How much development can a lake handle?

Jeff Green | Nov 10, 2011

A large group of lake association executives, environmentalists, municipal politicians and municipal and provincial government officials gathered in Perth on October 29 for the annual Lake Life conference.

During the morning of the conference three of the presentations dealt with development pressures in Eastern Ontario cottage country.

One presentation was by Neil Hutchison, a scientist who worked for the Ministry of Natural Resources for 15 years and now runs his own environmental services program.

He described how provincial planning for the number of acceptable building lots on lakes in Ontario is like “planning by plumbing”. He said that most of the determinations about lake capacity were based on the amount of phosphorous being produced by people living in the vicinity of shorelines.

“The lakeshore capacity model that has been used assumes that phosphorous is mobile – that all phosphorous moves from the septic system to the lake. But that is not necessarily the case,” Hutchison said.

Particularly in Canadian Shield formations where the soil had an acidic character and contains specific minerals, there is a tendency for phosphorous to bind to the soil.

Hutchison provided, as an example, a chart marking the phosphorous levels in a lake subsystem near Huntsville, the Fairy-Peninsula lakes, where historical studies on phosphorous levels have been carried out by looking at the sediments at the bottom of the lake.

In that case, the phosphorous levels in the year 1700, before the arrival of Europeans, has been charted. Between 1850 and 1900 the levels rose precipitously, likely due to settlement and deforestation. The levels dropped between 1900 and 1950, and then began rising as the era of seasonal cottages intensified. Between 1970 and the year 2000, the levels dropped, however, and by the end of the 20th Century they were lower than they had been in 1700.

“My conclusion, based on all the work I’ve done comparing modeling impacts and looking at the data about what the actual impacts have been, is that the Ministry of the Environment cannot point to a single lake that has been ruined by cottagers. So, I pose the question, is growth the problem, or is better management what is called for?” he said.

Hutchison added that it is possible to determine which lakes are more sensitive, and which lakes are less sensitive to growth, and planning could be done accordingly.

Currently, municipalities do not generally have different rules for different categories of lakes, with the notable exception of lakes that have been identified by the Ontario Ministry of the Environment (MoE) as “trout sensitive lakes”. No new development is permitted within 300 metres of “trout sensitive lakes”

Judy Brouse, who is the Director of the Muskoka Watershed Council, and a long time associate of Neil Hutchison, spoke after him.

She was less critical about the phosphorous model that has been employed in planning, and she also talked about what municipalities can do to manage development on lakes.

“Let’s start off with this question,” she said. “We can ask any cottage association what the capacity of their lake is and we will get the same answer. Does anyone know what that is?”

As if on cue, a man in the fifth row raised his hand and said, “Well, I bought my cottage last year and I think it should be the last one.”

This, Brouse said, is typical. Cottagers’ associations and cottagers in general do not want any more development.

Municipalities on the other hand, always hungry for more tax assessment, and property developers, as well as people looking for new waterfront properties, would like to see more development.

“That’s why lake associations need to do more lake plans, and municipalities need to develop proper planning tools,” Brouse said. “The principle is to reduce the impact of new development, and achieve reductions in impacts as redevelopment takes place.”

According to her, issues such as setbacks from the lake, and maintaining vegetative buffers or establishing buffers when they have been removed, are key to maintaining a healthy environment.

Another presentation at Lake Life concerned itself with the prospects for development pressure in this region.

In their presentation, Bridget Delauro and Matt Goodchild from the Centre For Sustainable Watersheds in Leeds and Grenville County, said the latest population projections for Eastern Ontario are for very slow growth over the next 25 years. The projections are for 9% growth in Renfrew County, 8% for Lanark County, 4% for Leeds and Grenville, 5% for Lennox and Addington and 6% for Prince Edward County. The projection of 25% for Frontenac County is skewed because the City of Kingston is included. Without Kingston, Frontenac County projections are similar to those in the other counties.

However a large bubble of seniors is coming to Ontario, rising from 13.1% of the population now to 23.4% per cent in 2036, and seniors can be drawn to rural locations as they retire.

“There are large numbers of seasonal residents in parts of Eastern Ontario - 50% in both Frontenac County as a whole and in Tay Valley Township, for example - and seasonals are not included at all in the government projections,” said Matt Goodchild.

“Given that property values are lower in Eastern Ontario than elsewhere, we see this area as more of a draw than is captured in the projections, so we think development may indeed exceed expectations,” said Bridget Delauro.

Delauro and Goodchild made several points that were consistent with other speakers about the variable impacts that new development can bring.

Impacts that come from increased boat traffic, removing fallen trees from lakes, and other human activities, can be dramatic, as they demonstrated in their presentation.

All three presentations lead ultimately to the conclusion that it is not the amount of development that comes to Eastern Ontario that is a concern; rather it is the nature of that development.

For municipal officials and politicians, the idea that there needs to be more specific requirements for various different lakes and sub-watersheds in their Official Plans and Comprehensive Zoning Bylaws is something they may want to consider in the future.

Similarly, for waterfront property owners and lake associations, the position that no more development is viable on their lake might also have to be altered.