The Lake Plan Initiative

admin — Fri, 26 Jul 2002 18:55:36 +0000

Statement of Direction
The purpose of this document is to establish a proposed direction for the Board of the Redstone Lake Cottagers Association to consider.

Background
Since the mid 1970′s the Ministry of the Environment (MOE) have used a water quality assessment model to determine and set a lake’s development capacity. The MOE and the Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR), in conjunction with local municipalities, have used this model to protect inland lake water quality and lake trout habitats throughout Ontario. The model, called the Lakeshore Capacity Assessment, is based on predicting the inputs of mostly man made pollutants as a result from septic systems – known major contributors to water quality concerns. The Lakeshore Capacity Assessment is used as a planning tool to achieve a consistent and fair method across the province to determine development capacities. Readers will recall that RLCA used this model on Little Redstone Lake in the mid 1980’s to reduce the proposed population of lots from 135 to 99.

The model, first developed in 1975, was well received. It quantifies linkages between natural sources of phosphorus to a lake, human impacts from shoreline development, water balance, the size and shape of a lake, refreshment cycles, and the resultant phosphorus concentrations. The model uses a number of assumptions about phosphorus loadings, phosphorus retention, and usage figures. The model allows the user to calculate how water quality in a lake will respond to the addition or removal of shoreline development such as cottages, permanent homes and resorts. It predicts several important indicators of water quality: total phosphorus concentration, algal density (chlorophyll a concentrations), water clarity (Secchi depth), oxygen concentrations in the bottom waters at the critical end of summer period and the volume of lake trout habitat.

The Ministry of Natural Resources use the model to predict the impact that development will have on Lake Trout Habitat in cold water lakes. Lake Trout have two basic habitat requirements – temperature and dissolved oxygen. When phosphorus is added to a lake, it creates algae, and when algae settles at the bottom of a lake it decomposes and consumes available dissolved oxygen. Through research, the MNR have determined that the recommended minimum dissolved oxygen criterion for the protection of lake trout populations is 7 mg L-1. Lake Trout lakes that are below the 7 mg L-1 criterion have no further capacity for phosphorus loading – lakes that exceed the criterion have some capacity.

The issue with the exclusive use of the Lakeshore Capacity Assessment model by municipalities is that land use decisions are based on one component – phosphorus loadings from septic systems. Other factors that help define development capacity of lakes are excluded; advocates of Lake Plans suggest other factors should be included:
• Specific wildlife and fish habitat,
• Vegetation,
• The physical capability of the shorelines,
• Topography, soils, existing development, landscapes,
• Narrow water bodies, steep slopes);
• And social elements such as aesthetics, cultural/historic values, boating limits and crowding.

Water quality remains the only recognized and accepted means on which to base development decisions. This is also a major concern to many due to the introduction of new phosphorus abatement technology. As technology delivers cleaner water, the implication is that any given watercourse can sustain ever-increasing numbers of developments and densities.

FOCA and some cottage associations believe this situation requires the creation of “Lake Plans”, an additional set of considerations useful to Councils when deciding on developer’s proposals.

Emergence of Lake Plans
In preparing the RLCA direction statement, we find that of hundreds of cottagers associations in Ontario, few have lake plans. Most of them are in the formative stages.

The impetus for such lake plans is new, having emerged from interested persons located at Peninsula Lake, adjacent north east of Fairy Lake, which is adjacent to Huntsville. Peninsula Lake has 215 families of which 25% are permanent residents. The remaining residents are “seasonal” rapidly trending to “all season”, a scenario not much different from many lakes including the Redstone watershed. This group of lakes comprising the Township of Lake of Bays, has fully matured in development. These lakes are at the fifth stage of lake development – fully matured, containing marinas, all season residences, luxury homes, luxury resorts, condominiums, high rise structures, golf courses, and back lot developments. Wide scale development and the resultant density of potential population has been a concern to many in these lakes. Lake Plans have emerged as a means of including the desires of the local ratepayers. In recognition of ratepayer concerns, the Township of Lake of Bays has incorporated the concept of Lake Plans in its Official Plan. A number of lake associations in the township, including Peninsula Lake, Harp Lake and Walker Lake have initiated the development of a Lake Plan. Much of the material and frameworks proposed by FOCA and referenced in this document are sourced from the Peninsula Lake Cottagers Association.

Purpose of Lake Plans
A Lake Plan is analogous to an Official Plan administrated at the municipal level. A municipal Official Plan acts like a contract among Municipal Councils, residents, property owners and developers to provide direction on how development will occur. Official Plans are important to lake communities because all development must conform to the policies and direction the Official Plan provides. The issue is that every municipality applies a differing approach to its Official Plan. Most municipalities set “carrying capacities” based on constraints. For lakes, water quality is usually the only constraint established in Official Plans – there is no other criteria to set development. In some cases Official Plans and the council’s policies may be too general – land use decisions are often made after developers submit applications. Lake Plans then are in addition to Official Plans containing additional criteria on which Councils can make decisions. Lake Plans are intended to reflect the preferences of the lake users, providing a guidepost to Councils about developments.

For RLCA members, a Lake Plan at this stage represents a process, to help decide what makes our lake special, and how to preserve these qualities. Formally adapted, our Lake Plan can be incorporated into the municipal lake development policies and the Official Plan. The plan is also likely to create an action plan, to deal with issues that are beyond the scope of an Official Plan, such as:
• Communication and education,
• Rehabilitation or restoration of degraded environments,
• Monitoring programs that measure the health of these values.

Scope of a Lake Plan
The RLCA is a plan, structured to reflect the interest of the majority of stakeholders in the Redstone watershed.

The Plan is:
• A living document with content that reflects the majority position of Redstone Lake stakeholders,
• A criteria, characteristics, elements, frameworks, to establish meaningful guidelines that serve as constructs and imperatives to a plan,
• A part of the collection of artifacts that comprise the Intellectual Capital of a Municipality on which development decisions are based,

The plan is not:
• A set of rules or formally adopted bi-laws,
• Governance,
• Reflective of a minority or special interest within the RLCA, or meant to be exclusive – favoring groups or views or prejudice,
• Meant as a tool to correct perceived issues,

A Lake Plan Framework
FOCA and Mr. Randy French, French Planning Services have proposed much of the following framework. A Lake Plan will include elements that describe the built and physical environment as well as the natural heritage of the lake. It will also identify the social values of the lake community, the agreed upon development potential of the lake, and an implementation approach for the Official Plan.

The Plan elements are considered and established as to the following proposed four constructs:
1. Natural Heritage
• Water quality allocations,
• Drainage basin and related watercourses,
• Wetlands,
• Shoreline constraints and influences,
• Fish and wildlife habitat,
• Littoral vegetation, (first 10 meters of land from shoreline)
• Riparian vegetation, (vegetation thriving on the banks of watercourses)

2. Community Social Values
• Aesthetics
• Cultural & historic development or built heritage artifacts,
• Crowding,
• Boating capacity / limits,
• Community assembly,
• Recreation activities / opportunities,

3. Built and Physical Environment
• General location and access,
• Distinct areas or neighborhoods,
• Distinct physical features and landscape,
• Soils,
• Location in watershed
• Narrow water bodies
• Shoreline features and hazards
• Topography
• Land capability
• Existing land usage and designated developments
• Public access points and / or trails,
• Hazardous areas

4. Development Potential
• Official Plan policy recommendations and zoning standards,
• Land use inventory and identification of contentious areas,
• Education and communication approaches and vehicles,
• Restoration and rehabilitation plans,
• Monitoring program

The above 4 constructs and criteria are proposed, and can be modified as stakeholders decide.

Stakeholders
For the Lake Plan to be effective and a useful process, it is incumbent on RLCA to recognize the larger audience of stakeholders in the creation of a plan. The plan cannot reflect one view, or an exclusive subset, or the plan will not likely be recognized. The Lake Plan should not be seen as a cottage association document, but a consensus of the views of stakeholders. In going forward, the plan should consider the views of the following proposed stakeholders:
• RLCA Members,
• Non-members of RLCA,
• Municipality of Dysart et al, (Council)
• Municipal planners,
• Itinerant recreational users to the watershed such as campers, canoeing enthusiasts, hikers,
• Developers,
• Full time residents,
• Commercial operators,

Proposed Direction for an RLCA Lake Plan
We propose the following process to start towards the creation of a draft document:
a. Adapt as a working framework, the above noted 4 constructs that will comprise the artifacts for an RLCA Lake Plan,
b. Select a working committee from RLCA or key interested people,
c. Facilitate a workshop to gain consensus on terms of reference; criteria, interests, issues, and draft artifacts,
d. Communicate the intention to create a plan to as many stakeholders as is reasonable,
e. Open formal discussions with FOCA and Peninsula Lake representatives,
f. Develop a list of a cross section of stakeholders who wish to attend a strategy workshop, to be called the Steering Committee,
g. Seek the input of experts,
h. Facilitate a one-day planning workshop to first find common ground among stakeholders and criteria.
i. Develop deliverables on common constructs and criteria,
j. Establish a working relationship with Council using the common and agreed to factors, to measure cooperation and acceptance,
k. Build a plan to facilitate delivery of remaining factors,

Administration of the Lake Plan
It is proposed that RLCA provide the administration to support the creation of all draft artifacts and to maintaining the Lake Plan living documents.

Proposed Action Items
a. Create a statement of direction, draft
b. Present the concepts and gain concurrence at the AGM July 13, 2002
c. Seek volunteers to a working team August – September
d. Facilitate a ‘terms of reference’ workshop October
e. Facilitate a Strategy Workshop of the Steering Committee 1st Qtr 2003

Redstone Lake Cottagers' Association » Lake Plan Initiative

The Lake Plan Initiative