Submitted a Masters in…

Submitted a Masters in Environmental Studies Candidate, Faculty of Environmental Studies,York University For ENVS 5178, "Canadian Environmental Policy 2" Lake Simcoe Protection Act and Plan's Draft Phosphorus Reduction Strategy Introduction This paper attempts to evaluate the draft Lake Simcoe Phosphorus Reduction Strategy, released Feb 17th 2010, using sustainability assessment as the primary evaluative tool. The Phosphorus Reduction Strategy (the Strategy) is a central element of the Ontario Ministry of the Environment's (MoE) Lake Simcoe Protection Act, 2008, and Plan, 2009 (LSP Act and Plan). My goal is to determine if the draft Lake Simcoe Phosphorus Reduction Strategy helps or hinders in achieving the LSP Act and Plan's objectives, and if it is likely to in fact deliver sustainability in the watershed. To this end, I will use sustainability assessment criteria as my evaluative tool, based on Robert Gibsons model. The Lake Simcoe watershed is 3,570 square kilometers, stretching from the Oak Ridges Moraine in the south, to Lake Couchiching in the north, and from the headwaters of the Caledon Hills in the southwest to Kawartha Lakes in the northeast. The lake itself only comprises 20% of the watershed. (LSEMS, 2007, p.1). The lake's proximity to Toronto, 50 kilometers away at the closest point, is the biggest threat to its ecological health. [See the satellite map on the report's cover]. A growing number of people buy or build relatively inexpensive homes around Lake Simcoe and retire there, or work in the Greater Golden Horseshoe. My December 2009 paper for this course, How a Small Lake's Problems Became a Government Priority: Lake Simcoe Protection Act, 2008, examined how the Act and Plan came to pass, and described the lake's ecological state in further detail, which I will not repeat here. In the next section I provide the reader with the context and intent of the draft Lake Simcoe Phosphorus Reduction Strategy, followed by a description of the methods and scope of this paper, specifically the rationale for selecting criteria in the sustainability assessment. Next, I will evaluate the Strategy using the chosen sustainability assessment criteria. Based on these results, I will suggest some trade-off rules that should be considered in the provinces final version of the Strategy. I will then discuss the merits of using Gibson's formal evaluative criteria, compared to the more subjective methods employed by actors involved in the development of the Act and Plan. Background on the Lake Simcoe Protection Act and Plan and draft Lake Simcoe Phosphorus Reduction Strategy The purpose of the Lake Simcoe Protection Act is “to protect and restore the ecological health of the Lake Simcoe watershed (O.L., 2008a, p.2). The Act required the Lieutenant Governor in Council to establish a Plan. The objectives of the Plan, as described in the Act are: 4. (a) to protect, improve or restore the elements that contribute to the ecological health of the Lake Simcoe watershed, including, (i) water quality, (ii) hydrology, (iii) key natural heritage features and their functions, and (iv) key hydrologic features and their functions; (b) to restore a self-sustaining coldwater fish community in Lake Simcoe; (c) to reduce loadings of phosphorus and other nutrients of concern to Lake Simcoe and its tributaries; (d) to reduce the discharge of pollutants to Lake Simcoe and its tributaries; (e) to respond to adverse effects related to invasive species and, where possible, to prevent invasive species from entering the Lake Simcoe watershed; (f) to improve the Lake Simcoe watershed's capacity to adapt to climate change; (g) to provide for ongoing scientific research and monitoring related to the ecological health of the Lake Simcoe watershed; (h) to improve conditions for environmentally sustainable recreational activities related to Lake Simcoe and to promote those activities; (i) to promote environmentally sustainable land and water uses, activities and development practices; (j) to build on the protections for the Lake Simcoe watershed that are provided by, (i)provincial plans that apply in all or part of the Lake Simcoe watershed, including the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan and the Greenbelt Plan, and (ii) provincial legislation, including the Clean Water Act, 2006, the Conservation Authorities Act, the Ontario Water Resources Act and the Planning Act; and (k) any other objectives set out in the Lake Simcoe Protection Plan. (O.L., 2008, p.4) It is important to keep the above objectives in mind for this exercise. We are evaluating the draft Phosphorus Reduction Strategy, which is a cornerstone of implementing the Act and Plan. Thus, while we consider the Strategy’s sustainability more broadly than just on the basis of the objectives of the Plan, we need to remember that the Strategy is meant to actualize the Plan, and it must be judged on its ability to deliver on the Plan’s objectives. In general terms, the mere fact that the province took legislative action on Lake Simcoe reveals that the existing conditions and regulatory structures were not achieving sustainability in the watershed. Restoring the health and quality of Lake Simcoe and its watershed and restoring the cold-water fishery had been goals of the Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority and other government partners involved in LSEMS, the Lake Simcoe Environmental Management Strategy since 1979 (LSEMS, 2003, n.p.). Intergovernmental Action Plan (IGAP) growth management forecasts indicated that stricter rules and regulations were needed to achieve these objectives (Dillon, 2006). We must not assume that the province's expression of the objectives of the Plan will lead to their achievement. Let us look at how the province intended to achieve them through the Act, Plan and Strategy. In the Plan, Policy 4.24 says: “Within on year of the date the Plan comes into effect, the MoE in collaboration will develop a Phosphorus Reduction Strategy… for the purpose of reducing phosphorus loadings to achieve the target of dissolved oxygen of 7 mg/L. The Strategy will be designed to accommodate the implementation of the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshow [emphasis added], where relevant. The components of the …Strategy will include: a) the development of subwatershed phosphorus loading targets;… c) an assessment of sources or sectors that contribute phosphorus loadings to the watershed including: (i)Sewage Treatment Plants, (ii)Tributary sources, (iii)Subsurface sewage systems, (iv)Stormwater Runoff, (v)Sources of atmospheric deposition d) an identification of practical and effective actions that should be taken to address each source or sector e) the proposal of a long-term total phosphorus loading cap for each sewage treatment plant f) an examination of how effluent re-use opportunities may contribute to reducing phosphorus. (O.L., 2009, p.34) The Strategy was released on February 17th, 2010, and is open to public comment on the Environmental Bill of Rights (EBR) until April 3rd. It is an absolutely core piece of the implementation of the Plan, from which flow Official Plan changes, Sewage Treatment Plant (STP) caps, and changes to agricultural and development practices. It is appropriate to undertake a sustainability assessment of the Strategy because it really is the roadmap for the implementation of the Act and Plan. It will affect the practices of many sectors, it will set in motion changes that require new bylaws, taxation or funding approaches, and it establishes the timelines for achieving the Plan’s yearly phosphorus load target of 44 T/year, down from the current 72 T/year (O.L., 2010, p.5). Methods and Scope Gibson’s sustainability assessment framework begins with a holistic list of generic sustainability criteria, of which I have selected four to use here. The criteria used are accompanied by some detailed considerations that help elucidate the particular context where the Strategy is applied. The considerations should “include particular conditions and trends, resources, capacities and other assets, opportunities and barriers, concerns and aspirations, stresses and vulnerabilities (Gibson and Winfield, 2008, p.10). The trade-off rules are discussed in another section. In the next section, the Assessment, I will evaluate whether the selected sustainability assessment criterion (and considerations) is addressed fully, partially, or not at all by the Strategy. Allow me to briefly outline the rationale for my selected criteria. Bob Gibsons sustainability criteria are best applied at the outset of a project, when they can influence the shaping of particular initiatives (Gibson, 2006, p.172). Though this does not describe the situation I am examining, the recommendations I provide may be useful for the province when writing the final version of the Strategy, before June 2010. For this reason, I have included a “recommendations and implementation opportunities” section under each of the criteria I selected. The inclusion of recommendations supports what Gibson describes as the implications for sustainability assessment” because I am writing in a decision-making moment (2006, p.172). The opportunity to shape the final draft of the Strategy does inform my selection of criteria; I am aware of the context and purpose of the Strategy, which are largely ecological, and it is within the constraints of the Strategy that my comments are able to be most useful. That said, an important aspect of sustainability assessment that has not been explicitly addressed by the Lake Simcoe Protection Act is its socio-economic impact, and I agree with Gibson, that this must be considered in any responsible long-term plan. This comes through in the Socio-ecological civility and democratic governance section. In light of the above I have chosen four generic criteria against which I will evaluate the Strategy: 1.Resource Maintenance and efficiency 2.Socio-ecological civility and democratic governance 3.Precaution and adaptation 4.Immediate and long term integration The Assessment Criteria1. Resource maintenance and efficiency Core sustainability considerations: “Provide a larger base for ensuring sustainable livelihoods for all while reducing threats to the long term integrity of socio-ecological systems by reducing extractive damage, avoiding waste and cutting overall material and energy use per unit of benefit (Gibson and Winfield, 2008, p.9). Consider effects on: The recreation industry at Lake Simcoe is estimated to inject $200 million per year in the Lake Simcoe watershed (O.L., 2009, p.63). It employs people year-round through direct and indirect activities ranging from ice fishing hut and cottage rentals, to grocery sales, to cleaning services. The fishing industry now relies on manually stocked fish, which amounts to 100,000 lake trout, and 140,000 whitefish per year (O.L., 2009, p.21). The cottage industry (of 12,000 cottages), particularly real estate values, depends on clean, swimmable water. Agriculture is simultaneously an important part of the watersheds economy, and is damaging to the lake. Covering 47% of the watershed, it is estimated to be responsible for 25% of yearly phosphorus (P) loading (O.L., 2010, p.24). There are potentially other food industries that could increase local employment and sustainability such as commercial fishing, and food production and processing if both was tied in better with local food distribution systems and restaurants. The housing development industry is an employer in the area, and a major source of non point sources pollution of the lake. The Growth Plan for the GGH targets a 53% population increase in Simcoe County in 22 years. About half of that growth will occur in the Lake Simcoe watershed, consuming 17,000 hectares, almost 5% of the watershed. (Campaign Lake Simcoe, 2010, p.2) Aggregate mining occurs in the northeast portion of the watershed. The industrys contribution to phosphorus loading in the lake is being assessed in studies now underway. Ecosystem goods and services are estimated to be worth $975 million per year. Such services include absorption of floodwater, water filtration, pollination, air purification, and recreation (Wilson, 2008, p.5). CRITERIA PARTIALLY ADDRESSED For this section, I think we must assume that the primary resource we are talking about is the healthy lake; all the above sectors or industries affect the lake. The Strategy says, tough decisions and choices must be made today to get there [a cleaner lake] for future generations, (O.L. 2010, p.2). The questions are, does the Strategy force those decisions, and which sectors stand to win, and which stand to lose? Ironically, it appears that the aggregate mining, agriculture, and development sectors are not much affected in the short term, because decisions about each of these is put off to the future while studies are completed, or in the case of development, until sewage treatment plant (STP) upgrades are required. This protects some jobs in the short term, which contributes to it getting the partially addressed assessment, but threatens the ecosystem goods and services upon which much recreation, and some development, depends. The sector-specific Strategy aims for proportional reductions from each major contributing source (O.L. 2010, p.5). This does not make sense in terms of the objectives of the Plan because there are opportunities to make greater overall P reductions from the larger sources of P, such as agriculture (25%) and atmospheric (27%) (O.L. 2010, p.10 &24). The proportional reduction approach is, however, affects the sectors equally. It does not change the economic and employment base, and an argument can be made that these activities could proceed sustainably, with changes anticipated in future LSP Plan amendments. Let us focus on STPs because what they are and are not permitted to do affects the level of development that can proceed in the watershed, and development affects the lake’s health. To service approximately half a million people in the watershed by 2045, the 14 municipal STPs in the watershed are going to need volume and technology improvements. Today they contribute 7% of the yearly P load. The combined P load from all STPs will increase from now until 2015, ostensibly to accommodate some of the population growth and development approved when the Act was passed. Then, in 2015, assuming the Strategy is followed, P loads from STPs will begin to decline, as STP improvements are made to meet P load targets which become more rigorous over time. (This is detailed in the Strategy.) However, significantly, the Strategy admits projections indicate that even incorporating all of the technology that is currently available would not enable the plants to meet their targeted load for 2031 (O.L., 2010, p.16). Because the LSP Plan explicitly accommodates the growth, this automatically means that we need to use water quality trading (WQT) to remove P equivalent to or greater than the excess P generated by STPs, in order to meet the overall lake target of 44 T/y by 2045. The province appears to be offering other solutions, but admits that none of them will achieve the 44 T target. It is disingenuous to present WQT as an option when there are no other credible options being presented (O.L., 2010, p.11 -16). The reason I am focusing on STPs and the development they serve is development is the one sector whose impact we might be able to control in the short term. Another problem associated with development is the extent of paved surfaces: Scientists say aquatic biological systems begin to degrade when 10  15% of a watershed is paved, or impervious. The watershed has already reached or exceeded the critical ecological threshold for impervious surfaces (Campaign Lake Simcoe, 2009, p.4). Increasing the development footprint by 5% in Simcoe County through the Growth Plan will affect the lakes health (Campaign Lake Simcoe, 2010, p.1) . There are a lot of assumptions that need to deliver for this Strategy to be successful. If they do not, there will be negative impacts on the long-term socio-ecological systems such as the recreation industry and ecosystem goods and services. For example, to be economical and ecological in the long run, the fishing industry requires a self-sustaining fishery to replace the stocking of fish. Scientists have insisted on the 44 T target because it supports the oxygen requirements of the lakes coldwater fish species (Lake Simcoe Science Advisory Committee, 2008). To approve growth without a plan for dealing with the problems its sewage brings, necessarily means that residential development and growth have been put ahead of the objectives of the Plan. This is economically short sighted since the ecosystem goods and services are estimated to be worth $975 million per year, and would be reduced by paving an additional 5% of the watershed. The recreation sector is at high risk of losing in the long run, while extractive and development industries lose little ground in the short term. Recommendations & implementation opportunities Consider long-term livelihoods of human and ecological communities in development decisions. Do not insist on sector-based proportional reductions at the expense of efficiency. Surely there are some areas where P reductions are easier than others, and those must be prioritized. Develop residential and employment lands more slowly, sustaining local jobs, reducing energy use per unit of benefit. Do not exceed the 15% impervious land threshold for the watershed, but if that occurs, as projected in this Strategy, do not exceed 20%. Criteria2. Socio-ecological civility and democratic governance Core sustainability considerations: Build the capacity, motivation and habitual inclination of individuals, communities and other collective decision-making bodies to apply sustainability requirements through more open and better informed deliberations, greater attention to foster¬ing reciprocal awareness and collective responsibility, and more integrated use of administrative, market, customary and personal decision-making practices (Gibson & Winfield, 2008, p.9). Consider effects on: Participation of citizens in the lake’s management and governance is the reason there is a provincial LSP Act and Plan for Lake Simcoe. How they are motivated to stay involved will likely determine how easily the objectives of the Plan are achieved. The Lake Simcoe Coordinating Committee is described in the Act as being responsible for coordinating the implementation of the Plan, assisting in monitoring this, and providing advice to the Minister on potential changes to the Act and Plan. Fairness to citizens, in terms of effects on economic, social, cultural equality and diversity, and on housing options in the context of the Growth Plan for the GGH. Environmental awareness of decision makers is an important aspect of improving the sustainability of municipal decisions, and while this is difficult to measure, it is a significant challenge in small municipalities like those surrounding the lake. Influences on politicians may be related to decisions affecting sustainability. CRITERIA PARTIALLY ADDRESSED One of the major problems is that the draft Strategy was not made with input from stakeholders in any visible way, despite the fact that the LSP Plan did indicate that local stakeholders were to work on it with the province (O.L., 2010, p.2). The Coordinating Committee has still not been fully formed, and has not met, so not even the stakeholders in the policy network were consulted during the creation of the Strategy, possibly with the exception of the Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority. That said, the Strategy we are discussing is a draft, and there were public consultations about three things: the Strategy, a proposed shoreline regulation, and a WQT feasibility study, all of which are on the EBR. First Nations representatives are consulted, are on both the science and the stakeholder committees. In the lead up to the passage of the Act and Plan, government took some care to seek out First Nations communities, and went to them instead of passively waiting for them to come to public consultation sessions. Still, the Strategy says nothing new about engaging the public. There is a stewardship initiative, and an acknowledged need for individuals to reduce their household P loads, but involving the public appears to be an afterthought in this very technical Strategy. That might be appropriate given the description of the Strategy on page 5 of this report. However, what is missing from the larger LSP Act and Plan is a demonstration of belief in collective responsibility. In part this is because the province is not spending enough to be taken seriously by municipalities and citizens. The Strategy lists at least $163 million in costs just for stormwater retrofits and STP upgrades. If typical funding arrangements are 1/3 federal, 1/3 provincial, 1/3 municipal, the province has a long way to go. The province’s contribution is $20 million over four years, which I am told by MoE staff, covers all activities related to the legislation, including MoE staff. A provincial contribution of $55 million would be a third of the total. The $163 million figure does not even begin to cover any citizen or non-governmental organization (NGO) involvement in promoting sustainable land management activities. There are significant opportunities for communities to take responsibility, leverage funding and collaborate on outreach and implementation, but the province must appear serious about this mandate by funding it. Regarding governance and leadership, MoE progress reports are required every five years, to evaluate the implementation of the strategy, the extent to which goals are being achieved, and progress towards the 44 T/y target. The Coordinating Committee takes part in monitoring the implementation of the Plan, but it is unclear what control or input it will have on this progress report. If it is limited, it would curb the potential for taking collective responsibility. The Strategy is based on a number of guiding principles, including: “Consider the relative costs and benefits of the phosphorus reduction options; and the investment and contribution needed by those responsible for sources reductions” (O.L., 2010, p.5). This is a serious topic where sustainability assessment must be rigorously applied, but which is outside the scope of this paper. In general, however, this is a responsible approach, which should take local people’s ability to pay for improvements into account. I am concerned that the financial valuation of ecological services and the value of clean water would be inadequate if the sustainability assessment criteria were not used in cost benefit analyses. Supporting the improvements needed for sewage treatment plants is going to be politically very difficult. The costs will need to be paid by taxes, development cost charges (DCCs), or by water quality trading. The first will be unpopular with existing residents; and DCCs will be unpopular with developers, who influence some municipal decision-making. By default many developers and politicians will support WQT. Indeed, developers are currently its champions. The biggest concern is that because the sewage treatment plant upgrades do not need to begin until 2015, to give municipalities time to plan, the current development activity that could be made to pay for part of the upgrades will not pay. Because there is no guarantee that the current government will stay in power, there is also no guarantee that all of the regulations will be followed and monitored. Therefore, municipalities that have not yet initiated expensive plans to upgrade their STPs will not have a strong argument to force development occurring today pay more for infrastructure upgrades in the future. Therefore, there is potential for this to unfairly cost taxpayers in the future, while those who benefit financially from development, which degrades the environment, pay little, if any more than they would have two years ago. I argue that this is unfair to existing or possible future residents. We must accept that it will cost more to live in the watershed because we need to pay for the infrastructure improvements necessary to protect the lake. But development that is occurring now is not accounting for a future higher cost to residents resulting from the cost of environmental improvements. Municipalities are not yet charging higher DCC’s in anticipation of infrastructure needs, nor are they required to. The housing forms (the mix of high, medium and low density housing) offered and the house sizes are the same as they are everywhere in southern Ontario. The Plan and Strategy allow a business as usual housing structure. Imagine that some people will be willing to pay the higher environmental costs to live by the lake, but would not choose the higher costs of heating a too-large house, or a large lot. What is being built now that allows for that future possibility? We are building overwhelmingly for families, with virtually no rental, and with no imagination as to the future housing forms, and cost arrangements that might support sustainability, affordability and quality of life. One possible negative outcome of the higher cost of living near Lake Simcoe scenario is a reduction in the current cultural and socio-economic diversity. If this effort aims for sustainability considerations in decision-making, the Strategy is still missing something. It represents business as usual land use development, with a hint of polluter pays, through water quality trading. Yet, in terms of the implementation of the Act and Plan, much remains to be seen regarding the speed of changes to DCCs and taxes; the Coordinating Committee might be able to influence positive changes. Recommendations & implementation opportunities. Sustainability assessment must be applied to the cost-benefit analyses regarding the phosphorus reduction options. The provincial contribution should equal $55 million or more. DCC structures should be changed immediately to begin covering the costs of necessary infrastructure. Consult with, educate, and survey politicians and the public regularly to help guide decisions. Criteria3. Precaution and adaptation Core sustainability considerations: Respect uncertainty, avoid even poorly understood risks of serious or irreversible damage to the foundations for sustainability, plan to learn, design for surprise, and manage for adaptation (Gibson and Winfield, 2008, p.9). Consider effects on: The housing development industry, and their operations are capable of operating in a manner that is less damaging to the environment. Aquatic ecosystem health is the centre of the LSP Plan and will be affected. But will the strategy guarantee that the health of the aquatic ecosystem is not harmed further? Local biodiversity will be impacted by the development projected in the Growth Plan for the GGH. Does the Strategy address or mitigate these impacts? The global climate system health is of critical importance to both local and foreign ecosystem function. Does this Strategy address the threats to human and ecological systems presented by climate change? Human health relies on clean air and water. Does the Strategy in any way support healthier lifestyles? CRITERIA PARTIALLY ADDRESSED The Strategy sounds good based on these criteria, but a closer look reveals major inconsistencies. The Strategy uses a watershed approach and will develop subwatershed loading targets (O.L., 2010, p.9). It is based on a number of guiding principles including: Focus first on achieving phosphorus reductions at their sources, and then work on mitigation (O.L., 2010, p.5), and Continuously improve and adapt as science advances actions needed will become more stringent and specific (O.L., 2010, p.5). In the LSP Plan the precautionary approach and adaptive management are both “principles to guide our efforts (O.L., 2009, p.9). But do the planned activities and their timing deliver on avoiding irreversible damage”? A serious problem is that the Strategy says we will be unable to meet the phosphorus loading target using todays technology. The current load is 72 T/y, the goal is 44 T/y by 2045, and the Strategy says that by 2045 the load will be 58 T/y. This projection assumes that all possible reductions are implemented successfully (O.L., 2010, p.6). Without any mitigation the P load could increase to 94 T/yr by 2045 (O.L., 2010, p.7). The fact that the STP loads are going to increase certainly goes against the fundamental ecological principle of precaution because it assumes that improvements will come later, while one known source of the problem worsens. Whether the consequences of eutrophication in freshwater lakes are irreversible is the subject of some debate in limnology circles. Current technology’s inability to get us to the P loading target is the justification for water quality trading. WQT is presented as being used along with best practices and innovative technological investments to reduce total P from each major source [to] encourage faster reductions in total P loading while also ensuring that the investments made to work towards the 44 T/y goal are as cost-effective as possible (O.L., 2010, p.7). There is some merit in WQT for the reasons quoted, but only if other criteria are met, and only if the sequence of events is consistent with precaution.

[Original Comment ID: 125669]