks and evaporators. We have the whole range in our area, and from the most basic to the most sophisticated, they are all equally dependent on the weather.

Not that long ago, winter weather patterns were a lot more predictable in this part of the world. The beginnings of spring, when the temperature rose above zero in the daytime for more than a day or two, tended to be sometime in early to mid March. Those who put up lines in the bush would work away in the second half of February to catch the earliest run and maximize the coveted early sweet sap, from which they produced the coveted, subtle extra light and light syrup that consumers loved so much.

There are now a lot of small scale, hobby operations around, and this is reflected in the local hardware stores carrying more and more syrup supplies each year, and even a dedicated store that has been set up by Northway Home Hardware, which sells evaporators and boiling pans, etc.

But for hobbyists, and professionals alike, the last couple of years have been a challenge because the season has been so early, and so extended. It’s all about hurry up and wait. Before the February long weekend is over it’s time to get the buckets out, find the drill bit and get ready to get started.

One local producer, who keeps records, said the last two years were the first time they started boiling sap in February (the 22nd in 2017, and the 21st this year) in at least 40 years with one exception, a first boil on February 28th in 2000.

You see where I am going here. Are these record early starts to the syrup season indications of the impacts of climate change?

The answer seems to be that on their own, two years of an early syrup season do not indicate climate change. But when we look back at the past 10 – 15 years and see that the start date, the length of the season, the stop and start nature of it as we go through warmer and colder spells each December, is different than it was before. This has an impact on the way syrup is produced, but fortunately it has not had a severe impact on production. For us hobbyists, it is not a big deal, there is not that much at stake, but for commercial producers who are constantly investing in their business and spend time in the off-season managing their sugar bush for the long run, the un-knowable impacts of climate change on syrup production over the next 25 to 50 years are something to think about.

We do know that sugar maples are resilient, the sap may run better and sweeter some years, based on a number of factors such as water in the ground, heat units in the previous summer etc., but even when stressed for a year or two the trees tend to recover and the sap has kept flowing for millenia.

Syrup producers have noticed that, with longer summers and shorter winters, trees are growing faster than they were, and the medium term impact of this change is not known.

We do know that sugar maples have a limited range. Is the limit of that range going to move north, as long term weather conditions change?

There is something special about syrup season. The milky colour of the early sap, the smells as the weather warms up, etc., the fleeting beginnings of spring.

I must say it was odd to be tapping this year in February as the ground was already softening up from heaving frost, snow was retreating everywhere and streams that normally break through in mid-season were already bubbling.

We don’t know if there is any reason to speculate that our maple based syrup culture may become a victim of climate change, but even those of us who have only dabbled in syruping for 15 or 20 years are becoming aware of changes in the seasons, and it is impossible not to wonder whether the tradition that predates us by a long, long time will continue into the near future or not.

Published in Editorials
Wednesday, 13 December 2017 12:10

Sydenham Lake Stewardship Plan Completed

Gord Rodgers of French Planning Services and Bill Peairs, Chair of Sydenham Lake Association, presented Council with the final version of the Sydenham Lake Plan, which was developed over the past two years. An attractive readable 31 page document, its overall goal is to “identify and protect the significant social, natural and physical features that make the lake and its surrounding area a healthy natural environment and a desirable place for people to live and visit.”

Of the 52 recommended actions in the plan, Rodgers focussed on the 11 that were relevant to the Township. (At least one of these, the protection of the dark sky, is already under implementation, with the upgrading of Sydenham streetlights.)

The final recommendation was that a working group be established, with representatives from the Lake Association, the Township and the Cataraqui Regional Conservation Authority (CRCA). This group would meet annually to “guide the plan and its actions into the future.”

Rodgers thanked the Township and the CRCA for their support and encouragement, and said that money from the Ministry of the Environment’s Source Water Protection Fund had made the plan possible.

(The complete plan is currently available in draft form on the SLA website).

In answer to Councillor McDougall’s query about possible sources of funding for other Township Lake Associations to do similar Lake Plans, Rodgers said it was very difficult. However, he did suggest that a more modest plan could probably be achieved without the help of a consultant, if there were volunteers willing and able to do the necessary work.

Proposed Shooting Range in Portland District
Council was asked to consider approval of a private shooting range proposed by Scanlon Road resident Stephen Saunders.

Private shooting ranges fall under the jurisdiction of the Chief Firearms Officer of the Ontario Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services, and are strictly controlled and monitored bi-annually. One of the conditions for establishing a range is a letter from the local municipality sating ; a) that the Municipality has no objection to the range, and b) the range would not contravene any municipal by-laws relating to the use of the range and discharging of firearms. Planner Lindsay Mills notes that there is nothing in the Township’s zoning by-law, or the provincial Planning Act that would prevent the use.

Council was unanimous in its agreement that it was important to notify neighbours of the proposal, so they would have the opportunity to speak to Council if they had concerns. CAO Orr said that there was no established process for this, and Council again agreed that he should follow the same timeline and notification protocol used for severance applications.

Recruitment Woes
South Frontenac Township is currently without a Manager of Development Services (MDS), or a Chief Building Official. The position of MDS was recently created, in response to increasing development pressures and the stated goal of seeking delegated authority to approve subdivisions and plans of condominium by 2018. The first round of recruitment was unsuccessful, and in the second round, Forbes Symon was hired. However, after six months, Mr Symon left this September for a similar position in Perth, where he lived. To date, no suitable replacement has been found.

Before re-advertising in the new year, Mayor Vandewal suggested Council might wish to discuss whether they even wanted to continue with the recently-created position.

The answer was clear. “It was a great advantage, having a Development Services Manager for six months. It would be a mistake to lose sight of that” (Sutherland); “That position offered comfort and confidence”, (McDougall); “The Development Services Manager brought strength and breadth of experience - it’s hard to have lost that,” (Schjerning). The rest of Council were equally supportive of continuing to recruit for the position.

The Building Department has had what Orr calls “a chronic problem” keeping anyone in the position of Chief Building Official since Councillor Alan Revill retired from the job in early 2012. Since then there have been three full-time hires and four Acting CBO’s appointed in between: most recently, Ryan Arcand left in November after eleven months as CBO to return to the City of Kingston. Staff are currently interviewing applicants. In spite of a seasonal drop in demand, the remaining building official is not able to keep up with the workload. Orr summarizes: “staff are also exploring other creative options on how to deliver service, however, it is premature to comment on their feasibility or possibility.”

Published in SOUTH FRONTENAC

Opponents of the Johnston Point 15 lot development on Loughborough Lake have not given up the fight. The development received draft approval from the Ontario Municipal Board over a year ago last spring.

That approval included a number of conditions that need to be met by the applicant, Magenta Waterfront Development Corporation, before the plan can be approved and the lots created. Among those are conditions related to endangered species at that location. Early in November, the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry (MNRF) posted a notice on the Environmental Bill of Rights (EBR) web site. The notice concerns a so-called “overall benefit” permit that the ministry is intending to issue regarding two species at risk that have been identified on the 36 acre parcel known as Johnston’s Point. It relates to two species, the Gray (aka Black) Ratsnake and the Blandings Turtle.

If the ministry issues the permit, it will be based on a commitment by the applicant to take measures to offset any harm that is done to the habitat with greater measures to improve the habitat, achieving an “overall benefit”.

A delegation on Tuesday Night (November 28) urged Council to support their opposition to the “Overall Benefit” permit on the grounds that two other species at risk have been identified at Johnston’s Point, bats and whip-poor-wills.

“The benefit permit completely disregards significant evidence gathered by citizens of South Frontenac regarding the presence of at least two more species: Little Brown Myotis Bats (Endangered), as well as Eastern Whip-poor-will (Species at Risk)” said Roel Vertegaal in a letter to council.

The Eastern Whip-poor-will was mentioned in the draft condominium approval from the OMB. One of the conditions was the delivery of a study concerning the presence of whip-poor-will. The opponents presented a report that they commissioned, which was prepared by Cambium Engineering, which found whip-poor-wills on the site on three sampling dates in June, 6 on one night, 16 on another, and 11 on a third.

The report also says that there is “probable breeding” within the proposed condominium area.

It also concludes: “The General Habitat Description for the Eastern Whip-poor-will states that an area extending 500 meters from the centre of defended territories is considered part of the general habitat for this species. Therefore, the entirety of the peninsula is considered Eastern Whip-poor-will habitat under the ESA [Endangered Species Act] and damaging or destroying the forested areas without appropriate authorization is prohibited.”

While the conditions for the approval of the condominium are being worked on, some of the lots that have not yet been created have been sold. As well, work has been proceeding on a road that will access those lots.

The development is also being marketed by a corporation called Boneliving, which builds what it calls “Net-Zero Energy Ready High Performance Homes” out of steel “on unique lots”.

In addition to the proposed Johnston’s Point development, Boneliving lists properties on Sweetfern Lane on Inverary Lake.

Evonne Potts, one of the opponents of the project, told the News that she is concerned about the amount of roadwork and shoreline work that has already been done at the site when the condominium approval is still pending.

Joe Gallivan, Manager of Planning for Frontenac County, said that while there are limits to work that can be done on properties before planning is completed in some jurisdictions, there is little in place in South Frontenac to limit that kind of work. He also said that selling lots that have not yet been created but are in process can be done, although the sales are by necessity conditional on planning approval.

Published in SOUTH FRONTENAC

For 18 years, David Craig built conventional homes.

Then, he saw the film Garbage Warrior, a 2007 documentary about Mike Reynolds, who came up with the Earthship style of building. Intrigued, he went to take a course from Reynolds in New Mexico.

When he got back to Canada, he quit his job (“it was a good job,” he said) and began building Earthships. He has two of these completed and sold under his belt.

Craig’s company, Talking Trees Communities, is one of the ‘stakeholders’ in C & T North Frontenac’s One Small Town project.

Craig’s part, and indeed his vision, is to create a community of Earthships.

“Eighty-nine would work, 111 would be nice,” he said.

Currently, Craig is working out of the house beside the liquor store in Plevna that’s serving as the overall project’s headquarters.

“I don’t have any say in this building, I’m just in it,” he said. “It’s all of our offices.”

He’d really rather be out there building Earthships.

“To make the projects viable, we’d need 300 to 500 acres,” he said.

For those unfamiliar with the Earthship design concept, they are based on six principles or human needs:

• thermal/solar heating and cooling
• solar and wind electricity
• self-contained sewage treatment
• building with natural and recycled materials
• water harvesting and long-term storage
• some internal food production capabilities.

Craig’s design is based on Reynolds’ but he’s modified it somewhat. He retains the six principles and recycles tires to create the thermal mass which is a crucial component to the heating/cooling system but he’s scrapped the horseshoe concept which he deemed unnecessary to the functions of the house and added some insulation to the thermal mass.

But it’s essentially still the off-grid, self-sustaining plan Reynolds came up with in the early ’70s.

“The conventional house is a freezing, useless box,” he said. “An Earthship will stay at 15 degrees year ’round.

“Now that’s too cold for most people in the winter so you’ll need an additional heating source but nowhere near as much as you do in a conventional home, regardless of how it’s insulated.”

He said the owner of the home plays a big part in the design in terms of how many solar panels are used, size of the greenhouse and accoutrements as well as actual construction if desired but $150 per square foot is “middle ground” building cost for these homes.

The actual plan for One Small Town is very much still in the planning stages but for Craig location and/or construction of the other components (medical centre, electrical generating plant, aquaculture facility, apiary and wood products) is a non-issue. He’s ready to start building houses as soon as the land is secured and subdivided.

“We (the Earthship component) don’t need the power,” he said.

Published in NORTH FRONTENAC
Wednesday, 02 August 2017 14:05

Discovering the richness of Rose Hill

The general public will have a unique opportunity to visit Rose Hill Nature Reserve on Saturday, August 19th to explore the new trails and learn about the rich biodiversity found there. Rose Hill is a 358-acre wilderness property in the rugged, hilly landscape north east of Denbigh in Addington Highlands.


In the spring of 2017, the Mississippi Madawaska Land Trust (MMLT) engaged a professional ecologist to prepare a scientific report describing the natural history and ecological features of the Nature Reserve, as well as conduct fieldwork to inventory the species on the property. At our August 19th event, visitors will hear about some of the discoveries of the field study and learn about the ecological significance of Rose Hill.


An initial field study was conducted in 2012 when the first 100-acre parcel was acquired by the Land Trust. That first report stated that one of the most remarkable aspects of this property is its lack of invasive plant species which gives a pretty good indication of its relatively untouched, wild condition. This year’s study will provide MMLT with the necessary information to prepare a long-term management plan for the Nature Reserve. Land trusts are mandated to protect the properties in their care forever, which in legal terms means a 999 year commitment, renewable.


Over the past year, area volunteers have extended the trail network by opening up a long-unused trail around Fufflemucker Pond. Visitors will be guided along the trail from and to the lovely picnic spot beside the pond where we’ll gather to hear Cathy Keddy, the Chair of MMLT’s Ecological Stewardship Committee, share the findings of the field study to date. After lunch, you can meander along the trail around the perimeter of the pond looking for the rare species described.


Registration for the nature walk is at 10:30 a.m. at the Brodey Trail entrance on Rose Hill Rd. Admission is $10. Bring along a picnic lunch to enjoy beside Fufflemucker Pond. Don’t forget your camera – the scenery is beautiful and you may catch a shot of something special.


Directions to Rose Hill Nature Reserve are provided below:


From Kaladar at the junction of Hwy 7 and Hwy 41, travel north for 65.4 km to Rose Hill Rd. and turn right.
Area residents from the east can take Buckshot Lake Rd. from Plevna to Hwy 41.
Follow Rose Hill Rd. for about 1.6 km to the Brodey Trail entrance (marked) to climb to Fufflemucker Pond. Parking is at the road side.

Published in ADDINGTON HIGHLANDS
Wednesday, 19 July 2017 12:18

Neonics impact aquatic ecosystems

Neonics are pesticides that are coated onto many seeds sown on Ontario farms. During sowing, a lot of the neonics gets into the atmosphere as dust and a lot more gets into the soil. Some that gets into the soil is carried down into the groundwater and out into streams by rainwater.

Neonicotinoids (neonics) have been shown by UK and US research to affect much more than just honey bees. In addition, the "facts" in commonly circulated 'fact sheets', such as for imidacloprid, stretch some points to make the neonics seem harmless. One fact sheet states that imidacloprid quickly breaks down in soil and water but the actual number of days for its breakdown in soils varies from 28¬–1250 days. In November 2016, Health Canada proposed a ban on imidacloprid.

There are questions about the actual benefits of neonics. At least three studies cast doubt on the utility and monetary benefits of neonics. One experiment compared soybean yield from neonic-coated soybeans to yield without the neonics. They found no increase in yield due to the neonics over two years of study.

Imidacloprid dissolves in water and is toxic to aquatic invertebrates at 10–100 nanograms per litre (100 nanograms =0.0000001 grams). US EPA found that the concentration of this neonic in many streams regularly exceeds toxic levels for aquatic invertebrates including crustaceans. Mayflies are the most sensitive. The EPA stated that impacts have cascading effects on food webs and on ecosystem functions.

So the arguments about neonics are not just about honey bees. Aquatic systems also are affected. And apparently, the financial benefits to farmers that the big chemical corporations advertize may not be there. And the ecological impacts are much greater than they say.

More information:
ehp.niehs.nih.gov/ehp515

www.panna.org/blog/neonic-harms-go-well-beyond-bees

Published in General Interest
Wednesday, 05 July 2017 12:44

Recycling - Why bother

(Editors note - The path forward for our waste systems in Eastern Ontario has become identified as a long term issue by Frontenac County Council, and Addington Highlands Council as well. Here Gray Merriam takes a look at recycling in terms of environmental impactgs, in contrast to the incineration option)

The basic reasons for recycling are to conserve natural resources and to save energy. But what drove us to recycle was the difficulty of finding spaces to dump our waste without getting in trouble with neighbours, near or far.

The most critical reason for recycling is actually protection of our atmosphere. Recycling reduces our use of energy and that reduces the emission of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. Increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere traps more of the heat that comes from reradiation of solar energy by the earth. Preventing heat from escaping through the atmosphere not only heats the atmosphere, it also makes weather increasingly variable and very unpredictable. It changes the distribution of heat and of rainfall so that our placement of human activities and food production no longer matches the weather that we need in those chosen places. Food growing areas can become more like deserts.

Achievability of targets for recycling is affected by many variables but mainly by costs of collecting, markets for recyclables and demographic density. The US recycles about 32% of the volume of wastes but the Netherlands recycles 60% or more. Locally we try to reach 25%.

In 2007, recycling was estimated to reduce Britain's annual emission of carbon dioxide by 10%. In 2005, the US EPA recorded that recycling had reduced the amount of carbon dioxide added to the atmosphere the 49 million tons.

What Does Recycling Actually Save?

Aluminum
This is your best bet for saving energy by recycling. Because refining aluminum from the mineral bauxite requires so much electricity it is probably fair to say that aluminum refineries have seriously impacted fast-water, cold rivers – trout and salmon streams – more than any other particular industry. Not to mention their output of toxins such as fluorides.

Recycling aluminum can save over 90% of the energy that would be used to produce the same amount of aluminum from bauxite ore. We can make 20 cans from recycled aluminum for the same amount of energy needed to make one can from bauxite.

In addition, waste aluminum is easy to separate from other waste and is light and easy to transport back to the refinery, saving more energy.

Food Cans
Tin-coated steel food cans are pulled from the waste stream by magnets and metal recycled from them uses only 74% of the energy that would be needed to produce new cans from iron ore. Recycled metal from cans makes up 25% of new cans.

Along with the energy savings, recycling 2000 pounds of cans saves 2500 pounds of iron ore, 1400 lbs of coal (with its own carbon dioxide emitted), and 120 lbs of limestone.

Plastics
The biggest issue with plastics is that there are about 20 different types in the waste stream so manual sorting can be costly. Once sorted, making plastic products from recycled plastic can use as little as 10% of the energy needed to make new plastics from oil.

Recycling 2000 pounds of pastics can save 685 gallons of oil (5774 kilowatt-hours of energy and associated carbon dioxide emission).

Paper and Cardboard
Over a half million trees are used to produce North America's weekend newspapers. One ton of recycled paper can reduce the number of trees used for pulp by 1700 trees.

Using recycled paper reduces the energy used in producing fresh paper by about 40% to 45%. Recycling 2000 pounds of paper saves the trees and also saves energy equal to 380 gallons of oil (4100 kilowatt-hours).

Recycling 200 pounds of cardboard saves trees plus energy equal to 5 gallons of oil (390 kwh).

Glass
Recycling glass saves about 25% to 33% of the energy that would be used to produce new glass from raw materials because the recycled glass (cullet) melts at a lower temperature than virgin sand.

Each ton of recycled glass saves 1300 pounds of sand, 410 lb of soda ash (sodium carbonate) and 380 lb of limestone. Extraction and procurement of each of these raw materials entails an energy cost for extraction, transport and processing.

Recycling of glass exemplifies the need for critical examination of the gains possible from recycling. Because coloured glass contains different proportions of soda ash and sand (silica) than clear glass, coloured glass must be separated from clear glass. The market price for coloured glass is much less than for clear glass and large amounts of coloured glass sometimes build up at recycling and sorting depots. When this happens, the market price drops sharply, the surplus gets greater and may require disposal by other means.

All glass to be recycled must be crushed to the stage called 'cullet' for long-distance transport and to enter the process for re-melting. Crushing takes energy and labour. If the nearest glass works is distant from the recycling depot, the energy used to transport the cullet can significantly reduce any energy savings.

The greatest amount of material saved by glass recycling is sand. Previously, sand was not expensive but now sand, as well as other aggregates, is in very high demand, is very expensive and actually is being stolen in many parts of the world by international crime groups.

Waste System Savings
The final savings from recycling is space at the dump and avoiding the very high costs of closing the dump when it reaches capacity. Solid waste dumps do not enhance our landscapes.

Alternatives to Recycling
Incineration is a frequently suggested alternative to recycling. Possibly the definitive study of recycling was done by the Technical University of Denmark (supported by the nonprofit British Waste and Resources Action Programme). They reviewed studies of 55 types of waste from production to final disposal and studied over 200 alternatives for burning, compared to burying, compared to recycling. Their conclusion, as summarized by the Economist, was that recycling is better than incineration for the environment.

Where incineration has been the chosen method for dealing with wastes, the value of the heat and or electricity generated is critical to meeting the costs of the incineration. The incinerator must be close to the users of the heat and electricity. This is more difficult to achieve in rural areas than in cities where incineration has been most successful. Even in urban settings, incineration is still debated heatedly in western Europe.

Collection and sorting costs are essentially the same as for recycling. All the recyclable materials are separated, all the materials that emit toxic substance when burned are separated and safeguarded. The remainder, mainly household food wastes, goes to the incinerator. Stockholm incinerates 250,000 tonnes of waste per year which costs about 63 Canadian dollars per tonne. Recently in the European Union, there is concern that recycling is decreasing and incineration is increasing because the economic system rewards energy production and does not provide tools to encourage recycling.

Published in Editorials

“We’re not here looking for money, we’re looking for ways we can help municipalities,” Susan Moore, president of the Friends of the Salmon River told North Frontenac and Central Frontenac Councils recently. Moore and FSR founder/environmental scientist Gray Merriam have been on a mini-tour of watershed municipalities spreading their gospel and offering their assistance in whatever capacity deemed necessary.

“We got a $200,000 grant from Environment Canada for studies that looked at 11 variables,” Moore said. “We didn’t find any problems.”

She then turned the mike over to Merriam.

“From its headwaters in North Frontenac and area, the Salmon River dumps into the Bay of Quinte (at Shannonville),” Merriam said. “We did studies (and) there are places that need work (but) it turns out not many and those are all in the south in areas of intense agriculture.”

And there’s the rub.

“You can’t stir the public to fix something that doesn’t need fixing,” he said. “So we’re trying to encourage people to look after what’s there.

“If you allow it, this could become another Muskoka, a string of time-shares. Lay claim to the riches you have here.”

Merriam urged councils to engage in regional planning and to share information through public meetings, watershed tours, maps, reports, signage.

To that end, the FSR has already published the Salmon River Habitat Strategy and a book, The Salmon River — Jewel of Eastern Ontario.

“Talk to your taxpayers and offer us (FSR) as slaves to do some of the work,” he said. “This land is not ordinary, it’s special.

“I can eat breakfast and watch mink or otter out my window.

“Offer that to people from Western Europe and see what they’d pay for it.”

Merriam also extended his advice to lake stewardship.

“Lake capacity is a ’70s model that’s based on phosphorus,” he said. “That’s rapidly becoming outdated by improved septic systems that deal with phosphorus.

“(But) human activity on a lake can’t be dealt with by shoreline management.

“A lot of lakes have reached their capacity through the music of boom boxes, not phosphorus.”

For their part, the councils were quite receptive to the FSR’s message.

“We’ll never become another Muskoka,” vowed North Frontenac Mayor Ron Higgins.

“We should do this (meet with FSR representatives) every year,” said Central Frontenac Mayor Frances Smith.

Merriam even had an answer to Coun. Tom Dewey’s question about how to handle “beaver problems.”

“From the beavers’ point of view, they’re doing just fine,” Merriam said.

Published in FRONTENAC COUNTY
Wednesday, 07 June 2017 13:28

NCC expands holdings on Loughborough Lake

Nature Conservancy of Canada expands holdings on shore of Loughborough Lake.

In recognition of World Environment Day, the Nature Conservancy of Canada (NCC)  announced on Monday that it has acquired additional lands in the Frontenac Arch. Among the 6 properties that have been acquired,  4 are located on or near Loughborough Lake in the vicinity of Battersea, and the other two are on Charleston Lake.

The new acquisitions, which will preserve the lands in an undeveloped state, expand the stock of protected lands in the Frontenac Arch, the southernmost extension of the Canadian Shield, stretching from the Algonquin Highlands of Ontario to the Adirondack Mountains of New York.

The new Loughborough Lake properties are part of a large amount of property, over 4,000 acres, on the eastern shore of the lake, that the conservancy has acquired since 2008, including over 6 kilometres of shoreline.

In a release on Monday (June 5), announcing the acquisitions in conjunction with World Environment Day,  the NCC described the Frontenac Arch habitat as  “rich in reptile, plant and bird species, one of the most biologically diverse areas in Ontario. The Arch serves as a natural wildlife passage, linking the Adirondacks in the United States to the forests of the Algonquin Highlands in Canada. The lands also provide homes for several species at risk, including peregrine falcon (anatum subspecies) (special concern), gray ratsnake (Great Lakes / St. Lawrence population) (threatened), Blanding’s turtle (endangered) and eastern milksnake (special concern).

These conservation projects were supported by funding from the Government of Canada through the Natural Areas Conservation Program, which was matched by contributions from individuals, foundations, cottagers’ associations and corporations.
The NCC  has now protected 1,895 hectares (4,684 acres) in the Frontenac Arch. NCC is currently raising funds to acquire additional key properties in the Arch.

“The Frontenac Arch is a beautiful and unique region of Ontario, and it’s critical that we strive to conserve its biodiversity, not just for wildlife, but for the benefit of current and future generations,” said James Duncan, NCC’s regional vice-president, Ontario.

The NCC holdings complement other protected properties in Frontenac County and Addington Highlands, including: Frontenac Park, lands surrounding Elbow and Opinicon Lakes, Meisel Woods on Crow Lake, and Frontenac Parklands and Bon Echo Park to the north and west.  One of the much anticipated outcomes of the Algonquin Land Claim will be the creation of a large new protected Provincial Wilderness Park surrounding Crotch Lake in North Frontenac, to be managed by the Alqonquins of Ontario.

Published in SOUTH FRONTENAC
Page 2 of 14
With the participation of the Government of Canada