Mayor and Council August 21, 2017 My name is John McCash; I reside at 28 Todd’s Road and I appear before you as President and on behalf of the Three Lakes Ratepayers Association Inc. Our Association welcomes the opportunity to appear at this Public Meeting to convey our concerns with regards to proposed OPA No. 9. Our Lake Steward, Brian Bobbie has reviewed all the information that has been provided by your staff identifying four issues which he has summarized as follows: Four issues: 1. Even though Whitefish and Clear Lakes modelled poorly with the new HESL 2016 model compared to Seguin’s own sampling data collected from these lakes, HESL wishes to reclassify these 2 lakes without defensible science; specifically:
a. With the 2009 model, Whitefish Lake was classed as moderate sensitivity and under threshold. Using their new model, contrary to actual monitoring, HESL now classifies it as Over Threshold and high sensitivity using new 2015 model that models it poorly to actual. b. Clear Lake was moderately sensitive and over threshold in 2009, but now has high sensitivity in the HESL 2015 model. Why reclassify these 2 lakes, if the 2016 model is known to be incorrect ? Simply leave them classified as they are now. 2. Please clarify which overriding development policy will apply to Little Whitefish (upstream of a Lake Trout Lake), phosphorus threshold or recreation carrying capacity: The HESL/ST/MORECC recommends no new development is permitted, • unless of existing lots of record or • unless the new development has less intensive usage that will reduce phosphorus (HESL Recommendation), or • unless the lake sensitivity is conformed/refuted with a private model. Yet existing OP policy (OP section B.3.2). states no new development (i.e. none at all) is permitted on over recreational carrying capacity Lake Trout lakes and upstream lakes that are already at capacity. Little Whitefish is upstream of Whitefish. 3. Please clarify the issue of phosphorus Mobility . In their Jan 4, 2016 Report, HESL indicates their new model overpredicts phosphorus for Clear and Whitefish Lakes, among other lakes, most likely due to positive attenuation of septic system phosphorus by soils. Yet HESL is proposing to eliminate the
mobility portion of the model that would better take attenuation into account. (see Exec Summary p. iii Review, Update and Refinement of Seguin Township’s Water Quality Model (SWQM) and Phosphorus Management Approach HESL, January 4, 2016). MOECC was silent on this issue in their June 28 response letter. 4. Imposing future modelling costs on lakes and residents. The issue of requiring either Developers or Lake Associations to pay for an updated scientific model, to refute a model that is known not to apply to specified lakes, seems backwards. We recommend instead that the Township have the specified lakes remodelled using algorithms that accurately reflect the now- extensive actual data it has collected in its monitoring program. From these issues identified by our Lake Steward the TLRA would like to offer the following comments for consideration in order of the number they appear above. Item No. 1 give tremendous cause for concern and we must that these lakes not be reclassified based on the finding of the Seguin Water Quality Model. Item No. 2. Existing Official Plan (“OP”) Recreational Carrying Capacity policies prevents development on the
Three Lakes with Little Whitefish Lake at double its carrying capacity. The proposed new draft wording of the Official Plan is interpreted to open the door to development based on justification modelling evidence provided by a developer that TLRA would not have the financial resources to oppose. TLRA residents rely on the hard cap elements of existing RCC policies that have been recently upheld in the Johnston OMB Decision. Therefore, we must reject language of the amendment including: a) unless the lake sensitivity is conformed/refuted with a private model; and b) new development has less intensive usage that will reduce phosphorus As a compromise, these alternatives must not be Official Plan policy unless they subordinate to existing hard cap policies.
Item No. 3 – This point does not seem to go away (It was pointed out by our Lake Steward in his submission to the initial June 1, 2016 Public Meeting on this matter). We respectfully submit, why would you modify the model if there is possibly no rational argument (i.e. none given) for elimination the mobility portion of the model that would better take attenuation into account. The limitations of the model must not be overlooked? Item No. 4. – The TLRA cannot support an amendment requiring a lake association to pay for an updated scientific model, to refute a model that is known not to apply. This would simply be too expensive and would also be inappropriate for lakes that already have reliable actual water quality data. We ask that you accept our Lake Stewart’s suggestion in 2016 to re-calibrate the Seguin model using the large amount of actual testing data available, to bring the
model error down, increasing the usefulness of the model to Council as a reliable predictor of over development and inform better management decisions. We would encourage Seguin to develop a model for the 13 Lakes for which the 2016 model works, and use that for OP decisions on those lakes, provided it remains subordinate to the availability of actual water quality data. It is our understanding that Hutchison Environmental Services Limited (“HESL”) is able to do this, but to date it has not been within their assignments paid scope of work. Should the scope be expanded, all expenses must be at the Township's expense rather than Lake and Cottage Associations. Our concerns remain, how the questionable empirical finding from the SWQM exercise, which models poorly (model’s error with mean error findings like 20%-27%-30%-42% and a maximum error of 262% and having correlation coefficient (r2) findings of .67 in 2015) for our lakes as well as others,
will be used in land use decision making? The information is simply not reliable and suggesting that wording be used in the OP A mendment that a developer’s modelling efforts might be used as OP compliance justification for staff’s discretionary land use decisions (possibly through site plan control with no ability to object to the Ontario Municipal Board), is unacceptable. There remains an unquestionable desire by staff and or Council to have and or use the SWQM in OP policy decisions. Unfortunately planning staff’s proposed rewording adds uncertainty as to whether greater reliance should be placed on expensive water quality modelling exercises to justify new development or redevelopment. It is our conclusion that a year of refinements by Hutchison Environmental Services Limited (“HESL”) result only in minor if not insignificant changes to a model that is neither valid or reliable when making such important decisions.
OPTION 1: That Council support the original position of the TLRA that the SWQM’s limitations are significant and it should not be used in policy decision making when actual data is available. OPTION 2: That the SWQM must not be used in development decisions for lakes over their Recreational Carrying Capacity or lakes that measure for phosphorous beyond the exiting OP policy limit (i.e. Background + 50% increase). We respectively submit that both options demand the SWQM, due to its limitations, subordinate to all other existing hard cap development policy provisions of the OP (RCC and Background + 50% increase in measured phosphorous) and request that it simply cannot be used to override these existing well established hard cap policies that have survived legal challenges at the Ontario Municipal Board .
THANK YOU PERSONAL PUBLIC MEETING APPEARANCE OF JOHN McCASH Now that I have concluded my presentation on behalf of the Three Lakes Ratepayers Association Inc., I would like to have the record of this Public Meeting independently identify that I
have also appeared in a personal capacity as a property owner on Little Whitefish Lake and similarly request to be included in the mailing list for all future reports and information concerning Official Plan No. 6. THANKS AGAIN
Recommend
More recommend
