Belmont Lake Lake Plan

BELMONT LAKE LAKE PLAN

JULY 2007 PREFACE

Belmont Lake is a special place for everyone residing on it, and for many reasons. It is special for its size and shape, clean water, natural beauty, wildlife, wetlands, and its ability to provide the opportunity for people to enjoy their cottage experience – whether it be relaxation and serenity, water sports, fishing or swimming.

• The Purpose of the Lake Plan

– To identify the significant social, natural and physical features that make the lake and its surrounding area a desirable place for people to live and visit.

– The plan will recommend a series of actions that will ensure the long-term sustainability and healthy existence of the lake for future generations.

– These actions encompass the lake’s health, beauty, wildlife habitat, recreational opportunities, as well as opportunities for residential and commercial development.

– A living document that will continue to evolve over time as individual circumstances and issues occur and new information becomes available.

– Review date every 5 years to establish new direction to meet current issues.

• Thank you to the following Belmont Lake cottagers for your volunteered input along the way, every effort made is important and extremely valued:

– Art Church, Jane Prendergast, Jonathan Church, Sylvie Samson, Mike Hammond, Helen Falconer, Bob Watson, Jean Gower and Julia Matys

– French Planning Inc.; Randy French, Jasmine Chabot

• The Lake Plan Committee expresses it’s gratitude to the following agencies that helped by providing material, advice, assistance, and encouragement: – Township of Havelock BelmontDRAFT Methuen – Crowe Valley Conservation Authority

– Ministry of Natural Resources

– Ministry of the Environment

– MNDM

– Department of Oceans and Fisheries

– Ontario Trillium Foundation or other funding bodies

i TABLE OF CONTENTS

Preface ...... i

Table of Contents ...... ii

List of Maps and Figures...... iv

Section 1 Introduction ...... 1 1.1 The Purpose and Scope of the Lake Plan ...... 2 1.2 Planning Approach ...... 3 1.3 Information Sources and Support...... 4 1.4 Report Structure...... 5

Section 2 Vision, Principles and Targets ...... 6 2.1 Vision and Mandate...... 6 2.2 Principles and Targets...... 7

Section 3 Lake Description ...... 8 3.1 Historical Development ...... 8 3.2 General Location and Characteristics ...... 10 3.3 Watershed ...... 12 3.4 Water Levels ...... 14 3.5 Access...... 15 3.6 Ownership ...... 16

Section 4 Social Elements...... 17 4.1 Recreational Boating...... 17 4.2 Social, Cultural and Historic Sites ...... 21 4.3 Landscape and Aesthetics ...... 22 4.5 Shoreline ...... 23 4.4 Noise and Lighting ...... 2DRAFT 5 Section 5 Natural Heritage Features and Areas ...... 26 5.1 Water Quality ...... 29 5.2 Vegetation ...... 47 5.3 Wetlands ...... 64 5.4 Streams ...... 68 5.5 Fish Community ...... 71 5.6 Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat ...... 88 5.7 Exotic Species ...... 101 5.8 Rare Species and Species at Risk ...... 106

ii TABLE OF CONTENTS

Section 6 Physical Elements ...... 117

Section 7 Land Use ...... 120 7.1 Current Land Use ...... 120 7.1.1 Zoning By-Laws ...... 121 7.2 Shoreline Development ...... 124 7.3 Residential Occupancy ...... 126 7.4 Septic Systems...... 128 7.5 Public Lands Act ...... 129 Crown Land Use Regulation ...... 129 Ontario Living Legacy...... 129 7.6 Municipal Planning Regulation ...... 130 Official Plans ...... 131 Zoning By-laws ...... 131 Site Plan Control Regulations ...... 131 Consent Agreement (51/26) ...... 131 Provincial Policy Statement - See Appendix 4 for Provincial Policy Statement / Havelock Belmont Methuen Official Plan Comparison ...... 131

Section 8 Lake Concerns and Impacts ...... 132 8.1 Lake Values ...... 132 8.2 Impacts on the Lake ...... 133 8.3 Lake Concerns and Solution ...... 138

Section 9 Summary and Recommendations ...... 139

Appendices ...... 145 Appendix 1 - Summer 2003 Resident's Survey Appendix 2 - Summary of Commercial Stakeholder Workshop Appendix 3 - Summary ofDRAFT Resident's Workshop Appendix 4 - Provincial Policy Statement / Havelock Belmont Methuen Official Plan Comparison Appendix 4 - Map of Ontario

iii INTRODUCTION SECTION 1

Over the years the watershed surrounding Belmont Lake has seen many changes: highway improvements, property development, an increasing population and demand for recreational opportunities. The small family cottage and boats with small horsepower have been replaced with permanent homes, urban landscapes, large cottages, high-speed boats and personal watercraft. The traditional way of life on the lake has changed substantially. However, the lake still remains a highly desirable place to live and play.

Why did people want to live on Belmont Lake? In the past, the lake was simply the most practical place to live as it provided the essential elements for existence: fresh water for consumption, cooking, and cleaning, a source of food, and a medium for transportation. In current times these essentials are obtained without direct access to the lake and the reason for living on or near the lake has changed.

So, why do people now want to visit or live beside Belmont Lake? This was the question that the Lake Plan Committee needed to answer, and that led to an examination of the values of present lake users. The intent of the Lake Plan is to identify important natural habitat, physical elements and social values that support the current quality of life on the lake and to recommend ways to protect and rehabilitate them.

The Belmont Lake Cottager’s Association was created in the early 50’s through the interest of a few individuals to get to know other people on the lake. Over the years, the Association has hosted a number of summer time events such as the Regatta and Parade of Lights. In light of the ever growing interest in Belmont Lake and its beauty, there is a need to ensure we protect all the treasured values of our lake. About 60% of shoreline property owners are members of the Belmont Lake Cottager’s Association and it is the Association’s mandate to promote sustainable development and create awareness about the sensitivity of our environment. DRAFT

1 INTRODUCTION SECTION 1

1.1 The Purpose and Scope of the Lake Plan

The purpose of this plan is to recognize and protect the unique character of the lake, to develop specific objectives for long-term protection, maintenance, and restoration of the lake and identify land use and stewardship actions to protect these values.

2 INTRODUCTION SECTION 1

1.2 Planning Approach

The development of the Lake Plan was a multi-phased process. Many steps were taken to ensure that any and all members of the community that have an interest in Belmont Lake have been represented. They will be referred to as “Stakeholders” throughout the Lake Plan.

The Belmont Lake Cottager’s Association retained French Planning – specialists in this field – to guide us through the process. The Lake Plan has been coordinated by members of the Association including Art Church, Jane Prendergast, Jonathan Church, Sylvie Samson, Mike Hammond, Bob Watson and others.

The intent of community consultation was to:

– To engage residential and commercial community members in discussion about the values that support their quality of life, the issues and concerns that impact these values,

– To prepare a strategy of actions to protect the elements that would support this quality of life.

The preparation of the Lake Plan took place in three phases, starting in 2003, as described in Figure 1.1:

DRAFTFigure 1.1 – Lake Planning Process

PHASE ONE 2003 PHASE TWO 2004-2005 PHASE THREE 2006 – 2007 BACKGROUND INFORMATION IDENTIFY & CONFIRM ISSUES PREPARE STRATEGY

Collect background information Discuss and identify issues that are Prepare recommendations and on the Natural, Physical relevant to the protection of the establish a series of actions to be and Social Elements, through health and character of the lake. implemented and share with lake workshops, surveys and research. Confirm issues and recommendations residents and stakeholders. with lake residents and stakeholders IMPLEMENTATION

3 INTRODUCTION SECTION 1

1.3 Information Sources and Support

The information for the Lake Plan was gathered by many groups from many sources.

The following agencies and associations were involved in the process, such as: • Havelock-Belmont-Methuen Township, • Crowe Valley Conservation Authority, • Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR), • Ministry of the Environment (MOE), • Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO).

The following is the type of information that was collected:

Natural Elements: Water quality and quantity, wetlands, wildlife habitat, fish habitat, nesting sites, streams, vegetation and rare, threatened and endangered species.

Physical Elements: Narrow water bodies, steep slopes, flood prone areas, access, watershed considerations, mineral and aggregate resources, and forestry.

Social Elements: Aesthetics, ambience, historical development, cultural sites, recreation, and boating.

Land Use Information Official Plans, Zoning By-laws, Site Plan Control By-laws, Crown Land Policy and Legislation

Additional information has been gathered by way of the following resources:

• Previous consultant reports (Big Island Report)

• MOE Water Quality Reports • Wetland ClassificationsDRAFT • History books

• Workshops and a Survey

• A Stakeholders Workshop was held on April 23, 2004 and was attended by municipal politicians, federal, provincial and municipal employees, a representative of the Crowe Valley Conservation Authority and local commercial operators. The purpose of the Stakeholders Workshop was to gather thoughts and ideas about the planning process, discuss values and concerns, identify sources of information, and determine the level of interest in participating in the preparation of the plan. The workshop proceedings are included in an Appendix.

• A Resident’s Workshop was held on July 24, 2004 and 78 people attended. The purpose of the workshop was to promote discussion among permanent and seasonal residents and to identify the important features and values on OUR Lake that support their high quality of life. Discussion was also facilitated on the issues that impact the values and features of the lake. The workshop proceedings are provided in an Appendix.

4 INTRODUCTION SECTION 1

1.3 Information Sources and Support (continue)

A Residential and Commercial Survey was sent to every shoreline resident and commercial operator during the spring of 2004. The purpose of the survey was to understand what is truly valued and important to residents and their point of view on any issues around the lake - for the purpose of reflecting and respecting these views in the official lake plan.

There were 145 responses, which represents approximately 2/3 of the association membership. This is a very good response. If 100% of the members responded the results would not change appreciably. 80% of respondents are seasonal residents.

Some findings:

Only 7.0% of members are planning on becoming permanent residents (8); 23.5% (27) ‘don’t know’ at this point in time. Only 14% are planning major changes or alterations to their property in the next 5 years. The average length of time owning the residence is 35 years. There are 92 members who have owned property on the lake for 25 years or more. We are mostly 21/2 generations on the lake but up to 4 having used the property. 60 respondents have been on the lake for three generations or more.

Consistent with the % of respondents who indicated they were seasonal residents, our lake population explodes in the summer months with almost half of the respondents spending more than 50 days at the lake. Another 48.3% do not visit the lake at all during the winter months.

1.4 Report Structure

Section 1 identifies the purpose and scope of The Belmont Lake Plan, the process used and type of information to be collected. Section 2 identifies the communityDRAFT vision, goals and targets. Sections 3 to 7 provides a description of the natural, social, physical and land use regulations and contains a summary of observations and recommendations.

Section 8 provides a Summary of Values, Issues and Concerns, and

Section 9 contains the Action Plan.

Major observations and recommendations are provided throughout the document. The observations are based on the information that has been collected and the recommendations flow from them.

5 VISION, PRINCIPLES AND TARGETS SECTION 2

2.1 Vision and Mandate

The Belmont Lake Cottagers’ Association was established in the early 50’s. Our constitution states that our objectives for the Association are:

A) to advance the interests of the summer and permanent residents of Belmont Lake in the Township of Havelock Belmont Methuen and vicinity;

B) to promote the interests of persons owning property on Belmont Lake and Vicinity and to advance any plans for the advantage of the said Belmont Lake and Vicinity;

C) to promote aquatic interests and activities among the residents and others of the said Belmont Lake and Vicinity; and

D) to protect and advance the interests of all property owners, renters and others who wish to maintain the present environment of Belmont Lake as follows: 1) tp protect and improve the water quality of the watershed, 2) to maintain the natural environment as much as possible, 3) to collaborate with other Associations in the CroweDRAFT Valley watershed in the attainment of the above objectives. Belmont Lake Cottagers’ Association Mission Statement

• To advance the interests of the summer and permanent residents of Belmont Lake.

• To protect and improve the water quality of Belmont Lake and it’s watershed.

• To maintain the natural environment of Belmont Lake.

• To collaborate with other Associations in the Crowe Valley watershed in the attainment of the above objectives.

2.2 Principles and Targets

Principles and targets are an essential part of the exercise because it helps to further define our Vision Statement. Developing and confirming a set of principles and targets will help us to identify important features on the lake and provide a method for measuring our efforts in the preparation and implementation of the plan.

6 VISION, PRINCIPLES AND TARGETS SECTION 2

Figure 2.2 – Principles and Targets

Water Quality Protect Lake Character

The natural, social and historic character of Fish & Wildlife the Belmont Lake must be protected, enhanced and rehabilitated. Shorelines Focus Plan on End Results

The plan will focus on end results and Trees & Vistas balance a range of means to achieve those results such as regulation, communication and education. Development

Implementation Approach Character Implementation will favour educational processes and voluntary compliance over legislative and regulatory constraints. Social Life

Targets

1. Water quality – The water of Belmont Lake should not contain contaminants in excess of the natural historic levels (i.e. the level of contaminants that would occur in nature prior to human habitation) or standards specified by qualified official bodies.

2. Fish and wildlife – Belmont Lake should support a sustainable fish population and maintain stability in the bio-diversity of wildlife species and their habitat. The introduction of “invading species” such as zebra mussels, purple loosestrife and fanwort must be managed.

3. Natural shorelines and riparian areas – The shoreline can be described as the “ribbon of life” that supports a diverse range of fish and wildlifeDRAFT species. The protection and rehabilitation of the shoreline (littoral, riparian, and upland areas) should be promoted to increase the amount of natural shoreline.

4. Natural appearance and vistas – The natural vista should be maintained. Buildings and structures should have a minimal impact on the natural appearance of the shoreline and the landscape.

5. Economic and property development – The competitiveness and viability of existing resorts and commercial operations are to be supported. A cooperative working relationship has to be fostered between residential and commercial members of the community to ensure that proposed commercial and residential developments and activities respect the environment and character of the lake, as well as maintain property values.

6. Historical, cultural and natural character – The historical, cultural and natural character of the lake is to be recognized, protected and restored, where appropriate. Future public, commercial and residential development must complement and be compatible with the historical, cultural and natural character of the lake.

7. Social life – A range of social and recreational activities should be promoted that are consistent with the natural character of the lake, preserve the health and ambience of the lake, as well as foster a sense of community around the lake.

7 LAKE DESCRIPTION SECTION 3

3.1 Historical Development

The two villages closest to Belmont Lake are Havelock and Cordova Mines.

Havelock, lying approximately 3 miles (4.8 kilometres) to the south west of Belmont lake on highway #7, was incorporated on June 18, 1892, although its history really began with the surveying of Belmont Township in 1823 wherein an influx of settlers soon followed. These early settlers were encouraged by a British Government plan to settle Irish emigrants in Peterborough County. Some of the first families were those of ‘Daniel Finigan, William Watt, John Quinlan, Edmund Burke and Timothy Bourke.’

To assist these newcomers in establishing their new homes and farms, the Government gave each family 100 acres, a cow, an auger, an axe, a hammer, a saw, 100 nails, 3 hoes, an iron kettle, a fry pan, a pot, 3 bushels of seed potatoes and 8 quarts of corn seed with which to begin their new life in the bush.

While settlement in the Havelock and Belmont Lake area began in earnest after 1825, there certainly had been significant human activity in the area commencing about 12,000 years ago, after the last ice age. Much evidence of nomadic hunter-gathering tribes of Indigenous peoples has been found in the Belmont Lake watershed. Charlie Barrons, a long time resident of Belmont TWSP, has uncovered many artefacts, that were once used by native peoples, on his farm north of Cordova.

In 1884 the Canadian Pacific Railroad laid tracks through Havelock and connected Toronto to Smith’s Falls with Havelock as the halfway point. The rail line has played an important role in the lives of people in and around Havelock supplying both jobs and transportation for individuals and commercial concerns such as the mines at Nephton located north of Havelock.

The village of Havelock continues to be an important part of the fabric of our community. It provides a variety of services from hair cutting to banking, restaurants and lots of shopping opportunities: and, it’s going to get even better as the village has begun a process designed to restore and beautify Havelock’s old ‘downtown’ section. Cordova Mines, “The Hamlet with a DRAFTHeart of Gold”, is situated approximately 3.2 kilometres (2 miles) east of the north end of Belmont Lake on county road 48.

In 1890 a Mr. H.J. Strickland of Peterborough was travelling through Belmont Township and stopped to water his horse by the roadside when he spotted gold that had been exposed by a heavy rainfall. Mr. Strickland’s find and subsequent events led to the creation of the Cordova Gold Mine.

Cordova Mines was first called Warriston. The name change occurred in 1898 and at this time the population grew to more than 500 and the village boasted a school house, built in 1901, three general stores, two churches, a livery, butcher shop, bakery, doctor’s office, post office and a refreshment parlour. Several company houses were built as well. A rail line between Marmora and Cordova met freight transportation needs, and power requirements were met by the construction of an electric power facility at the south end of Cordova Lake. Wages at the mine were 12 1/2 cents per hour for a 10-hour shift and some of these hard earned wages were spent at a very unique saloon in Cordova. The boundary line between the counties of Peterborough and Hastings divided the mine property. It was illegal to sell alcohol in either county so an enterprising fellow by the name of One Armed Maloney built a portable saloon known as the Plug. When officials of one county came to inspect the Village, The Plug was simply moved across the boundary line to the other county or visa versa!

8 LAKE DESCRIPTION SECTION 3

The Cordova Gold Mine operated intermittently, under various ownerships, from 1892 until 1940 and no one knows for sure just how much gold was recovered. Estimates range from 1-2 million dollars worth.

The Village of Cordova Mines continues to be a thriving community with two active churches, a very busy recreation hall and library and also a well-equipped fire hall, and a combined general and liquor store.

Given the rich geologic history of the land adjacent to Belmont Lake it is not surprising that other mines were developed as well and two in particular are worth noting.

The Ledyard Gold and Iron Mine was located in close proximity to the Cordova Gold Mine and operated between 1890 and 1899.

The Blairton Iron Mine, located at Blairton on the shores of Crow Lake, operated from 1820 to 1886. At the height of its operations the mine employed 300-400 workers. To support such an ambitious operation, the village of Blairton, population 500, sprang up. Within the village could be found 7 general stores, 4 hotels, 2 bakeshops, a school, a railway station, a post office, a church and numerous liveries and blacksmith shops. At its peak in 1869, 15,000 tons of iron ore were shipped to the United States. Blairton is now considered to be one of Ontario’s Ghost Towns.

While mining, agricultural and other commercial ventures have been very important to the development of the Twsp of Havelock, Belmont and Methuen, one cannot over-estimate the aesthetic, recreational and commercial values provided by our lakes and rivers. Whether it was the cutting of ice from Belmont’s frozen waters, before the ready availability of refrigeration, the floating of logs down the Deer River or the establishment of fishing lodges and sawmills on the shores of the lake, Belmont was and remains an integral part of the lives of those who live on and around it.

In 1905 a sawmill was constructed on the south shore of Belmont Lake by Charles Ashbey and continued to operate as a lumber and shingle mill until Mr. Ashbey’s death in 1947.

On a small island, called Miners Island, in Deer Bay at the north end of Belmont Lake, intrepid miners sank a shaft with the intention of following a veinDRAFT of gold that ran from the island under the bottom of the lake. This project was eventually abandoned because it proved impossible to pump water out of the shaft, given the equipment of the day, as quickly as it flowed in. The remnants of the shaft are still visible today.

Belmont Lake provided exceptional fishing opportunities for large and small mouth bass and particularly muskellunge. Visitors from as far away as New York travelled to Belmont to experience this fisherman’s paradise.

John King, a local resident and fishing guide established a fishing lodge on the lake and named it ‘Belmontee’. The lodge, subsequently owned by the McCutcheon family, kept a guest registry from 1917 until the lodge closed in 1985.

John Rogers, another of the early residents of Belmont Lake, built a store and resort on the lake in 1933.

Recreational fishing on Belmont continues to attract avid anglers and the lake is still home to the giant “muskie’ although perhaps not in the same numbers as in years gone by. The lake also offers good fishing for walleye (pickerel), large and small-mouthed bass, pike, black crappie as well as perch and sunfish. In the 1930’s Belmont was also stocked with lake trout and there may still exist a remnant population of these cold-water trout. Black crappie and pike are two relatively new species to swim in the waters of Belmont.

9 LAKE DESCRIPTION SECTION 3

3.2 General Location and Characteristics

Every watershed has locally important sites, areas or features that represent the values that contribute to the character and history of an area and Belmont Lake and its environs are no exception: the villages, the commercial enterprises, both past and present, and last but not least the natural features all lend a unique character to Belmont Lake and the surrounding country side.

Belmont Lake is located on the Crowe River in the County of Peterborough, Township of Havelock Belmont Methuen and is approximately 8 kilometres from the Town of Havelock.

Belmont Lake has a surface area of 7.7 square kilometers (3 square miles) and a shoreline length of 31.9 kilometres (19.8 miles) including 6.8 kilometres (4.2 miles) of island shoreline. The lake has a maximum depth of 18 metres (60 feet) and a mean depth of 9 metres (30 feet).

Belmont Lake is located in the Crowe River Drainage Basin which is part of the greater Trent River Drainage Basin. The immediate watershed of the lake is 35 square kilometers (13.5 square miles) excluding the area drained by the Crowe River inflow which enters at the north end of Belmont Lake. The Crowe River’s head waters stem from Paudash Lake. From there, the river drains many small streams and lakes including Chandos, Wollaston and Cordova before it enters the north end of Belmont Lake. The other inlet to the lake is the North River whose head waters originate in Kasshabog Lake, drain through Round Lake and enter Belmont Lake on its west shore.

The sole outlet of the lake is the Crowe River which flows out of the mideast shore towards Crowe Lake. DRAFT

10 LAKE DESCRIPTION SECTION 3

Figure 3.1 – Belmont Lake Physical Characteristics: Based upon conflicting inventories of the physical characteristic of Belmont Lake by the Ministry of the Environment (MOE) in 1972 and the Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR) in 1999.

Figure 3.1 – Belmont Lake Physical Characteristics Drainage Area 474 sq. miles (1,227 Km2) Surface Area 758 ha (7.58 sq. Km) Length 7.5 Km Width 2 Km Shoreline length 31.9 Km (6.8 Km is island shoreline) Average Depth (at summer levels) 5.79 m Volume 4,465 ha -m of storage Outflow Volume (highest recorded flow – 1976) 153 cu. m / sec. Flushing Rate Not available at time of printing Max. Depth 14.9 m

The average surface area of Belmont Lake is 765.35 ha (MOE - 762.4 ha and MNR - 768.3 ha), the average maximum depth is 17.05 (MOE - 18.0 m and MNR - 16.1 m), and a average mean depth of 6.2 m (MOE - 6.2 m and MNR - 6.2 m). Mean depth is generally considered the single best index of morphometric (shape and size) conditions and shows an inverse relationship to productivity. In general, a shallow lake is more productive than a deep lake. Unfortunately, Belmont Lake is relatively an unproductive lake, although it has a relatively shallow basin. It has a shoreline length of 31.9DRAFT km and 6.8 km of which are island shoreline (21.3%) (MOE 1972).

Map #1 – Bathymetry of Belmont Lake provided by MNR.

11 LAKE DESCRIPTION SECTION 3

3.3 Watershed

The purpose of this section is to describe and identify the characteristics of our watershed.

A watershed is the area of land from which water drains and is, eventually, stored into a reservoir or basins of water, such as a lake. Precipitation, including rain and snow, and ground water are the primary source of freshwater in a watershed, rivers and streams transport the water across the landscape, and various reservoirs or wetlands, such as lakes, marshes, swamps, fens and bogs help to filter and store the freshwater for use.

The topography, climate and type of land use features, including natural daily and seasonal climatic changes, stochastic events such as droughts, floods, volcanic eruptions and global warming, and human-made changes to the landscape such as dams, urbanization, deforestation and flood control structures, directly influence the water cycle by controlling and/or altering the quantity and quality of water available, as well as its distributional pattern, across the landscape.

A watershed’s boundaries are delineated at various scales and, for the purposes of the lake plan you will be interested in two scales of mapping. The first scale involves Ontario’s secondary watersheds (based upon geological and topographical features; at a regional level). This scale of mapping is important to generally understand where your water is comingDRAFT from (upstream) and where it is going (downstream).

Source: Ministry of Natural Resources Map #2 – Belmont Lake Watershed

12 LAKE DESCRIPTION SECTION 3

Belmont Lake is located in the Havelock Belmont Methuen Township, north of Havelock, approximately 42 km (26 miles) east of Peterborough, Ontario. It is within the Crowe River drainage, a watershed of 122,000 hectares (ha) (1,220 sq km) between Cordova (Deer) Lake and Crowe Lake, which is part of the greater Trent River Drainage Basin (MOE 1972; Michalski 1998).

Observations

Belmont Lake receives inflow water from the headwaters of the Crowe and North rivers, which includes Wollaston, Paudash and Methuen reservoir lakes (MNR 2004). From there, the river drains many small tributary streams and lakes including Chandos, Kasshabog and Cordova before it enters the north end of Belmont Lake via the Crowe River (MNR 2004). The other inlet of the lake is the North River whose headwaters originate in Kasshabog Lake, drain through Round Lake (Dam) and enter Belmont Lake on its west shore via North River Bay (MNR 2004). The sole outlet of the lake is the Crowe River, which flows out the mid-east shore towards Crowe Lake to Rylstone Lake, which eventually empties into the Bay of Quinte via the Trent River. Therefore, any improvement in Belmont Lake would benefit all downstream waters, such as Crowe River, Crowe Lake, Crowe Bay, the Trent through to Campbellford and Bradley's Bay to the Bay of Quinte.

Trent Severn Waterway owns and operates the Belmont Lake dam at the outlet of the lake on Crowe River. In the mid-1980s, Crowe River was dredged at the outlet to enable the water to flow out of the lake more efficiently to enhance water levels downstream in the Trent Canal. By the 1950s, when cottage development boomed on many reservoir lakes, a new factor in water regulation arose, including the prevention of flooding and erosion of shoreline property and maintaining levels to enable access to water-access-only properties. Artificial manipulation of water levels, shoreline development and land use changes, and climate change have negatively impacted the natural freshet and lake levels of many reservoir lakes, including Belmont Lake.

Recommendations – Watershed

• Encourage all major water bodies that are located in Belmont Lake's watershed to develop lake plans in order to collaborate on matters having DRAFTmutual benefit, including communication, education and other stewardship opportunities, to all parties involved.

• Local official plans should provide policy that recognizes watershed impacts and requires the consideration of upstream and downstream impacts when reviewing new development proposals.

• Request that local municipalities to notify our association of any major development applications within the watershed upstream of Belmont Lake.

13 LAKE DESCRIPTION SECTION 3

3.4 Water Levels

Maintaining acceptable water levels on Belmont Lake through the seasons has proved somewhat difficult from time to time and there are a number of reasons for this.

Two rivers, North River and Deer River, flow into Belmont and only one, the Crowe River, flows out; therefore, spring flooding is a real threat that must be mitigated.

In times of midsummer drought, a situation that seems to be occurring with greater regularity, Belmont’s water levels fall below those desired for safe recreational boating and shore access.

The water level in Belmont is to a large extent controlled by three dams: Burnt Dam on the North River, Cordova Lake Dam on the Deer River and the Crowe River Dam on the Crowe River. The Crowe River Conservation Authority is responsible for the operation and maintenance of the Cordova Lake and Crowe River dams and the Ministry of Natural Resources (M.N.R.) is responsible for the Burnt dam on the North River.

The responsible authorities have done a very good job of controlling water flow in the spring and at other times of high precipitation so that we have not experienced damaging flood situations on the lake for some time; however, low water levels during periods of drought have become very problematic.

Evaporation is a significant cause of water loss during periods of low precipitation and high temperatures and the only solution would seem to be the balancing of water levels within the two watersheds to the north and north west of Belmont Lake and the one to the south east.

Wildly fluctuating water levels on Belmont Lake are not only bad for recreational use but also they damage fish stocks and the habitat of shore nesting birds, such as loons.

The means of gaining better control of our water levels has yet to be determined but the B.L.C.A., M.N.R., Crowe Valley Conservation Authority and the TWSP. Of H.B.M. continue to seek a solution to these water level problems on Belmont Lake. DRAFT In the meantime, we can all do something to reduce the amount of lake water that we use:

• Install low volume toilets • Install water saving devices on our shower heads • Fix leaky taps • Refrain from watering lawns • Install energy efficient low water volume washing machines

Figure 3.5 – Water Levels Water Level (metres above sea level) 1 in 100 Year Flood 188.80 m (189.10 m with a .3 m free board) Summer Operating Level 187.09 m Winter Operating Level 186.66 m

14 LAKE DESCRIPTION SECTION 3

3.5 Access

Belmont Lake is easily accessible by a system of major highways and well-maintained secondary roads and is within easy commute of major population centres such as Toronto and Peterborough to the west and Bellville and Trenton to the southeast.

It is this ease of access to Belmont’s shores from major population centres like Toronto (120 miles, or 190k) that has contributed to the significant development of the lake.

See Appendix 5 – Ontario Map

The majority of Belmont’s lakeshore residents access their properties from county and township roads and in most cases ultimately by privately maintained cottage roads. Access to island properties is accomplished by boat from either privately owned parking facilities on the mainland or from the public parking and launching facility located at the end of Mile of Memories Road in Cumming’s Bay.

See Map #3

Most of the shoreline property on Belmont Lake, Deer, North and Crowe Rivers is privately owned; therefore, public access to the water is very limited. As noted above, there is a public docking facility and beach on Cumming’s Bay and there are a few remnants of crown land that allow limited lake and river shoreline access, but these locations do not provide any traditional docking facilities.

See Map #3

* Please see sect. 7.2.1 of Lake Plan for location of crown lands. See Map #4.

Development on Belmont Lakes’ islands has been a controversial issue for a number of reasons, (See sect. 4.3 of plan-aesthetics), one of which has been the limited access to island cottages for septic and holding tank maintenance. Another lake access issue that has DRAFTcome to light in the past few years has been the increased use of the public beach for bathing purposes rather than just for recreational swimming. The B.L.C.A. has encouraged the Twsp to take a more proactive role in supervising the proper use of this beach.

15 LAKE DESCRIPTION SECTION 3

3.6 Ownership

The purpose of this section is to help identify those key property owners and agencies that will play a significant role in the maintenance of natural shorelines and/or the conservation of Belmont Lake’s natural heritage

Mapped information on land ownership, or tenure, can be obtained from your municipality or from the Ministry of Natural Resources (See Map #3 for an example) insert Cottage Map. This information is important in order to understand how land use policy applies. All land use planning decisions on private lands are made under the authority of the local municipality (e.g. Township, County, District), pursuant to the Planning Act and Municipal Act, and Crown land is administered by the Ministry of Natural Resources, pursuant to the Public Lands Act. Information in this section will assist with Section 7 – Land Use.

Here is a copy of a map that was supplied by the MNR. The green areas are Crown Land. DRAFT

Map #4 – Land Tenure Observations

• Less than 25% of Belmont Lake’s shoreline is Crown owned.

See 7.2.1 for more Crown Land information.

Recommendations – Ownership

• We should consider encouraging the MNR to retain the remaining Crown shorelines in order to protect the natural heritage of the area from inappropriate development.

16 SOCIAL ELEMENTS SECTION 4

Social elements enhance the quality of life on Belmont Lake. According to many shoreline residents, “a lake environment is a place where you can relax, recreate and get away from it all”. For a growing number of people, it is a natural environment in which to enjoy retirement and, for others, it is a place to introduce the beauty of nature and family values to younger generations. The diversity of social elements sometimes makes them difficult to identify and protect, but it is most important that we do so in order to enhance everyone’s experience on the lake. Not all residents and visitors have the same social values. Some people from urban settings bring urban planning designs and landscape ideas to the lake and often these values are in conflict with the natural beauty and landscape that is the character of our lake.

4.1 Recreational Boating

Boating is the second most popular recreational activity on Belmont Lake, next to swimming, with over 90% of resident survey respondents citing it as their preferred recreational activity. All types of vessels are present on the lake from non-motorized boats, such as kayaks and canoes, to large inboard motorboats. Figure 4.1 indicates the total number of households with boats that participated in the Residential Survey 2003; each household on the lake has about 3 boats, with a higher number of non-motorized boats than motorized.

Figure 4.1 – Boats on Belmont Lake based on survey – approximate Type of Boat # of Boats % of Boats Boats per Household Non-motorized 250 58% Motorized 177 42% Total 427 3 Source: Belmont Lake Resident Survey, 2003

Figure 4.2 indicates the number of households with non-motorized boats; 85% of all households have a canoe and 23% have DRAFTpaddleboats. Figure 4.2 – Households with Non Motorized Boats based on survey – approximate Type of Non-Motorized Boats (152) # of Households % Canoes 96 84.95% Sailboats 25 22.12% Kayaks 26 23.0% Windsurfers 22 19.46% Other Non-Motorized Boats 45 39.82%

Source: Belmont Lake Resident Survey, 2003

17 SOCIAL ELEMENTS SECTION 4

Boating is a very popular activity and there are several issues, such as safety, speed, reckless operation, closeness of boats and water-skiers to swimmers, and small vessels like canoes and kayaks, which could potentially negatively impact Belmont Lake and its residents. There are also potential environmental concerns, which include damage to shorelines and wildlife habitat, particularly bird nesting areas and fish spawning grounds. There is also the potential of wake damage to property, docks and docked boats, and increased noise from the vessel’s engines and occupants of the boats.

Recreational Boating Issues

Here are some of the more common issues that many lakes share:

Personal Water Craft (PWC) – The operation of Personal Watercraft (PWC) is often one of the greatest boating concerns of shoreline residents. PWCs are most often an unpopular recreational activity on many lakes and, in some states of the USA; PWCs have been banned entirely from many water bodies. The main concern with PWCs appears to be the uncaring attitude of a limited number of PWC operators, which causes them all to be branded as irresponsible.

In 2001, Senator Mira Spivak introduced Bill S-26 (now Bill S-8), The Personal Watercraft Act, which was passed by the Senate and introduced to the House of Commons, where it awaits a final decision. Bill S-8 would require the Minister of Transportation to restrict PWCs wherever local authorities find they cause excessive problems; restrictions could take the form of limiting hours, setting speed limits, or outright bans. The Federation of Ontario Cottagers Associations Inc. (FOCA) has given its endorsement “in principle” to the Bill.

Speed – The environmental impacts of inappropriate boat speeds and wakes can be large and can have long term or permanent negative effects on wildlife and vegetation. Erosion of the shoreline not only has a negative visual impact but also, increases turbidity and damages weed beds, resulting in the loss of fish habitat. Disturbance of nesting waterfowl is also a problem, which results in unsuccessful brooding efforts and abandonment of nests and/or nesting sites. The long-term effects are a reduction in fish and shore birds because of loss of habitat. Eventually this may result in a generalDRAFT reduction of the local wildlife population. In most cases, speeders are long gone by the time the police are on the scene, so it is necessary to educate the public about how to assist with community based policing. It is important that boat registration numbers and descriptions of the drivers of the offending vessels be recorded. Eyewitnesses would have to be willing to testify in court, and video recordings are extremely useful as evidence.

Pollution – There is an increasing amount of information on the use of two-stroke vs. four stroke engines. Refer to the Resident Survey, and confirm the percentage of all motorized boats that have 2 stroke engines. Environment Canada’s Environmental Technology Centre tests show that two stroke outboards produce 12 times as much benezene, toluene, ethylbenzene and xylenes, and five times as much oil and grease as four-stroke outboards.

18 SOCIAL ELEMENTS SECTION 4

Environment Canada’s Green Lane Web site indicates that:

“Although outboard motors exhaust their emissions into the water, recent studies of their impacts on lakes revealed that most hydrocarbon compounds in the water migrated into the air within 6 hours, and that samples taken about a metre below the surface showed no contamination. However, heavier hydrocarbons, such as oil and grease, remain on the surface for a longer period of time and may affect the health of microscopic organisms.”

“Further comparisons of the exhaust emissions from a light-duty van, a 9.9 two stroke outboard and a 9.9 four-stroke outboard showed that the two-stroke produced 50 % more carbon monoxide than the four-stroke and nearly 60 times more than the van. The two-stroke also emitted 15 times more unburned hydro-carbons than the four-stroke, and nearly 125 times more than the van.”

Source – http://www.ec.gc.ca/science/sandemay00/article1_e.html

While there is usually no specific information about the impacts of boat pollution on your lake, you can provide general information to make boaters more cautious about purchasing older two-stroke outboard motors. Another source of information on 2 stroke and 4 stroke motors is available at

http://coastaloutdoors.com/articles/0101/2strokev4stroke.htm

Figure 4.3 indicates the percentage of households with motorized boats; 25% of all boats have two (2) stroke motors and 4% have four (4) stroke motors. There are a very low percentage of boats 1.76% on the lake, with greater than 200 horse-powered motors.

Figure 4.3 – Households with Motorized Boats DRAFT2 Stroke 4 Stroke Horsepower / Type of # of Households % # of Households % Motorized Boat (152) Less than 10 hp 69 61.06% 6 5.3% 11 - 100 hp 52 46.01% 11 9.73% 101- 199 hp 11 9.73% 7 6.19% More than 200 hp 3 2.65% 2 1.76% PWC 17 15.04% 3 2.65% Pontoon Boats 17 15.04% 1 0.88% Subtotal Source: Residents Survey, 2003

19 SOCIAL ELEMENTS SECTION 4

Navigation Aids (Buoys and Signs)

Historically red rock markers are placed by the Belmont Lake Cottagers’ Association as a courtesy for Association members. See Map #5 for Rock Marker Map.

Enforcement and Regulations

Over the next several years, implementation of the new Operator Competency Regulations should help to remind boaters of speed and safety restrictions. Until recently there was no required training and certification program for boat operators, so boaters were uneducated about safety regulations and even the meaning of signage.

Operator Competency Regulations are now in effect for powered recreational vessel operators. Since 1999, any operator under the age of 16 was required to have an Operator Efficiency Card. As of September 15th, 2002, all operators of powered recreational vessels under 4 metres (13.1 ft), regardless of age, must be certified. The final phase of this legislation comes into effect September 15th, 2009, at which time all powered recreational vessel operators must have a competency card.

There are courses available through the Canadian Power and Sail Squadron and the Canadian Coast Guard. Information is available on the web sites http://www.ccg-gcc.gc.ca and http://www.cps-ecp.ca or by calling the Boating Safety Information line at 1-800-267-6687.

Historical Accident – Incident Reports

Figure 4.4 – Unsafe boating Incidents Havelock Belmont Methuen OPP Marine Incidents - 2006* Charges May June July August Canada Shipping Act 2 7 8 5 Competency Card 0 0 0 0 Liquor Licence Act DRAFT 0 4 10 3

20 SOCIAL ELEMENTS SECTION 4

4.2 Social Cultural and Historic Sites

Belmont Lake has many locally important sites, areas or features representing values that contribute to the character, culture, nature and history of the lake.

• Cordova Gold/Iron Mines • Blairton Iron Mine • Sawmill Bay • Marina • Deer River [logging, fish spawning, Scott’s Dam, • North River [Burnt Dam], falls Falls at Cordova Lake • Village of Cordova Mines • All Belmont Lake Islands • Various Old Lodges • Ice Cutting Areas • Loon Nesting Sites • First Cottage • Village of Havelock • Osprey Nesting Sites DRAFT

Map #6 – Historic and Cultural Sites – Belmont Lake

21 SOCIAL ELEMENTS SECTION 4

4.3 Landscapes and Aesthetics

While Belmont Lake means different things to different people most of those who reside on or visit the lake do so because it provides a specific set of aesthetics and values such as a natural rural environment, fresh air, aquatic recreation, low noise and light pollution, wildlife and a relaxed lifestyle which are contrary to the aesthetics and values provided by an urbanized centre.

Aesthetic values differ greatly from person to person and often depend on the context of an individual’s lifestyle. Some people prefer the urban ‘park-like’ setting that is characterized by manicured lawns and vegetation, while others prefer the wilderness or natural setting with little human interference.

There are two important landscape lines where development can impact the natural setting of a lake: the shoreline and the tree line (horizon). When viewing the opposite side of the lake our eyes are immediately drawn to these two lines and anything that stands out on these lines can greatly impact their natural character. As a result, any development that occurs on these landscape lines will directly impact the natural setting. The main cause of negative visual impact in these areas is the construction of buildings and structures and the removal of vegetation.

In order to maintain a natural appearance, the horizon must have minimal disturbance and shoreline development (docks, recreation areas) should be kept to a minimum. High profile structures (such as boathouses) and brightly painted buildings detract from the natural beauty of the shoreline. Similarly, high profile development, tall building for example, that stand above the tree line, or horizon, draw immediate attention and diminish the value of the natural tree-line feature. DRAFT

22 SOCIAL ELEMENTS SECTION 4

The issue of aesthetics is an important one for many lake residents and/or commercial operators who are fearful of having other residents tell them how to develop their private land. The questions regarding what the aesthetic value of Belmont Lake is and who decides what is aesthetically valuable are valid ones. The Belmont Lake Plan is not designed to instruct landowners and HBM council what to develop but rather to educate and to encourage everyone to make waterfront development decisions that will protect the natural heritage and aesthetics of Belmont Lake and its environment.

People visit or reside in and around a lake environment because it provides a specific set of aesthetics and values; therefore, it is important that Belmont Lake visitors, residents and commercial operators make considerate life style choices that encourage the conservation and protection of our environment and the uniqueness of lake living.

Figure 4.5

Shoreline

• 50-100ft 42% • 100 - 150ft 21.6% • over 150ft 35.8% • Shoreline in natural state: 72.8% • Over 2/3 of members have shorelines 80% to 100% natural state • With no artificial beach 79%

The members have noted a substantial amount of shore line changes over last 5 years.

• more residential development 81.06% • more lawns 43.18% • more shoreline structures 40.91% • less forest cover 32.58% • less wetlands 21.21% With no manicured lawnDRAFT 78% • 90% do not use fertilizers • 90% do not use pesticides

Source: BLCA Survey 2003

23 SOCIAL ELEMENTS SECTION 4

In summary:

• Development that affects skylines (horizons) and shorelines will negatively impact the natural setting of our lake.

• To maintain a natural appearance, development that disturbs skylines and shorelines should be kept to a minimum

• Lake/rural environments are attractive to those who visit and reside in them because they differ from city environments; therefore, care should be taken that as few urban features as possible are transferred to the lake environment.

Recommendations

• It is recommended that the Belmont Lake Cottagers’ Association work with HBM township and the relevant government ministries to ensure that: high profile development and resource management activities (forestry, mining, pits and quarries) do not occur in back-lot areas, or on heights of land and other scenic areas or within the viewscape of Belmont Lake.

• Significant removal of vegetation does not occur along the treed horizon or natural shoreline.

• The official plan contains policies that recognize the importance of landscapes and natural vistas on Belmont Lake.

• Shoreline preservation and restoration is encouraged. DRAFT

24 SOCIAL ELEMENTS SECTION 4

4.4 Noise and Lighting

Peace and tranquility are highly rated as two of the essential elements of life on the lake and noise and indiscriminate lighting affect the enjoyment of a natural setting because they interfere with these values.

Light pollution is a human-made impact that affects many shoreline residents; however, it is recognized that strategically located shoreline lighting has traditionally aided navigation as there are few navigation buoys or landmarks that have lighting to enable night time cruising.

The brightening of the night sky is a universal problem that continues to grow and the popularity of landscape lighting, string, spot and garden lighting of all types adds to the unnatural level of light around the lake. Research has proven that nocturnal insects that congregate around light sources are at greater risk of predation. Bats, which consume 30-50% of their body weight in insects each night, feed on these insect masses found at light sources. Insects, which are important pollinators and food sources for many species, and those that are unable to detect bats, are removed from the local food chain, reducing the local biodiversity. Unless some initiatives are taken to inform the public and local business about the effects and costs associated with lighting, viewing the stars at night and conserving the local biodiversity will become more difficult.

Figure 4.6 – Resident Noise and Lighting Concerns Occurrence % Significant % Moderate % Minimal % No impact Impact Impact Impact Daytime Noise 23 31 20 25 Night time Noise 16 22 27 34 Lighting 15 19 22 44 Source: Resident Survey, Date Recommendations – Noise and LightingDRAFT • All municipalities should be encouraged to adopt a noise control by-law. • Consider providing residents and municipal planners with examples of appropriate lighting techniques. • The Official Plan should include policy to limit impacts from noise and excessive lighting.

25 NATURAL HERITAGE FEATURES AND AREAS SECTION 5

Introduction to the Belmont Lake Watershed

Therefore, any improvement in Belmont Lake would benefit all downstream waters, such as Crowe River, Crowe Lake, Crowe Bay, the Trent through to Campbellford and Bradley’s Bay to the Bay of Quinte.

Based upon conflicting inventories of the physical characteristic of Belmont Lake by the Ministry of the Environment (MOE) in 1972 and the Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR) in 1999, the average surface area of Belmont Lake is 765.35 ha (MOE – 762.4 ha and MNRDRAFT – 768.3 ha), the average maximum depth is 17.05 (MOE – 18.0 m and MNR – 16.1 m), and a average mean depth of 6.2 m (MOE – 6.2 m and MNR – 6.2 m). Mean depth is generally considered the single best index of morphometric (shape and size) conditions and shows an inverse relationship to productivity. In general, a shallow lake is more productive than a deep lake. Unfortunately, Belmont Lake is relatively an unproductive lake, although it has a relatively shallow basin. It has a shoreline length of 31.9 km and 6.8 km of which are island shoreline (21.3%) (MOE 1972).

Belmont Lake straddles two different types of bedrock. To the north, Belmont Lake sits partially on the Canadian Shield, dominated by Precambrian granite-hard crystalline, igneous and metamorphic rocks-and very shallow soils, and, to the south, the lake rests on calcium-based sedimentary rocks, which are primarily limestone and shale-based bedrock, with rich deep soils (MOE 1972; The Kawartha Lakes Ecosystem, web, 2004).

26 NATURAL HERITAGE FEATURES AND AREAS SECTION 5

The soil bed that lies above the Shield in the northern areas of Belmont Lake’s sub-watershed are generally acidic due to the historically dense coniferous vegetation of this area, and loamy, fertile soils dominate the south, which is ideal for agriculture and deciduous vegetation. The terrain is characterized by rolling hills, with good drainage potential, and shallow till, less than 1.5 m, that covers the bedrock, and the shoreline is sprinkled with rocky outcrops (MOE 1972). As a result of the loamy soil and calcium-based rock topography, Belmont Lake has evolved into a moderately hard water system (carbonate-bicarbonate capacity to neutralize acids), with an excellent alkalinity concentration greater than 45 mg/L for the past 30 years, which indicates that this lake is well buffered and extremely resilient against acidification by acid precipitation or deposition.

Belmont Lake stratifies thermally in mid-summer, with maximum rates of temperature decline through the metalimnion (thermocline). It has a “clinograde” dissolved oxygen distribution, which means that oxygen diminishes with depth, especially in the last 6 m off bottom where waters have been devoid of oxygen in recent years. Lowering of the thermocline occurs naturally in most relatively deep south-central Ontario lakes, and results from a deepening of the surface waters owing to periodic wind-induced vertical turbulence occurring through summer months and climate change (Michalski 1998). Water temperatures are consistent with shallow, cool/warm water systems throughout the year.

Generally, the lake pH, alkalinity, conductivity and total phosphorus increases in lakes whose catchments have high amount of agricultural activity (Peterborough and Hastings counties).

The average pH for Belmont Lake has been > 7.5 for the past 30 years, indicating a lake unaffected by acid precipitation. The average conductivity, also known as the total dissolved solids, has remained < 100 umhos/cm, which is excellent for lakes to maintain healthy environments for aquatic species. Nutrient enrichment by various forms of nitrogen and bacterial concentrations were slightly elevated at the inlets of Crowe and North Rivers; otherwise, these levels remained below the Provincial Water Quality Objectives (PWQO) set by the MOE for the past 30 years, indicating a relatively healthy system.

In the late 1800s and early 1900s, mining and logging were a booming industry in and around Belmont Lake’s watershed. Many land use activitiesDRAFT that have evolved here over the past 75 years, such as clear-cutting, agriculture, fisheries stocking, development and their infrastructures, increased boating and fishing pressures, and all terrain vehicles have caused major changes to the watershed’s physical landscape and environmental health. By 1993, 414 cottages and 24 houses had been established on the lake.

Based upon an Aquatic Resources Area (ARA) analysis in 2002, Belmont Lake’s uses include recreation, recreational fishing, tourism-based fishery, and water extraction. Other more passive activities such as canoeing, hiking, cross country skiing and nature appreciation have also evolved within the watershed. Belmont Lake’s close proximity to southern urban centres makes it an ideal recreational destination.

Belmont Lake has participated in the MOE’s Lake Partner Program-an enhanced lake monitoring series-to enhance the lake’s monitoring information since the 1990s. The Lake Partner Program is a province-wide, volunteer-based, water-quality monitoring program. Volunteers collect total phosphorus samples and make monthly water clarity observations on their lakes. This information will allow the early detection of changes in the nutrient status and/or the water clarity of the lake from impacts caused by shoreline development, climate change and other stresses.

27 NATURAL HERITAGE FEATURES AND AREAS SECTION 5

During the past decade, Belmont Lake Cottagers’ Association (BLCA) volunteers have measured dissolved-oxygen and temperature profiles as well as water clarity depth with a Secchi disc and extracted water samples for total phosphorus measurement analysis by Ontario’s Ministry of the Environment’s (MOE) Lake Partner Program. Prior to the 1990s, the program was called the “Self Help Program” from which water quality data was also collected by local volunteers to be assessed by water quality experts at the MOE. The results from these sampling periods enable natural resource managers to determine the type and level of recreational activity that could be sustained by the carrying capacity of the lake.

Based upon the water quality data for clarity and productivity collected from both MOE programs, which together span 30 years of collection efforts from 1972 to 2004, there have been very little fluctuations, besides natural annual variations, in these parameters. Based upon the analysis of classical indicators of lake trophic or enrichment status, including total phosphorus and chlorophyll a concentrations and Secchi disc transparency, Belmont Lake is a slightly enriched or moderately productive, mesotrophic lake, bordering on “un-enriched” or oligotrophic tendencies because of low algae productivity (MOE 1972; Michalski 1998; MNR 2004). In terms of these parameters, and the lake’s relatively high flushing rate at 10.3 times per year, Belmont Lake has good water quality for recreational use and, with proper filtration, consumption, as well as good conditions for cool to warm water fisheries.

Belmont Lake’s trophic status is NOT typical of the “Kawartha Lakes” of the south-central region of Ontario (MNR/Kawartha Lakes web site, 2004). The Kawartha Lakes region have lakes that tend to border an enriched or eutrophic status because of high concentrations of nutrients derived from increased development and land use changes due to its close proximity to the Greater Toronto Area and other large city centres.

On a scale of lake enrichments, as indicated by chlorophyll a and total phosphorus concentrations and water transparency, Belmont Lake is similar to Balsam Lake and Cameron Lake (upper Kawartha Lakes and Trent Severn system), two relatively clear lakes and is far removed from such highly enriched waters as the Western Basin of Lake Erie, Lake Scugog and the Bay of Quinte (the latter two are part of the lower Kawartha Lakes and Trent-Severn system). Unfortunately,DRAFT current analysis by the MOE of Belmont Lake’s water quality is unavailable and should be considered as a future endeavour.

Current water quality stresses include artificial barriers on Crowe River inlet and outlet; two minor pollution sources at the deltas of the North and Crowe Rivers, including contaminants, non-point source pollution, erosion and sedimentation; water level fluctuations; shoreline alteration; and water taking for domestic water supply. A bottom layer of water devoid of oxygen was present in the deepest portion of the lake for more than a month, and oxygen deficiencies were observed even at moderate depths in late August, which would render these depths unsuitable for sensitive fish such as trout and lake herring.

28 NATURAL HERITAGE FEATURES AND AREAS SECTION 5

5.1 Water Quality

Natural systems are dynamic yet fragile systems, responding not only to artificial stimulus but also to natural fluctuation events, such as climatic changes, watershed activities, nutrient enrichment and toxic contamination from the lake’s own substrate or runoff from the landscape. These contaminants reach the surface and groundwater from the soil, geological topography of the catchment’s area, local vegetation and wildlife, precipitation and runoff, biological, physical and chemical processes in the water as well as human activities in the region. Changes to land use can increase nutrient loading from these altered landscapes, which can produce elevated plant growth, diminished water clarity, and possible impairment to habitats of cold-water fish species.

In general, there is no single measure that constitutes “good” or “poor” water quality because qualifying water quality depends on its use (i.e., drinking water vs. navigational water vs. recreational use), and some water quality problems are treatable. Therefore, water quality is defined through the analysis of its chemical (nutrients, alkalinity, conductivity, total dissolved solids (TDS) and pH), physical (turbidity, colour and odour) and biological (chlorophyll a and fecal coliform concentrations) content.

Eutrophication is the process of nutrient enrichment usually by nitrates or phosphates found in organic matter, silt and sediments in aquatic systems, which leads to increased productivity and general aging of the lake (Addy and Green 1996). It occurs naturally over geological time (hundreds and thousands of years) but may be accelerated by human induced land use activities-a cultural eutrophication. When plant nutrient levels, such as phosphorus, increase, lake communities become more productive but less diverse. The water also becomes more turbid and algal blooms are often common. Throughout the eutrophication process the physical, chemical and biological composition of the lake change.

Early 20th century limnologists-scientists that study lakes and freshwater ecosystems, devised a classification system to describe lake conditions as they proceed through the eutrophication process, and, therefore, encourage appropriate lake management efforts (Addy and Green 1996). Three general ‘lake types’ can be distinguished based upon their productivity, and can also be characterized by their morphological features and dominant biota. These lake types areDRAFT also thought to represent the natural succession process of ‘aging’ from oligotrophic to mesotrophic to eutrophic as a result of basin filling. Eventually all lakes become wetlands, then a wet meadow, and finally a forested land over geological time scales (millions of years).

Trophic Status of Belmont Lake

A lake’s trophic state is not a discrete category, but rather part of a continuous spectrum (ibid). Lakes in early stages of eutrophication are oligotrophic lakes. In the north these lakes tend to be clear, cold and deep with low nutrient concentrations and, consequently, low biotic productivity, but maintain high dissolved oxygen concentrations throughout the water column and throughout the summer. These lakes are, therefore, dominated by cold water species such as lake trout and whitefish. Sand, stones or other mineral deposits usually line the lake bottom.

At the opposite end of the spectrum are eutrophic lakes. In northern temperate locales these lakes have high nutrient concentrations, high biotic productivity, and large sediment inputs which contribute to decreased water clarity. Bottom sediments are commonly organic muck, and the deep waters become depleted of dissolved oxygen during the summer. These lakes tend to be warm and shallow, and are dominated by bass, perch, pike and carp, devoid of cold water species. These lake types are typical of some of the Kawartha Lakes and others bordering on or south of the shield.

29 NATURAL HERITAGE FEATURES AND AREAS SECTION 5

Mesotrophic lakes are in the range between oligotrophic and eutrophic lakes.

Trophic status, measured as phosphorus and chlorophyll a concentrations, is considered a good indicator or measure of a lake’s physical and biological health via measuring the level of ecosystem productivity or the total weight of living biological material (biomass) in a waterbody at a specific location and time. Water clarity is also a widely accepted indicator of lake trophic status, which measures water clarity using a Secchi disc. The common assumption is that the deeper the Secchi disc is visible from the surface of the water, the clearer and more oligotrophic the lake.

Total phosphorus, chlorophyll a and water clarity are all inter-related components based on the fact that changes in nutrient levels causes changes in algal biomass which in turn causes changes in lake clarity.

Different trophic classes are more suitable for different lake activities. For instance, anglers may prefer weedier lakes which are preferred by a diverse fish community, whereas swimmers and boaters will prefer clearer lakes with fewer aquatic plants to entangle legs and motors.

Physical and Biological Parameters of Trophic Status

Clarity (Secchi Depth)

Water clarity is the parameter of which people are most aware, and turbidity is a measure of water clarity (i.e., how far down the water column light can penetrate). Clarity is affected by suspended particles (sediment, algae, etc.,) and the natural colour of the water; particles suspended in the water, such as clay, silt, sand and phytoplankton, which scatter the passage of light through the water column. These particles enter water through natural or human caused soil erosion, waste discharge, disturbance to the riverbed, and excessive algal blooms causing an increase in turbidity. High turbidity can increase water temperatures, reduce light levels for photosynthesis for plant growth, clog the breathing gills of fish and macro-invertebrates, and decrease habitat diversity upon settling of these particles. Water clarity or transparency is measuredDRAFT by using a Secchi disc, a 20 cm in diameter, black and white disc, which is lowered into the water by a rope marked by 1 m intervals to determine the depth to which light penetrates and is, therefore, a good indication of how far down in the water column phytoplankton and vascular plants may grow. Clarity can also be used to get a sense of a lake’s trophic status (oligotrophic-Secchi depth > 5 m; mesotrophic-Secchi depth 3 – 5 m; eutrophic-Secchi depth < 3 m).

Belmont Lake’s mean average Secchi disc depth measurement for the surveying period of 2000 to 2003 was 4.45 m; in the late 1990s (1996 to 1999) it was 5.4 m based upon Lake Partner Program data, which differed from MNR’s lake survey measurement of 3.5 m for 1999; in the 1980s (1980 to 1986) the mean Secchi depth was 4.14m, which was slightly greater than the averages derived form MOE lake surveys of 3.7 and 3.3 m for 1985 and 1986, respectively; and the average measurement for the 1970s (1972-1979) was 4.36 m (Figure 5.1). Over the span of 30 years, the average Secchi disc depth did not deviate from a measurement of >4.0 m, which is a unique situation in this region, especially when compared to other lakes of the south-central region. These Secchi disc depths indicate a moderate degree of water clarity, which is similar to other surrounding lakes including Round Lake, with an average Secchi depth of 3.7 m, Cordova Lake, with an average Secchi depth of 4.3 m, and Crowe Lake, with an average Secchi depth of 4.3m (Michalski 1998).

30 NATURAL HERITAGE FEATURES AND AREAS SECTION 5

Secchi disc readings for Belmont Lake generally fluctuated between 3.5 and 5 metres over the past 30 years, which is not typical for mesotrophic-eutrophic lakes in the area. Secchi depths for Belmont Lake indicate that the lake is mesotrophic bordering on oligotrophic.

Figure 5.1 Seasonal Means of Secchi Disc Depth and Chlorophyll a Concentration Measurements for Belmont Lake near the Entrance of Crowe Lake.

Figure 5.1 – Water Chemistry YEAR Average/Seasonal Means Average/Seasonal Means Secchi Disc Measurements Chlorophyll a Measurements (Depth in metres (m)) (Concentrations in ug/L) 1972 3.7 1.3 1973 -- -- 1974 4.3 1.2 1975 4.0 2.2 1976 4.1 1.8 1977 5.3 -- 1978 – 2 samples 4.8/4.1 MEAN = 4.45 1.6/2.0 MEAN = 1.8 1979 4.7 1.6 1980 -- -- 1981 4.6 1.0 1982 5.0 1.2 1983 4.1 1.3 1984 -- -- 1985 DRAFT3.7 1.6 1986 3.3 1.6 1996 – Crowe R. Inlet (CRI) 5.6 -- 1997 – Crowe R. Inlet 5.4 -- 1998 – Crowe R. Inlet 5.2 -- 1999 – CRI, S. end of Big Island 5.4 (CRI) 5.4 (SBI) 5.4 (SBI), and W. of String Island (WSI) (WSI) MEAN = 5.4 -- 2000 – CRI 4.2 -- 2001 – CRI and N. end of Big 4.7 (CRI) 4.5 (NBI) MEAN = -- Island in open water (NBI) 4.6 2002 4.3 -- 2003 4.7 -- 2004 -- -- Source: MOE-Central Region, Secchi Disc-Chlorophyll a Self-Help Programme, 1979; 1985; 2003)

31 NATURAL HERITAGE FEATURES AND AREAS SECTION 5

Chlorophyll a

Chlorophyll a is a common type of green pigment found in most plants, which use chlorophyll to capture sunlight for photosynthesis. Chlorophyll a is measured to estimate the abundance of phytoplankton in the water, which often is found close to the surface of the water because reduced light at greater depths in the water column. Chlorophyll a in phytoplankton can be used as a rough indicator of the extent of biological activity at the time of sampling since it is regulated by all of the combined physical, chemical, biological and climatological factors which affect production. In general, average summertime chlorophyll a concentrations from 0 to 3.5 ug/L indicate low algal densities and an unproductive or nutrient poor lake.

Chlorophyll a concentrations were low, based upon averages from MOE lake surveys, with ranges less than 0.8 ug/L to 3.3 ug/L and averaging less than 1.6 ug/L for the period of 1972 to 1986 (Figure 5.1). Based upon these results, Belmont Lake would be considered unproductive or “un-enriched” because of low fertility, which is probably a result of the total low phosphorus content, which ranged from 10 to 20 ug/L (MOE 1972; Michalski 1998); however, the degree of water clarity was more typical of a moderately enriched lake. The chlorophyll a concentrations of the surrounding lakes include: 3.1 ug/L for Round Lake; 2.0 ug/L for Cordova Lake; and 2.4 ug/L for Crowe Lake (Michalski 1998).

TP (Total Phosphorus, Phosphate)

Phosphorus is a natural element found in rocks, soils and organic material, and it is the nutrient which limits the growth of algae in almost all lakes. Since phosphorus is a limiting nutrient, an aquatic system needs a critical minimum to function properly. Therefore, small additions of phosphorus stimulate significant algal and plant growth. Excessive plant growth, however, decreases water clarity, and upon death, decomposition by bacteria reduces the content of dissolved oxygen in the bottom waters, which reduces habitat for aquatic life and alters fish communities and, if all oxygen is lost, the phosphorus which was bound up in the lake sediments is released, stimulating even more algal growth and consequent oxygen consumption. Algae blooms can also harm aesthetic and recreational values. DRAFT The PWQO sets two thresholds for phosphorus levels: lakes that are at or below 10 ug/L for the ice free period should remain below this limit and lakes that are above 10 ug/L, but below 20 ug/L should remain below this level to prevent nuisance concentrations of algae from occurring.

Factors which contribute to phosphorus retention by soils are soil chemistry and absorption capacity, composition and density of vegetation cover, and slope conditions. For example, deep, sandy loam soils supporting continuous forest growth on level sites would naturally retain more phosphorus than shallow, discontinuous mantles over steeply sloping bedrock. Therefore, any form of land use development that deviates from undeveloped “forested land” will contribute more phosphorus to a waterbody. Types of land uses that increase aquatic phosphorus inputs include: phosphate-based detergents and fertilizers, improperly sited and maintained septic systems, waterfowl, agricultural drainage, urban storm runoff, waste-water treatment effluent, animal wastes, road de-icers, and atmospheric deposition.

32 NATURAL HERITAGE FEATURES AND AREAS SECTION 5

Generally, lakes with phosphorus levels less that 0.01 mg/L (<10 ug/L) are considered to be oligotrophic; those with phosphorus levels between 0.01 mg/L and 0.02 mg/L (10 ug/L-20 ug/L) are considered to be mesotrophic; and those with phosphorus levels greater than 0.02 mg/L (> 20 ug/L) are considered to be eutrophic.

Total phosphorus (TP) for Belmont Lake, based upon 1978 MOE lake survey data, for the euphotic zone (surface waters) was 12 ug/L and for the bottom waters it was 14 ug/L. In 1998, the average TP concentration was 10 ug/L (Michalski 1998). The mean TP values for Belmont Lake during the 1970s and 1990s were consistently greater than 10 ug/L, but in 2002 and 2003, the mean TP was less than 10 ug/L, measuring 9.34 and 7.66 ug/L respectively, indicating an unproductive system (Figure 5.3). In 2004, concentrations increased to a mean of 12.95 ug/L, indicating a moderately productive, mesotrophic lake.

Figure 5.3 Total Phosphorus (TP1 and TP2) Measurements (Concentrations in ug/L) for Belmont Lake from the Lake Partner Program 2002 – 2004 Year TP 1 (ug/L) TP2 (ug/L) Mean for 1972 = 10.7 -- -- 1978 12 14 Mean for 1978 = 12.9 2002 9.03 9.62 Mean for 2002 = 9.34 2003 7.71 7.61 Mean for 2003 = 7.66 2004 11.85 14.05 Mean for 2004 = 12.95 Source: MOE Lake Partner Program, 2004

As per the results derived from the Lake Partner Program, 2004 values seem to be reflective the historical data from the 1970s and 1990s,DRAFT whereas 2002 and 2003 indicative a reduction in productivity, just below the moderate range. The exact location of sampling for the Lake Partner Program is unknown except for a generalized description of “collection near the Crowe River inlet”, which makes it difficult to interpret the data because it is unknown whether or not the samples represent the lake or the river or a combination of the two (pers. comm. B. Clark, 2004). Differences of TP measurement values are fairly large between sampling years is, therefore, probably a result of the influence of the river.

Based upon the available data, there is no evidence to suggest long-term changes or seasonal variation in total phosphorus concentrations in Belmont Lake. The total phosphorus average concentrations of surrounding lakes include: 10 ug/L for Round Lake; 7 ug/L for Cordova Lake; and 13 ug/L for Crowe Lake.

33 NATURAL HERITAGE FEATURES AND AREAS SECTION 5

In conclusion, an oligotrophic status is typical of lakes found on the Precambrian shield. The granite rock bed and sparse mineral soil contribute to the low nutrients and minimized energy transfer in the water. Whereas, inland lakes south of the shield are often eutrophic bordering mesotrophic as they approach the shield because of the timing of glacial retreat to the north, so southern lakes are naturally older than northern lakes. However, climate change and artificial eutrophication from pollution and sedimentation are accelerating the natural aging process of lakes, which means that the eutrophic boundary is moving north.

Based upon the mean Secchi Disc of 3.5 to 4 m, chlorophyll a of 1.6 (1.52) µg/L and moderate total phosphorus concentrations (10 ug/L-20 ug/L), there were very little fluctuations in these parameters, which indicates that Belmont Lake is a mesotrophic lake bordered on “un-enriched” (oligotrophic) conditions with low algal productivity; therefore, Belmont Lake has a high degree of water clarity and behaves much like a shield lake, i.e., not too much seasonal variation in the results. During sampling years where the Secchi disc measurements fell below the low average range of 3.5 was probably partly due to the natural colouration of the water in this lake (MOE 1986).

Chemical Parameters of Trophic Status

Dissolved Oxygen Profile/Temperature Profile

Most aquatic animals breathe oxygen that is dissolved into the water from the atmosphere or produced by photosynthetic activities of aquatic plants. A consistently high level of dissolved oxygen in the water is, therefore, critical to support aquatic life. Dissolved oxygen levels vary with water temperature and depth, flow velocity, morphometry (shape) of the lake, and the presence of aquatic plants and animals. Studies have shown that fish require at least 5-6 mg/L of dissolved oxygen, while most macro-invertebrates die out at levels below 3 mg/L. Humans can affect the amount of dissolved oxygen in water through the addition of oxygen-consuming organic wastes to the water, such as sewage and food wastes, nutrients and chemicals, and by altering flow regimes.

If lakes lose oxygen faster than it can be replaced by photosynthesis and atmospheric exchange, the lake may become anoxic, without oxygen. When anoxia occurs, a chemical reaction takes place in bottom sediments which releases sediment-bound phosphorusDRAFT into the water column, which perpetuates the cycle further. Oxygen levels are most critical for the protection of cold water fish species like lake trout. Oxygen profiles are completed to determine if oxygen depletion is a factor, with respect to ecosystem health, and to assist in the management of cold water species. Certain fish species, like lake trout, have very specific habitat requirements. Lake trout require water temperatures below 15°C and dissolved oxygen concentrations above 4 mg/L for useable habitat, but their optimal habitat is found at temperatures below 10° C and dissolved oxygen concentrations above 6 mg/L. Excessive nutrients and the resulting algae and plant growth and decomposition can cause a decrease in deep-water oxygen levels and, therefore, reduce the availability of lake trout habitat.

The PWQO for oxygen indicates that oxygen concentrations should not go below 6 mg/L at water temperatures of 10°C or colder. The PWQO do, however, recognize that oxygen concentrations in some hypolimnetic waters are naturally lower than the objective and that some sensitive biological communities may require more stringent criteria (MOE 1972; 2003).

34 NATURAL HERITAGE FEATURES AND AREAS SECTION 5

In 1977, the dissolved oxygen and temperature readings confirmed Belmont Lake as warm water lake with low dissolved oxygen content within the thermocline and the bottom layer of the lake-causing anoxic conditions in the hypoliminium. Therefore, Belmont Lake is only conditioned to support cool water and warm water fish species. Historically, Belmont Lake had a lake herring population, which is indicative of cold water conditions, but when a lake is bordering warm water-cool water conditions, a slight change in water chemistry due to environmental changes (i.e., climate change) and land development can divert the system to a dominant warm water fishery. The results indicate that Belmont Lake has experienced an impact on water quality due to oxygen depletion and loss of cold water indicator species. Although there may be bays that have higher oxygen levels than the main lake, oxygen depletion is a concern.

In 1977, the Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR) initiated a Belmont Lake Survey and Fisheries Assessment. The measurements of dissolved oxygen were 8.4 mg/L above the thermocline, ranging from 3.0 to 7.0 mg/L within the thermocline, and 1.4 to 3.0 mg/L below the thermocline, and the average surface water temperature was 21°C.

During the summer months of the survey, the deep waters of the lake were found to be devoid of oxygen; by August 4 m of the bottom water was devoid of oxygen, which had increased to 6 m by mid-September. Decaying organic matter uses up the oxygen in the bottom of the lake, and oxygen transfer from the atmosphere to the bottom waters is blocked by the warm layer of water floating on the top of the lake. This reduces the productivity of the lake because only the top 5 metres are available for fish (MNR 1978). However, it would appear that the factors causing the deoxygenation in the bottom waters are not severe and only temporary, with oxygen recovery evident during the fall turnover.

In general, organic content, originating mainly from the surrounding watersheds, which was sufficient through bacterial decomposition to cause complete deoxygenation and denitrification in the deepest layers of the water. Therefore, continued discharges of nutrients into the lake will encourage additional aquatic plant growth and decomposition of such material once it settled to the bottom, which will likely accentuate the severity and extent of the oxygen depletion in the deepDRAFT waters of Belmont Lake (MOE, 1972). pH

All animals and plants are adapted to a certain pH range, usually between 6.5 and 8.0. A change in pH outside the normal range of a water body will cause a loss of species depending on their sensitivity. The aquatic pH is affected by the production of and demand for oxygen and carbon dioxide as well as the catchment’s geology. Human caused changes in pH may result from disturbance to acidic soils, industrial wastes or burning of fossil fuels.

The PWQO indicates that water should be maintained between a pH of 6.5 and 8.5 in order to protect aquatic life-an excellent pH range is between 6.5-7.5, good/fair is 5.5-6.5, <8 (alkalinity), and poor is 5.0-5.5, 8.8-9 (alkalinity). Photosynthesis fixes or removes carbon dioxide from the water, and carbon dioxide in water forms a week carbonic acid. Therefore, the more productive the lake, the higher the pH levels. Lakes with pH levels that are usually above 7.0 have high alkalinity and can, therefore, neutralize acidic runoff and precipitation.

35 NATURAL HERITAGE FEATURES AND AREAS SECTION 5

Based upon various water quality assessments by the MOE and other water quality experts, the average pH levels for Belmont Lake during the period of the late 1970s, early 1980s and mid-1990s were 7.2 to 8.6, indicating that the lake is not affected by acid precipitation (Figure 5.4).

Figure 5.4 pH and CO2 Ranges (Concentrations in mg/L) for Belmont Lake Stations 31, 32, 33 1 Metre Deep 7-9 Metres Deep 16-17 Metres Deep June and August (at the thermocline) pH Range 7.8-7.4 7.5-7.2 7.1-7.0 CO2 mg/L Range 2.0-4.4 6.0-6.7 9.1-10.3 Source: MOE (1978)

Carbon (Total Dissolved and Inorganic)

Total organic carbon (TOC) consists of both dissolved and organic carbon, and is composed of humic substances and degraded plant and animal materials. TOC can be used as a measure of eutrophication. TOC in natural waters ranges from 1 to 30 mg/L; the higher values being indicative of eutrophication, and those values less than 3 mg/L are considered to represent oligotrophic conditions. Based upon the results from Figure 5.4, dissolved carbon dioxide concentrations ranged from 2 to 10.3 mg/L representing mesotrophic conditions.

Values of pH measured at the mid-lake stations were found to decrease with depth. When carbon dioxide is produced by respiration in water, it acts as and acid, dropping the pH (aquatic.org 2004).

Calculated carbon dioxide values increased with depth, confirming that the process of bacterial decomposition of organic material was occurring (MOE, 1972).

Alkalinity

Alkalinity is a measure of a system’s carbonate-bicarbonate capacity to buffer or neutralize water against acidification. If a lake has a high alkalinity level, it can resist pH changes caused by acid precipitation. Acid-tolerant species include yellowDRAFT perch, but sensitive species such as bass and trout will probably not reproduce. Lakes in limestone regions usually have a very high alkalinity, since the bicarbonate from the limestone slowly dissolves into the lake. Alkalinity can also be generated in the soil (groundwater and soil runoff inputs to some lakes can be an important supply of neutralizing capacity. Presence of acids can often be seen by discoloration of the water. Examples of lakes with large amounts of acid neutralizing capacity are the Kawarthas, Great Lakes and Rideaus to mention a few. Lakes on the Canadian Shield typically have low acid neutralizing capacities. This region is underlain by granite, and has many outcrops of exposed rock; granite is insoluble and supplies little alkalinity. The soils are usually shallow and sandy or acidic, which are formed by the decomposition of organic matter and litter.

36 NATURAL HERITAGE FEATURES AND AREAS SECTION 5

The PWQO for alkalinity indicates that the alkalinity should not be decreased by more than 25% of natural ambient concentrations. Lakes with less than 10 mg/L may be susceptible to acidification and those with concentrations greater than 25 mg/L are considered not to be sensitive to acidification. In highly productive lakes, the alkalinity will rise in the epilimnium as a result of photosynthetic activity. The alkalinity levels, based upon 1977 data, remained consistent at 54.7 mg/L at various sampling stations across the lake (euphotic zone); at ‘Station 4’, the alkalinity increased to 61.5 mg/L in the thermocline (bottom waters) (MOE, 1977). No data for 1994 and 1998 (Miller). Belmont Lake, with an alkalinity of 49.2 mg/L does not show any sensitivity to acid loadings, and is capable of withstanding inputs during runoff without biological damage

Conductivity

Conductivity, which is greatly influenced by sodium and chloride, is the ability of a solution to conduct an electrical current due to the presence of dissolved salts (ions), which is also known as salinity or total dissolved solids. Aquatic plants and animals need natural salt in solution for their growth; however, if levels exceed the water’s normal range, the community will become stressed and sensitive species will start to die off. A watershed in lowland catchments with conductivity levels at <100 µS/cm (umhos/cm) is excellent. Conductivity is affected primarily by the geology of the area, but flow and human caused changes to catchments can significantly alter natural conductivity levels.

In 1977, Belmont Lake’s average conductivity levels were found to be 150-200 umhos/cm, 142 umhos/cm in 1978 for the euphotic zone and bottom waters combined, and 130 umhos/cm during 1994 surveys (Michalski 1998). Unfortunately, other data regarding this parameter are non-existent. Therefore, based upon the existing data in Figure 5.5, conductivities in Belmont Lake are quite typical and consistent with values of other lakes and streams in the immediate area and reflect a moderately hard-water environment.

Figure 5.5 Hardness, Alkalinity and Conductivity (Concentrations in mg/L) for Belmont Lake. Average Values Hardness as Alkalinity as CaCO3 Conductivity DRAFTCaCO3 mg/L mg/L umhos/cm3 mg/L June 72 53 142 September 80 61 155 Station 32-northeast 85 67 162 of Big Island, Crowe River outlet Station14-North River 100 80 174 August 105 90 185 September 80 65 165 Source: MOE 1978

37 NATURAL HERITAGE FEATURES AND AREAS SECTION 5

Watershed runoff from roads and other impervious surfaces increases the chloride influx into the aquatic system. Excessive levels of chloride (ions) in the water can have serious biological implications (metabolic complications) on intolerant aquatic species; therefore, many municipalities have investigated the use of sand instead of salt on roads during the winter months.

During the 1978 study by the MOE, chloride values were low, averaging 4 mg/L (at all sampling points) including the inlet from the North River, and showed very little variation. Based upon data extracted from the Michalski report (1998), chloride concentrations in the euphotic zone were 2.8 mg/L and 2.6 mg/L in the bottom waters during 1978, and 4.2, on average, in 1994. Elevated levels of chloride may cause a shift in aquatic life, but the concentrations were not attained in Belmont Lake.

Nitrogen (Ammonia, Nitrite, Nitrate and Total Kjeldahl (TKN)

There are five major forms of nitrogen found in fresh water: organic nitrogen (TKN), ammonium, ammonia, nitrate and nitrite. Of these, only ammonia, nitrate and nitrite are readily available to aquatic plants. As such, these three plus TKN, which is a measurement of organic nitrogen, are usually analyzed as part of water monitoring programs.

Figure 5.6 Nitrate-Nitrogen and Ammonia-Nitrogen (Concentrations in mg/L) for Belmont Lake. Station 32 June 25 June 29 Aug. 27 Aug. 31 Sept. 19 Sept. 23 16-17 m depth Nitrate-N, 180 210 40 30 10 10 µg/L (0.18 (0.21 (0.04 (0.03 (0.010 (0.01 mg/L) mg/L) mg/L) mg/L) mg/L) mg/L) Ammonia-N, 50 30 170 170 280 280 µg/L (0.05 (0.03 (0.17 (0.17 (0.28 (0.28 mg/L) mg/L) mg/L) mg/L) mg/L) mg/L)

Ammonia Nitrogen DRAFT Ammonia, which is a by-product of decomposition, is found in most healthy systems at low concentrations, usually less than 1.0 mg/L. In eutrophic lakes and in oxygen depleted lake bottoms, ammonia concentrations can increase and become lethal to some organisms.

Ammonia nitrogen enters surface waters directly from municipal and industrial effluents, agricultural runoff and atmospheric precipitation. Indirectly it is derived from inputs of chemical and biological transformation of nitrogenous material in soil and water, nitrogen fixation of dissolved oxygen in water, and excretion of ammonia from biota. Un-ionized ammonia is toxic to aquatic biota, and the MOE has indicated that concentrations should not exceed 0.02 mg/L for the protection of aquatic life.

38 NATURAL HERITAGE FEATURES AND AREAS SECTION 5

Average ammonia nitrogen concentrations in the euphotic zone and bottom waters were 0.01 mg/L and 0.08 mg/L, respectively, during 1978 surveys, and 0.07 mg/L in 1994 (Michalski 1998). During the same survey period, un-ionized ammonia concentrations were measured to be <0.01 mg/L-euphotic, 0.01 mg/L-bottom waters (1978), and combined at 0.01 mg/L in 1994. The average ammonia nitrogen levels in Belmont Lake, which increased throughout the summer into the fall months, were below 1.0 mg/L concentration, indicating a healthy system.

Ammonium nitrogen (related parameters include pH and TKN) is a transient form of ammonia created under anoxic conditions-no oxygen (Belmont Lake has anoxic conditions in the hypoliminion). In a healthy system, nitrite is typically found at concentrations of less than 0.005 mg/L and occurs as a transient form of nitrogen between ammonia and nitrate under aerobic conditions.

Nitrate and Nitrite Nitrogen

Nitrate nitrogen is the principal form of nitrogen in natural waters and results from the complete oxidation of other nitrogen compounds, particularly ammonia. It is recognized that elevated levels may contribute to nuisance vascular and algal plant growth. It is not toxic to fish at concentrations normally found in lakes and streams. For human consumption, nitrate concentrations in freshwater sources should not exceed 10 mg/L; above this level nitrate concentrations can cause blood disorders in infants (e.g. blue baby disease) (www.lifewater.ca/). Nitrite nitrogen is an intermediate product of both nitrification and dentrification; it is more toxic to aquatic life than nitrate and has, therefore, an established Canadian Water Quality Guideline (1987) limit of 0.060 mg/L for protecting aquatic life, and < 1 mg/L for human consumption, especially for infants (www.lifewater.ca/).

Nitrate is available for plants and can be used to help determine trophic status. In healthy lakes typical concentrations are below 0.05 mg/L. Nitrate levels may be reduced in the epilimnium due to demand and uptake by algae.

Based upon results reported in Michalski (1998), these limits have never been attained in Belmont Lake. Nitrate nitrogen: 0.03 mg/L euphotic zone DRAFTand 0.09 mg/L bottom waters for 1978, and averaged 0.09 mg/L for 1994 water quality assessments. Nitrite nitrogen: 0.002 mg/L euphotic zone and 0.005 mg/L bottom waters for 1978, and averaged 0.003 mg/L for 1994 water quality assessments.

Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen (TKN)

Total Kjeldahl nitrogen measures the concentration of reduced forms of nitrogen in surface water, principally, the measure of ammonia and organic nitrogen. It is not a concern for human or aquatic biota health, so no guidelines have been proposed. It simply measures the supply of ammonia resulting from the hydrolysis (decomposition by a chemical compound reacting with water) of organic compounds. In general, TKN concentrations are higher in eutrophic lakes because the nitrogen is tied up in the algae.

Organic nitrogen-Total Kjeldahl (TKN) minus ammonia nitrogen, remained relatively constant during this period and nitrite showed only a small peak in late August, rising from 4-7 to 12-19 µg/L (0.004-0.007 to 0.012-0.019 mg/L); then falling again to 6 µg/L (0.006 mg/L) by late September (MOE 1978). According to data collected in Michalski’s report (1998), during the 1978 water quality assessment, TKN measurements were 0.37 mg/L in the euphotic zone and 0.39 mg/L for bottom waters, and averaged 0.28 mg/L during 1994 surveys.

39 NATURAL HERITAGE FEATURES AND AREAS SECTION 5

Total Nitrogen: Total Phosphorus (TN:TP ratio)

Total nitrogen (TN) is the total of all the forms of nitrogen present and total phosphorus (TP) is a measure of total phosphorus. The ratio of TN:TP can be used to determine which element is limiting the growth of primary producers. A higher ratio indicates that phosphorus is the limiting factor. TN:TP ratios below 20:1 may result in an increased risk of algal blooms.

A less than 10 value indicates that nitrogen is the limitation, whereas ratios greater that 10 reveal a phosphorus limited system. The average ice-free total nitrogen to total phosphorus ratio for Belmont Lake is 34.1, confirming that phosphorus is the key element limiting trophic conditions (Michalski 1998).

Other Trace Elements/Chemicals

From the 1972 MOE report, the metals and chemicals that Belmont Lake was tested for did not exceed any of the Provincial Water Quality Objectives (no list was provided in the report).

In conclusion, the water chemistry indicates that the lake is suitable for warm water fish only, since the cool bottom waters are devoid of oxygen. By late August 4 m of the bottom water was devoid of oxygen, which had increased to 6 m by mid-September; this renders the water uninhabitable for fish for a period of at least a month, probably longer. In addition, during the summer, a process of dentrification-conversion of nitrate to ammonia was evident but only in the deep waters”.

High nitrate and phosphate levels in drinking water (>1 mg/L) degrade the water quality, which poses a threat to human health; nitrate levels at <0.05 mg/L are excellent and < 0.1 mg/L is good, and phosphate levels at <0.008 mg/L are excellent and <0.025 mg/L is good. For lakes and reservoirs phosphate levels should remain between 0.005-0.05 mg/L and nitrate levels should remain between 0.10-0.5 mg/L to prevent eutrophication. Belmont Lake’s concentrations never reached these levels.

According to the MOE (1978), the mineral chemistry of Belmont Lake is governed by the major inflow from the upper Crowe River. Samples extractedDRAFT from the North River inlet were consistently different from those samples near the Crowe River inlet, from the mid-lake, and outlet stations surveys. Due to its smaller watershed, it would be expected that North River display a greater variability in water quality than the Crowe River (MOE, 1972).

Future Monitoring

Water quality sampling from Belmont Lake has been collected sporadically and for differing purposes, making it difficult to compare sampling periods and to draw conclusions about trends in lake water quality. As well, creating a standardized database could also help in identifying key parameters, which are affecting water quality and, in turn, be used to focus remedial action on those activities that are deemed to be the source of the elevated or lowered parameters. This database could also be used by resource related agencies to assist in monitoring walleye habitat, dam levels, fish management programs, and the effects of land use changes as well as other environmental factors that influence Belmont Lake’s water quality health.

40 NATURAL HERITAGE FEATURES AND AREAS SECTION 5

Inventorying and monitoring the water quality of tributary streams, particularly those that are implicated as sources of lake water quality impacts, would also assist in determining the origin of water quality impacts. To date all streams have been assessed, all of which are warm water streams, but only three (3) have documented data on file at the Peterborough MNR district office. Future actions such as the identification of shoreline activities and land uses, which pose a risk to water quality, and the identification and protection of riparian zones and sensitive natural areas (wetland, fish spawning areas), will also aide in improving water quality and in increasing the health of the aquatic ecosystem.

Future monitoring should include, as a minimum, the above noted parameters, and those of interest, such as bacteria, to the Association, and sampling should take place at various locations across the lake (deepest point, inlets, outlets, bays and centre) and during various seasons.

Recommendations

Developing a standardized monitoring program, which collects routine samples from various locations, would produce, over time, a database that could be used to establish trends in water quality.

Observations

Generally, there is a lack of consistent data available to make accurate assessments of how water quality is changing over time. Water quality sampling has been conducted sporadically and for differing purposes; the last MNR management assessment took place 20 years ago. Continued monitoring and water quality sampling would provide a more detailed picture of how water quality changes throughout the year and how the lake and individual basins are responding to changes in land use and the efforts that aim to improve water quality.

Based on the information available, water quality seems to be fairly stable since the 1970s. The results of the 2001 to 2003 water quality sampling periods are similar to those presented in the 1972 to 1986 MOE reports and Michalski’s (1998) report, which indicated that Belmont Lake is mesotrophic, or a moderately enriched lake bordering on oligotrophic or having DRAFTunenriched parameter tendencies. Continued improvements will result in cleaner water, more aesthetically pleasing water quality such as improved water clarity, improved aquatic habitat, and the promotion of sensitive aquatic species such as walleye. Collection of data, over time, will provide the necessary data to identify trends in water quality and to identify which water quality parameters need to be addressed. Continued monitoring programs and activities aimed at improving water quality will help to achieve the goal of a healthier Belmont Lake ecosystem.

41 NATURAL HERITAGE FEATURES AND AREAS SECTION 5

5.1.1 Major Water Quality Concerns for Property Owners

Lakes close to urban areas and accessible by road often receive heavy use in terms of cottage development, etc.; a heavy influx of people may subject a lake and its surrounding environment to stress. In many cases, developments are carried out on attractive lakes only to find that when this is complete the lake qualities, which were initially so appealing, have been damaged (MOE, 1972). The appearance of the shoreline can be marred by construction, fishing ruined by over-harvesting or the growth and decay of excessive amounts of algae and weeds, introduced noise and petroleum pollution by motor boats, and inadequate disposal of human wastes can place a great stress on the lake environment.

Turbidity (Siltation)

Reduction of the sun’s ability to penetrate water is the result of the suspension of fine particles, such as clay, in surface water. This affects the entire food chain by inhibiting the growth of phytoplankton (small floating plant life); creating lower oxygen levels, which interferes with fish and benthic macro-invertebrate (small animals living on the bottom of a lake) respiration; impairing the visual range of fish, which impacts their ability to feed; and degrading fish spawning beds. Factors that influence and increase lake water turbidity include:

1. Landscape activities-(artificial manipulation of water levels) large and small scale development activities, including unprotected placement of fill or disturbance of soil at or near the shoreline, creates the opportunity for fine soils to enter the lake water, particularly during spring run-off and rain storms;

2. Riparian disturbance-erosion created by the alteration or removal of natural shoreline structures causes fine soil particles to be washed into the lake rather than being filtered or captured by the vegetation;

3. Increased impervious surfaces-non-vegetated or developed surfaces such as fields and site-specific storm water management systems (larger developments and roads) create greater opportunity for fine soil particles and storm waterDRAFT run-off to be washed into a lake; and 4. Recreational impacts-increased and inappropriate boating practices create shoreline erosion through excessive wake action and disturbance of the clay and silt on the lake bottom-scouring.

42 NATURAL HERITAGE FEATURES AND AREAS SECTION 5

Nutrient Enrichment

The trophic status and biotic productivity of a waterbody is the result of four important factors:

1. Edaphic Factors-the nutrients available to a waterbody via weathering soils within the drainage basin, which determines if a lake is productive or sterile.

2. Morphological Factors-dimensions of the basin (surface area, mean depth, volume).

3. Climatic Factors-range of climates favourable for growth and production. Temperature and precipitation influence the rate of weathering and the amount of erosion.

4. Human Actions-land use such as land clearing, agriculture, damming and shoreline development will influence and change the productivity of a lake.

An increase in nutrient loading, particularly in phosphorus and nitrogen levels which are essential nutrients for plant and animal growth, may accelerate the eutrophication (gradual nutrient enrichment) process and increase the growth of algae and aquatic plants in a lake. There are many natural and human sources of phosphorus and nitrogen including phosphate and nitrate found in soils and rocks, wastewater treatment plants, leaking septic systems, and runoff from fertilized land and manure storage areas. Increased levels of phosphate and nitrate encourage the growth of aquatic plants and algal blooms that in turn elevate temperature and alter other important water body characteristics such as concentrations of available dissolved oxygen. Several factors help to create or increase nutrient enrichment of lakes including:

1. Nutrients, in particular phosphorus from terrestrial/landscape runoff. Phosphorus occurs naturally in nature, but it is also generated from human-made sources (laundry detergent and fertilizers). These nutrients enter Belmont Lake through the streams that flow into the lake and the natural flow that occurs during the spring run-off;

2. Fertilizers used on lawns and gardens that border the lake introduce nutrients through run-off or groundwater; DRAFT 3. Septic systems that may be poorly designed, out of date, not operating properly, or not pumped out regularly contribute to the nutrient loading of Belmont Lake;

4. The low attenuation of the soil, due to the underlying granite bedrock, increases the contamination of ground and surface water; and

5. Drainage from roads and lots, which also contributes to erosion and the concentration of suspended sediments near shore, increase aquatic chloride and sodium concentrations.

43 NATURAL HERITAGE FEATURES AND AREAS SECTION 5

Bacterial Contamination

Fecal bacteria (Escherichia coli) measurements indicate the possible presence of disease causing bacteria, viruses and other microorganisms, which can cause other impacts such as cloudy water and unpleasant odours. Sources of faecal contamination of surface waters include wastewater treatment, septic tanks, and domestic and wild animal feces. The PWQOs, which are numerical, should not go above 100 counts per 100 ml for fecal coliform and 1000 counts per 100 ml for total coliforms in drinking and recreational waters.

Three groups of bacteria were determined on each sample: total coliforms, fecal coliforms, and fecal streptococci; these organisms are used as indicators of fecal contamination and, hence, the risk of disease-causing organisms (MOE, 1972).

Microorganisms in water can be divided into two groups: the bacteria that thrive in the lake environment and make up the natural bacterial flora; and the disease causing microorganisms, called pathogens, that have acquired the capacity to infect human tissues (MOE, 1972). Pathogens are generally introduced to the aquatic environment by raw or inadequately treated sewage, although a few are naturally found in soil. The presence of these types of bacteria do not change the appearance of the water but do pose an immediate public health hazard in drinking and recreational waters-these disease-causing bacteria usually do not thrive in aquatic environments. Other bacterial live and thrive within lake environments, and are the instruments of biodegradation, a process that uses large amounts of dissolved oxygen. These bacteria will deplete the dissolved oxygen supply in the bottom waters and threaten the survival of many deep water fish species (MOE, 1972).

The ‘rainfall effect’ is when heavy precipitation flushes the land area around the lake and the subsequent runoff will carry available contaminants, including sewage organisms, and natural soil bacteria with it into the lake. In the Precambrian areas where there is inadequate soil cover and in fractured limestone areas where fissures in the rocks provide access to the lake, this phenomenon is particularly evident. Melting snow provides the same transportation function for bacteria, especially in an agricultural area where manure spreading is carried out in the winter on top of the snow. DRAFT During 1972, MOE sampled the recreational waters of Belmont Lake for coliform (TC), fecal coliform (FC), and/or streptococcus (FS) geometric mean densities. The fecal streptococcus concentrations in the lake were generally low with an overall mean of 4 FS/100 ml, but the mouth of the North River had exceptionally high fecal streptococcus counts with a geometric mean of 50 FS/100 ml, which exceeds the MOE standards. A mean of 9 TC/100 ml was calculated for Belmont Lake while the mouth of the North River and the mouth of the Crowe River had means of 103 TC/100 ml and 187 TC/100 ml respectively; this indicates a minor bacterial pollution input within the areas of the North River, the area around the mouth of the Crowe River and Deer Bay, and at points near moderately cottaged areas (MOE, 1972).

For more information regarding Ontario’s Provincial Water Quality Objectives (PWQO), please visit the web site at http://www.pscanalytical.com/ce/guidelines/pwqo.htm.

44 NATURAL HERITAGE FEATURES AND AREAS SECTION 5

Toxic Substances

A toxic substance is generally defined as a substance that causes harm to the environment or human beings. Many toxins are synthetic and include polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), pesticides, dioxins, and furans. Other substances, such as mercury, can be a by-product of human industrial activity and contamination and flooding from artificially manipulating water levels, or a natural occurrence. Toxins present in lake water accumulate in long-lived biological organisms such as fish and ducks and, accordingly, can present a danger to humans when these animals are consumed. Environmental factors that create or increase toxic upload and radionuclide contamination from soil leaching or runoff into Belmont Lake include:

1. Mercury, which naturally occurs in trace amounts in the air, water, rocks, soil, plant and animal matter, can be leached out by the acidity in the water. Naturally occurring mercury anomalies are associated with fault zones in the bedrock, and ground water seepages in streams are a source of mercury entering the lakes;

2. Toxins were regularly used in and were by-products of area industries until the 1970s, and may have entered the water systems through industrial discharges;

3. Pesticides, herbicides and fertilizers used at or near the waterfront can enter the watershed;

4. Soaps and cleaners containing phosphates and other chemicals used in the vicinity of the lakeshore or storm water system; and

5. Untreated storm water run-off entering the watershed will transport toxins and radionuclide contamination into the lake-the concentration levels of these toxins are dependent upon the attenuation of the local soil and site drainage regime. DRAFT

45 NATURAL HERITAGE FEATURES AND AREAS SECTION 5

Observations – Water Quality

• Belmont Lake has a watershed of 122,000 ha (1,220 sq. km.).

• Belmont Lake lies within the Crowe River drainage, and receives inflow water from the west through North River and from the north through Crowe River. The sole outlet of the lake is the Crowe River to the east.

• Belmont Lake straddles two different types of bedrock: the Canadian Shield to the north, dominated by Precambrian granite and very shallow, acidic soils, and sedimentary rocks (calcium-based limestone rock) to the south, with deep, rich loamy soils . As a result, the lake has evolved into a moderately hard water system that is well buffered and extremely resilient against acidification by acid precipitation and deposition.

• Based upon the Secchi disc depth readings, the chlorophyll a concentrations, and total phosphorus measurements, Belmont Lake is a mesotrophic bordering on oligotrophic-lake, showing water quality tendencies (clear water and low productivity) of Canadian Shield lakes which is NOT typical of the “Kawartha Lakes” of the south-central region of Ontario

• Chlorophyll a concentrations indicate low productivity.

• Total phosphorus concentrations indicating a moderately productive lake.

• Based upon the available information, water quality seems to be fairly stable; MOE surveys showed no water quality changes between 1972 and 1998, other than those that would be expected on the basis of natural year to year variation.

• Water testing has occurred sporadically on the lake since 1972. Generally, there is a lack of consistent data and accurate sampling for the lake to properly determine a long-term health assessment of the ecosystem.

• The lake has relatively high flushing rate at 10.3 times/year.

• The water chemistry indicates that the lake is suitable for warm water fish only, since the cool bottom waters are devoid of oxygen. DRAFT • During the summer months, the lower depths of Belmont Lake were found to be anoxic, devoid of dissolved oxygen.

• pH, dissolved carbon dioxide, alkalinity and conductivity levels indicate that the lake is not sensitive to acidification.

• Conductivities in Belmont Lake are quite typical and consistent with values of other lakes and streams in the immediate area and reflect a moderately hard-water environment.

• Consumption and protection of aquatic life limits established by Canadian Water Quality Guideline (1987) for nitrate- and nitrite-nitrogen have never been attained in Belmont Lake, indicating a healthy system.

46 NATURAL HERITAGE FEATURES AND AREAS SECTION 5

Recommendations – Water Quality

1. Unfortunately, current analysis by the MOE of Belmont Lake’s water quality is unavailable and should be considered as a future endeavour.

2. The Belmont Lake Cottager’s Association (BLCA) should continue to collect water quality information, including a thorough inventory of the benthic and plankton communities, through the MOE’s “Lake Partner Program”. A consistent monitoring program, which collects routine samples from various locations across the lake, would produce and contribute, over time, a database that would be useful to cottagers, resource managers and researchers to establish trends in water quality and standardized monitoring protocols.

3. An annual report of water quality testing results should be sent to all property owners on the lake that reports on the “State of the Water Resource”.

4. Continue planting along the shoreline, including aquatic plants, to enhance both the buffering and uptake of seasonal nutrients and fish habitat. Decrease the amount of impervious landscapes along the shoreline by reducing the demand for manicured lawns and the construction of paved driveways…keep it natural! Note-by maintaining a buffer strip along your shoreline, you will detract Canada Geese from your property.

5. In cooperation with the local MNR, inventory and monitor the water quality of the tributary streams, particularly those which are identified as sources of lake water quality impacts from runoff (MNR 2004).

6. Continue to identify and protect sensitive natural areas, including wetlands, fish spawning areas, nesting sites, and littoral and riparian zones (put elsewhere).

7. Encourage educational and volunteering efforts including weekend workshops and training and the preparation of new information products, such as newsletter articles and web site links, which promote both the high quality of life on Belmont Lake and the Lake Plan. 5.2 Vegetation DRAFT “Thanks to thousands of years of practice, natural shores are among the world’s most effective, least expensive erosion controls. The mix of plants, shrubs, and trees form a complex web of roots and foliage that knits the waterfront together, holding the bank in place and fending off the impacts of wind, rain, waves, and boat wake. The bulwark against erosion is the shoreline, the place where land and water meet. In its natural state, the shoreline is a profusion of stones, plants, shrubs, fallen limbs, and tree trunks. But it’s also a busy intersection, with animals, insects, and birds traveling back and forth. Moose and deer pick their way down to the water to forage or drink. Mink skulk about on hunting trips. Water birds waddle from their nests to the water. Overhanging vegetation shades and cools the water, and acts as a fast- food outlet for fish by producing a rain of aphids, ants and other insects that slip from their perches above”.

Shore Primer, Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada

47 NATURAL HERITAGE FEATURES AND AREAS SECTION 5

The naturally occurring vegetation found in the water, in wetlands, on the shoreline, and on the uplands adjacent to a lake is important for maintaining the health of a lake system. For example, the contribution of the vegetative shoreline cover includes shading the littoral zone, which decreases water temperatures or maintains cool summer temperatures, filtering runoff from the landscape, and providing a food source, from terrestrial insects and leaf litter, to the benthic community. In addition to providing natural beauty, vegetation is vital to the health and abundance of fish and wildlife in and around a lake.

The benefits of retaining a naturally vegetated shoreline include:

1. Preventing soil erosion and loss of landmass by wind, waves and rain through vast rooting systems and foliage, which contribute natural cover to anchor soils and to prevent the runoff of sediments into the lakebed, and protecting spawning beds;

2. Preventing the fertilization of lake water and sediments by trapping the nutrient rich precipitation and runoff;

3. Shading and cooling the lake water;

4. Preserving the ecological integrity of the ecosystem; and

5. Increasing the beauty of the surrounding landscape.

Destructive activities that negatively impact the shoreline include: the removal of shoreline and aquatic vegetation; adding sand, rocks and retaining walls to artificial shoreline beaches; planting non-native or ornamental plant species such as Kentucky blue -grass, Norway maple, purple loosestrife and Asian pondweed; and the artificial regulation of water levels, which creates an abnormal “false shoreline” along the lakeshore.

Natural shorelines contain three distinct zones, each with its own characteristic communities of organisms.

Littoral Zone This zone is the section from the water’s edge to the area of the lakebed where the sunlight can DRAFTpenetrate to the bottom. Riparian Zone This zone is the area from the water’s edge to approximately 30 metres inland; also known as the floodplain.

Upland Zone This is the zone beyond the riparian zone.

Although each of these zones provides a separate function to the health of the lake, it should be noted that the shoreline is a natural progression of each zone seamlessly transitioning into the next. Therefore, alteration of any zone affects the entire shoreline by diminishing the shore’s ability to support life on the lake.

Belmont Lake’s watershed falls within the eco-region of 5E, which has moderately undulating bedrock ridges interspersed with hundreds of wetlands, streams and lakes which characterize the stunning natural landscape, typical of the Kawartha Highlands area. This landscape straddles the

Precambrian – Palaeozoic contact, occurring primarily on the Precambrian Shield in ecoregion 5E, but with its south-western landforms extending onto the calcareous Palaeozoic bedrock of coercion 6E (NHIC 2001).

48 NATURAL HERITAGE FEATURES AND AREAS SECTION 5

Belmont Lake’s watershed was inventoried by the MOE in 1972 and again in 1999 by the NHIC. Both reports identify Belmont Lake’s shoreline as moderately tree covered, with vegetation communities on marble bedrock, with pockets of wetland and upland communities overlaying this marble bedrock and ground moraine glacial deposits of the Algonquin Region.

The Preliminary List of the Vascular Plants of Belmont Lake, Peterborough, identified 550 species, represented by 96 floristic families (Figure 5.10), recorded at 25 islands and mainland areas between June and September of 1999. All species included on the list are either native, “spontaneously adventive (introduced but not established)”, or are persisting outside of cultivation; those presently found under cultivation are excluded (Sutherland 1999).

Human activities and associated impacts have been identified for the area which may include: past intensive logging and forest fires; current hunting and fishing recreational purposes; all-terrain vehicles and snowmobile use; motorized boating, cattle grazing and impacts from cottage development along shorelines. The area is also popular for more passive activities such as canoeing, hiking, cross-country skiing and nature appreciation.

The expansion of urbanized development and life-styles from city centres, water level manipulations and climate change may potentially have impacts on the biodiversity and community structure of Belmont Lake’s vegetation communities and shorelines for the future (MNR 2004). Flooding, removal of shoreline vegetation, dredging of wetlands, and dryer and warmer climates will reduce the biological diversity of the shoreline communities and alter forest community species composition and structure because more rare or intolerant species will be lost and be replaced by tolerant species that may not be native to the area.

Littoral Zone

The littoral zone extends out from the shoreline into the lake towards a point where sunlight is no longer capable of penetrating the water column down to the lakebed or bottom. It is a highly productive transitional zone between terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems. Many plants and animals fulfill part of or their entire life-cycle (i.e., live, feed, grow and reproduce)DRAFT within this zone including several invertebrates, frogs, turtles, and fish including walleye and bass.

Aquatic plant species, such as duckweed, arrowhead, water milfoil, water lily and pondweed species, and algae in the littoral zone are important in maintaining a balanced aquatic environment including conversion of sunlight into food and releasing oxygen during the photosynthesis process. They also capture nutrients and sediment as well as filter toxins from the terrestrial and atmospheric component of the watershed.

Aquatic weed beds provide shelter and food for many fish species, but too much growth is undesirable since it can upset the oxygen balance in the lake and can interfere with the recreational uses of the lake. But, it should be emphasized that native aquatic weeds are part of healthy, productive lake ecosystems, and, like much else in nature, should not be viewed as intrinsically bad, even though they may interfere with some recreational activities including swimming and boating. Preservation of the natural vegetation between the cottage and the lake acts as a natural protective buffer zone from land uses, such as septic and waste water activities, and water quality.

49 NATURAL HERITAGE FEATURES AND AREAS SECTION 5

Aquatic macro-invertebrates, such as mayfly, stonefly and caddisfly nymphs, not only provide a great food source for the minnows, frogs, birds and mammals feeding in the area, but they are also good indicators of water quality health since they respond to changes in water quality after short exposure. These insects require well-oxygenated water to survive, so if the water quality deteriorates, these species will start disappearing and be replaced by more tolerant species such as worms and chironomids, which reduces the biodiversity of the aquatic ecosystem including the food web. These insects make-up a small part of the benthic community found in the substrate and water column of the littoral zone.

Aquatic plants, rocks and submerged wood provide habitats, shade and protective cover for fish and a surface for other plants, invertebrates and algae to adhere to, and provides a food source for moose (some common aquatic plants eaten by moose during summer include Nuphar spp.-yellow pond lily, Potamogeton spp.-pond weeds, Utricularia vulgaris-bladderwort, Myrophyllum verticillatum-water milfoil, and macroscopic algae). Nutrients such as calcium, nitrogen and phosphorus, which are critical to the health of aquatic plants and animals, are released from the sediment, substrate and decaying biota, leached from soils and ground water, and deposited into the lake from atmospheric precipitation and surface runoff from the surrounding landscape. It is this rich diversity of habitat and food sources that provides for the abundance of fish and wildlife in Belmont Lake.

Shoreline development alters the natural movement of nutrients, particularly phosphorus, in a watershed. Clearing a property increases the loss of phosphorus to water by reducing vegetation uptake and by increasing the potential for erosion or fertilizer runoff (the most important source of development-derived phosphorus, however, is domestic sewage).

The littoral zone in Belmont Lake has been subjected to many disturbances, including shoreline development, dam construction, artificial water levels, increased recreational activities, vegetation removal, acid precipitation, and increased sediment runoff, over the past century, and the alteration of the lake area continues to have a negative impact on its long-term health. Each log, rock or plant removed, or each request for “a small variance” may seem insignificant, but the cumulative effect of hundreds of these occurrences is significant. A thorough investigation of the littoralDRAFT zone was inventoried by the D.A. Sutherland and B. Crins from NHIC and MNR, respectfully, in 1999. The aquatic vegetation seems heaviest at the southern end of the lake in King Bay and Sawmill Bay, and near the mouth of North River within Munn and Taylor’s Bay. These vegetated areas are the aquatic constituents of Belmont Lake’s wetlands. Rock faces and steep slopes on east side of Big Island (chisel hole and paint mark) and eastern shoreline of Belmont Lake (MNR Lake Survey Summary, 1977-07-09).

The creation of docks has both positive and negative impacts to the lake’s ecosystem. The positive aspects relate to the potential creation of fish habitat such as floating or post docks, which can provide shade and additional protected areas for fish habitat. Whereas, the negative impacts of dock construction and maintenance can have varying degrees of impact on the lakebed; for example, crib and cement docks can negatively impact a larger area of the lakebed as well as cover- up and destroy critical fish habitat.

The negative impacts of lake sediment excavation are the destruction of fish and vegetation habitat and an overall change in shape of the natural shoreline.

50 NATURAL HERITAGE FEATURES AND AREAS SECTION 5

Boathouses that have concrete foundations have a negative impact on shoreline vegetation because of the excessive vegetation and sediment removal requirement for construction purposes. Retaining walls are built to stop erosion along the shoreline. Unfortunately, retaining walls usually only work for a short period of time because the soil behind or further upland from the retaining wall experiences erosion from waves and ice regardless. Not only does the installation of a retaining wall require the removal of all shoreline vegetation, it also results in the lack of near shore vegetation in the littoral zone. The act of the retaining wall reflecting waves without any dissipation results in the wave’s total energy scouring the lake bottom and the inability of plant life to grow.

Over the years, development of Belmont Lake has caused a significant loss of this vegetation and the result has been a negative impact on the fish and wildlife population. Future development will only impose more restraints on the natural system.

Figure 5.7 – A Condensed List of the Vegetation found in Belmont Lake’s Littoral Zone Areas Common Name Average/Seasonal Means White-stemmed pondweed Potamogeton praelongus Floating pondweed (W-M) Potamogeton natans Knotted (knotty) pondweed (W-M) Potamogeton nodosus Small pondweed Potamogeton pusillus ssp. Pusillus Richardson’s pondweed Potamogeton richardsonii Fern (Robin’s) pondweed (W-M) Potamogeton robbinsii Snailseed (spiral) pondweed (W-M) Potamogeton spirillus Vasey’s pondweed Potamogeton vaseyi Flat-stemmed pondweed (W-M) Potamogeton zosteriformis. Water plantain (W-M) Alsima plantago-aquatica Grass leaved arrowhead Sagittaria graminea var. graminea Broad leaved arrowhead (W-M) Sagittaria latifolia Sessile fruited arrowheadDRAFT Sagittaria rigida Canada Waterweed Elodea Canadensis Tape grass Vallisneria americana Lesser duckweed (W-M) Lemna minor Star duckweed Lemna trisulca Greater duckweed Spirodela polyrhiza Dotted water-meal (W-M) Wolffia borealis Pipewort (W-acidic lakes and fens) Eriocaulon aquaticum Water star-grass Heteranthera dubia Pickerel weed (W-M) Pontederia cordata Water shield (W-M) Brasenia schreberi Yellow pond (bullhead) lily (W-M) (moose) Nuphar variegatum continue

51 NATURAL HERITAGE FEATURES AND AREAS SECTION 5

Figure 5.7 – A Condensed List of the Vegetation found in Belmont Lake’s Littoral Zone Areas Common Name Average/Seasonal Means Fragrant (white) water lily (W-M) (moose) Nymphaea odorata Alternate-flowered Water-milfoil Myriophyllum alterniflorum Broad-leaf Water-milfoil Myriophyllum heterophyllum Pale Water-milfoil Myriophyllum sibiricum Eurasian Water-milfoil (invasive) Myriophyllum spicatum Mermaid-weed Proserpinaca palustris Flat-leaved bladderwort (W-M-F) Utricularia intermedia Small bladderwort Utricularia minor Common bladderwort (W-M) Utricularia vulgaris Source: D.A. Sutherland, 1999 F=fen, M=marsh, Moose=food source, W=wetland

Riparian Zone

The combination of trees, shrubs and herbaceous plants along the natural shoreline makes up the riparian zone of the lake, which is designated in the 30 metres set-back. The riparian zone is an exceptionally important portion of transitional land between the lake, river, stream, floodplain or wetland and the upland ecosystems such as forests.

The complex web of roots and foliage knits the waterfront together, which helps to control erosion. The vegetation, soil and bedrock act as filters to sift impurities and break down toxins, such as fertilizers, heavy metals, and excessive phosphorus, and hold sediment and buffers excessive water from surface runoff.

The typical vegetation of the riparian zone of Belmont Lake’s shoreline includes a mixed forest along the mid-eastern and mid-western shoreline with deciduous species dominating the southern shorelines and coniferous species dominating the northernDRAFT shorelines (tree and shrub species such as eastern hemlock, eastern cedar, white birch, poplar, speckled alder and other upland species tolerant to shade and/or wet soil conditions). The obvious transition from deciduous to coniferous tree species is evident of the watershed’s tittering on the Canadian Shield and Great Lakes-St. Lawrence forested region.

52 NATURAL HERITAGE FEATURES AND AREAS SECTION 5

Figure 5.8 – Representation of Vegetation Families from Belmont Lake’s Littoral, Riparian and Upland Zone Areas. Family Common Name Scientific Name Horsetail family Equisetaceae (Equisetum spp.) Clubmoss family Lycopodiaceae (Diphasiastrum spp., spp., Lycopodium spp.) Huperzia Spikemoss family Selaginellaceae (Selaginella spp.) Quillwort family Isoetaceae (Isoetes spp.) Grapefern family Ophioglossaceae (Botrychium spp.) Flowering Fern family Osmundaceae (Osmunda spp.) Maidenhair Fern family Pteridaceae (Adiantum spp.) Bracken Fern family Dennstaedtiaceae (Pteridium spp.) Wood Fern family Dryopteraceae (Athyrium spp., Cystopteris spp., Dryopteris spp., Gymnocarpium spp., Matteuccia spp., Onoclea spp.) Marsh Fern family Thelypteridaceae (Thelpteris spp.) Spleenwort family Aspleniaceae (Asplenium spp.) Polypody family Polypodiaceae (Polypodium spp.) Yew family Taxaceae (Taxus spp.) Pine family Pinaceae (Abies spp., Larix spp., Picea spp., Pinus spp., Tsuga spp.) Cedar family Cupressaceae (Juniperus spp., Thuja spp.) Cattail family Typhaceae (Typha spp.) Burreed family Sparganiaceae (Sparganium spp.) Pondweed family Potamogetonaceae (Coleogeton spp., DRAFTPotamogeton spp.) Naiad family Najadaceae (Najas spp.) Water-Plantain family Alismataceae (Alisma spp., Sagittaria spp.) Frog’s-Bit family Hydrocharitaceae (Elodea spp., Vallisneria spp.) Grass family Poaceae (Agrostis spp., Andropogon spp., Anthoxanthum spp., Brachyelytrum spp., Bromus spp., Calamagrostis spp., Dactylis spp., Danthonia spp., Deschampsia spp., Digitaria spp., Elymus spp., Eragrostis spp., Glyceria spp., Leersia spp., Lolium spp., Muhlenbergia spp., Oryzopsis spp., Panicum spp., Phalaris spp., Phleum spp., Phragmites spp., Poa spp., Schizachyrium spp., Sorghastrum spp., Spartina spp., Sphenopholis spp., Trisetum spp., Zizania spp.) continue

53 NATURAL HERITAGE FEATURES AND AREAS SECTION 5

Figure 5.8 – Representation of Vegetation Families from Belmont Lake’s Littoral, Riparian and Upland Zone Areas (continued). Family Common Name Scientific Name Sedge family Cyperaceae (Carex spp., Cyperus spp., Eleocharis spp., Schoenoplectus spp., Scirpus spp.) Arum family Araceae (Arisaema spp.) Duckweed family Lemnaceae (Lemna spp., Spirodela spp., Wolffia spp.) Pipewort family Eriocaulaceae (Eriocaulon spp.) Pickerel-Weed family Pontederiaceae (Heteranthera spp.) Rush family Juncaceae (Juncus spp.) Lily family Liliaceae (Asparagus spp. Clintonia spp., Convallaria spp., Lilium spp., Maianthemum spp., Medeola spp., Polygonatum spp., Streptopus spp., Trillium spp., Uvularia spp.) Catbrier family Smilacaceae (Smilax spp.) Iris family Iridaceae (Iris spp., Sisyrinchium spp.) Orchid family Orchidaceae (Corallorhiza spp., Cypripedium spp., Epipactis spp., Liparis spp., Plantanthera spp., Spiranthes spp.) Willow family Salicaeae (Populus spp., Salix spp.) Myrtle family Myricaceae (Myrica spp.) Walnut family Juglandaceae (Carya spp., Junglans spp.) Birch family Betulaceae (Alnus spp., Betula spp., Carpinus spp., Corylus spp., Ostrya spp.) Oak family Fagaceae (Fagus spp., Quercus spp.) Elm family Ulmaceae (Ulmus spp.) Nettle familyDRAFT Urticaceae (Boehmeria spp., Pilea spp., Urtica spp.) Soapwood family Santalaceae (Comandra spp.) Knotweed family Polygonaceae (Polygonum spp., Rumex spp.) Goosefoot family Chenopodiaceae (Chenopodium spp.) Purslane family Portulaceae (Portulaca spp.) Pink family Caryophyllaceae (Arenaria spp., Cerastium spp., Minuartia spp., Silene spp.) Coontail family Ceratophyllaceae (Ceratophyllum spp.) Water-Lily family Nymphaeaceae (Brasenia spp., Nuphar spp., Nymphaea spp.) Buttercup family Ranunculaceae (Actaea spp., Anemone spp., Aquilegia spp., Caltha spp., Clematis spp., Coptis spp., Ranunculus spp., Thalictrum spp.) Fumitory family Fumariaceae (Corydalis spp.) continue

54 NATURAL HERITAGE FEATURES AND AREAS SECTION 5

Figure 5.8 – Representation of Vegetation Families from Belmont Lake’s Littoral, Riparian and Upland Zone Areas (continued). Family Common Name Scientific Name Mustard family Brassicaceae (Arabis spp., Cardamine spp., Lepidium spp., Nasturtium spp.) Sundew family Droseraceae (Drosera spp.) Stonecrop family Crassulaceae (Sedum spp., Sempervivum spp.) Saxifrage family Saxifragaceae (Mitella spp., Parnassia spp., Penthorum spp., Saxifraga spp.) Currant family Grossulariaceae (Ribes spp.) Rose family Rosaceae (Agrimonia spp., Amelanchier spp., Fragaria spp., Geum spp., Potentilla spp., Prunus spp., Rosa spp., Rubus spp., Spiraea spp.) Pea family Fabaceae (Amphicarpaea spp., Apios spp., Astragalus spp., Coronilla spp., Desmodium spp., Lathyrus spp., Lotus spp., Medicago spp., Melilotus spp., Trifolium spp., Vicia spp.) Sorrel family Oxalidaceae (Oxalis spp.) Geranium family Geraniaceae (Geranium spp.) Citrus family Rutaceae (Zanthoxylum spp.) Milkwort family Polygalaceae (Polygala spp.) Spurge family Euphorbiaceae (Chamaesyce spp., Euphorbia spp.) Water-Starwort family Callitrichaceae (Callitriche spp. Cashew family Anacardiaceae (Rhus spp.) Holly family Aquifoliaceae (Ilex spp.) Bittersweet family Celastraceae (Celastrus spp.) Maple familyDRAFT Aceraceae (Acer spp.) Balsam family Balsaminaceae (Impatiens spp.) Buckthorn family Rhamnaceae (Ceanothus spp., Rhamnus spp.) Grape family Vitaceae (Parthenocissus spp., Vitis spp.) Linden family Tiliaceae (Tilia spp.) St. Johnswort family Guttiferae (Hypericum spp., Triadenum spp.) Violet family Violaceae (Viola spp.) Mezereum family Thymelaeceae (Dirca spp.) Oleaster family Elaeagnaceae (Shepherdia spp.) Loosestrife family Lythraceae (Decodon spp., Lythrum spp.) Evening Primrose family Onagraceae (Circaea spp., Epilobium spp., Ludwigia spp., Oenothera spp.) Heath family Ericaceae (Arctostaphylos spp., Gaultheria spp., Vaccinium spp.) continue

55 NATURAL HERITAGE FEATURES AND AREAS SECTION 5

Figure 5.8 – Representation of Vegetation Families from Belmont Lake’s Littoral, Riparian and Upland Zone Areas (continued). Family Common Name Scientific Name Monotrope family Monotropaceae (Monotropa spp.) Primula family Primulaceae (Lysimachia spp., Trientalis spp.) Olive family Oleaceae (Fraxinus spp.) Gentian family Gentianaceae (Gentiana spp.) Dogbane family Apocynaceae (Apocynum spp., Vinca spp.) Milkweed family Asclepiadaceae (Asclepias spp., Cynanchum spp.) Bindweed family Convolvulaceae (Calystegia spp., Cuscuta spp.) Phlox family Polemoniaceae (Phlox spp.) Borgage family Boraginaceae (Myosotis spp.) Lopseed family Phrymaceae (Phryma spp.) Vervain family Verbenaceae (Verbena spp.) Mint family Labiatae (Clinopodium spp., Lycopus spp., Mentha spp., Prunella spp., Pycnanthemum spp., Scutellaria spp.) Nightshade family Solanaceae (Solanum spp.) Snapdragon family Scrophulariaceae (Agalinis spp., Chaenorrhinum spp., Chelone spp., Linaria spp., Melampyrum spp., Mimulus spp., Pedicularis spp., Verbascum spp., Veronica spp.) Bladderwort family Lentibulariaceae (Utricularia spp.) Plantain family Plataginaceae (Plantago spp. Madder family Rubiaceae (Cephalanthus spp., Galium spp., Mitchella spp.) Honeysuckle family Caprifoliaceae (Diervilla spp., Lonicera spp., DRAFTSambucus spp., Symphoricarpos spp., Viburnum spp.) Bellflower family Campanulaceae (Campanula spp., Lobelia spp.) Aster family Asteraceae (Achillea spp., Ambrosia spp., Anaphalis spp., Antennaria spp., Arctium spp., Aster spp., Bidens spp., Chrysanthemum spp., Cichorium spp., Cirsium spp., Conyza spp., Erigeron spp., Eupatorium spp., Euthamia spp., Helenium spp., Helianthus spp., Hieracium spp., Lactuca spp., Megalodonta spp., Prenanthes spp., Rudbeckia spp., Senecio spp., Solidago spp., Sonchus spp., Taraxacum spp.) Source: D.A. Sutherland, 1999 Note-for a full list of species, please contact the Belmont Lake’s Cottagers Association

56 NATURAL HERITAGE FEATURES AND AREAS SECTION 5

Figure 5.9 – Trees and Shrubs Species from Belmont Lake’s Riparian and Upland Zones Common Name Scientific Name Coniferous Species Balsam Fir Abies balsamea Tamarack Larix laricina Canada Yew Taxus canadensis White Spruce Picea glauca Jack Pine Pinus banksiana Red Pine-second dominant Pinus resinosa Eastern White Pine-dominant Pinus strobes throughout shoreline Pinus sylvestris Scots Pine Tsuga canadensis Eastern Hemlock Thuja occidentalis White Cedar-dominant throughout Juniperus virginiana shoreline Red Cedar Juniperus communis var. depressa Common Juniper-second dominant Juniperus horizontalis Creeping Juniper-only documented occurrence of this primarily northern and western species in Peterborough County, and only one of the very few in southern Ontario. Deciduous Species Balsam Poplar Populus balsamifera Large-toothed Aspen Populus grandidentata Trembling Aspen Populus tremuloides Bitternut HickoryDRAFT Carya cordiformis Butternut Juglans cinerea Yellow Birch Betula alleghaniensis Paper Birch-dominant for the majority Betula papyrifera of the shoreline Blue-beech Carpinus caroliniana Beaked Hazel Corylus cornuta Hop-hornbeam Ostrya virginiana American beech Fagus grandifolia White Oak Quercus alba Bur Oak Quercus macrocarpa Red Oak Quercus rubra American Elm-dominant throughout, Ulmus Americana Striped Maple Acer pensylvanicum

57 NATURAL HERITAGE FEATURES AND AREAS SECTION 5

Figure 5.9 – Trees and Shrubs Species from Belmont Lake’s Riparian and Upland Zones Common Name Scientific Name Red Maple Acer rubrum Silver Maple Acer saccharinum ssp. Saccharum Sugar Maple Acer saccharinum Mountain Maple Acer spicatum Basswood Tilia Americana Pin Cherry Prunus pensylvanica Sand Cherry Prunus pumila var. susquehanae Black Cherry Prunus serotina Choke Cherry Prunus virginiana ssp. virginiana Speckled Alder Alnus incana ssp. rugosa Peach-leaved Willow Salix amygdaloides Bebb’s Willow Salix bebbiana Pussy Willow Salix discolor Upland Willow Salix humilis Shining Willow Salix lucida Slender Willow Salix petiolaris Sweet Gale Myrica gale Swamp Red Currant Ribes triste White Meadowsweet Spiraea alba Staghorn Sumac Rhus typhina Alternate-leaved Dogwood Cornus alternifolia Silky Dogwood Cornus amomum ssp. oblique Round-leaved DogwoodDRAFT Cornus stolonifera Red-osier Dogwood Cornus rugosa High Bush Cranberry Viburnum trilobum Buttonbush Cephalanthus occidentalis Prickly Gooseberry Ribes cynosbati Serviceberry Amelanchier spicata Common Blackberry Rubus allegheniensis Wild Red Raspberry Rubus idaeus ssp. melanolasius Black Raspberry Rubus occidentalis Purble-flowering Raspberry Rubus odoratus Dwarf Raspberry Rubus pubescens Prickly Wild Rose Rosa acicularis ssp. sayi Smooth Wild Rose Rosa blanda Swamp Rose Rosa palustris

58 NATURAL HERITAGE FEATURES AND AREAS SECTION 5

Figure 5.9 – Trees and Shrubs Species from Belmont Lake’s Riparian and Upland Zones (continued) Common Name Scientific Name Bear-berry Arctostaphylos uva-ursi Wintergreen Gaultheria procumbens Lowbush Blueberry Vaccinium angustifolium Northern Bush-honeysuckle Diervilla lonicera Fly Honeysuckle Lonicera canadensis Glaucous Honeysuckle Lonicera dioica Hairy Honeysuckle Lonicera hirsuta Tatarian Honeysuckle Lonicera tatarica Red Elderberry Sambucus racemosa ssp. pubens Snowberry Symphoricarpos albus Source: D.A. Sutherland 1999

The riparian zone provides shelter, feeding grounds, and a nesting refuge for wildlife including colonial water birds, songbirds, raptors, turtles, frogs, snakes, beavers, muskrats, raccoons and otters as well as many other species. The vegetation, which overhangs the near shore waters, provides shade that helps to keep the water temperatures cool, windbreaks to prevent shoreline erosion, insects as a food source for amphibians, fish and other species, and leafy and woody debris that helps to maintain the nutrient cycles and provides micro-habitats in the littoral zone. There is a significant relationship between good water quality and diverse micro-habitats and the density of shoreline vegetation and woody debris in the riparian zone; with a well-functioning riparian zone, water quality is maintained and the aquatic systems are able to support life and life cycles such as spawning fish.

Upland Zone

The upland zone is the periphery of a lake’s riparian zone. It is an area typically forested with trees and sloped having, typically, well-drained soils DRAFTin comparison to those found in the riparian zone. The types of tree species and species assemblages (i.e., ecological community types) found within these forested upland zones is dependent upon several environmental factors including soil type, bedrock or substrate material, topography, climate, depth of water table, moisture regime, shade and the interrelationship with its associated ecological community. The tolerance level of each species to these varied environmental factors determines the species composition of the upland zone.

The upland vegetation around Belmont Lake consists predominantly of a tolerant hard maple forest. Belmont Lake is located within the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence Forest Region of Canada. The northern shore has moderate tree cover with both deciduous and coniferous types present except for the northeast side where it is denser and predominantly coniferous (MOE, 1972). On the eastern side, forestation is mixed and dense. The area surrounding the north shore of the Crowe River Bay is swampy and medium mixed forests surround the southern shoreline of this bay. The south bay shoreline consists of lowland swampy areas. In the area surrounding the North River Bay, swampy land is prevalent with heavy brush and a medium density of deciduous trees. North of this, there is steeply sloping land, plentiful of rock and heavy with deciduous forestation (MOE, 1972).

59 NATURAL HERITAGE FEATURES AND AREAS SECTION 5

Its upland zones consist of many tree species tolerant to extreme conditions such as fluctuating moisture regimes, shade or acidic soils; these tolerant species include red maple (Acer rubrum), eastern hemlock (Tsuga canadensis), balsam poplar (Populus balsamifera), black and white spruce (Picea mariana, and P. glauca, respectfully), yellow birch (Betula alleghaniensis), large-toothed aspen (Populus grandidentata), red oak (Quercus rubra), beech (Fagus grandifolia), and speckled alder (Alnus rugosa). As well, many intolerant species, including white (dry) and red pine (dry/rich-moist) (Pinus stobus and P. resinosa, respectfully), white birch (rich-moist) (Betula papyrifera), maple sugar (rich-moist) (Acer saccharum) and basswood (rich-moist) (Tilia Americana), strive in the dryer, more well-drained soil conditions of Belmont Lake’s uplands.

The deep roots of trees provide stability to the shoreline. The dense foliage of the canopy buffers the shore from winds and cools the area, with its shade, as well as boosts the humidity around the lake and provides shelter for wildlife including deer, fox, squirrels, chipmunks and a great variety of birds. Another healthy effect of the upland and riparian zones is the filtering of an estimated 90 % of run-off from winter snow and rains before it enters the lake; this filtering is important to ensure that silt and sediments from shoreline development do not reach the lake.

The effects of development in the upland zone have been greater in terms of change than has occurred in the Riparian Zone. Higher density development, which has increased lot coverage and intensity of use, results in forested areas receiving a more severe impact than would be felt with lower density development.

Natural Areas and Significant Ecological Communities

Areas of Natural and Scientific Interest and Environmentally Sensitive Areas identify and protect areas of natural and scientific interest and environmentally sensitive areas, as identified by the Ministry of Natural Resources, the Conservation Authority(s) and federal ministries or agencies, and discourage incompatible land uses from locating adjacent to these environmentally sensitive areas. The types of features normally considered include, but are not limited to the presence of rare or endangered species, important plant or animal associations, unique land forms, size of area, animal or plant diversity, water storage and water recharge. A unique feature of Belmont Lake’s watershed is the presence of interesting assemblages of species, including two globally significant and provincially rare vegetation communities: limestoneDRAFT bedrock beach and dry red oak-pine tallgrass savannah, and one interesting community-type: a schist-mudstone rock barren (Sutherland 1999).

At several points around the shore of Belmont Lake exist small areas of shallowly sloping beds of limestone (karsified limestone) and marble supporting an association of plants dominated by the prairie grasses: Big Bluestem, Little Bluestem and Indian Grass (Andropogon gererdii, Schizachyrium scoparium and Sorghastrum nutans), Shrubby Cinquefoil (Potentilla fruticosa), Brown Bog Sedge (Carex buxbaumii), Kalm’s Lobelia (Lobelia kalmii) and Sneezeweek (Helenium autumnale). These limestone bedrock beach communities are best represented elsewhere in the province along the upper Bruce Peninsula and on Manitoulin Island (Sutherland 1999).

At a single site on the lake, a remnant example of ‘Dry Red Oak-Pine Tallgrass Savannah’ was found. This open woodland community, dominated by Red Oak, White Oak, White Pine and Red Pine, and with an understorey dominated by Big Bluestem, Indian Grass and Bearberry (Arctostatphyloa uva-ursi) and Woodland Sunflower (Helianthus divaricatus), is a northern expression of a more southern and provincially rare vegetation type (Sutherland 1999).

60 NATURAL HERITAGE FEATURES AND AREAS SECTION 5

The exposure of schist-mudstone on the extreme south-western point of Sammy Island supports an interesting assemblage of plants dominated by Big Bluestem, Indian Grass, Slender Wheat Grass (Elymus trachycaulus), Virginia Mountain-mint (Pycnanthemum virginianum), Common Juniper (Juniperus communis var. depressa), and Creeping Juniper. The occurrence of Creeping Juniper, a primarily northern and western species, is the first for Peterborough County, and one of very few occurrences for southern Ontario (Sutherland 1999).

Of the 551 species of flowering plants encountered during the 1999 summer inventory, four are provincially rare:

• Melic-leaved False Oat grass (Trisetum melicoides)

• Field sedge (Carex conoidea)

• Handsome sedge (Carex formosa)

• Sharp-leaved Goldenrod (Solidago arguta)”

A further 33 species are regarded as rare in Peterborough County; of this latter group, 10 species were entirely new to the county, which are listed in Section 5.8 (Sutherland 1999).

Observations – Vegetation

• Belmont Lake is on the southern edge of the Canadian Shield, within the Precambrian Shield in eco-region 5E (eco-district of 5E-11), but with its southern shoreline teetering onto calcareous bedrock of eco-region 6E (eco-district 6E-9).

• Belmont Lake straddles the contact zone between the granite rocks of the Shield and the calcium-rich rocks of southern Ontario, which supports an interesting assemblage of plants, many of which are less common or even rare for the region.

• Belmont Lake’s watershed is speckled with wetlands and matrices of mixed forests, and the shoreline is dominated by rocky outcrops, sloping hills, lowland and swampy bays and rock ridges.

• The northern shore has moderate DRAFTtree cover with both deciduous and coniferous types present except for the northeast side where it is denser and predominantly coniferous.

• Historically, the watershed was covered with old-growth Eastern White Pine, some exceeding 450 years old. Intensive logging in the late 1800s and early 1900s removed these stands, replacing them with younger, mixed forests, dominated by white pine and red maple.

• The Preliminary List of the Vascular Plants of Belmont Lake, Peterborough identifies, approximately, 550 species of flowering plants, represented by 96 floristic families (family taxa) (Figure 5.10), recorded at 25 islands and mainland areas between June and September of 1999.

• Four (4) species are regarded as ‘provincially rare’: 1) Melic-leaved False Oat Grass; 2) Field Sedge; 3) Handsome Sedge; and 4) Sharp-leaved Goldenrod.

• Twenty-nine (29) species are regarded as rare in Peterborough County and ten (10) of these species appear to be new to the county.

61 NATURAL HERITAGE FEATURES AND AREAS SECTION 5

• Rare and interesting assemblages of plants dominate two (2) globally significant and provincially rare vegetation community types: 1) Limestone Bedrock Beach and 2) Dry Red Oak-Pine Tallgrass Savannah, and one Schist-Mudstone Rock Barren community type on the extreme south-western point of Sammy Island.

• Shoreline and aquatic vegetation is important of maintaining water quality and the protection of fish and wildlife habitat as well as the aesthetics of the landscape.

• An inventory of Belmont Lake’s vegetation was surveyed in 1999 by field experts; 96 families and 551 species of vascular plants are representative of Belmont Lake’s floristic diversity.

• Four vascular plants: 1) Melic-leaved False Oat Grass; 2) Field Sedge; 3) Handsome Sedge; and 4) Sharp-leaved Goldenrod, are rare.

• 90% of Belmont Lake’s watershed is forested. The obvious transition from deciduous to coniferous tree species is evident of the watershed’s tittering on the Canadian Shield and Great Lakes-St. Lawrence forested region.

• Property owners need to be informed about landscape alternatives to manicured lawns, paved driveways, and other impervious features, non-native species, and sandy-beaches to help reduce undesirable and inhospitable artificial landscapes along the shoreline.

Recommendations – Vegetation

8. Lakefront owners that have > 25% disturbance of shorelines should be encouraged to restore their property shoreline areas back to a natural state by protecting and retaining the existing native vegetation and planting only native species (grasses, sedges, shrubs and trees) wherever possible. Ideally, 75% of the shoreline lot should remain in a natural state with the exception of marinas.

9. The BLCA should encourage the municipalities to ensure that new development protects the integrity of the shorelines by minimizing the loss of native vegetation and substrates, and prevents runoff, during construction, into the lake. DRAFT 10. Encourage the municipalities to adopt Official Plan Policy regarding the retention of natural shorelines through the creation of shoreline activity protection areas, and promote the planting of trees and shrubs, the use of environmentally friendly in-water materials for docks, and minimize shoreline activity areas (areas for docks, boathouses and recreational activity) to 25% of the lot frontage.

62 NATURAL HERITAGE FEATURES AND AREAS SECTION 5

11. Encourage the restoration of degraded areas:

a. In the Littoral Zone consider in-water rehabilitation with the assistance of the Conservation Authorities (need in-water permits) by adding downed native logs and other woody debris, as well as carefully placed rocks, near the shoreline to create micro-habitats for aquatic species and to protect the natural substrate;

b. In the Riparian Zone create a buffer of native plants, shrubs and trees between the water line and lawn, to discourage erosion and prevent sediment runoff; and

c. In the Upland Zone replant native trees, in areas that do not block the view from the residence, to buffer strong winds, maintain cool water temperatures, protect slope gradient and erosion, and provide habitats for native species.

12. Municipal planning documents should require the mandatory protection of shoreline buffer areas. There should be a mandatory 15 metres of vegetative, “non-disturbance” buffer along the shoreline of native vegetation; a larger buffer creates more protection for water quality and increases the aesthetics of properties.

13. Property owners should be informed about the benefits of naturalizing their properties and where to find “free” native species to plant. Programs should be developed to educate, assist and encourage landowner stewardship to “naturalize” their shorelines. Two excellent restoration guides include: The Shore Primer – A Cottager’s Guide to a Healthy Waterfront, by Fisheries and Oceans Canada (2001), and Restoring Natural Habitats: A Manual for Habitat Restoration in the Greater Toronto Bioregion (it is non-area specific), prepared by Hough Woodland Naylor Dance Ltd. and Gore & Storrie Ltd., for the Waterfront Regeneration Trust (1995). Both of these documents describe the principles of basic shoreline protection, including terrestrial and aquatic habitats in the riparian zone, and various rehabilitation procedures and techniques.

14. The planting of native vascular plant, shrub and tree species should be encouraged because non-native or “exotic” species can have serious negative impacts on the environment. Local nurseries and landscaping businesses should be encouragedDRAFT to stock and promote the use of local plants and trees as well as locate non-profit organizations that will donate native species, tools and free labour.

15. The municipality should develop a “No Tree Cutting” or “Tree Preservation” forestry by-law to ensure that lots retain a percentage of their natural vegetation, including shoreline plants and trees, to prevent an increase of stormwater runoff from impervious surfaces, landscape alteration, and from resource activities such as clear-cuts.

63 NATURAL HERITAGE FEATURES AND AREAS SECTION 5

5.3 Wetlands

Wetlands are land types that are permanently or temporarily submerged or permeated by water, including vegetated areas of relatively shallow open water, seasonally flooding forests, swamps, marshes, fens, bogs and peatlands (The Atlas of Canada 2004). They occur intermittently across the landscape along lakes, rivers and streams, or in any area where the ground water table is close to the surface. Wetlands provide substantial ecological, social and economical value to any lake through the maintenance and improvement of water quality, the attenuation or detention of rain and runoff that assists in controlling flooding, and important habitat for wildlife, including heronries, fish spawning sites and turtle nesting grounds, as well as conditions to support a wide variety of vegetation including rare and unique species such as manna grass, beaked sedge, buckbean, pitcher plants and sundews, bog rosemary, Labrador tea and low-bush cranberry. These “special features” result in substantial social and economic benefits and opportunities for the local residents including fishing, boating, other recreational activities, wildlife viewing, and an overall appreciation for nature. It is, therefore, incredibly important for the health of your watershed to protect wetlands.

Belmont Lake has an abundance of wetlands in its watershed, especially within its many bays (Munn, Taylor’s, North River, Roddy Bay, Crowe River and Deer). Unfortunately, Belmont Lake has not had its wetlands evaluated for provincial significance. It is speculated that the wetlands found within Munn, Taylor’s and North River may be “provincially significant” because of its size and connectivity, its use as deer wintering feeding grounds, vegetation communities, and its significance as important spawning habitats for largemouth bass, muskellunge and walleye (MNR, 2004).

On the Canadian Shield, development may be permitted in a provincially significant wetland and on adjacent lands (120m) provided that an Environmental Impact Assessment demonstrates that there will be no loss of wetland function, a loss of wetland area, or result in subsequent demand for future development, which would negatively impact existing wetland functions. In the southern regions of Ontario, south and east of the Shield, development and site alteration in wetlands is prohibited off the Shield (Provincial Policy Statement, Section 2.3.1a). Belmont Lake falls within Site-DistrictDRAFT 5E on the Shield and is, therefore, considered a Shield wetland. In southern Ontario, between 70 and 80 per cent of the original wetland areas have been lost to development (according to Statistics Canada, Human Activity and the Environment 2000). The rest are partially protected under a provincial policy statement that says:

“The Planning Act does not guarantee that these remaining wetland areas will be protected in perpetuity, nor does it control the impact of development surrounding the wetland area. The ongoing protection of these areas depends, in part, upon the commitment of municipal governments to zone wetlands as natural areas where no development can occur”.

However, some work is being done to protect the remaining wetlands, and also to restore or build new wetlands:

• The Nature Conservancy of Canada works to buy or acquire significant natural areas, including wetlands; and

• Ducks Unlimited works with landowners to build new wetland areas as habitat for ducks and other species. They have produced a guidebook called Rural Wetlands in Ontario: A Guide for Landowner’s.

64 NATURAL HERITAGE FEATURES AND AREAS SECTION 5

Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources Wetland Evaluation System (WES)

The wetland evaluation system is based on scientific criteria, and was primarily designed to serve the needs of Ontario’s planning process. The evaluation system recognizes the critical role of wetlands in maintaining healthy ecosystems; it identifies and inventories the biophysical features or values of a wetland, and provides a way of rating wetlands relative to one another using a point system that quantifies these wetland values. Wetlands are scored based on grouping these “wetland values” into four component categories: biological, social, hydrological and special features. If the overall combined score for all four categories exceeds a score of 600 points, or if one of the Biological component or the Special Features component exceeds an individual score of 200 points, than the wetland is considered provincially significant.

In 1993, MNR revised the wetland evaluation system splitting the system into two manuals-southern and northern-in order to reflect the wetland locations south or north of the Canadian Shield, as well as their respective MNR site region boundaries (i.e., 7E and 6E for southern Ontario and 5E, 4E, 3E and 2E for northern Ontario). This revision resulted in point allotment changes for the system, which meant that many significant wetlands across Ontario had to be re-evaluated.

The Ontario Wetland Evaluation System identifies four wetland types for evaluation: marsh, swamp, fen and bog. The physiographic (character and distribution of landforms – slope and elevation) positioning of wetlands in the landscape defines its site type:

1. Isolated – wetlands that are completely isolated from navigable waters, and are usually groundwater fed;

2. Lacustrine – wetlands that are exposed to the lake, which have moderate to high productivity because the local vegetation is influenced by the changes in lake water levels;

3. Riverine – wetlands located at or along the mouth of a river flowing into a lake, which are usually very productive; and 4. Palustrine – wetlands uplandDRAFT from riverine and lacustrine wetlands, often found in headwater areas where water flow is either intermittent or absent. These areas are often low in productivity because they rely on precipitation, overland flow and groundwater seepage for a supply of nutrients.

The site location of a wetland strongly influences its productivity, which is based upon the different sources supplying the nutrients.

65 NATURAL HERITAGE FEATURES AND AREAS SECTION 5

Swamps

Swamps-a 25% cover or more of trees and tall shrubs, are wooded wetlands-usually black spruce (Picea mariana), tamarack (Larix laricina), black ash (Fraxinus nigra) and silver maple (Acer saccharinum), found in areas of fluctuating standing water, and are often covered by coniferous trees, tall shrubs-usually speckled alder (Alnus rugosa), herbs and mosses. The soil is saturated, especially during early spring after the snow melt and the rains have flooded the area, the substrate is usually continuously waterlogged and, frequently, there is an abundance of pools and channels indicating subsurface water flow but, in some areas, soils may get the opportunity to dry down to dryer conditions by late summer. The soil is often neutral or moderately acidic in reaction and shows little deficiency in oxygen or in mineral nutrients.

Marshes

Marshes are wet areas of standing or flowing water, frequently interspersed with channels or pools of deep or shallow open water. Marshes may be bordered by a peripheral band of trees and shrubs (i.e., swamps), but the predominant vegetation consists of a variety of emergent, non-woody plants including dominant emergents such as cattails and reeds, and narrow or fine-leaved emergents such as grasses, sedges and rushes. Typical marsh vegetation such as cattails are efficient colonizers of new and disturbed habitats. Cattails provide a good source of nest building materials for birds, including the marsh wren, pied-billed grebe, sora, red-winged black bird, and American bittern, as well as a food source for other animals and birds such as the Canada geese and the muskrat that eat the rhizomes and young spikes. If you have ever seen a mound of cattail leaves on the side of a pond or marsh you have located the home of a muskrat.

Low shrubs such as sweetgale, red osier, leatherleaf and winterberry may also occur in marshes. Where the open water areas occur, a variety of submerged plant species (spp.), such as water milfoil (Myriophyllum spp.), waterweed (Elodea spp.) and pondweeds (Potamogeton spp.), or floating and emergent plant species, such as water lilies (Nymphaea spp., and Nuphar spp.), water plantain (Alisma plantago-aquatica) and broad-leaved arrowhead (Sagittaria latifolia), flourish. A complete list of all the submerged and emergent plants is listed in Figure 5.10 (Littoral section). DRAFT The substrate usually consists of mineral or organic soils that have a high mineral content, but in some marshes there may also be as much as two (2) metres of peat accumulation in slightly acidic waters. The water chemistry of marshes is dependent upon several environmental factors, such as the soil and the plant community, but it is usually neutral to slightly alkaline and has a relatively high oxygen saturation level.

66 NATURAL HERITAGE FEATURES AND AREAS SECTION 5

Fens

Fens develop at ground water seepage areas-ground water seepage or springs is an indication of good water quality as well as marl deposits (i.e., Limestone), or alkaline conditions in the soils near lakes, which are often known as “calcareous fens”. Fens are characterized by surface layers of poorly to moderately decomposed peat, often with well-decomposed peat near the base. Fens usually develop in situations of restricted drainage where oxygen saturation is relatively low and mineral supply is restricted. The water and peat found in fens are less acidic than in bogs, and often are relatively nutrient rich since they receive water through groundwater discharge from adjacent uplands; therefore, poor fens have low pH whereas rich fens have a relatively high pH.

In general, fens are dominated with sedges, although grasses and reeds may be associated in local pools. Several plant species with narrow pH tolerances, such as buckbean (Menyanthes trifoliate), bog rosemary (Andromeda glaucophylla) and bog willow (Salix candida), are common in fens and are often used as indicators of fen habitats.

Grasses and sedges, as well as a low shrub component, dominates the graminoid fens, which are, usually, absent of trees. Shrubs and stunted trees including white cedar, black spruce and tamarack-tamaracks being the dominant tree species, dominate the treed fens.

Fens are not common in southern Ontario, and are rare in the Algonquin Region.

Bogs

Bogs are peat covered areas or peat-filled depressions with a high water table and a surface carpet of mosses, chiefly Sphagnum species. Peatlands are formed when there is a decrease in the decomposition of dead plant material, which in turn allows large accumulations of peat to form. Bogs are virtually isolated from mineral soil and rely solely on atmospheric deposition for its nutrient supply; therefore, as a result, bogs usually have low biological diversity, closed drainage, low oxygen, and the surface water and underlying peat are strongly acidic and “nutrient-poor”-deficient in mineral nutrients. Bogs have low biological diversity (oftenDRAFT having less than 12 different plant species), and are usually found north of the Precambiran shield; therefore, bogs are extremely rare in southern Ontario. Bogs are frequently characterized by layers of mosses such as Sphagnum species, ericaceous shrub species, such as bog laurel (Kalimia polifolia) and swamp blueberry (Vaccinium corymbosum), and cotton grasses and sedges, which are tolerant of acidic soils and low nutrients. They may be treed or treeless, but tree cover never exceeds 25% of the total area; black spruce (Picea mariana) often dominates the upper or crown vegetation of some older peat bogs as well as Tamarack (Larix laricina), but only in small numbers and, usually, only along the periphery of the bog.

67 NATURAL HERITAGE FEATURES AND AREAS SECTION 5

Observations – Wetlands

• Belmont Lake has an abundance of wetlands in its watershed, especially within its many bays (Munn, Taylor’s, North River, Roddy Bay, Crowe River and Deer). Unfortunately, Belmont Lake has not had its wetlands evaluated for provincial significance. It is speculated that the wetlands found within Munn, Taylor’s and North River may be “provincially significant” because of its size and connectivity, its use as deer wintering feeding grounds, vegetation communities, and its significance as important spawning habitats for largemouth bass, muskellunge and walleye (MNR, 2004).

Recommendations – Wetlands

16. In cooperation with the local MNR, a wetland evaluation should be initiated to inventory all wetlands in Munn and Taylor’s Bay and other Belmont Lake wetlands to determine whether or not they are “provincially significant”.

17. An education program promoting the sensitivity and the need to protect wetlands should be prepared that includes the significance of wetland habitats for “species at risk” conservation in Ontario.

18. Local official plans and zoning by-laws must identify the location of wetlands and provide appropriate policy to ensure their protection, including a requirement for environmental/lake impact assessments for any new development proposals.

19. The ongoing protection of these areas depends, in part, upon the commitment of municipal governments to zone wetlands.

5.4 Streams

Streams are a large feature of the landscape. Stream-flow varies over time in response to the inflow of water from the surrounding land and aquifers or ground water. North of the Precambrian Shield, permeability of the soil is reduced due to the depth of the water table, which is shallow because of a shallow impermeable layer of granite bedrock. South of the Precambrian Shield soils are loamy and fertile, which are ideal for agriculture; however, intensive agriculture contributes toDRAFT fluctuating ground water levels from irrigation extraction, channelization, fertilization of water, and increased watershed runoff and sedimentation due to cleared landscapes. Disturbances that increase the number of impervious surfaces in the watershed contribute to the soils poor attenuation qualities by increasing the flow of runoff, erosion, sedimentation and channelization.

Removing and filling wetlands along streams alters the hydrology of the stream, usually resulting in higher peak flows and lower summertime flows. Development threatens stream fish habitats and communities through the loss of riparian vegetation, removal of structural habitat (woody debris and rocks), sedimentation, nutrient impacts, channelization, herbicides, pesticides, infilling, dredging, damming and changes in flow regime.

Key identifiers of stream type include the presence and absence of flora and fauna species. It is incredibly important to protect cold water streams because they are a source of ground water seepage.

68 NATURAL HERITAGE FEATURES AND AREAS SECTION 5

It is important to include headwater streams and rivers during watershed mapping because the conditions in the headwaters will influence the complete stream ecosystem downstream. Streams interact with the valley in which they flow, with the associated riparian areas and flood plains providing many important functions such as water storage, water release, nutrients and sediment interactions and “allochthonous” material inputs. The increased flows during the spring and fall freshet help to remove finer sediments from spawning areas and transport these sediments and debris downstream. Streams provide spawning, nursery, rearing, seasonal and adult habitat to a broad range of fish species including: brook trout, bass, northern pike, suckers and minnows, which prefer pool areas of streams, and sculpins, darters and dace, which prefer the riffle areas of streams (white suckers migrate from lakes in the spring to spawn in streams) (Evans 1998).

There are seven (7) small warm water streams and tributaries, six (6) in the lower end of Belmont Lake and one (1) in the northeast which flows through a large wetland, and two (2) rivers, including the Crowe River inflow from Cordova Lake and outflow to Crowe Lake and North River inflow from Round Lake. These streams are either permanent or intermittent in nature, but all are an important part of the fish and wildlife habitat of Belmont Lake. These streams have been Aquatic Resource Area (ARA) researched, but no data or identification number exists in the database, except for manual files of inventories for Whitney Creek and Otter Creek, which flow into the North River, and “Cordova Mines” Creek, which flows into the Crowe River outlet. All the streams, especially the latter three, are assessed as warm water streams because of their temperatures and fish species community; however, brook trout were stocked in the 1960s in a few of the streams originating from Round Lake, which one would assume were cold water streamsDRAFT to be able to be hospitable to cold water species (MNR, 2004). Note – the majority of Belmont Lake streams occur on privately developed/owned land, which have already met the 15 m setback requirement stipulated in the Official Plan for warm water streams (decision based upon MNR fisheries requirements); therefore, unless new development is proposed, stream ecology is not a management priority at this time for the MNR, but it is a biological priority because the role of streams in the ecology of lakes of the Precambrian Shield.

In general, streams, depending upon its water quality and geomorphology, provide spawning and rearing habitat for a variety of fish species including minnows, suckers, sculpins, sticklebacks, bullhead catfishes, sunfishes, trout, perches, darters and walleye. The stream’s flow, water temperature, and sediment bed or substrate type combined provide the necessary conditions to incubate the fish eggs deposited during the spawning season. Riffles-shallow zones, along the sandy or gravely sediment-bed of a stream, are often the preferred spawning habitats of various fish species. The healthiest water-well oxygenated for the eggs, with a good source of food for adults-is often found in the riffles of streams. The aquatic organisms floating down stream are often caught by fish in the riffle zones; these organisms supply a significant food source for the species of fish that frequent these streams.

69 NATURAL HERITAGE FEATURES AND AREAS SECTION 5

There is a need for local stewardship and collaborative decision making involving members of the public and non-government groups in the development of community-based ecosystem health goals, objectives and indicators for management towards a sustainable environmental and economic future (Evans 1998).

Observations

• Seven (7) warm water streams flow into Belmont Lake and two rivers – North River and Cordova River, and one river – Crowe River, flows out of Belmont Lake; all 7 streams are on private land.

• The majority of streams occur on privately owned land.

• Belmont Lake is part of the Crowe River Watershed.

• There is a lack of data, including fish inventories and environmental parameters, and a need for site-specific information to be able to properly classify the 7 streams that flow into Belmont Lake. Currently, all streams are classified as warm water.

• Stream inventories are not a management priority for MNR Peterborough District because of pre-established 15 m setback requirements-also the minimum management requirement for warm water stream fisheries, for development in the Belmont Lake watershed, and a current lack of development pressures on these streams.

Recommendations – Streams

20. A detailed study (a collection of long-term data), which includes standardized monitoring protocols or methodologies of collection (analysis and reporting), should be completed for the 7 streams that flow into Belmont Lake (and established for long-term monitoring and assessment for these streams). Qualitative and quantitative data needs to be collected to identify and assess the specific features (presence/absence of indicator species such as brook trout) that contribute to the health of the lake system, determine the health of each stream, and classify each stream in terms of community indices (cold water vs. warm water) to be able to map the location of cold water streams in the watershed and critical cold water spawning sites within each stream. DRAFT 21. Official Plans and Zoning by-laws should identify the location of all permanent and intermittent warm water and cold water streams including policy to control and protect them against development impacts.

70 NATURAL HERITAGE FEATURES AND AREAS SECTION 5

22. Through landowner contact and information brochures, property owners that own property adjacent to streams should be encouraged to help protect the water quality and natural features of these streams, such as maintaining a 20 m vegetated buffer along the stream’s shoreline.

23. The streams on Belmont Lake need to be “officially” named prior to inventories. Perhaps encourage the “young” cottagers to participate in a “name that stream” contest.

24. All streams should be mapped and the BLCA notified of any development that occurs along the banks.

5.5 Fish Community

The Belmont Lake fish community has changed significantly over the past 60 years. Historically, the lake supported a warm water fishery dominated by smallmouth bass and muskellunge, with a small cold water component comprised of lake herring (Cisco). Walleye and largemouth bass were later introduced to Belmont Lake to enhance local fishing opportunities, and smallmouth bass and muskellunge were also stocked, but probably to supplement existing populations (pers.comm. H. Ball). Lake trout, brook trout, brown trout and rainbow trout were also planted into the lake, North River, Round Lake, and tributary streams connecting to Belmont Lake, but these trout never became established. A “Fisherman’s Map” created in 1944, most likely by local anglers, indicates the four main “sport fish” angling opportunities for the lake: Muskellunge, Smallmouth “Black” Bass, Pickerel or “Wall-eyed”, and “Speckled” Trout (Brook Trout).

It is plausible that lake trout were once native and are now extirpated from Belmont Lake, but there is no evidence with the MNR to prove this hypothesis. MNR Fisheries Biologist, H. Ball thinks that it is plausible that Belmont Lake had lake trout populations because of known populations of lake herring which, like lake trout and brook trout, are cold water, high dissolved oxygen concentration requiring species, often inhabiting similar habitats as lake trout. Unfortunately, lake herring hasn’t been documented in the lake since the early 1980s. It is likely that lake herring is no longer a component of the lake or, if there is a population present, it is probably low in numbers due to changes in water quality and habitat conditions that have evolved over the past 20 years, which would account for the lack ofDRAFT sightings. Today, Belmont Lake supports a predominantly warm water fish population that includes muskellunge, largemouth and smallmouth bass, yellow perch, rock bass, pumpkinseed and redhorse suckers, with a cool water component of walleye, as well as new inclusions of bluegill, black crappie and northern pike, which have all expanded their ranges since the early 1990s into south-eastern lakes of Ontario.

Cold water fish species, which are environmental indicators of cold water systems, such as lake herring (natural population) may no longer be components of the Belmont Lake fish community; last recorded sighting of lake herring was in 1983. These potentially historic lake herring populations of Belmont Lake suggest that the deep waters of Belmont Lake once supported cold water fishes. Other cold water species, such as lake trout, brook trout and burbot, and cool water species, such as the American eel, that were once observed in Belmont Lake and its tributaries also lack recent documentation by anglers or Ministry biologists and conservation officers.

71 NATURAL HERITAGE FEATURES AND AREAS SECTION 5

Northern pike, bluegill, black crappie and rock bass have all been introduced inadvertently, probably moving up the Crowe River, or possibly through intentional or inadvertent introduction by anglers through bait buckets, but MNR lacks supporting evidence to prove the rightful cause of some of these species’ invasion into Belmont Lake.

According to MNR’s historical lake surveys, fisheries assessments, creel surveys from the 1970s and early 1980s, Fall Walleye Index Netting (FWIN) surveys in 1999, as well as recent voluntary creel surveys, there are eleven (11) fish species (1999-2004) inhabiting Belmont Lake and possibly an additional 13 species that were last documented during the 1977 MNR fisheries assessment (Figure 5.11). Other species inhabiting Belmont Lake’s tributary streams and rivers include: brook stickleback, creek chub, blacknose dace, blacknose shiner, northern redbelly dace, finescale dace, and fathead minnow, as well as brook trout, brown trout and rainbow trout which were stocked into some streams that extend into both Round and Belmont Lakes. Some local anglers and residents of Belmont Lake have reported brook trout and rainbow trout in Belmont Lake, but MNR documentation to support these observations is lacking (MNR Lake Files 2004).

In 1983, a freshwater jellyfish (Crasoedacusta sowerbii) was discovered in Belmont Lake by biologists. This species is rarely found in natural water systems because it prefers alkaline conditions (pH >7.5), and is, therefore, usually found in human-made water bodies, such as limestone gravel pits that have been converted into lakes once the ground water table has been reached, which increases the water’s alkalinity levels due to the infusion of bi-carbonate ions from the calcium-based bedrock into the water. During the last lake survey summaries for Belmont Lake, during which the jellyfish specimen was found, the average pH was 8.6, indicating alkaline conditions conducive to this species; the specimen was sent to the Royal Ontario Museum (ROM) for verification. Its current population status in the lake is unknown.

Unfortunately, Belmont Lake, which was traditionally a warm water lake bordering on cold water conditions, has lost its cold water species component and has had several non-native species invade its waters which has created a complex community indicating a move away from the “traditional” or “historical” warm water community/fisheries. Borderline cold/cool water systems are often fragile and non-resilient to environmental changes and when stressed move towards its warm waterDRAFT tendencies (pers. comm. H. Ball 2004). Historically a cool water system, Belmont Lake became a predominantly warm water system at the onset of landscape development and accelerated with the repercussions of a variety of environmental changes such as climate change, pollution and sedimentation, as well as and species introduction.

Belmont Lake is a unique mesotrophic lake because of its oligotrophic tendencies (deep Secchi depth and low chlorophyll a concentrations), which mirrors water quality parameters of traditional Shield lakes. It is a shallow, warm water lake (warm surface temperatures and high pH) with warm water indicator fish species, but historically it had a natural lake herring-a cold water indicator, and a stocked lake trout and brook trout component to the fish community. Unfortunately, with the onset of climate change, invading species and water quality changes as a result of increased land use in and around the Belmont Lake watershed, these species are no longer a component of the aquatic community (MNR 2004).

72 NATURAL HERITAGE FEATURES AND AREAS SECTION 5

Belmont Lake was originally a smallmouth bass-muskellunge lake into which walleye was introduced (The former Department of Lands and Forests, 1946). According to MNR records, no fisheries assessment was done until May and September of 1970, when trap net surveys were conducted. Results of the netting surveys indicated that healthy populations of walleye, smallmouth and largemouth bass and muskellunge were established in Belmont Lake at that time.

The changes that have occurred in the fish population, in particular the decline of walleye and the loss of lake herring, is the result of a combination of environmental and human-induced factors such as climatic changes, eutrophication (from septic tanks, lawn fertilizers), dam construction (creating a closed system-fish barrier) and controlled water levels, harvesting pressures, stocking, invasive species and other fish species, increased development pressures and population levels, removal of shoreline vegetation and access, and increased effluents and runoff from the watershed including Crowe River and North River Inlet into areas of significance (wetlands and spawning sites). Shoreline development and runoff, which reduces habitat quality and quantity as well as eutrophication and competition by rock bass, bluegill and black crappie, may, also, be contributing to declines in bass populations in the warm water communities of the lake.

Figure 5.10 – Fish Species in Belmont Lake Common Name Latin Name Muskellunge (NS) Esox masquinongy Northern Pike (I) Esox lucius White Sucker (N) ‘78 Catostomus commersoni Greater Redhorse (N) Moxostoma valenciennesi Golden Shiner (N) Notemigonus crysoleucas Common Shiner (N) ‘78 Luxilus cornutus Spottail Shiner (N) Notropis hudsonius Bluntnose Minnow (N) ‘78 Pimephales notatus Fallfish (N)DRAFT Semotilus corporalis Brown Bullhead (N) Ameiurus nebulosus Banded Killifish (N) Fundulus diaphanous Rock Bass (I) Ambloplites rupestris Pumpkinseed (N) Lepomis gibbosus Smallmouth Bass (NS) Micropterus dolomieu Largemouth Bass (NS) Micropterus salmoides Yellow Perch (N) Perca flavescens Walleye (NS) Sander vitreus (new), Stizostedion vitreum (old) Iowa Darter (N) ‘78 Etheostoma exile Black Crappie (I) Pomoxis nigromaculatus Bluegill (I) Lepomis macrochirus American Eel (NH) Anguilla rostrata continue

73 NATURAL HERITAGE FEATURES AND AREAS SECTION 5

Figure 5.11 – Fish Species in Belmont Lake (continued) Common Name Latin Name Lake Herring (NH) Coregonus artedi Burbot (N) Lota lota Lake Trout (ISH) Salvelinus namaycush Brook Trout (ISH) Salvelinus fontinalis Creek Chub ‘80 Semotilus atromaculatus Brook Stickleback ‘78 Culaea inconstans Northern Redbelly Dace ‘78 Phoxinus eos Blacknose Shiner ‘78 Notropis heterolepis Blacknose Dace ‘78 Rhinichthys atratulus Finescale Dace ‘78 Phoxinus neogaeus Fathead Minnow ‘78 Pimephales promelas Source: MNR Aquatic Resource Area Data (2002) H = historical record (> 20 years); I = introduced to lake; N = native to lake; and S = stream habitat

Fisheries Management

Monitoring of inland lakes is based on the principle that lakes with similar fish communities can be treated as a “type” because they respond to stress factors in similar and a predictable manner.

Therefore, MNR identifies representative lakes by fish community types, which is based upon the presence/ absence of 6 major species: brook trout, lake trout, lake whitefish, northern pike, smallmouth bass and walleye. Belmont Lake is managed as a warm water fishery because of its original and present community of smallmouth bass and muskellunge, with a cool water component comprised of walleye and northern pike (MNR, 2004-08-17). The Ministry of Natural Resources’ (MNR)DRAFT Peterborough District manages Belmont Lake’s fisheries including the monitoring and protection of fish habitat. Various combinations of fisheries management practices, including fish stocking, population surveys, spawning habitat remediation, protecting critical fish habitat (littoral zone), and the accumulation of baseline date to develop appropriate management strategies, began concurrently with the development boom in the early 1920s.

74 NATURAL HERITAGE FEATURES AND AREAS SECTION 5

Unfortunately, the current condition of the fisheries is poor, especially the walleye fisheries, and of great concern to the MNR and lake residents and cottagers. The Peterborough District MNR identified the following issues concerning these fisheries:

i. Over-harvesting and angling pressures;

ii. Population decline;

iii. Stocking;

iv. Pollution and critical habitat loss;

v. Water quality changes;

vi. Dam and artificial changes in water levels;

vii. Lack of long-term data, an adequate database, and scientific knowledge;

viii. Lack of public awareness and involvement; and

ix. Species introductions and exotic species.

5.5.1 Fish Stocking and Introductions

Stocking History

In 1919, MNR began stocking Belmont Lake with smallmouth bass (1919, 28, 30-33, 35-46, 48-50, 53-54), and yellow pickerel (walleye) fry were also being stocked, by 1924, into the lake. MNR stocked lake trout periodically between 1926 and 1943 (1926, 30, 33, 35, 40-41, 43), when lake herring populated the lake, and began stocking muskellunge (1932, 34, 37-51, 54-72) (MNR began stocking muskellunge in Ontario by 1927) and largemouth bass (1948, 50, 52, 54) in 1932 and 1948, respectively. Large numbers of lake herring used to inhabit the lake but have not been seen or captured since 1983. In the early 1990s northern pike, bluegill and black crappie invaded the lake DRAFTthrough natural range expansion via the Trent-Severn Canal. Smallmouth bass and muskellunge were continuously stocked from 1930 to 1945 and 1932 to 1972, respectively, at low densities (50-15,000 smallmouth bass fry and 50-110,000 muskellunge fry, fingerlings, yearlings and adults) to supplement the natural population. Walleye introductions and the expansion of northern pike’s range into Belmont Lake have both become “successful components” of the fish community; however, the introduction of bluegill and black crappie into the lake have only contributed negative impacts upon the community. These species compete directly for food and habitat resources and prey on fry of other species, which affects growth and productivity of other fishes, especially walleye.

75 NATURAL HERITAGE FEATURES AND AREAS SECTION 5

Lake trout were planted in Belmont Lake in 1926, 30, 33, 35, 40, 41 and 43, and a lake trout was caught in summer 1983, but was probably an escape from Deer Lake Hatchery, which is a winter holding for Great Lakes’ stocks. Brook trout were planted in Mud Creek, Round Lake in 1922, 26-28, 30, 35, 37, 40-47, 49, 62, 63, and 65-67; although Mud Creek was stocked with Brook Trout intermittently for over 40 years, it is in fact a warm water creek. Brook Trout were also stocked in 1935, 39, 42-44, and 1962-67 in Otter Creek and North River as well as Brown Trout in 1939; the success of these two species in these tributaries are unknown because of lack of data regarding the thermal regimes of these tributaries.

In the neighbouring Round Lake, a warm water, shallow, weedy lake, stocking history includes muskellunge (1932-72), smallmouth bass (1914, 22, 24, 28, 30-36, 39-54), and walleye (1921, 35, 39-47).

Deer Lake Fish Culture station-a pond station with a surface water supply situated near Havelock, was constructed in 1938; this facility was the predominant source of hatchery-reared muskie for all of Ontario until the facility closed in 1990 due to operational costs. Hatchery muskies were reared from wild stock collected from Stony Lake, Buckhorn Lake (Deer Bay) and the Crowe River. Early fish stocking efforts were concentrated in south-central Ontario-Kawartha Lakes. No attempts to rear Northern Pike in Ontario. Fish hatchery (Cordova Fish Hatchery) located on the Crowe River (originally named Deer River and Deer Lake-Cordova Lake, today) at the north end of Belmont Lake. In 1989, MNR closed the fish hatchery and all stocking for the Belmont Lake and others ended. The hatchery originally opened in the summer of 1939 and by January, 90,000 lake trout were put into the ponds-there are approximately 4 acres of artificial ponds or lakes.

During the 1940s, Belmont Lake anglers notice a significant decline in catch per unit effort (CUE) for smallmouth bass and muskellunge, which they determined to be the result of walleye stockings; today, anglers are concerned about the decline in walleye CUE. Recent MNR monitoring efforts determined that the walleye population is declining. In 1949, the BLCA requested a survey of its “fishing problems” and the possibility of rehabilitation by the MNR, as well as petitioning the opening of Taylor’s Bay, which had been closed to fishing for 10 years and designated a “walleye sanctuary”. The BLCA requested a survey of the physical characteristics of Belmont Lake, including water qualityDRAFT and habitat quality as a result of the rapid lowering of water on the spawning beds in the spring.

76 NATURAL HERITAGE FEATURES AND AREAS SECTION 5

Future Stocking Efforts

Scarcity of good biological data, absence of data concerning the anglers using the resource, and recent complaints of poor fishing led the MNR to conduct a creel census on Belmont Lake during the summer and fall of 1980 and 1999. The MNR conducts angler creel surveys to determine the total fishing effort and harvest as well as to collect biological data from the harvested fish. The crew counts boats with anglers actively fishing as well as shore anglers; anglers are then selected randomly for interviews to determine fishing times as well as the number and species caught and kept. A creel census determined that Belmont Lake receives similar fishing pressure to other lakes within the Kawartha Lakes Region, but has below average productivity when compared to the same lakes. Summer fishing activity has probably increased since this survey was completed.

In March 2004, a request by some Belmont Lake residents and local businesses made a request to the MNR to open Belmont, Round and Cordova (Deer) Lakes for ice fishing, which was denied by the Ministry. Provincially, the Ministry of Natural Resources is reviewing and streamlining fishing regulations. These lakes are currently in Division 6, and part of the review process is to examine the boundaries of Division 6. Due to the significance of the changes required to combine Division 6 with another division, extensive public consultation will be required. This is an ongoing process and changes to Division boundaries will take at least two years to bring into regulations after consultation.

At this time, the MNR feels that opening the winter fishery would create an over harvest situation that would reduce the quality of fishing on Belmont Lake and, therefore, we are not prepared to re-open the winter season. Ice fishing on Belmont Lake-1995 letter…” The winter closure within Division 6 was initiated to maintain the quality of the fishery. Lakes within this Division receive significant fishing pressure and allowing winter fishing would reduce the overall quality of fishing within the Division.

Belmont Lake attracts anglers from larger urban centres such as Toronto and Peterborough, and anglers often base their fishing trips on where fish have been stocked. If a stocking program is initiated it will mean more anglers will come to Belmont Lake to fish. Since the stocking will not result in more fish but fishing levels will increase, the quality of fishing will DRAFTlikely be reduced further. This happened in several lakes in Eastern Ontario where angler effort in several stocked lakes quadrupled. In these cases, stocking can be harmful.

The Peterborough MNR District has worked closely and will continue to work closely with the Belmont Lake Cottage Association through the Community Fish and Wildlife Involvement Program to help improve the fishery.

Walleye

Surveys of walleye in the Kawartha Lakes suggest that walleye populations are low in abundance. Therefore, a winter closures in Division 6, which includes Belmont Lake, was to protect the walleye fishery. Despite this closure, walleye has declined due to high levels of exploitation, changed water quality related to reduced phosphorus loading and the establishment of zebra mussels, and to changes in the fish community with the introduction of blue gill and black crappie. Walleye will probably require additional protection, but there may be some additional angling opportunities provided for bluegill and black crappie. The MNR Southern Region is undertaking a walleye review, and regulations to further protect walleye populations will be explored. For these reasons, MNR will not open Belmont, Round and Cordova Lakes for ice fishing this winter season 2004 (Ball 2004).

77 NATURAL HERITAGE FEATURES AND AREAS SECTION 5

Fishing pressure has increased substantially over the past decades because of Belmont Lake’s close proximity to the most populated part of southern Ontario, which means that the average angler is catching fewer and smaller fish. In 1981, areas in Belmont Lake were closed by the MNR as walleye fish sanctuaries-no fishing of any kind is permitted in a fish sanctuary, to protect the resource. According to a retired Conservation Officer, Belmont Lake has never supported large numbers of walleye, just large in size. Historically, the presence of lake herring would have allowed the walleye to achieve this large size. Unfortunately, lake herring have disappeared from the lake because shoreline development has resulted in low oxygen conditions in the deep summer refuge areas of the lake; as per data collected by the MOE and MNR in the early 1970s, the bottom 6 metres of Belmont Lake is anoxic-devoid of oxygen.

Walleye are not a “natural” component of the Belmont Lake fish community because walleye were artificially stocked by the MNR into Belmont Lake to create greater angling opportunities. Walleye fry and fingerlings were last stocked in 1946 because the population was naturally reproducing itself and stocking was determined by the MNR to not be successful in raising recruitment numbers or increasing the population. Stocking of walleye has ceased because a naturally reproducing population has been established and it is MNR’s policy not to stock reared populations on top of naturally producing populations. Stocking of walleye is a suitable management technique where walleye rarely or never reproduce. Since Belmont Lake’s walleye population is supported via natural reproduction, MNR will not supplement, through stocking, this natural reproducing lake.

In general, when “natural lakes” are stocked, the fish that are stocked are substituting fish for other fish rather than actually adding fish to the lake. In 1999, the Fall Walleye Index Netting captured walleye of all size classes suggesting that recruitment of walleye in Belmont Lake is occurring; therefore, MNR studies have found that stocking walleye in these “natural lakes” does not improve walleye abundance or fishing success. The fishing community has become quite complex, especially with the introduction of black crappie, bluegill and northern pike; stocking of walleye into complex communities is not viable. Stocking will not result in more fish but increased fishing pressure, since anglers are attracted to stocked lakes; therefore, the quality of fishing will likely be reduced further. DRAFT Over the past decades, dramatic changes have occurred in the inland lakes system of south-eastern Ontario (i.e., the Kawartha Lakes) including the introduction of zebra mussels, which has dramatically increased water clarity, altering the amount of habitat suitable for walleye and other fish species. The fish community has also changed significantly with the introduction and establishment of “dominant” bluegill and black crappie populations. These two species directly impact walleye through predation on walleye fry and through growth and productivity of walleye as a result of resource competition (OFAH 2004). Climate change will also impact walleye-a cool water fish, both directly through increased phosphorus land temperature levels and through enhanced production of competitors, which strive in poorer water quality conditions.

78 NATURAL HERITAGE FEATURES AND AREAS SECTION 5

Catch per unit effort (CUE) is calculated as the number of fish caught per net lift. Provincially, a catch rate of less than 5 is considered to be low while a catch rate greater than 15 is considered a high density. The CUE for walleye in Belmont Lake for 1999 was 0.60; this walleye catch rate is the lowest surveyed in Ontario. Compared to other lakes in the south-central region, Belmont Lake walleye have low abundance, average growth, and a high mortality rate. The walleye population in Belmont Lake will continue to be investigated using FWIN and other survey techniques (?) to monitor their status.

MNR’s walleye management efforts include:

• Assessing walleye spawning areas and improving or enhancing them if necessary;

• Protecting aquatic plants that walleye or forage fish use for cover;

• Protecting rocky spawning shoals from pollution and sedimentation;

• Monitoring water levels and its effects on spawning success;

• Encouraging anglers to fish for other species; and

• Implementing regulations such as a slot size limit and/or greatly reduce the bag limit to reduce the harvest of walleye.

Currently, the walleye population is stressed by several environmental factors combined including habitat loss, angling pressures from the 1950s through to the 1970s, and the dams on the inlet and outlet of Crowe River, Belmont Lake. This type of bust and boom of walleye has occurred in several other lake introductions; it seems that some intricate part of their life cycle is deficient, or may be stressed by an external factor, and populations decline are a result of continual harvest. Belmont Lake is a clear lake, with a Secchi disc reading of >4.0 m, and its productivity is below average, two attributes which are not good for supporting a large walleye population. Therefore, Belmont Lake was probably not the best lake for walleye introductions because of water clarity-Secchi disc readings of greater than 3 metresDRAFT (m) are not recommended (Bell 2004). 5.5.2 Fish Habitat

Fish habitat, especially spawning and nesting areas, is primarily located in the littoral zone and near shore areas of the lake. Nesting and feeding sites vary among species, but a lake with a variety of habitats that include an ample supply of vegetation, such as woody debris, shade and rock, are indicative of good water quality and a healthy ecosystem. Unfortunately, the potentially negative impacts from development result in a loss of habitat and subsequent reduction in fish productivity.

The type of habitat necessary to support each fish population varies “Fish habitat means the spawning among species, however, it is understood that the maintenance grounds and nursery, rearing, food of healthy shorelines, the retention of vegetation and conserving supply, and migration areas on which wetland habitats as well as the health of the streams entering fish depend directly or indirectly in Belmont Lake are all critical factors in maintaining a healthy and order to carry out their life processes.” diverse fish community in Belmont Lake. Provincial Policy Statement, MNR

79 NATURAL HERITAGE FEATURES AND AREAS SECTION 5

Rocky shoals are the preferred spawning habitat for walleye, which are scattered throughout the south end of the lake, south of Taylor’s Bay near Birch Island, the northern tip of King Bay, north of Flat Rock Island, and north of Taylor Island along the shoreline. Prime spawning areas for muskellunge and largemouth bass, one in the upper reaches of Munn Bay and the other in the south-western bay at the southern limit of the lake. As well, smallmouth bass spawning occurs in the littoral waters around a nest of three small islands in the north part of the lake; walleye spawning grounds have been identified in the North River, immediately upstream fro the lake. Important fish spawning areas: tip of Munn Bay (muskellunge and largemouth bass), Green Island area (smallmouth bass), North River (walleye), and King Bay (muskellunge and largemouth bay).

The last recorded active fish spawning site mapping was initiated by MNR in the early 1960s to identify critical, high density, shoreline habitats for walleye, smallmouth and largemouth bass and muskellunge spawning habitat. Based upon information extracted from MNR lake files, bass nest mapping has never been initiated by the MNR for Belmont Lake. DRAFT

Map #7 – Fish Spawning Map

Walleye (native) is a cool water, top carnivorous fish. Walleye spawn in early spring from April to June, usually mid-May, when water temperatures are 3-10 °C. Adults broadcast their eggs over rocky substrate within similar shoal areas that are used by lake trout later in the year. Adults will usually spawn at night because adults are sensitive to bright lights and will often use sunken logs, boulder shoals, or weed beds to shield against the sun during the day.

Adult walleye prefer large shallow lakes (depths up to 21m) as well as streams, rivers and herbaceous wetlands, with high turbidity-reduced clarity, because walleyes are sight predators that hide in the vegetation stocking prey. The Crowe River inlet and North River appear to be the major spawning beds of Yellow Pickerel (Walleye) and Suckers. Here the walleye prefer spawning habitats to be 75% boulder and 25% rubble in the undeveloped upland hardwoods. Walleye prefer water temperature is 22 °C and have intermediated tolerance to environmental changes, and have a life span of 12-20 years.

80 NATURAL HERITAGE FEATURES AND AREAS SECTION 5

Greater Redhorse (Sucker Family) (native) is a warm water, benthic insectivorous fish. Its habitat preference are pools and runs of medium to large rivers with clear water and substrates of clean sand, gravel or boulders. The greater redhorse is intolerant to environmental change. It spawns in spring, May to June, when water temperatures are 16-19 °C, and has a life span 0f 12-15 years.

White sucker spawn in early spring from May to June in gravely streams. Adults prefer warm shallow lakes and bays for foraging.

Bass species nest in warm shallow areas of the lake, and on occasion in streams, which the males excavate to build nests and guard the young once they have hatched. Both largemouth and smallmouth bass have, on occasion, been caught in streams and are documented by experts to spawn in streams. Largemouth bass prefer slow-moving streams which contain an abundance of aquatic vegetation and smallmouth bass prefer swift flowing, less turbid waters in rivers and smaller streams. Smallmouth bass (native/introduced) is a warm water, top carnivorous fish, preferring clear, gravel-bottomed runs and flowing pools of small to large rivers, and shallow, rocky and sandy areas of lakes; preferred water temperature is 30.2 °C; intermediate tolerance to environmental change. It spawns in spring, May to June in water temperatures of 13-20 °C; guarders, nest spawners. Life span is 8-15 years.

Largemouth bass (native/introduced) is a warm water, top carnivorous fish. It prefers clear, warm, shallow lakes, bays, ponds, marshes and backwaters and pools of creeks (streams) and small to large rivers; often associated with soft mud or sand substrate and dense aquatic vegetation; usually at depths <6 m; preferred water temperature is 30.3 °C; intermediate tolerance to environmental change. It spawns is spring, May to June, when water temperatures are 17-22 °C; guarders and nest spawners. Life span is 13-23 years.

The Esocids-Muskellunge and Northern Pike share similar habitat preferences-submerged vegetation (“weedy bays”) and underwater cover such as fallen trees. Since they are both ambush predators, they need clarity. Both species, especially northern pike, are tolerant of areas with low dissolved oxygen; in particular areas heavily vegetated with Chara spp. (stonewort and muskgrass). Predation on young by walleye and largemouth bass, and competition with other top predators; for example, muskie population declines with an increase in northern pike and carp. DRAFT Northern Pike (native) are cool water, top carnivorous fish. Habitat preference is clear, warm, slow, meandering, heavily vegetated rivers or warm, weedy bays of lakes; preferred water temperature is 22.5 °C with an intermediate tolerance to environmental change. It spawns in spring, March to May when temperatures are 4-11°C; non-guarders, open substratum spawners. Life span is 10-26 years.

Northern Pike is native and is naturally widespread throughout the province except in the Kawartha Lakes. Northern Pike are voracious predators on other fish, and extremely territorial; they will attack anything that crosses its boundary, including waterfowl and aquatic mammals.

Muskellunge (native/introduced) are warm water, top carnivorous fish. Habitat preference is warm, heavily vegetated lakes as well as stumpy, weedy bays and slow, heavily vegetated rivers; preferred water temperature is 25.6 °C; intermediate tolerance to environmental change. It spawns in spring, April-May when water temperatures are 9-15 °C; non-guarders, open substratum spawners. Life span is 15-30 years.

81 NATURAL HERITAGE FEATURES AND AREAS SECTION 5

Esocids often coexist with walleye. Predation by northern pike on white sucker may indirectly benefit walleye by reducing competition between white sucker and yellow perch-walleye’s favourite food, but, in some waters, northern pike may compete directly with walleye by preying on yellow perch; increased competition from stocked pike increases walleye’s vulnerability to angling and vice versa (MNR 2004). Therefore, introduction of musky or northern pike should not be considered in walleye waters where they currently do not exist.

Both muskellunge and northern pike will often migrate downstream out of the water body in which they were released. Introduction of Esocids will change the local fish community by reducing the diversity of cyprinid species (Esocid Stocking, 2004).

Lake herring or Cisco (native/introduced) is a cold water, planktivorous invertivore (invertebrates). Lake herring spawn near shorelines-1 to 3 m (3-10 feet), broadcasting there eggs above a variety of substrate in the fall from October to December (November to December) when the water and ambient temperatures have cooled to 2-6 °C. Adult ciscos are predominantly pelagic species that form large schools in the deeper waters; they have been known to prey on other fish species eggs. Preferred habitat is open, mid-waters (13-53 m) of lakes and large rivers; preferred water temperature is 13-18 °C. Life span is 11-13 years.

Lake trout (native/introduced) is a cold water, top carnivorous fish. Habitat preference includes deep waters (30-90 m) of lakes, below the thermocline in summer; preferred water temperature is 10.0 °C; intolerant to environmental changes. It spawns in the fall, September to November when water temperatures are 8-14 °C; non-guarders and brood hiders. Life span is 28-36 years.

Brook (speckled) trout (native) is a cold water, top carnivorous fish. Habitat preference includes clear, cool, well-oxygenated streams, ponds and lakes with maximum water temperature less than 22 °C; preferred water temperature is 16.0 °C; intolerant to environmental change. It spawns in the fall, September to November when water temperatures are 4-10 °C; non-guarders and brood hiders. Life span is 5-9 years.

Burbot (ling) (native) is a cold water, top carnivorous fish. Habitat preference includes deep water (to 90 m) of lakes and large, cool rivers; preferredDRAFT water temperature is less than 18 °C; often under rocks, among roots or in holes in the banks. It spawns in the winter (January to March) when water temperatures are 0.6 to 1.7 °C; non-guarders and open substratum spawners. It has an intermediate tolerance to environmental change. Life span is 10-20 years.

American eel (native/introduced) is a cool water, top carnivorous fish. Habitat preference includes near cover over muddy, silty bottoms of lakes, rivers and creeks; preferred water temperature is 19.0 °C; tolerant to environmental change. It spawns in winter, January to March in marine environments at temperatures 17 °C (marine temps); non-guarders, open substratum spawners. Life span is 20-43 years (female).

Black crappie (native) is a cool water, top carnivorous fish. Habitat preference includes clear, quiet, warm water of large ponds, small lakes, bays and shallower areas of larger lakes and areas of low flow of larger rivers, associated with abundant aquatic vegetation and mud or sand substrate; preferred water temperature is 21.7 °C; intermediate tolerance to environmental change. It spawns in Spring-Summer, May-July when temperatures are 13-23 °C; they are nest spawners and guarders. Life span is 8-13 years. It is a native species so widely introduced that the native range is difficult to determine, but they are common in lakes, ponds, pools of streams and backwaters of lowlands.

82 NATURAL HERITAGE FEATURES AND AREAS SECTION 5

Blue gill (native) is a warm water, generalist feeder fish. Its habitat preference includes vegetated small lakes, ponds, shallow weedy bays of larger lakes and pools of creeks and small to large rivers; preferred water temperature is 30.9 °C; intermediate tolerance to environmental change. It spawns in spring-summer, May-August, when water temperatures are 19-27 °C; guarders and nest spawners. Life span is 8-11 years. Bluegill is native to the St. Lawrence-Great Lakes and is often found in vegetated lakes, ponds, swamps and pools of creeks (streams) or small to large rivers.

Brown bullhead will occur along the shallow bottoms of warm lakes, bays or slow moving streams. Spawning occurs in spring; adults will excavate a shallow nest in a lake bottom of mud or sand, or among vegetation, or near a rock or log. The nests are usually found along the shoreline in bays or creek mouths; the young are raised in these warm water shallows where they feed on benthic invertebrates.

Rock bass generally inhabit rocky areas of shallow, warm water lakes and warm reaches of streams. Spawning occurs mid-May after the adult males have excavated shallow nests, wherever possible-preferring gravely substrate, so that the female is able to deposit her eggs. Many nests can, often, be found clustered together in suitable habitat within the littoral zone, where the young are able to survive by feeding on benthic invertebrates and other small fish.

Pumpkinseed inhabits weedy bays of warm water lakes, preferring clear water, with a vegetative cover. Adult males dig shallow nests in areas of slow moving water on hard bottoms within areas of aquatic vegetation, and guard the young when they hatch.

Yellow perch is a very adaptable species that is able to utilize a wide variety of warm to cooler habitats. Spawning occurs from mid-April to early May in the shallows of lakes near vegetation where transparent eggs are excreted in the form of a gelatinous tube, which attaches to aquatic vegetation. The young live in schools, often associated with minnow species, including spottail shiner (Notropis hudsonius), within the littoral zone.

Cyprinidae (minnow) species’ habitat preference and spawning schedules vary; more information on the community of minnows can be providedDRAFT once a thorough inventory of the lake community is assessed. Note-No in-water work should occur during April 1st to July 15th during the spawning and nursery periods of Belmont Lake’s fish community; if sediment and erosion control are impeded, no further work should occur until the sediment and/or erosion problem is addressed; and all equipment entering the water should be fluid free.

Water Levels

The Trent River basin encompasses over 200 lakes in the Haliburton Highlands region, 43 of which are directly controlled by the Waterway dams, including Belmont Lake. The use of the Trent-Severn Waterway has grown as well as the concerns regarding spring flooding, ice damage, erosion, contaminated water quality, loss of habitat and changing fish communities resulting from artificial water level manipulations. The Trent Severn/Crowe Valley Conservation Authority owns and operates the Belmont Lake dam located at the outlet of Belmont Lake in Belmont Township, which has been in operation since March 1953.

83 NATURAL HERITAGE FEATURES AND AREAS SECTION 5

The management of lake levels or extraction of water alters the historic natural environment and can impact natural lake ecosystem functioning and system productivity. High water levels create flooded conditions along the shoreline can cause erosion, loss of vegetation, and property damage, increased nutrient enrichment and other water quality changes. Extended periods of low water levels can expose sediments in the littoral zone; create compressed and deeper thermoclines which will result in the loss of optimal habitats and biodiversity due to mortality of the disruptions of aquatic plant and animal lifecycles.

Urban development and climate change have also significantly altered water cycles. Increased urbanized and impervious landscapes and higher summer temperatures also reduce the amount of quality habitat available to the fish community.

5.5.3 Fish Contaminants

Effluents from watershed runoff that enters the surface and ground water sources are taken-up by aquatic organisms; these contaminants such as mercury, dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT) and PCB’s make it into the aquatic and terrestrial food chain, biologically accumulating, which magnifies or increases their negative impacts, along the way.

Contaminants such as mercury that bio-accumulates in fish is a concern in Belmont Lake, especially for expectant mothers and young children. Figure 5.14 shows data taken from the 2003-2004 Guide To Eating Ontario Sport Fish produced by the MOE; the guide indicates that Belmont Lake fish have been tested for mercury, PCB’s, mirex, photomirex, pesticides and other heavy metals. Health Canada established a guideline levels of 0.5 parts per million (ppm) of methyl mercury in fish; waters with high mercury levels in fish are closed to commercial fishing and the local MNR office monitors the mercury levels of fish annually on recreational lakes. Values in the table indicate the number of meals that can be consumed, without exceeding a tolerable daily toxin limit, per month. The guidelines for women of childbearing age and children under 15 years of age are more stringent; MOE advises that women of childbearing years and children under the age of 15 should eat only those fish, from any size category, designated with a clear fish in the guide, which indicates no more than four (4) meals of these freshwater fish per month,DRAFT and for other designations, those fish should not be consumed; for other individuals, no more than eight (8) meals (clear fish symbol) or otherwise designated (numerical symbols) per month. For complete information with respect to the recommended consumption rates the guide should be obtained from the local MNR or MOE office, or on-line at http://www.ene.gov.on.ca/envision/guide/, and studied.

Keep smaller fish for eating because they tend to be much less contaminated than larger fish such as walleye and pike. The consumption table in the guide does not provide advisories for muskellunge because the Sport Fish Contaminant Monitoring Program encourages capture and release of this species to help maintain healthy muskellunge populations, which cannot sustain heavy fishing pressures (MOE, 2004).

84 NATURAL HERITAGE FEATURES AND AREAS SECTION 5

Figure 5.11 – Guide to Eating Fish-Number of Meals per Month for Belmont Lake Length cm (inches) 15-20 20-25 25-30 30-35 35-40 40-45 45-50 50-55 (6-8) (8-10) (10-12) (12-14) (14-16) (16-18) (18-20) (20-22) Largemouth 8 / 4 4 / 0 2 / 0 Bass2 Yellow Perch2 8 / 8 8 / 4 Rock Bass1 8 / 4 8 / 0 Pumkinseed1 8 / 8 Black = General Population. Red = Sensitive Population - Women of child bearing age and children under 15. Source: MOE’s 2005-2004 Guide to Eating Ontario Sport Fish Contaminants Analyzed: 1Mercury and 2Mercury, PCBs, mirex/photomirex, and pesticides

Observations – Fish Community

• Historically, the lake supported a warm water fishery dominated by smallmouth bass and muskellunge, with a small cold water component comprised of lake herring (Cisco). Walleye and largemouth bass were introduced to enhance fishing opportunities in the early 1920s and 1930s, respectfully. Lake trout were periodically stocked from 1926 to 1943, and brook trout were stocked in streams flowing into Belmont and Round lakes.

• Smallmouth bass and muskellunge were stocked to supplement existing native populations.

• Walleye were last stocked in 1946 because the population was naturally reproducing.

• The last recorded sighting for lake herring, a cold water indicator, was in the early 1970s. • Today, Belmont Lake supports a warmDRAFT water fish population. • Northern pike, bluegill, black crappie and rock bass have all been introduced inadvertently to Belmont Lake via the Crowe River (Trent Severn Waterway).

85 NATURAL HERITAGE FEATURES AND AREAS SECTION 5

• The fishing community is quite complex. There are 32 species of fish identified within the Belmont Lake and the streams that flow into it.

• Historically a cool water system, Belmont Lake became a predominantly warm water system at the onset of landscape development and accelerated with the repercussions of a variety of environmental changes such as climate change, pollution and sedimentation, as well as species introduction.

• BLCA has reported a decline in quality fishing in Belmont Lake since the late 1940s.

• Critical fish spawning sites for walleye, small- and largemouth bass, and muskellunge have been mapped in the Crowe River and bays of Belmont Lake, but individual bass nest mapping has not been initiated by the MNR.

• Belmont Lake is closed to ice-fishing. The purpose of the winter closure in Division 6 was to protect the walleye fishery.

• Perhaps, Belmont Lake was not the best lake for walleye introductions because of water clarity-Secchi disc readings of greater than 3 metres (m) is not recommended, Belmont Lake Secchi depths averaged 4.6 m.

• Walleye stocking efforts have been unsuccessful, so MNR no longer stocks walleye.

• Deer Lake Fish Culture station was the predominant source of hatchery-reared muskie for all of Ontario until the facility closed in 1990 due to operational costs.

• The CVCA owns and operates the dam, which was in operation March 1953, located at the outlet of Belmont Lake in Belmont Township.

• Bays in Belmont Lake have been periodically closed by the MNR, and designated as walleye fish sanctuaries.

• In the summer 1983 a freshwater jellyfish (Crasoedacusta sowerbii) was discovered in Belmont Lake. This species is rarely found in natural waters but usually in human-made water bodies.

• The last fall walleye index netting (FWIN) survey, conducted in 1999 in early October in a water temperature window of 10-15 °C DRAFT • Compared to other lakes in the south-central region, Belmont Lake walleye have low abundance, average growth, and a high mortality rate. The walleye population is declining because of the negative impacts from several environmental and human-made stressors.

• The water level management regimes may be negatively impacting fish spawning beds-winter kill and desiccation of eggs, as well as other important littoral habitats; an earlier fall drawdown may address these issues; unfortunately, no recent assessment has been initiated; and due to the natural ecology of some fish, they are often stressed by multiple and compounded stresses.

• Lack of information regarding spawning site locations and population sizes exists for the minnow populations in Belmont Lake.

• The last angler creel survey was in the winter of 1990.

• There is a lack of information regarding species inventory, community index, and spawning and habitat requirements in streams.

86 NATURAL HERITAGE FEATURES AND AREAS SECTION 5

Recommendations – Fish Community

25. Sport fish populations are declining, therefore, the real causes should be identified, assessed and corrected.

26. If the best science should recommend the resumption of stocking at any time in the future, fisheries managers should, if possible, use local stock that is ecologically adapted to the local environmental conditions of Belmont Lake (If stocking should be resumed in the future, fisheries managers should apply good science and use local stock, if feasible, that is ecologically adapted to the local environmental conditions of Belmont Lake) to repopulate declining cold water and warm water sports fish, and move the current fish community towards the “original” fish community prior to invasive species.

27. The BLCA should provide volunteers to the MNR in order to assist with the annual active bass nest and walleye spawning surveys-a netting index per species to collect the data necessary for lake assessment and management strategy improvements.

28. In some areas, lakefront residents that have significantly altered or disturbed the shoreline habitat should be encouraged to return a significant portion of their property to as natural a state as possible, including in-water rehabilitation efforts.

29. Encourage 30 m vegetated shoreline setbacks, especially new setbacks, and the requirement for shoreline vegetation buffers for development adjacent to critical fish habitat.

30. Discourage sport fish tournaments. Restrict Rock Bass derbies to July and August-after bass spawning season.

31. The last volunteer angler creel surveys were initiated by the MNR in the early 1990s (winter). New annual volunteer creel surveys should be initiated to encourage local anglers to maintain an angling diary as an inventory technique (templates available from the Kawartha Fisheries Association).

32. A thorough species inventory needs to be initiated by the BLCA, in partnership with the MNR, to identify native, rare and exotic species and estimate relative abundance indices for the lake as well as identify important habitat sites for protection alongDRAFT the shoreline. The BLCA should consider hiring a few summer students to seine the shorelines of Belmont Lake; MNR and staff biologists could train the students on how to survey and collect voucher specimens and provide the necessary equipment to perform these surveys. Note – A zoological expert in species identification is important because most of the fish caught along the shoreline in seine nets are quite small and often difficult to properly identify. As well, MNR standard protocols for data collection must be used to ensure the value of the data.

33. Standardized methodologies for monitoring and collecting data on the lake need to be made as well as gathering historical data and managing it within a standardized and accessible database.

87 NATURAL HERITAGE FEATURES AND AREAS SECTION 5

5.6 Wild Life and Wildlife Habitat

The area around Belmont Lake has an abundant wildlife population, including mammals, birds, reptiles and amphibians, which make wildlife viewing an important recreational pastime for lake residents. Protection of wildlife habitat in and around the lake is, therefore, vital to the conservation of biological diversity and the preservation of self-sustaining species’ populations around Belmont Lake. However, if habitat fragmentation continues because of development pressures, loss of this valuable resource will be the end result. This report focuses on certain specific wildlife species or those groups of particular interest, and provides comments, observations and recommendations that generally apply to all wildlife.

While ducks and other birds migrate south to more favourable climates, some mammals of the Belmont Lake area have developed methods to survive the harsh winters of the Algonquin Region. Many mammals, including bats and the black bear, enter into hibernation or torpor (sporadic periods of hibernation) where they sleep for extended periods of time during the winter months, versus other mammals, such as the white-tailed deer, moose, weasel, beaver, vole and bobcat, which remain active year-round, but may adapt their behaviours according to the local climate.

Figure 5.12 – List of Common Mammals In the Belmont Lake Area White-tailed Deer Porcupine Woodchuck (Groundhog) Moose Bats (Northern long-eared bat, Mice (white footed mouse Elk eastern pipistrelle, and the and deer mouse) Raccoon little brown bat) Moles spp. (not identified) Black Bear Weasel species (possibly least, Shrew spp. (not identified) Lynx* and short-tailed and Vole spp. (meadow vole) Mink long-tailed weasel) Beaver Bobcat Red Fox Muskrat Northern River Otter Eastern Chipmunk Hares (snowshoe hare) MartenDRAFT Squirrels Rabbits (eastern cottontail) Striped Skunk (red and grey squirrels) Fisher Wolf (Gray and, possibly, Algonquin Red-Wolf) Source: NHIC, 2004

88 NATURAL HERITAGE FEATURES AND AREAS SECTION 5

5.6.1 Significant Mammal Species and Habitats

White-tailed Deer (Odocoileus virginianus)

White-tailed deer are at their northern range limit in Ontario because of the harsh winter conditions. Fortunately, deer have adapted themselves to survive these harsh conditions by migrating from summer ranges into “deer yards”, which provide suitable winter cover and food for winter survival such as dense coniferous forests where travel is easier. “Yarding”, which is an important behaviour of herding in large concentrations, helps deer to survive cold temperatures and harsh winds, maintain trails or travel corridors-where the snow is less deep, to help conserve energy and provide an escape from predators, provides “camouflaged” protection against predators, and these areas offer a food source of woody browse from hardwood trees and/or conifer needles from white cedar and hemlock trees. Deer will continue to use deer yards even when food supplies are low, indicating that shelter is a priority, for deer, over food.

The location of deer yards associated with Belmont Lake and other important wildlife habitat is shown on Map #8. One huge deer wintering area extends, encompassing Concessions 5 and 6, and a bit of 4 and 7, from Lots 17 to 24 from the mouth of the North River, including the eastern shoreline of the large wetland in Taylor’s and Munn bays, towards the east to Round Lake, and north towards Lost Lake. There is another, smaller deer yard northwest of the Crowe River outletDRAFT that encompasses Concessions 1 and 2 from Lots 15 to 17.

Map #8

89 NATURAL HERITAGE FEATURES AND AREAS SECTION 5

Raggedly browsed vegetation-ripped or torn instead of neatly clipped due to lack of incisors; “buck rubs” – polished scars or missing bark from low saplings, shrubs, or small trees due to bucks rubbing their antlers; and “buck scrapes” or pawed depressions in the ground, scat, or body-sized depressions in leaves or snow are all evidence of deer presence in the upland zones.

Deer can more readily survive the harsh winters when a wetland has significant winter cover. Low activity during the winter months allows for efficient energy saving, but the reduction or loss of deer yards results in a scarcity of food and coupled with the exhaustion of fat reserves means deer will starve and die. The management alternative is to feed wintering deer by supplementing their diets with feed, which prevents a large loss of wintering deer, but this creates an artificial carrying capacity causing high reproduction, which causes problems during the spring and summer months by eliminating almost entirely the local vegetation diet.

According to the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunter’s biologists, deer numbers near Peterborough are stable to increasing…everywhere south of Algonquin Park, deer are doing well, having benefited from the relatively mild winters in recent years.

For further information on deer habitat and deer ecology, contact the Peterborough MNR District office or visit http://www.mnr.gov.on.ca/MNR/ on-line.

Elk (Cervus elaphus, “Wapiti” in Native tongue)

Elk is a very large member of the cervid or deer family; moose is the largest, standing six and a half to seven and a half feet tall. The Elk is brown, with darker under parts (juveniles are spotted until three (3) months of age), and has a thick neck, slender legs, a rump patch, with a yellowish-brown tail (moose, which resemble elk, lack the rump and tail), many-tined antlers (males only), and canine incisors-a unique feature for ungulates which is exclusive to elk.

Elk are primarily nocturnal-actively feeding on woody vegetation and lichen at dawn and dusk, and bedding down during the day. Elk are very gregarious (social) creatures, with strong herding instincts; for example, a bull during rutting season will often congregateDRAFT with several cows, creating a breeding harem. The breeding season commences in late August to November-peaking in October and November, when 1 or 2 (usually one) calf is born nine (9) months later during the summer months.

The elk prefer grasslands and open mixed woodlands, occasionally ranging into coniferous forest areas. It will frequently mark its territory by stripping bark from seedlings and rubbing the seedlings with their antlers and muzzle as well as urinating in dug depressions in the ground or on trees. Elk are also quite vocal creatures, especially during the rutting season or when warning the herd of impending danger.

The Provincial Elk Restoration Advisory Committee is responsible for the reintroduction of Elk to Ontario. A combination of over-harvesting by the early settlers and habitat loss caused the extirpation of the eastern elk population. The elk re-introduction project is a provincially mandated effort to re-establish this ungulate to its historical natural range; the goal of the elk program is to introduce 500 animals to Ontario.

90 NATURAL HERITAGE FEATURES AND AREAS SECTION 5

Two herds from the Rocky Mountain Elk-a genetically similar stock, from Alberta have been successfully relocated to certain parts of Ontario. The Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources approved the elk restoration plan in 1997, which has been successfully received by several release sites in northern Ontario including Bancroft-North Hastings Elk Restoration Project (Bancroft). In January 2000 and 2001, 70 and 50 radio-collared elk, respectively, were released to North Hastings, 25 km southeast of the Town of Bancroft. The studies include population dynamics, elk/deer interaction, and monitoring elk movements. Past introduction attempts, since the 1890s, by the Ontario government have been sporadic and sighting reports have been occasional and scattered throughout Ontario.

Peterborough MNR District gets 1 to 2 strays from the Bancroft North Hastings (BNH) area a year. Peterborough is not part of the rehabilitation program. In 2004, a landowner reported a cow and her calf several times near the intersection of County Road 48 and Belmont Line 2nd Line, and 3 elk (2 radio collared adults and 1 calf) were reported on May 20th at the corner of Cordova Road and the 6th Line of Belmont Township north of Havelock and near Cordova Mines (The Ontario Elk Program Update, Edition 18, May 2004).

Black Bear (Ursus americanus)

Bear numbers are excellent in central Ontario’s boreal forest, they are even better in areas from central Ontario northwest along the shores of the Great Lakes. Black bears are predominantly found in forested or swampy areas. The bear is primarily solitary except during breeding or feeding at dumps. Nuisance bears have become a major problem in Ontario because of open dumps or human encroachment on their natural habitats. Nuisance bears are dangerous because they begin to lose their fear of humans and become bolder-an acclimatized bear. Therefore, never encourage a bear by feeding it because acclimatized bears are hard to get rid of; they will return and must, unfortunately, be “destroyed” (shot).

Many black bears are killed by poachers for a variety of parts including the teeth, claws, and especially the gall bladder, which is sought after as an aphrodisiac. One gall bladder can be worth several thousand dollars on the black market. This illegal trade in black bear parts is one of the biggest threats to their existence today. In 1992, the Ontario Ministry of NaturalDRAFT Resources banned the spring bear hunt-originally introduced to reduce the male bear population in an area to prevent a rise in nuisance bears, to reduce the number of orphaned cubs because of misidentified adults during the spring hunt.

There has been a lot of pressure by the public to reinstate the spring bear hunt, but the black bear population, around the world, has been hard hit by poaching that the ban will not be lifted for some time in Ontario.

The MNR Peterborough District office has a bear population index program, which is conducted each year, and when public safety becomes an issue the MNR takes action. The District office works with the public to remove attractants and advise folks about what to do when a bear is encountered.

The Ministry of Natural Resources is taking a “multi-pronged approach to bear management: reporting, response, prevention and education and awareness”. Prevention is the key to reducing human-bear conflicts. Through education and awareness the MNR is implementing a campaign to inform the public on how to reduce situations and items that attract bears and how to handle bear encounters. As far as responses to reporting or non-emergency nuisance bears call MNR…toll free line 1-800-514-BEAR (2327). For emergency responses, please call the Police or 911 (information from H. Ball, 2004).

91 NATURAL HERITAGE FEATURES AND AREAS SECTION 5

Other Interesting Mammals

Other interesting animals within the wetlands and watershed of Belmont Lake, including the Town of Havelock, are the bobcat and Canadian lynx; the grey and, possibly, eastern red (Algonquin) wolves; several bats species including the northern long-eared bat and eastern pipistrelle bat; various rodents including porcupine, beaver, deer and white-footed mouse, meadow vole, muskrat, woodchuck, eastern chipmunk, red and eastern grey squirrel, and southern flying squirrel; rabbits and hares; weasels including American marten, fisher, short-tailed and long-tailed weasel and, possibly, least weasel, mink and northern river otter; and raccoon.

Many of these mammals are provincially rare species in Ontario because of their low population numbers or limited dispersal due to human encroachment, intensive trapping for fur, roads and cars, habitat destruction due to development or pollution, and/or direct persecution. For example, the northern river otter’s population has drastically declined in Ontario and much of its North American range because its fur was extensively trapped in the past and, more recently, toxic pollutants especially mercury has taken its toll on the remaining populations. It is, therefore, incredibly important to understand the intricate role that each of these species plays in balancing the health of the natural environment, and to help maintain and conserve the local ecosystem’s biological diversity because the loss of just one species offsets the balance-without bats, for example, Belmont Lake would be overrun with moths and other flying insects.

5.6.2 Significant Bird Species and Habitats

“Birds are the affirmation of life. They symbolize freedom. The whimsy of their songs has filled our souls with joy and wonder.” Ornithologist, Roger Tory Peterson

Belmont Lake is home to a great variety of bird species, which are listed in Figure 5.14. Many of these species are migrant songbirds, which migrate from the South American regions to breed in Ontario during the spring and summer months. Other species such as ducks, geese, owls and some coniferous songbirds are year-round residents of Belmont Lake and can be seen at various times of the year on or near Belmont Lake. Figure 5.13DRAFT – Bird Species for Northern (square 18TQ73) and Southern (square 18TQ72) Belmont Lake Common Loon* Tree Swallow* Double-crested Cormorant Northern Rough-winged Swallow** American Bittern Barn Swallow*/** Least Bittern Black-capped Chickadee*/** Great Blue Heron Red-breasted Nuthatch** Green Heron White-breasted Nuthatch* Turkey Vulture Brown Creeper** Canada Goose*/** House Wren** Wood Duck Winter Wren Mallard** Marsh Wren Hooded Merganser Golden-crowned Kinglet continue

92 NATURAL HERITAGE FEATURES AND AREAS SECTION 5

Figure 5.14 – Bird Species for Northern (square 18TQ73) and Southern (square 18TQ72) Belmont Lake (continued) Common Loon* Tree Swallow* Common Merganser Eastern Bluebird*/** Osprey** Veery Northern Harrier** Hermit Thrush Sharp-shinned Hawk Wood Thrush Northern Goshawk American Robin*/** Red-shouldered Hawk Gray Catbird*/** Red-tailed Hawk Brown Thrasher** Broad-winged Hawk* European Starling*/** American Kestrel*/** Cedar Waxwing Merlin* Golden-winged Warbler Ruffed Grouse*/** Blue-winged Warbler Wild Turkey** Brewster’s Warbler Virginia Rail** Nashville Warbler Sora Yellow Warbler** Common Moorhen Chestnut-sided Warbler*/** Killdeer Magnolia Warbler Spotted Sandpiper Black-throated Blue Warbler Upland Sandpiper Yellow-rumped Warbler* Wilson’s Snipe Black-throated Green Warbler** American Woodcock Blackburnian Warbler Ring-billed GullDRAFT Pine Warbler Herring Gull Black-and-white Warbler** Common Tern American Redstart** Black Tern** Ovenbird Rock Pigeon Northern Waterthrush** Mourning Dove** Mourning Warbler Black-billed Cuckoo Common Yellowthroat** Yellow-billed Cuckoo Canada Warbler Great Horned Owl Scarlet Tanager Common Nighthawk Chipping Sparrow*/** Whip-poor-will Field Sparrow Ruby-throated Hummingbird Vesper Sparrow

93 NATURAL HERITAGE FEATURES AND AREAS SECTION 5

Figure 5.13 – Bird Species for Northern (square 18TQ73) and Southern (square 18TQ72) Belmont Lake (continued) Common Loon* Tree Swallow* Belted Kingfisher*/** Savannah Sparrow Yellow-billed Sapsucker*/** Grasshopper Sparrow Downy Woodpecker Song Sparrow*/** Hairy Woodpecker Swamp Sparrow Northern Flicker* White-throated Sparrow Pileated Woodpecker*/** Northern Cardinal Eastern Wood-Pewee Rose-breasted Grosbeak Alder Flycatcher Indigo Bunting** Willow Flycatcher Bobolink Least Flycatcher Red-winged Blackbird*/** Eastern Phoebe*/** Eastern Meadowlark Great Crested Flycatcher Western Meadowlark Eastern Kingbird** Common Grackle*/** Yellow-throated Vireo Brown-headed Cowbird*/** Blue-headed Vireo Baltimore Oriole Warbling Vireo Purple Finch Red-eyed Vireo** House Finch Blue Jay*/** American Goldfinch American Crow*/** Evening Grosbeak Common Raven* House Sparrow*/** Horned Lark DRAFT Purple Martin Source: "Data provided by the Ontario Breeding Bird Atlas, 2001-2005 <2005-03-02>, " One * indicates confirmed breeding in square 18TQ73 and two ** indicates confirmed breeding in square 18TQ72.

Habitat preferences vary with each bird species-some prefer the dense forest cover while others prefer the open fields, shores or wetland areas. The variety of birds that exist in the Belmont Lake area is a product of the variety of natural habitat, including food sources (both insects and vegetation) and nesting sites, found in the region. Certain wetlands have exceptional waterfowl staging, molting and breeding areas as well as significant stopover areas within its marshes, swamps and fens; these areas are critical habitat during molting or provide desirable vegetation and cover during migration…staging areas for migrating ducks and waterfowl. Therefore, in order to protect this diversity, it is important for the residents to ensure that the current variety of existing habitat is maintained and protected within the Belmont Lake region.

94 NATURAL HERITAGE FEATURES AND AREAS SECTION 5

Ducks

Dabbling and diving ducks use many of the wetland areas found in central Ontario as breeding territories and staging areas or rest-stops to refuel during migration. The mallard has been confirmed breeding in Belmont Lake’s watershed through observations of adults leaving or entering nests, and wood duck pairs have been observed in their breeding season in suitable breeding habitat by the Breeding Bird Atlas volunteers. Mallards are found in most areas around Belmont Lake and have adapted to the increased population and boat traffic, whereas other water birds, such as the wood duck, prefer the more secluded and protected wetland areas away from human activities. Mallards make their nests in spring on the shorelines and wetlands surrounding Belmont Lake, which, unfortunately, makes their eggs and young more vulnerable to dry-land predators such as foxes and raccoons. Other dabbling ducks or game birds, such as shovelers, teals, gadwalls and wigeons, and diving ducks, such as redheads, scaups, mergansers, buffleheads, goldeneyes and ruddy ducks, have summer breeding ranges that extend into the Belmont Lake watershed area but, unfortunately, these species have not been listed on the Breeding Bird Atlas List nor have their presence been verified by the local MNR office.

Diving ducks found on central Ontario lakes, such as the common merganser and the common loon, live primarily on the open waters of the lake where they can continually dive for food such as small baitfish or mussels including consuming large quantities of zebra mussels. These two birds can dive to great depths to pursue their prey and roam over the entire lake to satisfy their hunger.

The American black duck is a species that is the subject of unique concern in Ontario wetlands because it has been suffering continuous decline on its wintering areas in the United States. In southern and central Ontario, American black duck populations have been reduced to very low populations, whereas the mallard has been steadily increasing its population numbers substantially. It is important, especially to the ecological and recreational stability of Belmont Lake, to retain its marshes and swamps, those that have suitable brood-rearing habitat-emergent vegetation for cover and shallow water for feeding, for the American black duck.

During the spring and fall migration periods, Belmont Lake may be used as a staging area, attracting a great variety of ducks that commonly nestDRAFT further north; the most common of these visitors are the Lesser Scaup (Bluebills), Bufflehead and Goldeneye. The attraction to Belmont Lake is the availability of food; ducks prefer the areas of the lake that have significant patches of aquatic vegetation, which are primarily found in the littoral zone. A good supply of aquatic invertebrates, vegetation and small fish is required in order for these ducks to forage adequately and continue their migration northward towards the Hudson Bay Lowlands in the spring or southward towards the tropics in the fall. Therefore, in order for Belmont Lake to attract and retain a diverse and healthy community of migratory water birds, shoreline residents must help maintain a healthy aquatic ecosystem, with a significant supply of healthy aquatic vegetation, along the shoreline and within the littoral zone.

95 NATURAL HERITAGE FEATURES AND AREAS SECTION 5

Heronries

The maintenance of established heronries and associated feeding areas is important to ensure the stability of breeding populations of herons and egrets because established heronries are an important biological resource for Ontario. The American Bittern, Least Bittern, Green Heron and the Great Blue Heron have been observed during their breeding season in suitable breeding habitat in Belmont Lake’s watershed area. The Great Blue Heron is the largest and most wide spread heron in Ontario, and those colonies located on the Canadian Shield are smaller and more numerous than colonies south of the shield. Heronries may be occupied for decades due to the favourable habitat conditions; if birds are forced to relocate, the alternative habitat may be less qualified or even inhospitable for breeding.

Colonial water birds, such as the Great Blue Heron, are especially vulnerable to human activity and disturbance and habitat destruction during the breeding season, especially when large numbers of birds are concentrated in a confined area. Herons tend to desert nests and entire colonies if disturbed during pair bonding, nest construction, or early egg-laying stages. Desertions of entire colonies are responsible for the major portion of a population’s reproductive output and can affect the stability of the entire regional population of herons, even when the heronry is relocated.

The effects of human activity may vary in response to a number of environmental factors such as location or timing of the disturbance. However, the density of the vegetation in and surrounding the colony may influence the impact of the disturbance; the removal of trees and shrubs facilitates the intrusion of humans and predators as well as increases the exposure of nests to fluctuating water levels and run-off. Therefore, by retaining the natural vegetation and conserving wetland habitats along the shorelines and within the riparian and upland zones, natural buffers against disturbance can be maintained and alternate nest sites provided in order to help protect Ontario’s heronry populations.

Great Blue Heron heronries have not been mapped by the MNR. According to the Ontario Breeding Bird Atlas, Great Blue Herons have been observed in suitable habitat and possibly breeding in square 18TQ72, which extends into the southern portion ofDRAFT Belmont Lake’s watershed, and 18TQ73, which extends into the northern portion of Belmont Lake’s watershed. There is also active feeding and nesting of Great Blue Heron on Round Lake reported by the Breeding Bird Atlas.

Loons

The common loon is the provincial bird of Ontario, but only a few (one to two) breeding pairs will inhabit a lake at one time. The loon’s haunting call, has become a symbol of the peace and solitude of northern living; it would be difficult to imagine Belmont Lake without nesting loons. Unfortunately, this could become an unacceptable reality unless the residents of Belmont Lake ensure that proper loon habitat conditions-a quiet lake surrounded by rocky and forested natural shorelines that offer an abundance of baitfish-are maintained. Over the last 150 years, Common Loons have been squeezed out of their breeding areas and their numbers have declined. Nesting habitat has been destroyed and young loons are starving in fishless, acidic lakes. The daily rituals of loons are disrupted by careless people, and loons are often exposed to harmful chemicals (acid rain leaches mercury and other toxic chemicals).

96 NATURAL HERITAGE FEATURES AND AREAS SECTION 5

Loons rely on an abundant supply of baitfish in a lake for their diets. Maintaining clear, uncontaminated water in a lake allows the loons to use their astonishing speed, lightning fast underwater pivots, and quick thrusts to hunt and seize baitfish in Belmont Lake.

The loon’s streamlined body and webbed feet are built for maximum efficiency underwater; unfortunately, this design makes them very awkward on land. The loon’s nest are usually located on small islands, built close to shore so that these birds rarely have to move over more than a foot or two of land. The nest is usually no more than a pile of twigs or a hollow area in the dried riparian vegetation. A loon usually lays two large eggs, and the young enter the water within a few hours of hatching; you can often see the adults carrying their young on their backs across the lake. The proximity of nests close to the water allows for a quick escape route from danger; unfortunately, it also exposes their nests to flooding, swamping and wave action. It is, therefore, vitally important to protect the reproductive ability of loons to assist them in rearing healthy young each year despite their small broods.

Shoreline development, fishing hooks and line, water level fluctuations, water craft and nest predators put these birds at risk of population declines. Ten steps to keeping your lake loon friendly include: keeping it wild, naturalizing shorelines, watching your wake (sensitive boating practices), using non-lead sinkers and jigs, monitoring water quality, reduce large water level changes during the nesting season (May to July), don’t feed nest predators (racoons or gulls), lobby for loons (air pollution and water quality programs), and spread the word for conservation.

The familiar tremolo or “laughing” call is a distress call that loons give when alarmed or threatened. Quiet hoots or mews are intimate chats among loons. The wild “yodel” with repeated triplets at the end, is a territorial call given by males. If you witness the penguin dance, you are too close to the nest or chicks and should leave the area immediately. This display is a loon’s last resort to distract a predator or intruder from its nest. Become a volunteer for the Canadian Lakes Loon Survey for Bird Studies Canada. For more information regarding Loons, please visit http://www.bsc-eoc.org.

Today, increased human activity is one of the main causes for losses of loon populations on northern lakes. Loons are particularly sensitive to development and shoreline disturbances. Power boaters and other activities that cause excessive waves and noise disturbDRAFT the nesting loons, loon chicks, or feeding loons. Sensitivity to such disturbances will often cause loons to abandon nesting sites and/or the lake completely. The presence of loons on a lake is often used as a biological indicator of the ecosystem’s health.

The common loon is present and breeding in Belmont Lake’s watershed, unfortunately, MNR has no nest mapping evidence.

For more information on specific bird species or to report a sighting, please contact Bird Studies Canada at http://[email protected], the Ontario Breeding Bird Atlas at http://www.birdsontario.org/atlas/, the Long Point Bird Observatory at http://www.bsc-esc.org, or the Natural Heritage Information Centre at http://www.mnr.gov.on.ca/MNR/nhic/nhic.cfm.

97 NATURAL HERITAGE FEATURES AND AREAS SECTION 5

5.6.3 Significant Reptiles and Amphibians

Belmont Lake shorelines, riparian zones, and wetlands are home to a variety of reptiles and amphibians (Figure 5.15) including several rare and/or “at risk” turtle and snake species. Amphibian and reptile species, 13 in all, encountered during the course of the botanical fieldwork included: bull frog, green frog, northern leopard frog, wood frog, spring peeper frog, grey tree frog, and blue-spotted salamander; and northern water snake, eastern gartner snake, eastern ribbon snake, northern redbelly snake, smooth green snake, and midland painted turtle.

Figure 5.14 – List of Reptiles and Amphibians In the Belmont Lake Area Amphibians Spotted Salamander Ambystoma maculatum Eastern/Red-spotted Newt Notophthalmus viridescens Northern Redback Salamander Plethodon cinereus Jefferson/blue-spotted Salamander Complex Ambystoma jeffersonianum-laterale “complex” Spring Peeper Pseudacris crucifer Gray Treefrog Hyla versicolor Wood Frog Rana sylvatica Northern Leopard Frog Rana pipiens Pickerel Frog Rana palustris Northern Green Frog Rana clamitans melanota Western Chorus Frog Pseudacris triseriata Bull Frog Rana catesbeiana American Toad Bufo americansu Reptiles Five-lined Skink Lizard Eumeces fasciatus Common Snapping Turtle Chelydra serpentina serpentina Midland Painted TurtleDRAFT Chrysemys picta marginata Stinkpot/Musk Turtle* Sternotherus odoratus Northern Map Turtle* Graptemys geographica Blanding’s turtle* Emydoidea blandingii Spotted turtle* Clemmys guttata Eastern Garter snake Thamnophis sirtalis sirtalis Dekay’s Brown Snake Storeria dekayi Northern Water snake Nerodia sipedon sipedon Northern Redbelly snake Storeria occipitomaculata Northern/Easterm Ribbon snake* Thamnophis sauritus Eastern Hog-nosed snake* Heterodon platirhinos Eastern Milk snake* Lampropeltis triangulum (Eastern) Smooth Green snake Opheodrys vernalis * Species at Risk Source: D.A. Sutherland (1999); NHIC – Herpetofaunal Atlas (2000); and ROM (2005)

98 NATURAL HERITAGE FEATURES AND AREAS SECTION 5

In the past 20 years, there has been a noted decline in the world’s frog population; a significant decline that has initiated the use of biological indicators, such as frogs, to highlight, and identify notable environmental changes in ecosystem health. The decline of amphibian populations and the loss of biological diversity has been linked to climatic and landscape changes, such as acid rain, greenhouse gases, habitat loss, stream channelization, and effluents leaching into wetlands, due to several or a combination of environmental factors influenced by human activities such as the food trade, industrialization and habitat destruction for development purposes.

Amphibians are particularly at risk because of their life-cycle requirements; frogs and salamanders need both healthy aquatic and terrestrial habitats to fulfill their life-cycle. The loss of shoreline vegetation increases water temperatures and ultra-violet light exposure to the water column, which are both detrimental to these species’ eggs, which hatch in the littoral zone, and many toxins that are leached into the soils or deposited by rain inhibit normal growth in tadpoles.

Turtle and snake species have declined dramatically over the past 20 years because of habitat loss due to development encroachment, road traffic, and direct persecution. Many turtles lay their eggs in in-ground nests, which are heavily predated by both terrestrial and aquatic mammals, along sandy shorelines or gravely roadsides and trails, and the adults are often killed by on-coming traffic prior to or after the laying of these eggs. Unfortunately, snakes are often injured or killed because of misidentification. For example, the eastern Massasauga rattlesnake is Ontario’s only venomous snake and is primarily found in the Georgian Bay area; however, many other non-lethal snakes resemble the rattler, including the eastern hog-nose snake and the eastern milksnake, and have been “destroyed” because of misidentification and lack of education.

Several reptiles, including Blanding’s turtle, spotted turtle, Eastern Ribbon snake, Eastern Hog-nosed snake and Eastern Milk snake, and the five-lined skink lizard found in the Peterborough and Hastings counties, are all “at risk” and have special status designations both provincially and nationally in Ontario and Canada, which affords them some protection (Ontario Endangered Species Act and the Species At Risk Act) against “wilful” persecution and habitat destruction. These low numbers may be caused byDRAFT the annual draw down of the lake each fall. Turtles burrow in the sediments of the lake’s shallow waters during hibernation; in late fall as the water temperatures begin to drop and as shoreline mud flats freeze, the hibernating turtles could become frozen in the lake’s sediment.

If you find a turtle’s nest or an injured turtle on your property or along the roadside, please contact the Kawartha Turtle Trauma Centre at http://www.kawarthaturtle.org/ or the Toronto Zoo at http://www.torontozoo.com/ to find out how you can help.

99 NATURAL HERITAGE FEATURES AND AREAS SECTION 5

Observations – Wildlife

• There is a wide variety of wildlife on Belmont Lake.

• Most of the land that abuts and surrounds Belmont Lake is privately owned. Accordingly, the management of wildlife habitat is substantially dependent on each owner’s ability, knowledge and desire to manage his property.

• Significant numbers of ducks and other waterfowl, including loons, wood ducks, and common and hooded mergansers, are found on Belmont Lake, but their prime nesting habitats have not been identified.

• Fall drawdown of the lake water level may play a role in the decline of the turtle population, but with the fall drawdown complete by September 30th, well before turtles hibernate, this may no longer be a factor in turtle decline.

• Shoreline vegetation is incredibly important for the wildlife in Belmont Lake.

• Great Blue herons are present in Belmont Lake’s watershed, but their heronries’ locations have not been mapped by the MNR.

• One huge deer wintering area extends, encompassing Concessions 5 and 6, and a bit of 4 and 7, from Lots 17 to 24 from the mouth of the North River, including the eastern shoreline of the large wetland in Taylor’s and Munn bays, towards the east to Round Lake, and north towards Lost Lake. There is another, smaller deer yard northwest of the Crowe River outlet that encompasses Concessions 1 and 2 from Lots 15 to 17.

• Deer yards are an important feature to maintain the deer population during the winter months.

• There is no evidence of significant moose habitat or mineral licks in Belmont Lake’s watershed or the County of Peterborough.

• Three adult elks and two calves were reported in Belmont Lake’s watershed. Peterborough is not part of the rehabilitation program.

• The Peterborough MNR District hasDRAFT a black bear population index program, which is conducted each year, and a public advisory program about nuisance bears.

Recommendations – Wildlife

34. A program should be established by the BLCA to locate the nesting sites of loons, ducks, colonial birds, and other waterfowl in order to identify important habitat areas, and literature that promotes the protection of wildlife habitat and shorelines should be distributed to property owners.

35. Turtle nesting sites should be identified and protected against predation; property owners should be informed about the techniques available to protect turtle nesting sites (Kawartha Turtle Watch and the Toronto Zoo).

36. Lakefront owners should be encouraged to return a significant portion of their shoreline to natural vegetation to encourage nesting and create suitable habitats for other species.

100 NATURAL HERITAGE FEATURES AND AREAS SECTION 5

37. A revised inventory of the animal species, including breeding birds, smaller mammals such as voles, moles and bats, and insects should be prepared. The last Mammal Atlas was published in 1994 and the Belmont Lake animal inventory relies upon information extracted from…

38. Planning of shoreline development is required to protect the remaining wildlife habitat of Belmont Lake including the following suggestions:

a. Minimum frontage requirements on remaining undeveloped lots should be at least 60 metres (200 feet) and increased frontage requirements would be preferred;

b. Wood lot clearing along the shoreline of important conifer and hardwood trees should be restricted; and

c. Greater restrictions regarding alteration of natural shorelines should be imposed including the identification of a maximum shoreline activity area.

5.7 Exotic Species

Exotic, invasive or non-indigenous (non-native) species describes organisms that have been introduced into non-native habitats. The introduction of these invading species cause widespread and unpredictable changes to habitats and is a worldwide problem. Scientific research has recognized the serious threat of exotics, second to habitat destruction, to the local biological diversity and overall health of the ecosystem, especially in aquatic environments. Ecological changes can result in damage to ecosystems, native fish and wildlife populations, damage to local infrastructure, disruption of commerce, and even threaten human health due to poorer water quality conditions and loss of biological diversity.

In the absence of natural predators, competitors, diseases and parasites, populations of exotic species can explode and out-compete native species for food and habitat. Once established, they are almost impossible to eliminate, and control of nuisance exotic species can cost millions of dollars and impose other serious threats to the local environment such as the release of non-native predators and competitors, or spraying toxic chemical substances to control outbreaks. TheDRAFT impacts of several invading species are often greater than the sum of their individual affects on a system, and established as well as new populations of exotics continue to be introduced into Canada.

Introductions of non-native aquatic species have occurred through a variety of pathways including unregulated ballast water discharge, natural barrier removal, stocking and lack of education, which causes accidental releases from aquariums, bait harvesters, anglers and the live fish for food trade. Unless precautions are taken to remove these organisms before traveling to a new water body, these exotics can be spread from one body of water to another. Once introduced, minnows, crayfish, molluscs, larval and adult invertebrates, and other live bait can be unknowingly be transported to Ontario’s inland waters by recreational watercraft, bait buckets, fishing gear and fish stocking.

The introduction of exotic or non-native species and invasive species, which may be native to Ontario, to lakes, affects the natural balance of the ecosystem. Several exotic and invasive species, with established populations, have been identified in Belmont Lake’s watershed including Zebra Mussel, Rock Bass, Bluegill, Black Crappie, Purple Loosestrife, Eurasian Water-milfoil and European Frog-bit.

101 NATURAL HERITAGE FEATURES AND AREAS SECTION 5

During the 1999 site inventory, Sutherland noted that 53 species of the total flora were considered to be non-native or alien elements of the flora, which were introduced vegetation to the area by early settlers, including jack pine, scots pine, garden asparagus, lily-of-the-valley, common buttercup, field pepper-grass, common pepper-grass, water cress, stonecrop (live-forever and hens-and-chickens), silvery cinquefoil, and periwinkle to name a few.

Most of the introduced species encountered during the 1999 survey are rather widespread, relatively non-aggressive alien weeds typical of disturbed habitats in southern Ontario generally. Yellow Hawkweed (Hieracium piloselloides), Common St. John’s-wort (Hypericum perforatum), Eurasion Water-milfoil (Myriophyllum spicatum), Mouse-eared Chickweed (Cerastium fontanum), Common Dandelion (Taraxacum officinale), and Purple Loosestrife (Lythrum salicara) were the most frequently encountered aliens, occurring in 40-60% of the sites visited.

Aquatic elements of the introduced flora of Belmont Lake are relatively few and include: Eurasian Water-milfoil, Purple Loosestrife and Moneywort (Lysimachia nummularia), the latter species having been found only in King Bay. Specific searches were made during the survey for both European Frogbit (Hydrocharis morsus-ranae) and Cabomba (Cabomba caroliniana), but neither species was found. European Frogbit is presently known to occur nearby in both the Trent River and Rice Lake; while Cabomba is in nearby Kassabog Lake (Sutherland 1999).

Rock bass

Rock bass are “hardy fish”, tolerant of stressed aquatic systems and are, therefore, an aggressive competitor for many species, especially largemouth and smallmouth bass and lake trout/walleye. It is hypothesized that rock bass populations may be negatively impacting-causing several stresses, the bass population by predating (feeding) on their larvae and the lake trout through direct competition for resources.

Rock bass are native to Ontario, but are usually found within the Great Lakes watershed, south of the Precambrian Shield. Since the “accidental” introduction into Belmont Lake through the Trent Canal, a rock bass population has been established and is thriving alongside other hardy invaders. Due to their “hardiness” or tolerance to poorer or “stressed” conditions, rock bass have negatively impacted the in-land lake sport fish species by out-competing them for resources inDRAFT the littoral zone. From an excerpt taken from Species Introductions and Their Impacts in North American Shield Lakes, studies provided by M.J. Vander Zanden, K. A. Wilson, J.M. Casselman, and N.D. Yan, have shown that the invasion of rock bass into inland lakes has been devastating to lake trout population-somatic growth and growth potential of lake trout have been reduced by 25-30% in studied lakes.

Purple loosestrife

Purple loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria) is a plant native to Europe and Asia that has seriously impacted wetland habitats since its introduction to North America, as an ornamental plant, in the 1800’s (accidental introduction through ballast water). There are several plant species that mimic or look similar to the loosestrife such as fireweed (Epilobium angustifolium), blue vervain (Verbena hastate) and water-willow or swamp loosestrife (Decoden verticillatus) but, unlike the purple loosestrife, these plants are native. Purple loosestrife reproduces at an alarming rate, spreading along roads, canals and drainage ditches, and has invaded marshes and lakeshores choking out the natural wetland vegetation that occurs around it. Unfortunately, complete eradication of this plant is impossible, even though mechanical removal has been effective in controlling or slowing down the spread in some areas of Ontario, because there are no native herbivores that have the potential to control of L. salicaria found in North America (http://www.invasivespecies.com/).

102 NATURAL HERITAGE FEATURES AND AREAS SECTION 5

In recent years, however, research has focused its attention on several native purple loosestrife pathogens and parasitic insects, from Europe-100 different insect species most commonly associated with purple loosestrife-and Asia, for their potential as biological control agents. The selected species were chosen from the Coleoptera (beetle order): Curculionidae (weevil family) because of their association with purple loosestrife in Europe, their mobility, and their good host finding abilities. At several release sites, in Ontario, complete defoliation of large purple loosestrife stands (many hectares) has been reported with local reductions of more than 95% of the biomass. However, it is not yet clear what type of replacement communities will develop.

Beetle population sizes are totally dependent upon the amount of food available in an area. Scientific evidence has shown that when beetles have consumed all the available food in one area, they are able to locate new sources of loosestrife species and will relocate within the watershed. The beetle release program will enable OFAH to gather baseline data to determine best practices for the future for this type of biological control.

In summer 2003, the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters’ (OFAH) sponsored an Invasive Species Project, in cooperation with Ontario Beetles, Inc. According to the OFAH invasive species biologist, Belmont Lake did not participate in this project, even though participation in these types of projects would be beneficial to the health of Belmont Lake’s watershed by removing non-native species to allow native species to establish and flourish.

Zebra mussels

Zebra mussels (Dreissena polymorpha) have been invading the lakes of Ontario since their introduction into the Great Lakes, probably as a result of discharge from the ballast of the ocean going ships. Zebra Mussels attach to recreational boats that are used on the Great Lakes; if these boats are launched into inland lakes, without the hulls being cleaned, zebra mussels can be introduced into that lake. It was reported in 2001 that there was water chemistry evidence-elevated levels of calcium, and sightings to confirm that zebra mussels have established themselves in Belmont Lake (OFAH, 2003).

It is probable that if pH is greater than 7.4 and calcium levels exceed 20 mg/L that zebra mussels can establish colonies. Mussels require calcium toDRAFT develop shells. The results of the 1999 summer water samples indicated that Belmont Lake has a pH of 7.87 and a calcium concentration of 56 mg/L (Matys, 1999-Newsletter). Zebra mussel veligers were documented in 1998, and adult zebra mussels became established in Belmont Lake by 2003.

Eurasian Water-milfoil

Eurasian Water-milfoil (Myriophyllum spicatum), also know as simply “milfoil”, is a submergent aquatic plant that has long, narrow leaves arranged in whorls of 4-5 about the stem giving it a feathery appearance, which resembles the native Northern Water-milfoil (Myriophyllum sibericum). The Eurasian Water-milfoil is able to proliferate in a variety of environmental conditions, especially areas that have been disturbed by human activity, including contaminated waters and aquatic environments with varied ranges of water temperatures, ph, flow and turbidity.

Since the milfoil’s introduction to North America during the late 1800s, it has become the most widely distributed invasive aquatic plant species. It has now been confirmed in the provinces of Ontario, Quebec and British Columbia and is confirmed in 45 states in the United States, which demonstrates its ability to spread and invade new environments.

103 NATURAL HERITAGE FEATURES AND AREAS SECTION 5

The milfoil grows quickly, producing dense mat of vegetation, which blocks sunlight reaching submerged plants below the surface, out-competing these other species which ultimately reduces the local biodiversity. The decomposition of these thick mats of vegetation will add phosphorous and nitrogen to the water column, which will degrade water quality by raising the aquatic pH and temperature as well as decrease dissolved oxygen, which decreases the amount of quality habitat available for fish, waterfowl and other species. These thick mats can also create stagnant water, which may serve as breeding grounds for mosquitos.

Milfoil will also interfere with boating, fishing, and swimming because the vegetation can become entangled in boat propellers, boating equipment and other sports equipment. Milfoil has also been known to clog pipes in irrigation canals, and water and power generation intakes.

Prevention is the best way to stop the spread of this invasive species. Other preventative measures include: draw downs of water levels to expose the mats to desiccation; pulling out the plant or dredging the area to dislodge root systems; installing bottom barriers; and biological control using North American weevils which naturally feed on native Northern Water-milfoil.

European Frog-bit

European frog-bit (Hydrocharis morsus-ranae) is a free-floating aquatic plant that resembles a miniature water lily. Originally from Europe and Asia, it is currently found primarily in eastern Ontario and isolated locations in central and western Ontario. It was first introduced as a horticultural species to the Ottawa region in 1938 and then spread to the nearby Rideau Canal and Brown’s inlet (OFAH 2004).

European frog-bit belongs to the family Hydrochariticeae (Frog-bit Family) and looks similar to American frog-bit (Limnobium spongia). It has a single white flower approximately 1.5 cm (.6 in) in diameter with three rounded petals and a yellow centre. The leaves of the plant are round, and heart shaped, and the undersides of the leaves are dark purplish-red and have a spongy coating, which helps the plant float on top of the water.

European frog-bit grows most abundantly in calcium-rich water and prefers wetlands, backwaters and quiet bays where there is limited wave action. EuropeanDRAFT frog-bit can have a negative impact on wetland ecosystems because once established, frog-bit can form very dense, impenetrable mats of floating vegetation, that prevent sunlight from reaching the submersed aquatic plants below. European frogbit has become one of the dominant plants in many eastern Ontario wetlands since its introduction, and has reduced native plant biodiversity.

Presently, there are few ways to control frogbit. Removal by hand has been only a temporary solution. These plants can be spread to new waterbodies caught on propellers and other aquatic equipment.

104 NATURAL HERITAGE FEATURES AND AREAS SECTION 5

Fanwort

Fanwort (Cabomba caroliniana), also known as Cabomba, is a common aquarium plant that is native to subtropic areas of South and North America. It can spread readily through vegetative reproduction of stem fragments or rhizomes (non-sexual reproduction; unknown if seeds are viable). Fanwort was recently found in Kasshabog Lake in the Kawartha Lakes area (J. Matys, 1999).

Fanwort grows in muddy areas of stagnant to slow flowing water of streams, rivers, ponds, lakes and ditches. It is extremely persistent and competitive; it can form dense stands that will crowd out native plants, clog drainage canals and streams, interfere with recreational activities, and reduce the aesthetic appeal of aquatic ecosystems (MNR, OFAH-BLCA 1999, Newsletter).

Other Exotics

Several other invasive aquatic animal species to watch-out for include the Rusty Cray Fish (Orconectes rusticus)- Kawartha Lakes; the Spiney Water Flea (Bythotrephes cederstroemi) – Kennisis Lake, Bella Lake and Lake of Bays; and the Round Goby (Neogobius melanostomus)-Sturgeon Bay (1999) and Hastings (2003). These species have all been accidentally introduced through bait release and contaminated watercrafts. Exotic aquatic plant species to watch-out for include the Culry pondweed (Potamogeton crispus) – associated with European milfoil and the Flowering Rush (Butomus umbellatus). All of these invasive species have been identified and are now established in many inland lakes and wetlands of Central Ontario. Both Round Goby and Spiney Water Flea have been identified in the Haliburton, Hastings and Muskoka County lakes.

Currently, there are no known observations of Rusty Cray Fish, Spiney Water Flea, Round Goby, Curlyy pondweed or Flowering Rush in Belmont Lake or its surrounding wetlands, but since these species have been carelessly introduced into other inland lakes of the area and are extremely competitive with Ontario’s native species, cottagers and visitors should be extremely cautious about bait release, transport and planting of non-native species, and the maintenance of their recreational water vehicles. Observations – Exotic Species DRAFT • According to Sutherland (1999) 53 species of the total flora are considered to be non-native or alien elements of the flora.

• Exotic and invasive species, such as rock bass, purple loosestrife, zebra mussels, European frog-bit and Eurasian Water-milfoil have invaded Belmont Lake.

• Eurasian Water-milfoil, Purple Loosestrife and Moneywort were found in King Bay.

• Invasive and exotic species pose a serious threat to the lake’s health, as well as the ecological, social and economic stability of the community. Exotics species out-compete local, native species and threaten already stressed rare and species at risk species, which reduces biodiversity via uncontrolled dumping of ballast waters, baitfish harvest and lack of education.

105 NATURAL HERITAGE FEATURES AND AREAS SECTION 5

Recommendations – Exotic Specie

39. The BLCA should post signage at all points of water access regarding the invasion of exotic species, their harmful effect on the lakes, and the procedures to ensure protection of the lake ecosystem.

40. Stakeholders around the lake can do their part by covering each purple loosestrife plant with a garbage bag to avoid disturbing the seeds, and pulling out the plant by the root or cutting off the flower spikes and dry seed heads; in areas with high densities may require biological or chemical control methods.

41. It is very important, if you are a boater, angler, sailor, canoeist or water-skier, to take precautions to prevent the transport of exotic species from one lake, river or stream to another.

42. You can also assist efforts to raise awareness of invading species, prevent their spread, and track their distribution by participating in various innovative projects, including the OFAH and Invading Species Hotline (1-800-563-7711): a toll-free number for the public to report sightings and obtain free information on invading species.

43. Establish a local “Invading Species Watch”: a volunteer-based monitoring program to detect zebra mussels, spiny water flea and other invasive plankton species. Contact the OFAH for further information, including brochures, signage, workshops and other interactive learning sessions.

44. Increase public awareness to local resource users and schools by using educational tools, such as Zebra Mussel Mania Traveling Trunk (a set of educational activities available on loan for elementary schools to teach their students about invading species), and Project Purple (an initiative aimed at raising awareness of the threat that purple loosestrife poses to wetlands, and involving the public in control activities and workshops).

5.8 Rare Species and Species at Risk

The causes of rarity or scarcity of a species are many and varied, and may be natural or related to human activity. Rarity may be caused by the lack of suitable breeding habitat, lack of migratory stopover areas, poor winter habitat, predation, unregulated hunting,DRAFT disease, pollution, habitat destruction or over-collecting. Rarity may also be due to the fact that the particular population is at its natural limits of its distribution range. Rare species are considered very important and worthy of protection efforts because of their biological, social and, most often, economical value. Many of these species are ranked in accordance to their rarity, which are established by the Natural Heritage Information Centre (NHIC), and are significant species and of conservation priority.

Significant species are those regarded as provincially or regionally rare or sparse natural heritage feature. The Natural Heritage Information Centre (NHIC) (http://www.mnr.gov.on.ca/MNR/nhic/nhic.cfm) collects, manages, and ranks Ontario species based on a number of factors such as biological and habitat requirements, distribution, population size, threats, management strategies, etc.; those species that are classified as S1, S2, or S3 (S is used by the NHIC (and NatureServe) which refers to the Provincial (or Subnational) rank, and 1,2,3 are codes for rarity ranging from population occurrences of <5 to 100 in the province, and those species with a 4 or 5 numerical code are usually considered secure and not rare because of population occurrences >100 to widespread or common) are rare and tracked by the NHIC, and are species considered to be provincially significant.

106 NATURAL HERITAGE FEATURES AND AREAS SECTION 5

Species being tracked by the NHIC are generally known from fewer than 100 occurrences across the province, and are often designated by the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC) and/or the Committee on the Status of Species at Risk in Ontario (COSSARO) as ‘species at risk’-an official status, which may afford the threatened and endangered species some protection in Ontario and Canada. For more information regarding distribution, provincial ranks and distribution status of Belmont Lake species, or if you would like to report a rare species, please contact the NHIC (http://www.mnr.gov.on.ca/MNR/nhic/nhic.cfm) and Ontario Parks, which includes access to the “Species at Risk in Ontario (SARO) List” (http://www.ontarioparks.com/english/sar.html).

Significant species are those regarded as provincially or regionally rare or sparse natural heritage feature. The Natural Heritage Information Centre (NHIC) (http://www.mnr.gov.on.ca/MNR/nhic/nhic.cfm) collects, manages, and ranks Ontario species based on a number of factors such as biological and habitat requirements, distribution, population size, threats, management strategies, etc.; those species that are classified as S1, S2, or S3 are rare and tracked by the NHIC, and are species considered to be provincially significant. Species being tracked by the NHIC are generally known from fewer than 100 occurrences across the province, and are often designated by the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC) and/or the Committee on the Status of Species at Risk in Ontario (COSSARO) as ‘species at risk’-an official status, which may afford the threatened and endangered species some protection in Ontario and Canada. For more information regarding distribution, ranks and status of Belmont Lake species, or if you would like to report a rare species, please contact the NHIC and Ontario Parks.

A “Species at Risk” designation of special concern, threatened or endangered by COSSARO and/or COSEWIC directs the planning, recovery and conservation efforts, and affords some legal protection for threatened and endangered designated species in Ontario (i.e., Ontario Endangered Species Act and the Species at Risk Act). Other species are or may be of conservation concern, but their formal conservation status has yet to be evaluated.

All species are important to the biological diversity of the local area. Some municipalities use rare species lists, which are identified in Ontario’s bird, plant, mammal, amphibian and reptile, and butterfly atlases, of regionally or provincially significant species in land-useDRAFT planning and in evaluations of natural areas, wetlands and environmentally sensitive areas (ESAs). The protection of endangered and threatened species and their habitats from wilful harm or destruction is federal and provincial law, but it is still necessary to monitor all species for evidence of decline and to contribute efforts to slowing or preventing population declines, loss of habitat, and/or the extirpation of these species from the province all together.

The provincial Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act prohibits hunting and trapping of “specially protected” mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians and invertebrates. It also prohibits the buying and selling of specially protected wildlife. Visit http://www.mnr.gov.on.ca/MNR/pubs/hunting /huntRegs/2004/hr_2004_general1.pdf for more information.

The provincial Crown Forest Sustainability Act states that before forests can be logged, consideration must be given to provincially and locally important species which includes Threatened or Endangered.

The Provincial Parks Act prohibits hunting in provincial parks except where regulations under the Game and Fish Act allow hunting, or where the Lieutenant Governor has removed the prohibition. It also states that the collection of plants without the required permit is not allowed.

107 NATURAL HERITAGE FEATURES AND AREAS SECTION 5

Under the provincial Planning Act, the Provincial Policy Statement provides direction for municipal land use planners on how to make sure that species at risk habitats are protected when lands are developed.

Other provincial laws that offer protection or require consideration to species at risk are the Environmental Assessment Act and the Aggregates Act. For learn more about Ontario’s laws visit http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca.

The federal Species at Risk Act (SARA), which allows the federal government to guide the assessment, listing and recovery of species at risk, provides protection for Threatened and Endangered species, including critical habitats.

The federal Fisheries Act and the Migratory Bird Convention Act also provides protection for many species of birds and animals.

Internationally, the Convention on the International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Flora and Fauna (CITES) provides guidelines to ensure that international trade in specimens of wild animals and plants does not threaten their survival.

For more information regarding the laws and regulations in place in Ontario and for the Belmont Lake watershed for the protection of fish and wildlife, please contact the MNR Peterborough District or visit the MNR web site at http://www.mnr.gov.on.ca/MNR/, http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/ and http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/search.html.

Provincially significant, tracked species (2005 data and 2004/2005 MNR verification and confirmation)-some species have official conservation designations, include:

1. Red-shouldered Hawk, Buteo lineatus

• Species at Risk – COSEWIC SC and MNR SC status (2004))

• Source: Elements from Haliburton County, NHIC (2005), D.A. Sutherland (1999), and ROM (range extends into Belmont Lake watershed)

• Characteristic broad, rounded wings with reddish shoulder patches (light head vs. the dark head of the red-tailed hawk)DRAFT • Live in large, undisturbed woodlots and forested areas

• Perform noisy courtship flights consisting of diving and loud calling

• Perch in trees to hunt for frogs, snakes, rodents and small birds

• Loss of forested habitat

108 NATURAL HERITAGE FEATURES AND AREAS SECTION 5

2. Blanding’s Turtle, Emydoidea blandingii

• Species at Risk – COSEWIC No status and MNR THR (2004)

• Source: Elements from the counties of Haliburton & Hastings, NHIC (2005) and ROM (range extends into Belmont Lake watershed)

• High domed, dark green shell, with a distinctive yellow throat and a yellow with black patched underbelly

• Live in wetlands and feed on aquatic insects and plants

• Nest flooding, short summer seasons, road kill and predation contribute to poor survival

3. Common Five-lined Skink, Eumeces fasciatus

• Species at Risk – COSEWIC SC and MNR SC status

• Source: Elements from Peterborough County and the Crowe Valley Conservation Authority, NHIC (2005) and ROM (range extends into Belmont Lake watershed)

• Small, smooth-skinned lizard

• Brown with a grey tail, but adult males can be distinguished from females by their fatter heads and bright orange jaws and chin

• Active insect predators, and they dart quickly from place to place

• Newly hatched skinks have a bright blue tail and pale stripes running down their body

• Females will make a nesting chamber under driftwood or in sawdust piles, where they normally lay ten eggs

• Impacted by shoreline and cottage development and poaching for pet trade 4. Eastern Hog-nosed SnakeDRAFT, Heterodon platirhinos • Species at Risk – COSEWIC THR and MNR THR status (2004))

• Source: Elements from Peterborough County, NHIC(2005) and ROM (range extends into Belmont Lake watershed)

• It is non-venomous

• Long scales on its nose which give it an upturned snout

• Prefer sandy, well-drained habitats such as beaches and dry woods to lay their eggs in burrows and hibernate

• Need access to wet areas to hunt frogs, toads and lizards

• At its northern range limits in Ontario, and was likely never common here

• Impacted by loss of habitat and direct persecution by people

109 NATURAL HERITAGE FEATURES AND AREAS SECTION 5

5. Eastern Milksnake, Lampropeltis triangulum triangulum

• Species at Risk - COSEWIC SC and MNR SC status

• Source: Elements from Peterborough County, NHIC (2005) and ROM (range extends into Belmont Lake watershed)

• It is non-venomous

• Only snake in Ontario that is reddish; its dorsal blotches are red with black borders; however, colouration is quite variable and blotches may be brown or even green

• Hunts at night by capturing small mammals with its teeth and subduing them by constriction (squeeze)

• Lives in a wide range of habitats, especially old fields and farm buildings where rodents are common

• Aggressive if surprised or threatened; it raises its head in the air, vibrates its tail and may attempt to bite, which makes it misidentified for a rattlesnake

• Human persecution and vehicles

6. Eastern (previously Northern) Ribbon Snake, Thamnophis sauritus septentrionalis

• Species at Risk – COSEWIC SC and MNR SC status

• Source: Elements from Peterborough County, NHIC (2005) and ROM (range extends into Belmont Lake watershed)

• A subspecies of a highly variable species, the Eastern Ribbon Snake, which is widely distributed across eastern North America • A slim snake with threeDRAFT bright yellow, longitudinal stripes running down its sides, contrasting sharply with the dorsal background colour of chocolate brown or black

• Another more common Ontario species, the Eastern Garter Snake, is also striped, making identification difficult

• Found close to water where it hunts for frogs and small fish

• A good swimmer

• An adult female gives birth to 5-12 live young in late summer. The baby snakes are independent and begin hunting for insect prey almost immediately.

• Individuals congregate together in burrows or rock crevices to hibernate (hibernaculum)

• Northern limit of its range, so it may never have been common, and the loss of habitat

110 NATURAL HERITAGE FEATURES AND AREAS SECTION 5

7. Butternut (tree), Juglans cinera

• Species at Risk – COSEWIC END and MNR END status

• Source: Elements from Peterborough County, NHIC (2005) and ROM (range extends into Belmont Lake watershed)

• A medium-sized (>22 m) tree

• Seeds are edible and commercial oil is extracted from the nutmeat, and yellow and orange dyes are produced from the fruit husks and bark of the tree

• An important food source for squirrels and other small mammals

• Impacted by a fungal disease known as butternut canker and, historically, from deforestation practices

(Global Forest Science). http://www.globalforestscience.org/research/trees_of_Canada/BROADLEAVES/WALNUT

8. Greater Redhorse (fish), Moxostoma valenciennesi

• No status

• Source: Elements from the counties of Peterborough and Hastings, NHIC (2005) and ROM (range extends into Belmont Lake watershed)

• Deregulated in 1997; it is often confused with the River Redhorse which is a species at risk species

• Generally, redhorses have dark back and silvery sides, giving a bronze or copper reflection, and paired fins with red, orange or copper tint; some species also have red to orange dorsal, anal, and tail fins 9. River Bank Quillwort (vegetation)DRAFT, Isoetes riparia • No status

• Shoreline, aquatic plant

• Impacted by shoreline development

111 NATURAL HERITAGE FEATURES AND AREAS SECTION 5

Other provincially significant, tracked species (MNR and ROM 2005 data, but not verified or confirmed by MNR biologists), some species have official conservation designations, include:

• Chlidonias niger, Black Tern

• Species at Risk – COSEWIC No status and MNR SC

• Source: Elements from the counties of Peterborough and Hastings, NHIC (2005) and ROM (range extends into Belmont Lake watershed)

• Clemmys guttata, Spotted Turtle

• Species at Risk – COSEWIC END and MNR SC status-soon to be updated to an END MNR status

• Source: Elements from Peterborough County, NHIC (2005), Ontario Herpetological Atlas (post 1983 data), and ROM (range extends into Belmont Lake watershed)

• Glaucomys volans, Southern Flying Squirrel

• Species at Risk – COSEWIC SC and MNR SC status

• Source: Elements from Hasting County, NHIC (2005) and ROM (range extends into Belmont Lake watershed)

• Ixobrychus exillis, Least Bittern

• Species at Risk – COSEWIC THR and MNR THR

• Source: Elements from the counties of Peterborough and Hastings Counties, NHIC (2005) and ROM (range extends into Belmont Lake watershed)

• Myotis septrentrionalis, Northern Long-eared Bat

• No status • Source: Elements fromDRAFT the counties of Peterborough & Hastings, NHIC (2005) and ROM (range extends into Belmont Lake watershed)

• Pipistrellus subflavus, Eastern Pipistrelle Bat

• No status

• Source: Elements from the counties of Peterborough & Hastings, NHIC (2005) and ROM (range extends into Belmont Lake watershed)

Note – according to ROM there may also be Yellow-breasted Chat and Short-eared Owl.

END-R – Endangered status; species regulated under the Provincial Endangered Species Act END – Endangered status; species not regulated THR – Threatened status SC – Special Concern status

For more information regarding species status and protection in Ontario consult the with Ontario Parks SARO list at http://www.ontarioparks.com/saro-list.pdf.

112 NATURAL HERITAGE FEATURES AND AREAS SECTION 5

ROM – Royal Ontario Museum’s web site (last updated 2005), in collaboration with the Ministry of Natural Resources, regarding status of species at risk in Ontario. All relevant information on each species, including distribution ranges in Ontario, is extracted from COSEWIC status reports. The distribution ranges for each species are “expected ranges”, and current accuracy should be verified with experts; however, all above mentioned species in this lake plan have been verified by the MNR.

The ROM web site has also identified the “expected ranges” of other species at risk species in Haliburton and Hasting Counties; however their occurrences within Belmont Lake watershed have not been verified by MNR. For more information visit the ROM web site at http://www.rom.on.ca/ontario/risk.php.

The following list of rare flora and vegetative communities for Belmont Lake’s watershed was extracted from D.A. Sutherland’s 1999 Preliminary List of the Vascular Plants of Belmont Lake, Peterborough County, Ontario.

Regionally significant breeding bird species, in the northern wetland evaluation system (2000), for Site Region 5E in Belmont Lake include (2003 data):

• Lesser Scaup, Aythya affinis (not tracked by the NHIC)

• Sedge Wren, Cistothorus platensis (no longer tracked by the NHIC and presumed secure)

• Pied-billed Grebe, Podilymbus podiceps (no longer tracked by the NHIC and presumed secure)

• Yellow-throated vireo, Vireo flavifrons (no longer tracked by the NHIC and presumed secure)

Of the four regionally significant breeding bird species, only the yellow-throated vireo has been listed on the Breeding Bird Atlas 2004 list for Belmont Lake. The other species’ ranges extend into the Belmont Lake watershed, but their breeding evidence has yet to be verified by experts.

Provincially significant species, in the northern wetland evaluation system (2000), for Site Region 5E in Belmont Lake include (2003 data): • Cooper’s Hawk, AccipiterDRAFT cooperrii (no longer tracked by the NHIC, but sensitive/vulnerable to development. There are forest management guidelines set for Cooper’s hawk, as well as songbirds and wetland birds, that MNR has produced to help set management priorities or precautions; for more information contact MNR Peterborough). Cooper’s Hawk breeding range extends into Belmont Lake’s watershed; however, according to Breeding Bird Atlas data, breeding evidence has not been verified for this bird in the watershed.

• River Otter, Lutra canadensis (not tracked by the NHIC and presumed secure) is a possible mammal in the tributaries of Belmont Lake.

The river otter is considered provincially significant in the wetland evaluation system, however, this system groups species in southern and northern Ontario and the river otter is actually quite abundant in northern Ontario.

113 NATURAL HERITAGE FEATURES AND AREAS SECTION 5

Globally Significant and Rare Vegetation Communities in Peterborough County

1. Dry Red Oak-Pine Tallgrass Savannah – An open-woodland community, which is a northern representation of a more southern, provincially rare vegetation type.

2. Limestone Bedrock Beach – A shallow sloping bed of limestone or marble supporting an association of plants dominated by prairie grasses.

Flora (RP) Locally Rare in Peterborough County

• Buck’s Meadow spikemoss, Selaginella eclipes

• Daisy-leafed Grape fern, Botrychium matricariaefolium

• Maidenhair spleenwort, Asplenium trichomanes

• Creeping juniper, Juniperus horizontalis

• White-stemmed pondweed, Potamogeton praelongus

• Vasey’s pondweed, Potamogeton vaseyi

• Sessile-fruited arrowhead, Sagittaria rigida

• Wiry Witch grass, Panicum flexile

• Little Bluestem, Schizachyrium scoparium

• Indian grass, Sorghastrum nutans

• Tall Cord grass, Spartina pectinata

• White-bear sedge, Carex albursina

• Brown Bog sedge, Carex buxbaumii • Thin-leaf sedge, Carex cephaloideaDRAFT • Broad-leaved sedge, Carex platyphylla

• Straw-colored cyperus, Cyperus strigosus

• Elliptic Spike-rush, Eleocharis elliptica

• Canada Milk-vetch, Astragalus canadensis

• Panicled Tick-trefoil, Desmodium paniculatum var. paniculatum

• Alternate-flowered Water-milfoil, Myriophyllum alterniflorum

• Broad-leaf Water-milfoil, Myriophyllum heterophyllum

• Small Beggarticks, Bidens discoidea

• Rattlesnake-root, Prenanthes racemosa

• Silverrod, Solidago bicolor

114 NATURAL HERITAGE FEATURES AND AREAS SECTION 5

(PRP) Provincially Significant and Locally Rare in Peterborough County

• Melic-leaved False oats, Trisetum melicoides

• Field sedge, Carex conoidea

• Handsome sedge, Carex formosa

• Sharp-leaved Goldenrod, Solidago arguta

(PR) Provincially Significant

• Shining Ladies’-tresses, Spiranthes lucida

There was no Regionally Significant plant species listed for Hastings County (2004 NHIC confirmation).

Observations – Rare and Species at Risk Species

• There are forty-four (44) rare species and two rare vegetation types recorded for the Peterborough and Hastings area, including twenty-nine (29) locally rare or provincially significant vascular plant species, one (1) rare fish and two (2) rare bats, two (2) globally significant and locally rare vegetation communities, and seven (7) species at risk species for the Belmont Lake area.

• The four (4) provincially significant plant species and one (1) globally significant vegetation community are found at several points along the shorelines that represent the many bays and islands of Belmont Lake. The community of Dry Red Oak-Pine Tallgrass Savannah was only found at one site on the lake.

• The Butternut, an endangered species at risk tree, was found in only 3 locations on the lake, with one occurrence along North River in the large wetland and deer wintering area on Belmont Lake.

• The Blanding’s turtle inhabits Belmont Lake, and based upon data from the Herpetological Atlas’ post 1983 records, the spotted turtle has been identified in the Belmont Lake watershed (occurrence not yet verified by MNR biologists). These turtle speciesDRAFT are both listed as species at risk in Ontario; the Blanding’s turtle is provincially threatened and the spotted turtle is provincially a “special concern” species by COSSARO/MNR and federally listed as endangered (MNR designation is soon to change to endangered). All turtle species, except for the more common snapping turtle and western and midland painted turtles, are being tracked in Ontario by the NHIC due to their sensitivity to development, loss of habitat, and low reproductive success due to predation and traffic mortality (for more information regarding tracked turtles in Ontario visit the web sites of, or contact directly the NHIC, the Toronto Zoo, or Kawartha Turtle Watch).

• There is a lack of protection for the habitats and hibernaculums of the Common Five-lined Skink (special concern), the Eastern Hog-nosed Snake (threatened), the Eastern Milksnake (special concern) and the Eastern Ribbon Snake (special concern) from development encroachment or direct persecution.

• Currently, nesting locations for the Red-shouldered Hawk is unknown for Belmont Lake. Raptors, especially the Red-shouldered Hawk, require large, untouched wooded areas to nest and hunt, and they are highly susceptible to human disturbances.

115 NATURAL HERITAGE FEATURES AND AREAS SECTION 5

• Many other rare species’ ranges, such as invertebrates, crayfish, molluscs, fish, reptiles (turtles and snakes), birds and mammals (not all of them listed above) overlap into Belmont Lake and its watershed, therefore, their occurrences need to be verified; just because a species hasn’t been seen that doesn’t mean it might not inhabit the area.

• The eastern hog-nosed snake is protected under the Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) and Schedule 9 of the provincial Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act (FWCA), Peregrine falcon is protected under the PPS, the provincial Endangered Species Act (ESA,) and the federal Species at Risk Act (SARA), and the bald eagle is protected under the PPS and the provincial ESA from wilful persecution and/or habitat destruction.

• If you are undertaking planning application work for locations with SAR species, the Natural Heritage Reference Manual states that COSEWIC endangered species, such as the Spotted Turtle, will receive policy protection under the Provincial Policy Statement (significant portions of habitat for endangered and threatened species).

• The following websites may be consulted for current information on federally and provincially designated Species at Risk:

• Ontario Parks & SARO List http://www.ontarioparks.com/english/sar.html • Royal Ontario Museum (ROM) – Ontario’s Species at Risk http://www.rom.on.ca/ontario/risk.php • Natural Heritage Information Centre http://www.mnr.gov.on.ca/MNR/nhic/nhic.cfm • COSEWIC http://www.cosewic.gc.ca/ • Environment Canada, Canadian Wildlife Service (CWS) – Species at Risk http://www.speciesatrisk.gc.ca/

Recommendations – Rare Species and Species at Risk

45. Cottagers need to be educated about the provincial and federal legislation regarding species at risk and the incentives that are in place for private stewardship efforts, as well as be encouraged to ground truth for rare species, such as the proper identification of those rare species being tracked and their critical habitat (nesting, breeding and feeding DRAFTareas) in the Belmont Lake area. 46. The identification and location of endangered or threatened species should be reported promptly to the Natural Heritage Information Centre-the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources in Peterborough or the Peterborough MNR District office.

47. The location of rare and “species at risk” nesting, basking, hibernating or other habitats should not be publicized since many of these species are rare or “at risk” due to direct persecution.

48. Public awareness workshops or web pages posted on the Cottagers Association web site for links and information regarding the protection of rare species’ habitat and how to naturalize their property to encourage rare species establishment.

49. A thorough inventory of rare and species at risk needs to be assessed, especially for reptiles (turtles and snakes), invertebrates, fish and birds, which are negatively impacted by shoreline destruction.

50. Provincial and/or federal agencies, or Non-government Organizations (NGOs) may have funding money to include Belmont Lake into an inventory and monitoring study for rare or “at risk” species; volunteers could help locate these species, with proper diagnostic training and field equipment.

116 PHYSICAL ELEMENTS SECTION 6

The purpose of this section is to examine the physical aspects of the area surrounding Belmont Lake in order to identify potential constraints affecting present and future land development and resource management: soils, floodplains and narrow water bodies are also discussed.

In Ontario, lakes and their respective water bodies are divided into two categories; those on the Canadian Shield, or ‘shield lakes’ and those off the shield, or ‘southern lakes’.

Generally, Belmont Lake is surrounded by Osprey (B.F.) loam series soil. The terrain is hilly with good drainage. The soil itself is medium to course in texture and lies on a course stony till in which rocky outcrops are common.

The northern shore of the lake is mainly of a slight to moderate slope. Moderate tree covers of both deciduous and coniferous types are present except for the northeast side where it is denser and predominately coniferous. Soil depths average approximately two feet. The eastern shore exhibits moderate to fairly steep slopes with an average of one foot of soil and numerous rocky out-croppings. Forestation is generally mixed and dense.

The area surrounding the north shore of the Crowe River Bay is swampy. The south shore of the Bay slopes quite dramatically in places and generally has less than one foot of soil and numerous rocky out-croppings. Medium mixed forest surrounds the Bay. South of the Bay, a lightly sloping moderately treed shoreline exists with varying soil depths of 6 inches to three feet. The shore is sprinkled with rocky out-croppings. The south shore of Belmont Lake consists of lowland and swamps with muck type soil of six inches to one foot, and light mixed tree development, whereas, light soil cover, rocky outcrops and moderate to heavy mixed forest prevail on the moderate sloping south-west shore.

In the area-surrounding North River Bay, swampy land is prevalent with heavy brush and a medium density of deciduous and coniferous trees. North of this, there is steeply sloping land with less than one foot of soil, plentiful rock and heavy deciduous and coniferous forestation.

Soils are an important ‘story teller’ of the processes that have occurred in the past that shaped much of the present landscape. Soils are also the medium of growth. Within the climatic regions of Ontario, it is the nature of the soil that determines the occurrence and structure of many of our terrestrial and wetland ecosystems. Soil type, quantity and fertility also influence the land useDRAFT and conservation practices applied in resource management. * As noted above, Belmont Lake straddles the line between Shield Lakes and Southern Lakes. (See Map #9) Shield rock is predominately made up of acidic metamorphic and igneous rocks, e.g.: granite, quartz and gneissic, which is hard and generally resistant to weathering. Erosion and soil accumulation are, therefore, a slow process. The landscape is typically complex with rolling rocky ridges interspersed with troughs and hollows, landmarks left behind by the glaciers. Soil substrates are usually shallow and patchy as well as acidic and low in nutrients. The soils composed of sedimentary rock are formed through deposition, under large water bodies, of clay, silt, sand and organic fossilized particles largely made up of carbonate minerals. These areas develop nutrient rich and deep fertile soils that are ideal for agricultural land uses.

117 PHYSICAL ELEMENTS SECTION 6

A significant portion of Belmont’s bedrock is limestone therefore the lake has reasonably good ability to resist the effects of acid rain.

In Ontario there are two main types of bedrock material: Precambrian rock on the shield and sedimentary limestone, shale and sandstone deposits south and west of the shield. Just south and to the east of Belmont a geologic feature known as the Dummer Moraines is observable. The Dummer Moraines constitute an area of rough stony land bordering the Shield from the Kawartha Lakes eastward and are evident throughout much of Dummer, Belmont, Marmora and Madoc TWSP’s. The underlying bedrock is sedimentary limestone.

As residents of Belmont Lake we have observed that while the Canadian Shield dominates the TWSP’S of Havelock, Belmont and Methuen, thus limiting the best agricultural lands to the south western part of the TWSP, the combined influences of the shield and moraine topography offer commercial opportunities such as forestry, mining and quarrying and recreational outlets such as cottaging, fishing, hunting, bird watching, hiking, snowmobiling and a variety of water sports. As the inheritors of such a rich geological treasure, how do we best manage our legacy so that succeeding generations will be able to successfully live and work and vacation on Belmont Lake? Protecting our natural environment is probably the single most important component of any plan that we might create to accomplish this, for if we destroy our natural environment we will have left nothing of any importance to those who follow us. While there are many factors to be considered when determining land use, such as commercial, recreational, and social, environmental protection must be considered the most important.

In 2004, after months of consultation with government agencies and the public, the council of the townships of HBM, created a new official plan. The purpose of the official plan as stated in Sect. 1.5 “is to provide goals, objectives and policies to guide the physical development of the townships of Havelock, Belmont and Methuen while having regards for relevant social, economic and environmental matters.” It would be useful to note some of the objectives the township has determined that if met will help to achieve the stated purpose or intent of the plan.

• 2.2.1.1 “it is a social and settlement goal of this plan to encourage development in a manner consistent with and compatible with the changing population structure and social needs of the townships residents to DRAFTensure a high quality living environment.” • 2.2.1.2 “It is a social and settlement goal of this plan to encourage development in existing settlement areas as well as ensure that new development has a minimal impact on traditional rural activities and the natural environment.”

• 2.12.1.1 “It should be the water quality and quantity goal of this plan to protect the quality and quantity of both surface and ground water resources.”

118 PHYSICAL ELEMENTS SECTION 6

The HBM official plan is somewhat environmentally sensitive; however, the plan is not consistent with the Ontario Government’s Provincial Policy Statement on land use in a number of key areas, such as, shoreline development, permissible development on narrow water bodies and wetland definition and protection. *(See Appendix PPS/HBM OP Comparison) For example, the Provincial Policy Statement defines narrow water bodies as portions of lakes and rivers where opposite shorelines are relatively close. Development in these areas can cause problems related to increased congestion from dock, boathouse and shoreline development that results in decreased aesthetic beauty and navigational problems. In the past, development in such narrow water body areas on Belmont Lake and Deer River has been permitted without any meaningful restrictions that take into account the special nature of these areas and the HBM official plan continues to be silent on the subject.

Recommendations

The Belmont Lake Cottagers Association strongly recommends that HBM council develop a narrow water body policy for inclusion in the TWP’S Official Plan.

1. The major constraints to future development of Belmont Lake are wetlands and past development and while there may be room for some very limited additional development, significant development could involve the few remaining wetland areas left on the lake and these wetlands are crucial to the very survival of Belmont Lake, as we know it.

2. It is recommended that the Belmont Lake Cottager’s Association work with the TWSP to ensure that the provisions of the Provincial Policy Statement and the Official Plan drive council’s waterfront development decisions and it is further recommended that the TWSP begin a process to officially incorporate into its official plan not only the provisions of the P.P.S. but also those recommendations forming a part of the Belmont Lake Plan. DRAFT

119 LAND USE SECTION 7

The purpose of this section is to describe the current land uses around the lake and in the watershed, and to provide a review of the Ministry of Natural Resources policies for Crown land and the municipal Official Plan policies and Zoning By-law provisions for private land. Observations from this section could result in recommendations for changes to both Crown land and private land policy.

7.1 Current Land Use

DRAFT

Map #10 – Land Use Schedule A1 Sources: HBM Township

Figure 7.1 provides a detailed breakdown of land use on Belmont Lake. Please refer to Map #10 for a larger view.

The exact figures for the current number and type of lots are not available from the municipal assessment information at time of printing. The majority of waterfront lots on Belmont Lake are Seasonal Residential. The total number of lots in 2000 was 534.

There are 2 Commercial Operations on the Lake: Belmont Lake Marina and Sawmill Bay Resort.

120 LAND USE SECTION 7

7.1.1 Zoning By-laws

By-law number 2004-28, of the township of HBM, and approved by council on March 16, 2004, is a comprehensive zoning by-law regulating the use of the land and the character, location and use of buildings, structures and quarries for the whole of the township of Havelock, Belmont, Methuen.

The purpose and effect of the zoning by-laws is to implement the approved policies contained in the official plan and to establish specific zone classification and regulations enabling the orderly and progressive development of the township.

The township of HBM is divided into the following zones:

ZONE SYMBOL

• Agricultural zone A

• Rural zone RU

• Residential type 1 zone R1

• Residential type 2 zone R2

• Residential type 3 zone R3

• Estate residential zone ER

• Seasonal residential zone SR

• Island residential zone IR

• Residential mobile home park zone RMH

• Local commercial zone C1 • Commercial touristDRAFT zone C2 • Commercial trailer park zone C3

• Registered industrial zone M1

• Extractive industrial zone M2

• Disposal industrial zone M3

• Industrial zone I

• Open space zone OS

• Environmental protection zone EP

• Development zone D

• Special District zone SD

121 LAND USE SECTION 7

Of particular interest to residents of Belmont are the zoning classifications that govern development on the lake.

The shoreline of Belmont is predominately zoned rural, seasonal residential, residential type 1, island residential and special district. There are two properties zoned commercial tourist and one zoned commercial trailer park at the south end of the lake. Significant shoreline areas around Munn's Bay and at the mouth of Deer River are designated environmental significant (See Map #11).

The specific provisions regarding permitted use, lot size and building requirements are summarized below.

Seasonal Rural Residential Island Residential Residential Type 1

Permitted use Single detached Single detached Single detached Single detached vacation dwelling dwelling dwelling or duplex vacation dwelling

Lot Area 300m2 (.74 acres) 10 ha (25 acres) 3000m2 (.74 acres) 5575m2 (1.4 acres)

Lot Frontage 45m (150ft) 45m (150ft) 45m (150ft) 61m (200ft)

Max Height 9m (30ft) 9m (30ft) 9m (30ft) 7.5m (25ft)

Max Lot Cover 15% 15% 15% 4%

Min Floor Area 74m2 (797ft2) 97.5m2 (1050ft2) 97.5m2 (1050ft2) 74m2 (797ft2)

Figure 7.1

The by-laws also articulate general provisions for land use and the construction of buildings in the TWSP. Some of these general provisions will be of particular interest to Belmont Lake Residents: • General provisions 4.1 – no accessoryDRAFT building shall exceed 4.5m (15ft) in height in a seasonal residential zone • General provision 4.24 – single wide mobile homes and double wide mobile homes shall be permitted only within a mobile home park

• General provision 4.27 – a quarry shall be considered a permitted use in all zones except residential zone, institutional zone or an environmental protection zone

* note – no restrictions with respect to waterfront property

• General provision 4.34 – no building or structure shall be located within 21.43 metres (70ft) of the existing high water mark; however, if in keeping with existing building line, this provision may permit construction within 15 metres (50 ft) of the existing high water mark. *Note-Marine facilities (boat houses) and unattached decks and patios are exempt from this provision

122 LAND USE SECTION 7

• Special provision 11.2.2 – requires that all accessory buildings or structures not exceed 75% of the total floor area of the main building

• General provision 4.14 & 4.15 – home occupations and industry are permitted with certain conditions

• General provision 4.10(a) – the provisions of this by-law shall not apply to prevent the use of any lot, building, structure or part thereof for any purpose prohibited by this by-law, if such use was lawfully existing on the date of the passing of this by-law so long as it continues to be used for that purpose.

• Section 23 – on any land designated environmental protection, zone EP, passive recreational and conservation uses only are permitted

The SD, special district zone (there are 81 of them at the present time) is a zoning category used by the township to enable land use that would otherwise not be permitted under the general by-laws. For example, SD 27, located on the northwest shore of Belmont Lake restricts development, including the placing of fill, below the 189.0 G.D.S. (Geodetic Survey of Canada) elevation in order to protect a shoreline deemed environmentally sensitive.

• Sect. 24.1 outlines penalties that may be applied to those in breach of the zoning by-laws. Of particular interest to Belmont Lake residents will be the provision that permits any ratepayer to file a complaint in writing with the township regarding any development that is taking place in contravention of a provision of the by-laws. The township may, as a consequence of the complaint, restrain the development activity while an investigation is carried out.

The penalty for violation of the by-laws may be as high as $25,000 on a first conviction.

To summarize: while the HBM zoning by-laws recognize to some limited degree the sensitive nature of waterfront property and other environmentally fragile areas on or near Belmont Lake, it does not provide the protections that these unique areas require if our lake is to remain healthy and attractive. The use of special district zoning isDRAFT particularly troublesome because while some special district zones could provide protection for the lake, other SD zones could result in development that would be detrimental to our lake not withstanding other protective by-laws.

123 LAND USE SECTION 7

7.2 Shoreline Development

Information on the existing form and scale of shoreline development is provided from the survey, however, as it is not available from the Township, it only represents a sample of the property owners.

Our Properties • Over 90% of properties > 5,000 sq. ft. – 58% 1 acre of more • 56% of total property area in natural state • Only 42 properties with less than 50% of land in natural state

Shoreline • 50-100ft 42% • 100 - 150ft 21.6% • over 150ft 35.8% • Shoreline in natural state: 72.8% • Over 2/3 of members have shorelines 80% to 100% natural state • With no artificial beach 79%

The members have noted a substantial amount of shore line changes over last 5 years. • more residential development 81.06% • more lawns 43.18% • more shoreline structures 40.91% • less forest cover 32.58% • less wetlands 21.21%

With no manicured lawn 78% • 90% do not use fertilizers • 90% do not use pesticides Buildings DRAFT • Average building size 1300 sq. ft. • Largest 25 buildings average 2600 sq. ft. • % with sleeping cabin 40% average size: 287 sq. ft. • With no boathouses 75%

There are very few wet slip boathouses on Belmont Lake. Only 5 of the respondents indicated that there boathouse was wet slip.

Docks

Dock types: • single pole/post 45% • floating 17% • combination docks 9% • 45% of docks are more than 20 ft length into water

124 LAND USE SECTION 7

Observations – Land Use

• A considerable amount of undeveloped property on the lake exists and contributes greatly to the natural beauty of the lake. These properties have the potential of being sub-divided into a large number of residential lots, therefore great care must be taken that any development preserves the natural environment.

• The economic importance of the tourist industry is essential to the area

Recommendations – Land Use

• The Lake Association should encourage residents to install post/pole docks or floating docks instead of crib docks because of their lower impact on the lakebed and aquatic life.

• The balance between natural state and built sections of shoreline activity should be appropriately maintained by regulations to restrict the cumulative size and location of buildings, docks and boathouses.

• Applications for rezoning and subdividing shoreline property should receive careful and scrupulous attention, with the involvement of all interested parties. Notices of applications should be sent to the Lake Association.

DRAFT

125 LAND USE SECTION 7

7.3 Residential Occupancy

The purpose of this section is to report on the amount of time that residents stay on the lake.

The amount of time that people occupy their lake residents directly increases the amount of sewage that is disposed of on an annual basis. As residential occupancy increases, the potential amount of phosphorus that reaches the lake also increases. Increased phosphorus will directly affect lake water quality. Current water quality models often refer to “estimates” of phosphorus loading based on the total number of shoreline lots, whether the lot is used permanently or seasonally. Current information on residential occupancy will help to provide more accurate predictions of future water quality based on known information on the amount of time people stay on the lake. The sample Residential Survey provides a question on whether the residence is occupied seasonally or permanently as well as the number of days that the residence is occupied.

The number of people living on and using the lake can have a direct effect on water quality and can impact on social elements such as decreased natural landscapes, as well as increased noise, recreation and boating activity. Occupancy refers to the number of residential users and the length of time that they stay on the lake. Longer stays at the cottage increase the amount of phosphorus generated through sewage. Figure 7.4 indicates that the summer season had the highest percentage of days occupied, followed by winter, spring and fall. Note: Information supplied by results of Survey, not Municipal Assessment (not available).

Utilization – based on survey 2003

Figure 7.2 – Seasonal Residential Occupancy by Season

Percentage of Days Occupied SpringDRAFT 29.15% Summer 57.65% Fall 29.22% Winter 25.97%

126 LAND USE SECTION 7

Figure 7.3 – Number of days in residence – Survey Spring # Respondents % Response Zero Days 4 4.0% 1 to 10 Days 44 43.6% 11 to 30 Days 40 39.6% 31 to 50 Days 7 6.9% More than 50 Days 6 5.9% Summer Zero Days 3 2.8% 1 to 10 Days 5 4.6% 11 to 30 Days 26 23.9% 31 to 50 Days 28 25.7% More than 50 Days 47 43.1% Winter Zero Days 42 48.3% 1 to 10 Days 28 32.2% 11 to 30 Days 15 17.2% 31 to 50 Days 0 0.0% More than 50 Days 2 2.3% Fall Zero Days 9 9.0% 1 to 10 Days 45 45.0% 11 to 30 Days 35 35.0% 31 to 50 Days 5 5.0% More than 50 DaysDRAFT 6 6.0% Observations – Occupancy • There is very little information available from the Township on assesed land use.

Recommendations – Occupancy • Provide updated land use information and residential occupancy rates to the MOE for use in their Lake Capacity Assessment model.

127 LAND USE SECTION 7

7.4 Septic System, Waste Disposal, Water

The purpose of this section is to report on the state of septic systems, occupants waste disposal and source of their water on Belmont Lake. Most lakes do not have municipal water and sewer services and most lots are serviced by private septic system and well or lake water systems. The following information comes from the Survey.

Note: There were 145 responses, which represents approximately 2/3 of the association membership.

Figure 7.4 Sewage Disposal: • Toilets – septic 88% • Grey water – septic 83% • 75% of septic beds are 67 ft. or more from shoreline • 11% of septic beds less than 50 ft. or more from shoreline • only 14% of septic systems are less than 5 years old • 80% of septic systems have been pumped in last 5 years.

Waste Disposal: • self-removed 62% • Municipality 32% • 99% recycle • 21% would like to see garbage pick-up by municipality

Household appliances in use: • flush toilets 92% • bath tub/shower 92% • clothes washer 39% • dishwasher 31% Water DRAFT Water source: • Lake 73% • well 22% • bottled 56% • Only 1 in 3 test their water • 2 out of 3 use low phosphorous cleaning products.

Observations

• Very little information is known about the status of septic systems on Belmont Lake

Recommendations – Septic Systems

• The Lake Association should encourage the Municipality to undertake a Septic Re-Inspection Program.

• Consider hiring an environmental student in cooperation with the municipality and the Ministry of Environment or Health Unit (where they have the authority).

128 LAND USE SECTION 7

7.5 Public Lands Act

The Ministry of Natural Resources is responsible for the management of crown land, pursuant to the public lands act, including acquisition, disposition and management of crown water as well as lands. The ministry endeavours to administer all crown assets in the best interests of the public. Chapter 413, part 1,3 of the public lands act states that 25% of all crown shorelines will be set aside for public recreation and access. Since less than 25% of the shoreline of Belmont Lake is crown land, the public land act should prevent any further disposition of Crown shore lands.

Crown land shoreline access locations are limited to two small areas in our immediate watershed, one on Belmont Lake and one on Deer River. There is one other access location (owned by the municipality) on the Deer River at the iron bridge on Preston Road.

The Ontario Living Legacy Land use Strategy outlines the intended strategy for the management of crown lands throughout Ontario. The O.L.L. strategy sets a framework for future land and resource management on crown land and provides guidance and direction on what activities are preferred in certain areas and what activities will not be permitted. Any new or revised plans for crown lands must be consistent with the intent of the O.L.L. strategy and the O.L.L. strategy replaces the direction contained in documents such as the District Land Use Guidelines. Please see http://crownlanduseatlas.mni.gov.on.ca/ for more detailed information.

While unfortunately there is little Crown owned shoreline left on Belmont Lake and its rivers, what we have should be treatedDRAFT with respect not only for the land and environment but also for other users of these valuable locations. The crown land at Scott’s Dam on Deer River is beautiful but unfortunately a few individuals leave garbage and broken glass behind as well as damaged trees. The MNR has increasingly limited resources at its disposal; Map #4 therefore, it is up to us to ensure that these sites are kept as clean as possible. The next time you visit Scott’s Dam or Burnt Dam on the North River, be prepared to do a little volunteer clean up and garbage removal. Not only will this provide very welcome relief for MNR staff but also it will help to preserve another of our natural heritage sites.

129 LAND USE SECTION 7

7.6 Municipal Planning Regulations

Within most municipalities there are policies and regulatory tools that govern land use. These official plan policies and regulations are captured within Official Plans, which prescribe how land can be used. The Official Plan is prepared with the input of the public and it ensures that future planning and development will meet the needs of the community. All development within a particular twsp, must conform to that twsps Official Plan.

Zoning by-laws provide the means for the twsp to regulate the use and location of building and structures within its jurisdiction. Site plan control By-laws and consent agreements may also be required by twsps to ensure certain construction and design standards are maintained.

The township of HBM and consultants ‘Greer Galloway’ have developed an official plan under the jurisdiction of the county of Peterborough. The official plan was developed over a period of months and involved extensive public input. It was passed into law on January 08, 2004.

The plan provides for amendments and requires that at least every five years HBM council hold a special meeting, open to the public, to consider the need for plan revision. The goal of the plan is articulated as follows in sect. 2.2.1.2. “It is a social and settlement goal of this plan to encourage development in existing settlement areas as well as ensure that new development has a minimal impact on traditional rural activities and the natural environment.”

The new official plan, as noted elsewhere in the Lake Plan, is more sensitive to environmental issues and to the particular needs of those residing on Belmont Lake than the previous official plan was, but the Belmont Lake Cottagers Association believes the official plan should be strengthened with respect to the following:

• Increase requirement for shoreline vegetation preservation including width, permitted uses and restoration

• Development restraints related to steep slopes and narrow water bodies

• Maximum shoreline area allowed for shoreline structures Shoreline coverage policies that require the scale of buildings to be relatedDRAFT to shoreline frontage • Lighting, noise and privacy concerns

• The prohibition of quarry and mining operations within the views cape of the lake

• Prohibits any development or site alteration within 120 metres of unevaluated wetlands unless an environmental impact study of the wetland has been completed

• Waterfront land should be so classified. At present there are 13 other land use classifications

– Environmental protection and environmentally – Agriculture sensitive areas – Aggregate resource – Waste disposal – Rural – Hamlet – Village fringe – Residential – Future residential – Commercial – Industrial – Institution – Open space

130 LAND USE SECTION 7

The Provincial Policy Statement is a land use document that is intended to guide the development and general use of land in Ontario. It is a powerful document with which all official plans in the province must comply.

Appendix 4 is a comparison of the HBM official plan and the Provincial Policy Statement. You will note that in many instances the Official Plan and Provincial Policy Statement are in accord but there are many instances where they are not and it is these areas, particularly including environmental concerns and waterfront development that are of particular interest to those of us who reside on Belmont Lake.

The Belmont Lake Cottagers Association recommends that as soon as is practical, the township of HBM revise its official plan taking into account the specific recommendations made in The Belmont Lake Plan and as well the differences noted between the official plan and the provincial policy statement.

To review any of the documents listed below, please contact the Havelock Belmont Methuen Township Office.

Official Plan

Zoning By-Laws

Site Plan Control Regulations

Consent Agreement (51/26)

Provincial Policy Statement – See Appendix 4 for PPS / HBM OP Comparison DRAFT

131 LAKE CONCERNS AND IMPACTS SECTION 8

8.1 Lake Values

The purpose of this section is to report on the features and elements of the Belmont Lake that are most valued by the residents, commercial operators and recreationalists. The information was collected during the workshops.

Figure 8.1 – Resident and Commercial Stakeholder General Values

Resident Values Commercial Operator Values

Water Quality Water Quality Current Character of Lake Social and Cultural Aspects (peace and quiet, low use) Natural Environment Recreational Opportunities (fish and wildlife) Natural landscape Wildlife and Natural Beauty Boating & Boat Safety Economic Importance (Tourism)

Source: Resident Workshop and Commercial Stakeholder Workshop

Figure 8.1 shows that residents and commercial operators basically hold the same views of what is important to those living on the Belmont Lake. Residents and commercial stakeholders both consider that the value that should receive the highest priority is water quality. Both groups also considered the natural beauty, and the natural landscape (shorelines and vista) to be very important. The major difference between these two groups was the recognition of the importance to tourism.

Both the residents and the commercial stakeholders identified similar values; a clean lake and water quality are two of the most valued features of the lake. The natural shoreline, natural habitat, and recreational opportunities also ranked relatively high. It is interesting to note that while peace and tranquility was a valued feature to both interest groups, itDRAFT received a much higher rating for residents than it did for commercial operators; this difference of opinion may be related to the importance of quiet to residents and recreational opportunities to stakeholders. While these can sometimes be conflicting uses, it is anticipated that through communication and the development of a Lake Management Plan, an appropriate balance can be achieved.

Residents were also asked to rank the importance of the values which contributed to their enjoyment of Belmont Lake. Figure 8.2 lists those values that were identified as being important in order of priority.

Figure 8.2 – Score (out of 5) 5 being the highest Water Quality 4.84 Peace and Tranquility 4.51 Water Level 4.28 Swimming 4.21 Natural Shorelines 4.05 Wildlife viewing 4.04

132 LAKE CONCERNS AND IMPACTS SECTION 8

8.2 Impacts on the Lake

There are many activities that impact the features that are most valued on Belmont Lake. Often a single event, or combination of small events, can be sustained without a significant impairment of a lake value or feature. However, the cumulative impact of ongoing activities can result in a negative result or the creation of a situation that becomes intolerable to lake users. The ability of a lake to sustain many small impacts is known as its carrying capacity.

Carrying capacity refers to the maximum number of development or recreational activities that can be sustained by a given social, natural or physical element, before its quality diminishes. The threshold limit is the maximum number of impacts that a certain value can sustain.

Sometimes, a single event or action will not impact a lake value, but it may take repetitions of these “single events or actions” for any impacts to be noticeable. For example, the removal of one tree may not result in any detectable impacts, but the removal of many trees could result in loss of habitat, affect the natural beauty of a shoreline, or cause erosion.

Impacts on the lake have been identified by residents and stakeholders, and through the collection of background information. Anything that results in a negative change of a lake value is an impact. Impacts can be generally grouped under the headings of land development, shoreline changes, urban activities, and boating. The impacts that are common to most lakes are summarized in Figure 8.3.

From the survey information, workshops and the collection of background information, the following are the issues that affect the quality of life on your Belmont Lake:

Figure 8.3 – Description of Impacts

LAND DEVELOPMENT SHORELINE CHANGES URBAN ACTIVITIES POWER BOATING

Out-of-character Buildings Removal of Vegetation Water Pollution Water Pollution Construction PracticesDRAFT Littoral Destruction Storm Water Noise Sensitive Lands Docks / Boathouses Sanitary Sewage Wake Increased Population Noise Pollution Safety Landscaping Light Pollution Septic Systems Air Pollution Water Pollution

133 LAKE CONCERNS AND IMPACTS SECTION 8

1. Land Development a) Out-of-Character Buildings – A building may be out of character compared to its lake surroundings because it may be too large, poorly sited, or have unattractive features that can adversely affect the natural beauty of the lake. b) Construction Practices – During construction, significant damage to the lake's natural, social and physical features can occur unless proper care is taken. The removal of vegetation and topsoil can result in erosion. Sand and silt from construction sites can be washed into a lake during rainstorms, or along improperly designed or protected drainage channels and land gradients. Unstable banks can collapse into a watercourse, and silting and sedimentation can result in increased turbidity, which has the potential to affect the entire lake food chain. c) Hazard / Environmentally Sensitive Lands / Fish Habitat – Hazard and environmentally sensitive lands consist of wetlands, stream valleys, floodplains and steeply sloped areas. Development in these areas requires additional caution during construction. Therefore, development applications and building permits must receive intensive scrutiny to avoid adverse impact on wildlife and fish habitat as well as to prevent inappropriate structures. By-law requirements in these areas should be more stringent than for normal development. d) Increased Population – development increases in residential, recreational and commercial activities and a potentially corresponding increase in their harmful effects, such as increased sewage, noise and light pollution; more intensive traffic, boating and fishing; and possible changes to the shoreline and littoral zone, on the lake and community. e) Landscaping – Different views are held on what constitutes attractive landscaping. Unfortunately, urban landscaping, which normally requires replacement of natural vegetation with cultivated lawns and ornamental plantings, is not suitable on shoreline lands as described below in “Shoreline Changes”. Fertilizers, herbicides, and pesticides used on lakeside property have an increased potential to be transported into the water, harming water quality. Nutrients from fertilizers stimulate the growth of aquatic plants and algae, and when aquatic plants die and decompose, dissolved oxygen is consumed and the oxygen available to fish, especially cold water fish, is diminished. AtDRAFT present, off-site migration of fertilizers is not thoroughly understood and studies are in progress. f) Septic Systems – Improper construction and maintenance of septic systems can result in the release of nutrients and bacteria into the lake. Released nutrients, such as phosphorous, increase plant growth, which in time reduce dissolved oxygen. High levels of certain bacteria can have a serious affect on public health.

134 LAKE CONCERNS AND IMPACTS SECTION 8

2. Shoreline Changes a) Removal of Shoreline Vegetation – Removal of shoreline vegetation adversely affects the natural shoreline, which is ultimately desired for scenic beauty. In addition, the elimination of vegetation roots takes away the holding action on the shoreline and causes erosion, which produces silting and, eventually, the destruction of fish habitat. The removal of trees destroys the shading needed by fish in shallow waters. A naturally vegetated shoreline filters nutrients and sedimentation and this action disappears with its removal. b) Destruction of Littoral Zone – The littoral zone is the lake area from the water's edge to where light no longer penetrates to the bottom. Ninety percent (90%) of the species in a lake either live in or pass through this zone, since it offers areas to forage, hiding spots, and a protected area for young fish and amphibians. Aquatic plants, logs, downed trees, and submerged rocks are crucial parts of the ecosystem, and their removal is destructive to its various ecological functions. For example, creating a sand beach smothers spawning areas, buries amphibian eggs, covers vegetation, and fills hiding spots; all negative impacts which ripple through the food chain with a deleterious effect on aquatic life. c) Docks and Boathouses – Construction of a dock can impact both fish habitat and scenic values. Depending on the time of construction, location and design, docks can affect fish spawning, interfere with navigation, and disrupt the lakebed. Floating docks are the least disruptive option on submerged lands; pipe or pile docks are preferred in areas with aquatic vegetation, as they permit sunlight to penetrate; and crib and concrete pier docks are the least desirable because of increased disruption to the lakebed. In addition to the impact caused by a dock, a boathouse has a detrimental effect on the natural beauty of the lake's shoreline. It disrupts the normal line of sight along a shoreline and, depending on its dimensions, architectural features, and maintenance, can be an eyesore. Many lakes will not allow boathouses to be constructed and, those that do will have stringent controls over dimensions and percentage of developed shoreline. d) Break walls – Break walls are often needed to stabilize shorelines. However, concrete and other vertical break walls are of little use for fish or other aquatic organisms because they will deflect wave energy rather than dissipate it, usually resulting in erosion problemsDRAFT elsewhere. Properly constructed, slanted, rock rubble embankments, however, can increase fish habitat diversity, encourage vegetation growth, and dissipate wave action.

135 LAKE CONCERNS AND IMPACTS SECTION 8

3. Shoreline Activities a) Storm water – Phosphorous is a nutrient that stimulates aquatic growth. Storm water from urban areas contains this nutrient, which originates from fertilizers used on home lawns and landscaping, and is one of the largest sources of phosphorous in a lake. Storm water can also contain other water pollutants such as silt and sediment from soil erosion, oil from paved areas, and chemicals that are accidentally or improperly allowed to flow into storm sewers. b) Noise Pollution – Noise from traffic and powerboats, and the concentration of noise from other activities can interfere with enjoyment of the serenity of the lake. c) Light Pollution – Urban streets, parking lots, and sections of major highways are lit at all times during the night. While this is needed for safety and security reasons, it interferes with the view of starlit skies and creates a distraction for those wishing to experience surroundings that are true to nature. As well, inappropriate lighting practices along shorelines increase light pollution. d) Air Pollution – Air contaminants from heating and industrial sources can be troublesome to those wishing to escape the sources of airborne pollutants by seeking refuge on the lake.

4. Power Boating a) Noise – High-speed passage or “racing” of powerboats causes noise to be carried across the lake due to the fact that sound travels very well over water. b) Wake – Wake from powerboats can cause intense rocking to floating docks and smaller crafts and contribute to shoreline erosion. c) Water Pollution – Pollution is a result of, in particular, two-stroke engines, but also from on-board sanitary facilities. d) Safety Issues – A powerboat's high-speed passage near swimmers and other boats, as well as through narrow waterways, is hazardous. DRAFT e) Personal watercraft – Are particularly at the top of resident's concerns since they are noisy, operated at high speeds, and are powered large, polluting, two-stroke engines.

136 LAKE CONCERNS AND IMPACTS SECTION 8

Figure 8.4 provides a quick cross-reference to the values and impacts that are identified. Its purpose is to show that some impacts affect more than one value and that there may be a range of actions necessary to mitigate these impacts.

Figure 8.4 - Effects of Impacts on Valued Lake Features

VALUES AFFECTED BY IMPACTS Water Quality Privacy Fishing Habitat Wildlife Tourism Scenery Quietness IMPACTS Boating &

Land Development Out-of-Character Buildings X – – – – – – Construction X X X X X X X Hazard Lands X X – X – – – Increased Population and Land Use X X X X X X X Landscaping X X – X X X X Septic Systems – X – X – – X

Shoreline Changes Removal of Shoreline Vegetation X X X X X X X Destruction of Littoral Zone X X – X X – X Docks and Boathouses X – – X X – – Break Walls X X – X – – –

Urban Activities Storm water – X – X X – X Noise PollutionDRAFT – – X – – – X Light Pollution X – – – – – X

Power Boating Noise – – X – – – – Wakes X X – X X – – Oil, Exhaust, and Sanitary Facilities – X – X – – X Unsafe Speeds – – – – X – X

137 LAKE CONCERNS AND IMPACTS SECTION 8

8.3 Lake Concerns and Solutions

Many issues, which directly impact the general values that attract people to Belmont Lake, have been identified at the workshops and in the survey. The proposed solutions, or recommendations (Section 9) , are the basis of the implementation/stewardship strategies.

In addition to the recommendations, some general solutions and stewardship actions that apply to all of the issues may include:

• Promote education and awareness programs with respect to all identified issues;

• Develop information about what agency is responsible for what issues and to whom one would report incidents or concerns;

• Maintain open communication with all levels of government to let them know what the issues are;

• Encourage more involvement and participation from all residents, particularly young people;

• Work with neighbours to jointly and directly communicate concerns, politely but assertively, to those who are creating them;

• Find ways for the association to “partner” with local businesses and government agencies;

• Always set a good example and take personal responsibility;

• Where legislation or regulation is needed, campaign to lobby politicians;

• Seek solutions to problems, which balance personal freedoms and regulation, using common sense;

• Review issues and solutions with local contractors;

• Develop a voluntary “Code of Conduct” for dealing with issues that have an impact on community values, but are unregulatedDRAFT by law; and • Where possible, mutually develop “Best Management Practices” with local contractors.

138 SUMMARY & RECOMMENDATIONS SECTION 9

The following is a summary with recommendations of all the sections within the Lake Plan.

The Provincial Policy Statement

• The Belmont Lake Cottagers’ Association recommends that the Havelock Belmont Methuen Official Plan be revised to take into account the differences noted between the Havelock Belmont Methuen Official Plan and the Provincial Policy Statement.

Zoning By-Laws

Zoning by-laws recognize:

• There is no shoreline vegetation protection

• There is little apparent concern for sky-line vistas

• There are no specific noise and light pollution by-laws

• The by-laws continue to permit boat houses and patios to be built on shorelines

• By-law enforcement [historically] has been inadequate.

The BLCA recommends: (By-Laws con't)

• An absolute restriction on the construction of new or replacement of old shoreline structures.

• At least 75% of the natural vegetation between the dwelling and the high water mark should be retained.

• **A separate ward should be created for waterfront property.

• Noise and light pollution by-laws should be enacted.

• The TWSP of HBM should encourage the evaluation of wetlands and other identified environmentally sensitive areas. • By-law enforcement should be greatlyDRAFT increased. Recommendations – Watershed

1. Local official plans should provide policy that recognizes watershed impacts and requires the consideration of upstream and downstream impacts when reviewing new development proposals.

2. Havelock Belmont Methuen Township should notify the Belmont Lake Cottagers’ Association of any major development applications within the watershed upstream of our lake.

Names is full in case you need:

BLCA is Belmont Lake Cottagers’ Association HBM OP is Havelock Belmont Methuen Official Plan OP is Official Plan PPS is Provincial Policy Statement

139 SUMMARY & RECOMMENDATIONS SECTION 9

Recommendations – Vegetation

51. The BLCA should encourage the municipalities to ensure that new development protects the integrity of the shorelines by minimizing the loss of native vegetation and substrates, and prevents runoff, during construction, into the lake.

52. Encourage HBM Township to adopt Official Plan Policy regarding the retention of natural shorelines through the creation of shoreline activity protection areas.

53. Municipal planning documents should require the mandatory protection of shoreline buffer areas.

54. The municipality should develop a “No Tree Cutting” or “Tree Preservation” forestry by-law to ensure that lots retain a percentage of their natural vegetation, including shoreline plants and trees, to prevent an increase of stormwater runoff from impervious surfaces, landscape alteration, and from resource activities such as clear-cuts.

Wetlands

It is speculated that the wetlands found within Munn, Taylor's, North River and Roddy Bays may be “provincially significant” because of its size and connectivity, its use as deer wintering feeding grounds, vegetation communities, and its significance as important spawning habitats for largemouth bass, muskellunge and walleye (MNR, 2004).

Recommendations – Wetlands

55. In cooperation with the local MNR, a wetland evaluation should be initiated to inventory the large wetland in Munn and Taylor's Bay to determine whether or not it is a “provincially significant” wetland.

56. Local official plans and zoning by-laws must identify the location of wetlands and provide appropriate policy to ensure their protection, including the enforcement of environmental/lake impact assessments for new development proposals. 57. The ongoing protection of theseDRAFT areas depends, in part, upon the commitment of HBM Township to zone wetlands as natural areas where no development can occur.

Recommendations – Fish Community

58. Official Plans and Zoning by-laws should identify the location of all permanent and intermittent warm water and cold water streams including policy to control and protect them against development impacts.

Recommendations – Wildlife

59. Minimum frontage requirements on remaining undeveloped lots should be at least 60 metres (200 feet) and increased frontage requirements would be preferred.

140 SUMMARY & RECOMMENDATIONS SECTION 9

The following are the recommendations presented to Havelock Belmont Methuen Town Council in February 2007.

Belmont Lake Cottagers Association's Recommendations

For the past 4 years, the B.L.C.A. has been working on the preparation of a lake plan. As part of this process we have conducted many meetings, workshops and surveys to understand the interests and concerns of the lakeshore and local business communities as well as government agencies and the community at large.

Official Plan

The Belmont Lake Cottagers' Association recommends that the H.B.M. Official Plan be strengthened in the following ways:

1] That all waterfront lands [lands that physically and functionally relate to the lake] be specifically defined and recognized for their unique character and that specific policies be identified to protect the special social, natural and physical elements of Belmont Lake.

The application of the waterfront designation must be flexible in order to respond to the varied terrain and development conditions within the Township. Generally, land that is on the shoreline or which physically or visually relates to the waterfront is included within this designation. The waterfront designation also will include commercial uses such as marinas, which have a functional relationship with the waterfront. The boundary between the waterfront and rural area must be specifically defined on an area and property basis, and therefore the waterfront designation is best defined through the zoning process.

The following design principles should be followed for development in the waterfront designation :

– The natural waterfront landscape should prevail with built forms blending into that landscape and shoreline

– Natural shorelines will be retained or restored – Disturbance on lots shouldDRAFT be limited and minimized and the maximum amount of vegetation should be retained on a lot.

– Building mass and coverage should be limited in relation to the size and frontage of the property and the character of the surrounding area.

– Development on the land and at the shoreline will be compatible with abutting uses and the surrounding area.

2] That all pits, quarries and /or mining operations be prohibited within the waterfront lands [as identified in #1] and within the viewscape of Belmont Lake and at least a minimum of 500 m from the shoreline. The viewscape includes all lands that can be seen from any point on the lake.

141 SUMMARY & RECOMMENDATIONS SECTION 9

3] That specific policy be provided regarding the construction of shoreline structures such as: Prohibition of construction of new or the replacement of old shoreline structures such as boathouses, decks, shore-walls and gazebos. Docks would be permitted provided they are restricted to a specific % of the shoreline and constructed in such a way that they minimally interfere with fish and other wildlife habitat.

4] That a specific policy be provided regarding the retention of shoreline vegetative buffers. Such policy could require:

– A mandatory buffer of 15 meters of vegetative non-disturbance on shorelines, be maintained.

– A minimum of 75% of the natural vegetation between the dwelling and the high water mark should be retained.

– The remaining shoreline frontage should be retained or restored as a natural vegetative buffer, which is at least 15 metres in depth from the normal or controlled high water mark, in order to

– protect the riparian and littoral zones and associated habitat

– prevent erosion, siltation and nutrient migration

– maintain shoreline character and appearance

– minimize the visual impact of development

5] That specific policy be included that recognizes watershed impacts and requires the consideration of upstream and downstream impacts when reviewing new development proposals.

6] That the Municipality initiate an inventory of the large wetland around Munn Taylor Bays to begin the process of classification to confirm its status as a provincially significant wetland. Until such an evaluation has been conducted and confirms whether or not this wetland is provincially significant, a specific policy should be included to prohibit development within or adjacent to this wetland.

7] That the location of all otherDRAFT wetlands adjacent to Belmont Lake be identified in the HBM OP [and appropriate by-laws] and in order to ensure the protection of these wetlands it should be a requirement that an environmental impact statement, to demonstrate no negative impact, be undertaken as part of any proposal to develop property upon or within 60 metres of these wetlands. Wetlands should be protected as natural areas within the HBM OP.

142 SUMMARY & RECOMMENDATIONS SECTION 9

8] That the HBM OP be revised to take into account the differences noted between the HBM OP and the Provincial Policy Statement [2005]. This comparison has already been completed and will form a part of the Belmont Lake Plan book

9] That a specific policy be included in the HBM OP that recognizes the importance of fish and wildlife and their habitat to the natural and social character of the lake and to require an Environmental Impact Statement as a condition of development in those areas deemed sensitive to fish and wildlife in accordance with the PPS[2005]

The impact assessment would, among other considerations, Confirm the type, specific location and extent of wildlife habitat, and identify the measures necessary to ensure that the habitat would be protected from the effects of development. The flora and fauna of Belmont lake are key elements of a healthy ecosystem. In addition, wildlife provides economic benefit through tourism, hunting, fishing, bird watching, and trapping. Indeed, the protection of wildlife habitat may be important to the survival of the species.

10] That specific policy be added to the HBM OP and by-laws that prohibits clear cutting and limits the removal of more than 50% of trees from any wood-lot within 200 metres of the shoreline of Belmont Lake and other water-bodies within its watershed. It should be a further requirement that prior to the removal of more than 25% of trees from a woodlot within 200 metres of Belmont and other waterbodies within its watershed, the wood-lot owner must submit a wood harvest plan to the Municipality.

The overriding principle here is that development, in its broadest interpretation, including construction, earth-moving, tree removal and filling will be sympathetic with the natural landscape and will be designed to maintain and fit with the natural characteristics of individual sites and under no circumstances will proceed prior to the completion of a site plan.

11] That specific policy should reflect HBM Council's commitment to not support the disposition of any crown our public lands adjacent to Belmont Lake and other water-bodies within its watershed. Just as park lands are deemedDRAFT crucial to the urban experience, so too are they critical for enjoyment of the rural experience.

12] That specific HBM OP policy should define and prohibit back-lot development.

13] That specific policy require the preparation of a site plan as part of any application for new waterfront development/re-development/re-zoning/severance with respect to any waterfront development on Belmont lake.

14] That the HBM OP provide for a periodic forensic audit of Council's and BLCA's decisions re: land use/development relative to the requirements of the HBM OP and P.P.S.

15] That the HBM OP. require a lake impact study for any major development on Belmont Lake or adjacent property. A major development would be defined as two or more severances or the creation of two or more building sites on any one parcel of land.

143 SUMMARY & RECOMMENDATIONS SECTION 9

16] The lake plan and the HBM OP should identify the recreational carrying capacity of Belmont lake. Recreational carrying capacity refers to the point at which the shoreline facilities and the recreational activities, which they generate, are in balance with the ability of the water-body to withstand the impact.

Municipal by-laws

In support of these official plan policies and to help ensure the conservation of the natural, social and physical character of Belmont Lake and its watershed, we would also like the Coucil to consider the following:

1] Adoption of a noise by-law

2] The by-laws should include a policy that prohibits lighting that interferes with the night vision of those using the lake during night-time hours.

3] Implementation of septic and other sewage systems inspection programs.

4] Increased enforcement of existing and new by-laws. There must be access to by-law enforcement officials after business hours and on weekends.

5] By laws should prohibit the use of herbicides, pesticides, and fertilizers within 100 feet of the high water mark of any water-body in HBM TWSP.

6] By laws should provide for public notice of shore-line development infractions and actions taken by the HBM TWSP. DRAFT

144 LIST OF MAPS AND FIGURES

Maps 1 - Bathymetry 2 - Watershed 3 - Municipal Address Map 2000 4 - Crown Land 5 - Rock Marker Map 6 - Historical Fishermens' Map 7 - Fish Spawning Map 8 - Deer Wintering Areas 9 - Geological Map 10 - Land Use Map : HBM Schedule A1 Map 2004 11 - Significant Environmental Features

Figures 1.1 Lake Planning Process ...... 3 2.1 Vision ...... 6 2.2 Principles and Targets...... 7 3.1 Lake Physical Characteristics...... 11 3.5 Water Levels ...... 14 4.1 Total Boats...... 17 4.2 Households with Non-Motorized Boats ...... 17 4.3 Households with Motorized Boats...... 19 4.4 Unsafe Boating Incidents ...... 20 4.5 Shoreline Report - Survey ...... 23 4.6 Resident Noise and Lighting Concerns ...... 25 5.1 Water Chemistry ...... 31 5.3 Total Phosphorous Measurements...... 33 5.4 pH and CO2 Ranges ...... 36 5.5 Hardness, Alkalinity and Conductivity...... 37 5.6 Nitrate - Nitrogen andDRAFT Amonia - Nitrogen ...... 38 5.7 Vegetation from the Littoral Zone ...... 51 5.8 Vegetation from the Littoral, Riparian and Upland Zones ...... 53 5.9 Trees and Shrubs ...... 57 5.10 Fish Species ...... 73 5.11 Guide to Eating Fish - Number of Meals/Month ...... 85 5.12 List of Common Mammals...... 88 5.13 List of Birds...... 92 5.14 List of Reptiles and Amphibians ...... 98 7.1 Shoreline Development - Lot Size & Building Requirements ...... 122 7.2 Residential Occupancy by Season - Survey ...... 126 7.3 Number of days in Residence - Survey ...... 127 7.4 Sewage and Waste - Survey ...... 128 8.1 Most Valued Features: Resident and Commercial Stakeholders ...... 132 8.2 Values - Score out of 5 ...... 132 8.3 Description of Impacts ...... 133 8.4 Effects of Impacts on Valued Lake Features ...... 137

iv GLOSSARY

Appendices ...... 145 Appendix 1 - Summer 2003 Resident's Survey Appendix 2 - Summary of Commercial Stakeholder Workshop Appendix 3 - Summary of Resident's Workshop Appendix 4 - Provincial Policy Statement / Havelock Belmont Methuen Official Plan Comparison Appendix 4 - Map of Ontario

DRAFT

145 LIST OF MAPS AND FIGURES

Figures 1.1 Lake Planning Process ...... 3 2.1 Vision ...... 6 2.2 Principles and Targets...... 7 3.1 Lake Physical Characteristics...... 11 3.5 Water Levels ...... 14 4.1 Total Boats...... 17 4.2 Households with Non-Motorized Boats ...... 17 4.3 Households with Motorized Boats...... 19 4.4 Unsafe Boating Incidents ...... 20 4.5 Shoreline Report - Survey ...... 23 4.6 Resident Noise and Lighting Concerns ...... 25 5.1 Water Chemistry ...... 31 5.3 Total Phosphorous Measurements...... 33 5.4 pH and CO2 Ranges ...... 36 5.5 Hardness, Alkalinity and Conductivity...... 37 5.6 Nitrate - Nitrogen and Amonia - Nitrogen ...... 38 5.7 Vegetation from the Littoral Zone ...... 51 5.8 Vegetation from the Littoral, Riparian and Upland Zones ...... 53 5.9 Trees and Shrubs ...... 57 5.10 Fish Species ...... 73 5.11 Guide to Eating Fish - Number of Meals/Month ...... 85 5.12 List of Common Mammals...... 88 5.13 List of Birds...... 92 5.14 List of Reptiles and Amphibians ...... 98 7.1 Shoreline Development - Lot Size & Building Requirements ...... 122 7.2 Residential Occupancy by Season - Survey ...... 126 7.3 Number of days in ResidenceDRAFT - Survey ...... 127 7.4 Sewage and Waste - Survey ...... 128 8.1 Most Valued Features: Resident and Commercial Stakeholders ...... 132 8.2 Values - Score out of 5 ...... 132 8.3 Description of Impacts ...... 133 8.4 Effects of Impacts on Valued Lake Features ...... 137

146 APPENDIX 1 – SURVEY

Summer 2003 Resident’s Survey

1. 1a. Describe the main use of your property

Response Percent Response Total Permanent Residential 18.8% 24 Seasonal Residential 78.9% 101 Rental 2.3% 3

Total Respondents 128 (skipped this question) 7

2. 1b. If you are a seasonal resident do you plan on making this your permanent residence?

Response Percent Response Total Yes 7.5% 8 No 64.2% 68 Don’t know 23.6% 25 Not a seasonal resident 4.7% 5

Total Respondents 106 (skipped this question) 29

3. 1c. If you are a seasonal resident, how many days per season do you use your residence in spring?

Response Percent Response Total

Zero Days 3.3% 3 1 to 10 Days 42.9% 39 11 to 30 Days 40.7% 37 31 to 50 Days 7.7% 7 More than 50 DaysDRAFT 5.5% 5 Total Respondents 91 (skipped this question) 43

4. 1c. If you are a seasonal resident, how many days per season do you use your residence in summer?

Response Percent Response Total Zero Days 3% 3 1 to 10 Days 5.1% 5 11 to 30 Days 23.2% 23 31 to 50 Days 25.3% 25 More than 50 Days 43.4% 43

Total Respondents 99 (skipped this question) 36

147 SURVEY

5. 1c. If you are a seasonal resident, how many days per season do you use your residence in winter?

Response Percent Response Total Zero Days 46.2% 36 1 to 10 Days 34.6% 27 11 to 30 Days 17.9% 14 31 to 50 Days 0% 0 More than 50 Days 1.3% 1

Total Respondents 78 (skipped this question) 56

6. 1c. If you are a seasonal resident, how many days per season do you use your residence in fall?

Response Percent Response Total Zero Days 8.9% 8 1 to 10 Days 44.4% 40 11 to 30 Days 35.6% 32 31 to 50 Days 5.6% 5 More than 50 Days 5.6% 5

Total Respondents 90 (skipped this question) 44

7. 2a. How long have you or your family owned property on Belmont Lake?

Total Respondents 130 (skipped this question) 5

8. 2b. How many generations of your family have used your property? DRAFTTotal Respondents 120 (skipped this question) 15

9. 3. What kind of recreational activity do you participate in while at the lake?

Response Percent Response Total

Boating 87.8% 115 Reading 82.4% 108 Jet Skiing 17.6% 23 Fishing 69.5% 91 Kayaking 20.6% 27 Canoeing 68.7% 90 Socializing 73.3% 96 Swimming 90.1% 118 Hunting 7.6% 10 Entertaining 75.6% 99

148 SURVEY

Hiking 30.5% 40 Water Skiing 49.6% 65 Scuba Diving 7.6% 10 Sailing 25.2% 33 Nature Appreciation 72.5% 95 Ice Fishing 2.3% 3 Snowmobiling 11.5% 15 Winter Skiing/tubing 14.5% 19 Ice Skating 29.8% 39

Total Respondents 131 (skipped this question) 4

10. 4a. What is the total area of your property (approximate)?

Response Percent Response Total Under 5,000 sq. ft. (50 x 100 ft) 7.1% 9 5001 – 15,000 sq. ft. 34.1% 43 15,001 – 43,560 sq. ft. (1 acre) 27.8% 35 Greater than 1 acre 31% 39

Total Respondents 12 (skipped this question) 9

11. 4b.What percentage of your property is maintained in its natural state?

Total Respondents 124 (skipped this question) 11 12. 4c. What is the total shoreline frontageDRAFT of your property (approximate)? Response Percent Response Total Under 50 ft 4% 5 50 – 100 ft 37.9% 47 101 – 150 ft 23.4% 29 151 – 200 ft 12.9% 16 Over 200 ft 21.8% 27

Total Respondents 124 (skipped this question) 11

13. 4d. What amount of shoreline frontage is maintained in its natural state?

Total Respondents 126 (skipped this question) 9

149 SURVEY

14. 4e. Do you have an artificial beach? (Imported sand)

Response Percent Response Total

Yes 20.9% 27 No 79.1% 102

Total Respondents 129 (skipped this question) 6

15. 4f. Do you have a manicured lawn along your shoreline?

Response Percent Response Total

Yes 23.1% 30 No 76.9% 100

Total Respondents 130 (skipped this question) 5

16. 5a. What is the approximate total size of the main building (all floors)?

Total Respondents 122 (skipped this question) 13

17. 5b. How many storeys does the main building have?

Total Respondents 129 (skipped this question) 6

18. 5c. What is the approximate area of the footprint (first floor) of the main building?

Total Respondents 117 DRAFT(skipped this question) 18 19. 5d. How many sleeping cabins do you have?

Response Percent Response Total

Number 100% 77 Total sq. footage 64.9% 50

Total Respondents 77 (skipped this question) 58

20. 5e. Do you have a boathouse?

Response Percent Response Total Yes 26.4% 32 No 73.6% 89

Total Respondents 121 (skipped this question) 13

150 SURVEY

21. 5e. Cont’d – Description of boat house.

Indicate Number

Zero One Two Three or More Response Total

Single Slip 4% (1) 96% (25) 0% (0) 0% (0) 26 Double Slip 20% (1) 60% (3) 20% (1) 0% (0) 5

Dry

Yes No Response Total

Single Slip 87% (20) 13% (3) 23 Double Slip 100% (3) 0% (0) 3

Wet

Yes No Response Total

Single Slip 100% (3) 0% (0) 3 Double Slip 100% (2) 0% (0) 2

Total Respondents 31 (skipped this question) 104

22. 5f. What kind of dock do you have?

Number of Docks

Zero One Two Three or More Response Total

Floating 0% (0) 79% (22) 14% (4) 7% (2) 28 Crib 0% (0) 83% (5) 17% (1) 0% (0) 6 Pole/Post 0% (0) DRAFT78% (62) 16% (13) 5% (4) 79 Combination 0% (0) 67% (8) 33% (4) 0% (0) 12 Other 12% (1) 75% (6) 0% (0) 12% (1) 8

Length into water

Less than 10 to 15 to More than Response Total 10 feet 15 feet 20 feet 20 feet

Floating 9% (2) 14% (3) 27% (6) 50% (11) 22 Crib 20% (1) 0% (0) 40% (2) 40% (2) 5 Pole/Post 4% (3) 14% (10) 30% (22) 52% (38) 73 Combination 17% (2) 17% (2) 8% (1) 58% (7) 12 Other 22% (2) 11% (1) 44% (4) 22% (2) 9

Total Respondents 123 (skipped this question) 12

151 SURVEY

23. 5g. Describe the other buildings on your property?

Response Percent Response Total

Building 1 100% 97 Building 2 32% 31 Building 3 5.2% 5

Total Respondents 97 (skipped this question) 38

24. 6. Are you planning any major changes or alterations to your property in the next 5 years?

Response Percent Response Total

Yes 14.3% 17 No 85.7% 102

Total Respondents 119 (skipped this question) 16

25. 7. How many boats do you have? a. Non-motorized:

How Many

Zero One Two or More Response Total

Canoe 1% (1) 87% (84) 12% (12) 97 Windsurfer 12% (3) 72% (18) 16% (4) 25 Sailboat 11% (3) 86% (24) 4% (1) 28 Kayak 13% (4) 53% (16) 33% (10) 30 Other 8% (4) 82% (40) 10% (5) 49 DRAFTTotal Respondents 113 (skipped this question) 22

152 SURVEY

26. 7. How many boats do you have? b. Motorized

Number of Two Stroke

Zero One Two or More Response Total

Motorboats under 10 hp 1% (1) 99% (69) 0% (0) 70 Motorboats between 11-100 hp 2% (1) 89% (47) 9% (5) 53 Motorboats between 101-199 hp 8% (1) 75% (9) 17% (2) 12 Motorboats over 200 hp 40% (2) 60% (3) 0% (0) 5 Personal Watercraft (Jet-ski) 11% (2) 84% (16) 5% (1) 19 Pontoon Boats 11% (2) 89% (17) 0% (0) 19 Other (specify) 100% (2) 0% (0) 0% (0) 2

Number of Four Stroke

Zero One Two or More Response Total

Motorboats under 10 hp 25% (2) 75% (6) 0% (0) 8 Motorboats between 11-100 hp 15% (2) 85% (11) 0% (0) 13 Motorboats between 101-199 hp 22% (2) 78% (7) 0% (0) 9 Motorboats over 200 hp 50% (2) 50% (2) 0% (0) 4 Personal Watercraft (Jet-ski) 40% (2) 60% (3) 0% (0) 5 Pontoon Boats 20% (2) 80% (8) 0% (0) 10 Other (specify) 67% (2) 33% (1) 0% (0) 3

Total Respondents 123 (skipped this question) 12

27. 8. Sewage Disposala. a. How do you dispose of black water (sewage from toilets)? DRAFTResponse Percent Response Total Septic System 88.4% 114 Aerobic System 3.1% 4 Holding Tank 7% 9 Other 1.6% 2

Total Respondents 129 (skipped this question) 6

153 SURVEY

28. 8. Sewage Disposala. a. How do you dispose of grey water (sinks)?

Response Percent Response Total

Septic System 82.9% 107 Aerobic System 6.2% 8 Holding Tank 4.7% 6 Other 6.2% 8

Total Respondents 129 (skipped this question) 6

29. c. If you have a septic tank, where is your septic tile bed located?

Response Percent Response Total

Less than 30 feet from shoreline or creek 0% 0 Between 31 – 50 feet from shoreline or creek 11.3% 13 Between 51 – 66 feet from shoreline or creek 11.3% 13 Between 67 – 100 feet of shoreline or creek 37.4% 43 Greater than 101 feet from shoreline or creek 37.4% 43 Don’t know 2.6% 3

Total Respondents 115 (skipped this question) 20

30. 8d. How old is your septic system?

Response Percent Response Total

< 5 years 12.9% 15 6 to 15 years 36.2% 42 16 to 30 yearsDRAFT 31% 36 > 30 years 13.8% 16 Don’t know 6% 7

Total Respondents 116 (skipped this question) 19

31. 8e. When was the last time the septic tank was pumped out?

Response Percent Response Total

< 5 years 80.2% 89 6-10 years 11.7% 13 11-20 years 1.8% 2 Don’t know 6.3% 7

Total Respondents 111 (skipped this question) 24

154 SURVEY

32. 8f. Have you added any kind of enhancement to your septic system?

Response Percent Response Total

Effluent Filters 37.5% 3 Aerobic Units 12.5% 1 Other 50% 4

Total Respondents 8 (skipped this question) 127

33. 8g. Do you use enzyme activators?

Response Percent Response Total

Yes 35% 36 No 65% 67

Total Respondents 103 (skipped this question) 32

34. 8h. If you have a holding tank, what is the capacity of your holding tank?

Total Respondents 18 (skipped this question) 117

35. 8i. How often do you have it pumped out?

Total Respondents 18 (skipped this question) 117

36. 8j. How old is the tank? DRAFTTotal Respondents 19 (skipped this question) 116

37. 9. Household Appliances – Do you have any of the following appliances:

Response Percent Response Total

Clothes Washer 39.1% 50 Dishwasher 29.7% 38 Hot Tub 1.6% 2 Flush Toilets 93% 119 Water Softener 6.2% 8 Bath Tubs/Showers 92.2% 118 Garburator 0.8% 1

Total Respondents 128 (skipped this question) 7

155 SURVEY

38. 10. Water Supply a. How do you obtain you household water?

Response Percent Response Total

Well 22.3% 29 Lake water 74.6% 97 Bottled 56.9% 74

Total Respondents 130 (skipped this question) 5

39. 10b. Do you test your water?

Response Percent Response Total

Yes 37.1% 43 No 62.9% 73

Total Respondents 116 (skipped this question) 19

40. 10.b. How often do you test your water?

Total Respondents 30 (skipped this question) 105

41. 11.a. Do you fertilize your lawn?

Response Percent Response Total

Yes 8.7% 11 No 91.3% 116 DRAFTTotal Respondents 127 (skipped this question) 8

42. 11.a. What do you fertilize your lawn with?

Total Respondents 6 (skipped this question) 129

43. b. Do you use low phosphorus household cleaning products on a regular basis?

Response Percent Response Total

Yes 68% 83 No 32% 39

Total Respondents 122 (skipped this question) 13

156 SURVEY

44. 12. Do you use pesticides?

Response Percent Response Total

Yes 7% 9 No 93% 119

Total Respondents 128 (skipped this question) 6

45. 16.a. In your opinion, describe the water quality of the lake?

Response Percent Response Total

Excellent 21.8% 29 Good 76.7% 102 Poor 1.5% 2

Total Respondents 133 (skipped this question) 2

46. 16.b. What are your particular concerns with respect to water quality?

Response Percent Response Total

Clarity 36.8% 43 Bacteria 58.1% 68 Weeds 68.4% 80 Appearance 16.2% 19 Smell 17.1% 20

Total Respondents 117 DRAFT(skipped this question) 18 47. 16.c. Have you observed unpleasant scums or films on the water?

Response Percent Response Total

Yes 23.9% 27 No 76.1% 86

Total Respondents 113 (skipped this question) 22

157 SURVEY

48. 17. Do you think that Belmont Lake is now at its capacity for the following matters:

Opinion

Yes No Response Total

Cottages 88% (111) 12% (15) 126 Boat Trafffic 55% (66) 45% (55) 121 Automobile Traffic 67% (74) 33% (37) 111 Water Contamination 76% (87) 24% (27) 114 Noise 82% (99) 18% (22) 121 Outdoor Electric lights 55% (61) 45% (50) 111 PWC’s(skidoos) 79% (92) 21% (25) 117 Fishing Boats 31% (35) 69% (77) 112 Power Motors (boat and lawn mowers) 56% (50) 44% (39) 89 Sailboats 4% (4) 96% (110) 114 Canoes and kayaks 3% (3) 97% (111) 114 Paddle boats 3% (3) 97% (112) 115

Total Respondents 130 (skipped this question) 5

49. 18. Please rate how the following elements add to the personal enjoyment of Belmont Lake.

Very Somewhat Important Not Don’t Response Important Important Important Know Average

Water Quality 95% (123) 2% (3) 3% (4) 0% (0) 0% (0) 1.08 Water Quantity 69% (86) 20% (25) 8% (10) 2% (3) 0% (0) 1.44 Water Level 75% (96) 16% (20) 9% (12) 0% (0) 0% (0) 1.34 Natural Shorelines 63%DRAFT (83) 26% (34) 9% (12) 2% (2) 0% (0) 1.49 Landscapes 42% (52) 31% (39) 19% (23) 6% (8) 2% (2) 1.94 Wildlife viewing 63% (81) 24% (31) 12% (15) 1% (1) 1% (1) 1.53 Fishing 41% (53) 20% (25) 18% (23) 20% (26) 1% (1) 2.20 Peace and tranquility 83% (108) 9% (12) 6% (8) 2% (2) 0% (0) 1.26 Swimming 71% (91) 19% (24) 9% (12) 2% (2) 0% (0) 1.42 Hunting 5% (6) 3% (3) 9% (11) 75% (89) 8% (9) 3.78 Power boating 22% (27) 22% (27) 19% (23) 34% (41) 2% (2) 2.70 Non power boating 45% (53) 32% (38) 14% (17) 8% (9) 1% (1) 1.87 Night skies 50% (61) 27% (33) 10% (12) 13% (16) 1% (1) 1.89 (light pollution) Other (please describe) 40% (2) 0% (0) 40% (2) 0% (0) 20% (1) 2.60 Other______100% (3) 0% (0) 0% (0) 0% (0) 0% (0) 1.00 Other______0% (0) 0% (0) 0% (0) 0% (0) 0% (0) 0.00

Total Respondents 131 (skipped this question) 4

158 SURVEY

50. 19. During the past five years how much of a negative impact has the following had on the enjoyment of your property?

Significant Moderate Light No Don’t Response Impact Impact Impact Impact Know Average

Water Pollution 6% (7) 22% (27) 34% (42) 37% (46) 1% (1) 3.06 Boat Traffic 15% (18) 36% (45) 27% (33) 22% (27) 1% (1) 2.58 Personal Water Craft 36% (46) 27% (35) 15% (19) 21% (27) 1% (1) 2.23 Daytime Noise 23% (29) 31% (40) 20% (25) 25% (32) 2% (2) 2.52 Nighttime Noise 16% (20) 22% (28) 27% (34) 34% (43) 2% (2) 2.83 Outdoor Lighting 15% (19) 19% (23) 22% (27) 44% (54) 1% (1) 2.96 Vegetation Removal 9% (11) 17% (21) 20% (24) 46% (57) 8% (10) 3.28 Snowmobiles 6% (7) 6% (7) 19% (23) 53% (64) 17% (20) 3.69 Development 17% (21) 20% (25) 21% (26) 37% (45) 5% (6) 2.92 ATV 11% (13) 18% (22) 16% (19) 46% (55) 9% (11) 3.24 Quality of fishing 26% (33) 24% (31) 12% (15) 31% (40) 8% (10) 2.71 Other 43% (3) 29% (2) 0% (0) 29% (2) 0% (0) 2.14

Total Respondents 132 (skipped this question) 3

51. 20. During the past 5 years, how do you feel the appearance of the shoreline has changed on the lake with respect to the following?

More Same Less Don’t Know Response Average

Lawns 45% (54) 43% (51) 1% (1) 11% (13) 1.77 Residential Development 81% (101) 13% (16) 2% (2) 4% (5) 1.28 Commercial Development 1%DRAFT (1) 69% (80) 6% (7) 24% (28) 2.53 Forest Cover 8% (9) 44% (51) 34% (40) 15% (17) 2.56 Shoreline Structures 43% (52) 41% (49) 8% (9) 8% (10) 1.81 Shoreline Rehabilitation 19% (22) 44% (52) 17% (20) 20% (24) 2.39 Wetlands 3% (4) 52% (61) 23% (27) 21% (25) 2.62 Other 0% (0) 40% (2) 0% (0) 60% (3) 3.20

Total Respondents 124 (skipped this question) 11

159 SURVEY

52. 21. a. How do you access your property?

Response Percent Response Total

Water 2.3% 3 Year Round Road 68.4% 91 Seasonal Road 29.3% 39

Total Respondents 133 (skipped this question) 2

53. 21.b. If you are a member of a road or other local association, please give the name

Total Respondents 36 (skipped this question) 99

54. 22. a. How do you dispose of solid waste?

Response Percent Response Total

Self 62.5% 80 Contractor 4.7% 6 Municipality 31.2% 40 Other 1.6% 2

Total Respondents 128 (skipped this question) 7

55. 22.b. Do you recycle glass, metal, paper, plastic, etc.?

Response Percent Response Total

Yes 99.2% 128 NoDRAFT 0.8% 1 Total Respondents 129 (skipped this question) 6

56. If no, would you recycle if the municipality offered pick-up service?

Response Percent Response Total

Yes 45.7% 16 No 54.3% 19

Total Respondents 35 (skipped this question) 99

160 SURVEY

57. 22.c. Should the municipality provide garbage pick-up?

Response Percent Response Total

Yes 18.4% 16 No 81.6% 71

Total Respondents 87 (skipped this question) 48

58. 23.a. Should new boathouses be totally prohibited?

Response Percent Response Total

Yes 47.6% 59 No 52.4% 65

Total Respondents 124 (skipped this question) 11

59. Should every lot be allowed to have a boathouse?

Response Percent Response Total

Yes 42.2% 35 No 57.8% 48

Total Respondents 83 (skipped this question) 52

60. Should boathouses be prohibited on lots with:

Choice DRAFTYes No Response Total Less than 100 foot lot frontage 62% (40) 38% (24) 64 Between 101 and 199 foot lot frontage 36% (16) 64% (29) 45 Greater than 200 foot lot front 32% (13) 68% (27) 40 Other 40% (4) 60% (6) 10

Total Respondents 73 (skipped this question) 62

61. Should boathouses be limited to a single storey?

Response Percent Response Total

Yes 73.7% 56 No 26.3% 20

Total Respondents 76 (skipped this question) 59

161 SURVEY

62. Should boathouses be subject to a setback provision?

Response Percent Response Total

Yes 57.7% 45 No 42.3% 33

Total Respondents 78 (skipped this question) 57

63. 23.b. Should the shoreline setback for new buildings and structures (not docks or boathouses) be increased from 66ft to 100 ft.?

Response Percent Response Total

Yes 41.9% 52 No 58.1% 72

Total Respondents 124 (skipped this question) 11

64. 23.c. Should the Township regulate site alteration (e.g. maintenance of trees and other vegetation) on the shoreline of the lake?

Response Percent Response Total

Yes 37.4% 46 No 62.6% 77

Total Respondents 123 (skipped this question) 12 65. 23.d. Should the Township employDRAFT staff to inspect, monitor and enforce standards for shoreline alteration? Response Percent Response Total

Yes 34.7% 43 No 65.3% 81

Total Respondents 124 (skipped this question) 11

66. 23.e. Would you support a Marine Patrol for Belmont Lake?

Response Percent Response Total

Yes 48.8% 61 No 51.2% 64

Total Respondents 125 (skipped this question) 10

162 SURVEY

67. 23.f. Do you or your guests use the public beach at Cummings Bay?

Response Percent Response Total

Yes 11.7% 15 No 88.3% 113

Total Respondents 128 (skipped this question) 7

68. 23.g. Do you see the need for the establishment of a water and land based fire protection and first response (emergency) service?

Response Percent Response Total

Yes 49.6% 59 No 50.4% 60

Total Respondents 119 (skipped this question) 15

69. 23.h. Would you support the establishment of a water and land based fire protection and first response (emergency) service?

Response Percent Response Total

Yes 56.3% 67 No 43.7% 52

Total Respondents 119 (skipped this question) 16

70. 24. According to the 2004 Official Plan only one wetland on Belmont Lake is protected from development because it has been officially identifiedDRAFT as "Provincially Significant". Should other wetlands on Belmont Lake be identified and protected in the same manner?

Response Percent Response Total

Yes 90.8% 118 No 9.2% 12

Total Respondents 130 (skipped this question) 5

163

Belmont Lake Plan

Report of Stakeholders Meeting “Sharing Interests”

(Map of Belmont Lake)

Belmont Lake Cottagers Association

April 23, 2004 Havelock Town Hall

Prepared By:

French Planning Services Inc. www.frenchplanning.com

Preamble

These proceedings record the results of the Stakeholders Workshop that was held on April 23rd, 2004 for the preparation of the Belmont Lake Plan. The workshop was hosted by the Belmont Lake Cottagers Association and 20 people representing local businesses attended the meeting including: a real estate agent, a marina operator, septic tank/sewage removal service, a motel owner/operator, government, the Crowe Valley Conservation Authority, MOE, MNR Peterborough District Biologist and Stewardship Council, Shell gas station owner/Havelock Jamboree organizer, FOCA, Oak Lake Cottage Association as well as permanent and seasonal residents.

The purpose of the workshop was to promote discussion about the important values and special features that support the current high quality of life on Belmont Lake. The workshop provided an informal opportunity for non-residential stakeholders to identify issues, recommend strategic actions, and to be involved in the preparation of the plan.

1 1. Introduction

The purpose of the workshop was to provide information on the planning process, to gather stakeholder thoughts and ideas, investigate their values and concerns, determine what information they may have and to encourage their participation in the planning process.

The workshop dealt with three questions:

1. Values - What do you value the most about Belmont Lake? 2. Issues and Concerns – What are your concerns about Belmont Lake? 3. Participation - How can you help? What resources or information do you have available?

Art Church, President, Belmont Lake Cottagers Association/Steering Committee, welcomed everyone to the Workshop and thanked participants for their time and interest in the project. Art proceeded to describe and explain the treasured quality of life on Belmont lake, the carrying capacity and threshold limits of this natural system, and the importance of the lake planning. Art Church also indicated that the workshop is an integral component of the planning process and that the participation of the attendees and other stakeholders is critical to the success of the Belmont Lake Plan.

Randy French stated that the purpose of this planning exercise is to identify the social, physical and natural elements that support the quality of life on the lake and to identify steps necessary to protect the high quality of life on Belmont Lake. The Lake Plan is a community based planning process, which is linked to municipal policy and stewardship actions that are designed to reflect and respond to the special character of Belmont Lake. Its basic purpose is to consolidate current information, identify issues and provide future direction on how to improve the quality of life in the watershed. The Lake Plan will include a vision statement, a general description of the lake’s features and character, an outline of the issues, causes, and recommendations, and an action plan.

As each participant introduced themselves, they described their connection with Belmont Lake and expressed their fond memories of lake life, the sadness they feel at the ecological damage that is now prevalent in the system such as deteriorating water quality, development pressures, loss of wildlife and habitat, and noise and light pollution, and the overall sense of having a valuable and treasured asset slip through their fingers. The prevalent comment expressed by all was that Belmont Lake was a wonderful place to be and that major long-term stewardship efforts were needed to protect their quality of life on the lake.

Some initial comments included:

“Lake planning is a new concept for the Peterborough County area, which is under pressure for lake plan initiatives… it should catch on like wildfire”.

2 “Belmont Lake is the greatest asset for the township…our major concern is to protect this asset, which will take major stewardship efforts”.

“Born and raised on Belmont Lake…I’ve made life-long friends and treasured memories…it is a good place to live”.

“There are several water quality and management issues on Belmont Lake…we need to ensure proper conservation and protection of the lake at a broader scale or from a watershed approach”.

“We all own the same assets because we are a family…I feel the lake and its assets and problems are everyone’s concern”.

2. Values

The workshop participants were asked to write answers to and discuss the question: “What do you or your organization value the most about Belmont Lake?” The highest values found on Belmont Lake included:

Water Quality Natural Heritage (Natural Beauty & Wildlife) Social / Cultural Economical Importance Recreation

The following points reflect the general discussion that occurred:

1. Water Quality and Quantity

• Protecting water quality and managing current trophic condition (nutrient in-puts) for long-term health of the lake and fish community • Maintaining clean water (including clarity) for recreational use such as fishing, water sports, and boating. Some comments were raised about the need to minimize weeds. • Conserving the ecological importance of both the lake and its watershed with an appropriate water quality and quantity management plan

2. Social / Cultural Values

• Belmont Lake is a community resource and has a great reputation as a good place to live for its quality of life and resource use • The reputation of the Belmont Lake community for its conscientious nature. This includes residents, property owners, and businesses who are concerned with the sustainability of the lake and have been actively involved, for many years, with the Cottage Association and “Water Stewardship” efforts • Location and proximity of property to the lake • Tranquility, solitude, beauty and rural look of the lake including the peace and quiet during the off season

3 • The People, “life-long friends” and “neighbours who respect neighbours”

3. Recreational Values

• Availability of various township recreational opportunities as well as water sports, canoeing, sailing, swimming, hiking, angling, Havelock Jamboree, etc. • Public water access and private parks (e.g., Beach and Bay campgrounds)

4. Natural Heritage Values

• Natural beauty including a “rural character” and scenic, unobstructed view • The natural environment including the number of islands on the lake and its remaining undeveloped/untouched or naturalized shorelines • The rocky outcrops and unique vegetation of the Canadian Shield topography • Wildlife viewing and the ecological contribution of these local aquatic and terrestrial wildlife communities and habitats including fish and fish habitat, birds and ducks such as geese, mergansers and loons as well as nesting sites, and mammals such as otters, beavers, foxes and deer and winter deer yards, which make their home on Belmont Lake or in its watershed and are, therefore, linked to the health of the lake • The presence of locally rare and provincially threatened species—Species at Risk (SAR) • The diversity and beauty of the four seasons • The conservation of the aesthetic and ecological importance of the local wetlands including the protection of their contribution to the water cycle such as the lake’s water quality and quantity, as an important habitat for many species including species-at-risk, and to the scenic beauty of Belmont Lake • Historical values and the legacy involved with protection and conservation • Regional Identity o Belmont Lake’s contribution to the North and Crowe River Watershed o Belmont Lake is part of the world famous “Kawartha Lakes”

5. Infrastructure and Economic Opportunities

• The regional economic importance and contribution of local, independent businesses— “we sell what we do best” • Tourism such as the Havelock Jamboree and fishing is the mainstay, we rely on seasonal residents and tourists for income. “Best fishing in the world…you people are stupid for not knowing it…” (Bobby Bear), • The financial impact and contribution of local businesses and taxes to the local economy • Property values are increasing due to the above mentioned values and interest by “Baby Boomer” buyers • The availability of local services, including hydro, gas, some waste management, shopping and other infrastructures, due to the proximity to larger cities such as Peterborough

4 3. Issues and Concerns

Participants were asked to discuss the following question, “What are your concerns about Belmont Lake?”

The most common issues and concerns that were identified include the following:

Water Quality and Quantity Development Pressure Wetland and Wildlife Protection Social Aspect: Recreation, Economic Opportunities, and Infrastructures Regulations and Enforcement

The following points reflect the general discussion that occurred:

1. Water Quality and Quantity Issues

• Water quality is impacted by fluctuating water levels, uncontrolled nutrient inputs, such as phosphorus, bacteria and fertilizers, zebra mussels and removal of shoreline vegetation… “There is a need to maintain water quality by controlling the concentration of nutrient input loading into the lake” • Uncontrolled development pressures and faulty or aging septic systems and holding tanks are contributing to unmanaged sludge/solid waste leaching into the lake…“it will contribute to water quality issues and waste management issues” • Lagoons, which are not sanitary because most lack cement vaults, are considered “sewage pits” • There is no current economical and “safe-way” to collect and dispose of septic waste from the islands • There is a need for the community and local government to collaborate and work in cooperation with the local sewage haulers system for proper septic disposal. Questions that should be considered include: what are the solutions, who will manage and fund these products and services, and where will the sludge/waste be hauled to? • Property owners need to know and understand the Ministry of the Environment’s (MOE) regulations that are in place to monitor and protect water quality and quantity as well as the relationship between septic systems and holding tanks and water quality • Lake level management conflicts between regulators—Conservation Authority and users—lake residents…high water levels cause erosion and low levels reduce access o “You can’t shut the dam down to increase water levels for boaters and access because certain levels must be maintained to protect important fish habitat on the lake, such as lake trout, and downstream…” o “Constant water levels are NOT GOOD for natural systems, especially wetlands, which need fluctuating water levels for healthy ecosystems and water regimes…water level fluctuations and variations in ecological communities is natural… the lake is not a swimming pool”

5 • Inappropriate water consumption among residents, such as lawn sprinklers which contribute to watershed drought issues • There is a lack of public communication, especially for the next generation. There is a need to make people aware of water consumption and quality issues in the local area • There is a lack of current and historical data because there are several information gaps, including historical water levels, around Belmont Lake

2. Development Pressures

• Increasing pressure to develop in wetlands and fish and wildlife habitat, e.g., dredging—some landowners have received dredging rights in wetlands • The conservation of the rural character of Belmont Lake may be compromised by development pressures and planning standards • Current pressures include an “urbanized” style, “mega-homes”, taller building heights, shoreline conversion for beach front property, and increased light pollution • Another pressure emanates from “alternate life-styles” including multi-families and conversion from seasonal to full time residency, which contributes to year-round noise pollution • New lot creation or the conversion of existing lots into multi-family compounds will increase the number of people living on and using the lake • Improvements need to be made in planning and development regulations to ensure reasonable and manageable growth with appropriate capacity limits • “Cheap property” is attracting the “Baby Boomers” from the city and their arrival will mean more changes in the landscape, the size of cottages and life-style from seasonal to permanent residency • Increased destruction of shorelines from residential, cottage and the shoreline development, including substituting the natural vegetation for cement walls, and a lack of naturalization

3. Wetland and Wildlife Protection

• Invasion of exotic species affects the water quality of the lake and will have long-term negative impacts on the health of the fisheries o Zebra mussels— veligers discovered in 1999 o Other invasive aquatic species include blue gill and black crappie, but there may be more… “Has anyone seen the spinney water flea?” • Fish community/stocks are pressured by historical and recent harvesting stresses, “if fishing is gone the lake will be gone” • Preserving natural habitat from over-development • Increasing development pressure on wetlands is causing the loss of habitat and our natural heritage • Several watershed impacts around the lake, such as shoreline and in-water construction…need watershed management approach • Fish stocking vs. natural reproduction of valuable species such as lake trout and walleye

6 • In recent years some people have reported fewer fish including the size of healthy fish stocks as well as declining sizes of the individual fish over the years • Increased intensity of land use by some property owners because of limited land supply which puts pressure on the remaining habitat • There is a lack of current and historical data because there are several information gaps, including no wetland evaluations, around Belmont Lake

4. Social Issues: Recreational, Economic Opportunities, and Infrastructures

• There has to be increased opportunities to gain buy-in and build consensus and respect from all lake residents and stakeholders to do their part for sustainable management of the lake’s assets/resources • Property owners’ values are different which, unfortunately, creates tension among the residents because of planning issues including setbacks, size and the physical alteration of the landscape, which do not equate to harmonious living on the lake or with ecological principles … “the problem arises when owners want to do what they want with their properties and are unaware of the by-laws…” • There is a lack of understanding about the types of ecological and stewardship programs to initiate, who has buy-in, and what are the Association’s goals and actions • Increasing social services and infrastructures such as health care services, which are currently only available seasonally, as well as safe and economical waste management • Boat size and noise as well as reaching the lake’s boating capacity—less available space for boaters on the lake • Noise and light pollution including roads, neighbours and boats • There has been a perception by some people that there is a decline in recent years with water recreation use by locals and visitors • We need to encourage and maintain harmonious use of lake features for recreation, e.g., canoeing, between lake-front property owners and the visiting public • Conservation and maintenance of Belmont Lake’s public access points for continued accessibility by both existing property owners and the public • Managing and maintaining a balance between the ecological and economical integrity of Belmont Lake… remembering that the water supplying the lake flows through other properties throughout the township… a need for a large scale watershed management and conservation context • Need to find a balance between new development and protecting lake values….“from a business standpoint, an opportunity for development would be great for the local economy, but from a property owner’s standpoint, discouraging development would be beneficial to protecting the quality of life on the lake…” • Lack of support for long-term interest and activities on the lake…there is a need for the implementation of a lake plan to keep the stewardship efforts/momentum up… • There is a need to know what is going on among residents, businesses and other important stakeholders…the lack of awareness and education is diminishing conservation efforts

7 5. Regulations and Enforcement Issues

• The need for good available “localized” provincial services including fisheries management, waste management and landfill sites, updated residential infrastructures such as septic systems, hydro, recreational boating by-laws (capacity, size and speed), and “consistent” water level management that are backed by the Official Plans • The municipality and provincial government and each governing agency involved with watershed management, including MOE, MNR, the CA’s and DFO, need to define their roles and responsibilities as well as the regulations that are in place that provide community support to enforce these regulations because there is, currently, a lack of a policing authority for the area • There is a forestry industry presence in Belmont Lake watershed but the issue arises around inappropriate private property logging…unfortunately, only half of the counties in Ontario have a tree cutting by-law…the municipality and county need to adopt a forestry by-law which prohibits clear cutting for personal use… • Enforce the fire and burning regulations. • Lack of police presence on the lake

4. Solutions

Throughout the workshop, the group participated in open discussions regarding values and issues and, during this time, they also provided suggestive solutions that touched upon several of the overriding “issue” themes. The following were some of their responses:

a) Prevent aesthetic and ecological impacts by encouraging shoreline naturalization

b) More stringent regulations for upgrading, maintaining and managing septic and local sewer systems in the Official Plan and by the Ministry of the Environment (MOE) to make waste disposal efficient and safe to help protect water quality…“Somebody has to process the waste, but will it be private or public, and where will it be hauled to…need a management protocol defining the roles and responsibilities for sewer and septic waste”

c) Require landowners to update faulty or old septic systems

d) The Official Plan policies should reflect and incorporate the ecological and economical goals and incentives of the community’s lake plan

e) Adopt a sustainable forestry management plan/approach, which would be centred around selectively cutting trees that have met a specific size requirement

f) Improve communication through education and awareness… “Belmont Lake residents need to know the issues in the watershed, who to contact and what

8 regulations are in place to tackle and resolve these issues, and the actions that should take place, by the residents, to encourage conservation and protection”

g) The importance of the lake should be stressed in the overall management scheme…“Conserve the ecological integrity of the lake and its watershed…there is a need for a watershed approach to manage and protect Belmont Lake”

h) Make a plan for land use, property assessment and real estate as well as new development, such as large developments create new, local and improved infrastructures bringing much needed tax dollars to the community… “Not all development is bad, but uncontrolled, destructive, or unregulated development is… development pressures need manageable and reasonable growth”

i) Encourage site improvements and shoreline restoration by property owners

j) Balance between ecological integrity and recreation and enjoyment of the lake features and respect and live in harmony with nature. The key is through education & awareness

Best Advice

1. Keep the lake planning process going 2. Need consensus to make sure we are going down the right path 3. Keep all invested interests, including personal, business and natural issues, involved in the process 4. Communication—keep it open and involve everyone…through word of mouth and newsletters… “OPEN DOOR POLICY”… 5. Strong Leadership 6. Don’t let personal issues get involved or steer the Association away from goal of the plan—promote RESPECT among stakeholders and residents 7. Don’t lose sight of the big picture…

5. Participation

Finally, the participants were asked to consider, “How can you help?” and “What resources or information do you have available?” The follow replies were received:

HOW CAN YOU HELP?

• Ministry of the Environment (MOE) Lake Partnership Program—water quality monitoring helps with the development of a comprehensive database on water quality data; baseline information that monitors and identifies trends and changes for future development as well as assisting with determining the health of the system at a watershed level and the

9 comparison of health between water bodies such as regionally, upstream, downstream, etc. (David Arnow, MOE)

• The Federation of Ontario Cottagers’ Association (FOCA)—broad regional information and resource expertise; access to Kasshabog Lake data and experience through LKRA; and access to provincial programs via Federation of Ontario Cottagers’ (Terry Rees, FOCA)

• Crowe Valley Conservation Authority (CVCA) has a vast amount of data about the lakes and could provide in-kind support to the community (Ken Phillips, CVCA)

• Peterborough District, Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR) can provide existing information and mapping for wetlands, fish, deer yards, etc., as well as potential funding dollars from CFWIP money, possibly inventory money, stewardship project advice (Helen Ball)

• Peterborough County is the approval authority for any changes to local Official Plan, therefore, the County can review draft policy before township’s adoption (Brian Weir)

• Havelock Jamboree—Jack Blakely sits on the county’s tourism committee and is part owner of Havelock Country Jamboree… “Fund Raising Opportunities” (Jack Blakely)

• Ministry of Natural Resources—Jeff Wiltshire would provide historical information such as lake surveys, fisheries, etc.; mapping; advice and comments; and possibly people and/or equipment

10 Appendix A – Participants

1. David Arnow 8. Mike Hammond Ministry of the Environment COSCO Associates Peterborough, ON 26 Chestergrove Crescent Bus: (705) 755-4309 Toronto, ON [email protected] 2. Terry Rees Director of Operations, FOCA 9. Susan & Leo Plouffe 68 Sophia Street Moonlight Motel Peterborough, ON, K9H 1E1 P.O. Box 630 Bus: (416) 429-0444 Havelock, ON Cell: (705) 768-0555 Bus: (705) 778-3332 [email protected] 10. Helen Ball 3. Judi Shelswell Peterborough District Biologist/Ecologist Marina Owner Ministry of Natural Resources RR#1 Site 1 Comp 15 300 Water Street Havelock, ON, K0L 1Z0 Peterborough, ON, K9J 4Y5 Bus: (705) 778-2366 Bus: (705) 755-3302 Fax: (705) 778-2366 Fax: (705) 755-3125 [email protected] [email protected]

4. Michael Andrews 11. Bryan Weir Oak Lake County of Peterborough RR#4 Site 1 Comp 15 County Court House Havelock, ON, K0L 1Z0 470 Water Street Bus: (705) 743-0238 Peterborough, ON Home: (705) 877-2613 Bus: (705) 743-0380 [email protected] Fax: (705) 876-1730 [email protected] 5. Rae McCutcheon (Real Estate) 12. Jack Blakely P.O. Box 569 Shell Gas Station Havelock, ON, K0L 1Z0 P.O. Box 100 Bus: (705) 778-2182 18 Ottawa Street Fax: (705) 778-2444 Havelock, ON. K0L 1Z0 [email protected] Bus: (705) 778-3352 Fax: (705) 778-2888 6. Ken Phillips [email protected] Crowe Valley Conservation Authority P.O. Box 416 13. Jeff Wiltshire 70 Hughes Lane Peterborough District Marmora, ON, K0K 2M0 Ministry of Natural Resources Bus: (613) 472-3137 300 Water Street, Fax: (613) 472-5516 1st Floor, South Tower [email protected] Peterborough, ON, K9J 8M5 Bus: (705) 755-3295 7. Chad Munroe Fax: (705) 755-3125 (Septic Tank Cleaning) [email protected] RR#3 Havelock, ON, K0L 1Z0 14. George Usher Bus: (705) 778-3160 RR#4 Site 1 Comp 29 Havelock, ON, K0L 1E0 Bus: (705) 877-2864

11 August 2004 French Planning Services Inc. How to contact us... …excellence in facilitation and environmental planning.

Belmont Lake Plan Residents’ Workshop Summary

Workshop Purpose On July 24, 2004, the Belmont special features that support the Lake Cottagers’ Association hosted current high quality of life on the a Shoreline Resident Workshop for lake and in the surrounding area. the preparation of the Belmont Discussion was also prompted to Lake Plan. About 60 people identify the issues that impact these attended the workshop and it was values and the potential solutions. a tremendous success. The ideas and comments that were The purpose of the workshop was generated will be used to provide to promote discussion among the guidance for the development of residents of Belmont Lake to appropriate strategic actions to be identify the important values and identified in the Belmont Lake Plan. Workshop Overview Art Church, President of the R andy French (French Planning identify the general values, special B e l m o n t L ak e Co t t a g e r ’s Services Inc.) provided an overview places, and memories that support Association, welcomed the of the purpose, objectives and the high quality of life of people workshop participants. Art benefits of the Belmont Lake Plan, who live, cottage or visit the area. indicated that the workshop is an and reviewed the intended schedule The residents were also asked to integral component of the for the following year. identify the issues that impact these planning process and that it is The workshop provided an values and places, and to discuss extremely important that we opportunity for lake residents to potential solutions. encourage the participation of discuss comments with other everyone who lives, cottages, These values, places, issues and members of the lake. Workshop works or plays on Belmont Lake. solutions are identified on the participants were first asked to following pages. Residential Workshop..

Developing a Community Map of Values, Special Places, and Memories

The community map identifies the general values, special places, and memories of the residents of the Belmont Lake community. Residents were asked to brainstorm their answers on a worksheet that was collected and used to prepare this summary.

Important Lake Values The following list of values identifies some of the reasons why Belmont Lake area appeals to residents, cottagers and visitors:

“ Some of the most important values of our Lake are…” √ Natural Beauty of the lake—scenic views and “leaving it natural” √ Natural Shorelines—vegetation and “lots of trees” √ Water Quality—the clarity of Belmont Lake √ Night Skies—dark nights which enable star gazing √ Peace and Quiet—privacy (lack of congestion) and safety √ Wildlife and Vegetation—birds, loons, beavers, bobcat, mink, fisher, deer, young fox, turtles, and wetlands, forests and orchids—pink-lady slippers √ Fishing Opportunities—walleye, muskellunge, northern pike, and smallmouth bass √ Lake is Land-Locked—reducing boat traffic √ Boating & Boat Safety—considerate and transient boaters √ Sustainable Use of Belmont Lake’s Resources—recreational opportunities (boating, water sports, canoeing, etc.) √ Swimming and other Recreational Opportunities (kayaking, tubing, skating, etc.) √ Lots of Fun Living on the Lake √ Friendships √ Location—”half of the lake is in northern Ontario and the other half is in southern Ontario”, and “living on a river” √ Conservation and Preservation of Wildlife—”important to us all” √ Simple Lifestyle and the State of the Lake—20 to 30 years behind others in development √ Respect—other people’s values

Page 2 Lake plans provide a process to... Belmont Lake Plan

Special Places Some of these “special places” are specific locations on Belmont Lake, whereas others are unique features of the lake that contribute to the daily enjoyment and treasured memories of “cottage living”.

Islands and other Natural Wildlife Places √ Fire Road 19—Bobcat sighting 4 years √ Forested Crown land on west ago and two weeks ago side of the lake, rocky out- √ Mink sighting—FR 15B #13 crops, many undeveloped islands—Picnic Island, and the √ Deer Bay’s herons, loons and beavers Sandbar √ Clark’s Bay, south of Big Island, wildlife (loons, frogs, toads, fish, beavers) Dams √ Crowe River—Redhorse fish species, especially around the inflow and out- √ Suckers—Redhorse, near flow the 2 dams on the northeast stretches of Crowe River Bays √ Scott’s Dam—northwest of √ Quiet bays in their natural Deer Bay, on the Crowe state, e.g., Taylor’s Bay River—kids swim in the falls √ Natural shorelines and great fishing Rivers and Wetlands √ Crowe, Deer (Cordova) and North Fishing Spots Rivers are peaceful, not heavily √ High Rollaway Fish Hatchery at the boated, and a good place to kayak and canoe, as well as the natural rapids—northwest of Deer Bay environment and “scenic beauty” of √ Munn’s Bay—25 lbs muskie these rivers √ Taylor’s Bay—”My dad and I caught √ Mouth of Deer River—Deer many walleye (pickerel) there in the Bay…”favourite fishing hole and a 1940’s” favourite spot to swim” √ Crowe River, at base of rapids, on the west side of the lake Memories √ Rope swing at Deer River Bridge While memories are difficult to place on a map, they provide a clue to the values to be protected and issues to be considered. Understanding these memories also helps to increase awareness of the reasons why people can be so passionate about protecting their “personal space” on the Lake. • “Floating down the river on an inner-tube, and glorious sun rises, the spectacular sunsets, and the swimming for hours across the lake” wonderful people” • “Boxing Day 2003, 6 inches of ice on the lake • “Reading to our kids in a quiet bay at sunset”, and enabled us to skate down to the Crowe River” “Teaching our grandchildren about nature” • “Fishing parties and trophy fish that could be easily • “When boats headed north on the lake, it meant that a caught“, and “In the past, anglers would clean and visitor was coming” distribute fresh pickerel to the cottagers” • “Friends visiting with a float plane—the sight-seeing • “Watching the abundant wildlife from our dock” was exceptional” • “Wolves in our periwinkle patch, Spring 2004” • “In the 1880s, my family began visiting the area and, • “Used to be Heronries on Burnt Island” eventually, bought a shoreline property” • “Loon swimming with young on their back, • “In 1935, Big Island property was being sold for $40 so teaching the young to swim” that the owner could feed his family” • “A water snake biting my grandson’s arm; he didn’t • “During the Thanksgiving weekend power-outage, cot- want to let it go” tagers had to cook their meals outside; when power • “Growing up on the lake with the full moon nights, was restored, we all ate together, including the Hydro crew”

Page 3 ...identify, reflect and respond to the specific character of your lake. Residential Workshop..

Discussing Issues and Solutions Many of the issues that were identified directly impact the general values that attract people to the area. These values are threatened due to the increased presence of human activities such as boat traffic, pollution, noise and construction. One participant summed up the cause of these issues in the following phrase “city values transported to the cottage area”. The following is a summary of the issues and solutions.

Issues Description Solutions

Water • Invasive species • Water source in town that we, as an organiza- Quality • Bathing with soap in the lake tion, can support through taxes and • Oil spillage from boats and other PWCs • Increase awareness, and educate residents and Quantity • Boat launches and Exotic species—zebra visitors regarding water quality, water levels, mussel and Eurasian water-milfoil and the importance of shorelines • Old septic systems contributing to water • Maintain natural shorelines and buffers to pre- contamination vent soil erosion and Canadian Geese nesting • No access to public drinking water facilities • Install a hose to wash boats at all access points • Lack of vegetation near water, i.e., too many • Wetland development control manicured lawns • Use of environmentally friendly products • Weeds in the lake • Physical removal of zebra mussels off rocks • Removal of shoreline vegetation land awn • Increase setback from the shoreline fertilizers • Update By-laws for development along the • Maintaining water quality of wells shoreline, fertilizer and pesticide use, and clean- • Boat wakes ing of boats (zebra mussels) • Filling in wetlands and importing soil for • Lobby the Municipality and the Conservation shores Authority in regards to water quality and water • Lake capacity levels through letter writing and campaigns • Canadian Geese

• High water levels are contributing to shoreline erosion, and impact loon nest sites Septic • Improper removal and disposal of sewage • More inspections of septic tanks Systems • Poor maintenance of existing systems • Organize garbage collection by County and • Lack of curb garbage collection and Garbage recycling—responsibility of resident to bring refuge to the local dump Life-style • City lifestyle imported into a rural setting • Enforce building codes as per the Zoning by-law • Planes landing and taking-off on the lake • Get a group of similar minded people together • Manicured lawns to the waterfront and buy the property • Big boats and PWCs—inappropriate speed, careless boating and conduct, and boating congestion • Lack of conservation lands and public access to go and walk or to enjoy the beauty of the woods and lake

Page 4 Lake plans provide a process to... Belmont Lake Plan

Issues Description Solutions Cost of • Taxes are increasing, while local services • Visit Council meetings—taxes Cottage are decreasing...“How little we get for our • Run for a position on council Living taxes from the township” Community • Lack of communication and the • Communication—appoint a “Fire Road Awareness and “appropriate processes” to initiate Representative” Lack of awareness • Communication and Stewardship—increase Communication • Baby boomers retiring to lake...increased property owner participation in the lake development association • Disrespect—some individuals disregard • Promote a closer community feeling among the by-laws and values of other shoreline residents…“build a community—no feeling of a residents whole lake” • Education and persuasion...demonstration of what should be done, at a well-publicized place with lots of information available...signage • Use a Web-based (email) List Serve—to collect and send information, communicate, and access a database on-line and the Association’s web site • Support the Association’s efforts • Solicit local media to voice concerns • Promote team effort, liaison and buy-in from the MOE, MNR, CA, and DFO Fishing • Increase fishing opportunities • Encourage MNR to resume sport fish stocking Noise and • Motorized boats and PWCs, loud music , • Education Light Pollution conversations and inappropriate lan- • Enforce Noise By-law—put pressure on council to guage in the early morning and at night, reduce or restrict day and night light and noise lawn mowers, planes landing and taking • Recreational Boating—limiting size of motors, off on the lake, fireworks and other inap- cleaning of boats (zebra mussels), and the speed propriate loud noises of boats • Light pollution along the shoreline • Take Action—get control of lake diminishes the night sky star gazing • Encourage specific hours of usage, e.g., no power boats for one day on the lake to show how it could be at the cottage with decreased noise • Promote Dark Skies—one night in the summer to see what it could be like Enforcement • Lack of communication and enforcement • Enforcement, liaison with MNR, MOE and local • Filling in wetlands politicians • Firearm discharges on private property • Increasingly, inappropriate and large- scale development for new buildings or the expansion of existing structures threaten the natural environment on Bel- mont Lake • Too many cottages • Burning garbage • Municipal by-laws that are not enforced • Inappropriate use of the lake—bathing with soap and no enforcement • Public access and exotic species (zebra mussels)—Marina has power washer, but the public access point does not—no enforcement

Page 5 ...identify, reflect and respond to the specific character of your lake. Belmont Lake Plan

How Can You Help?

The future health of Belmont Lake depends on the participation of everyone in our community. The following list of ideas and suggestions were identified by the participants at the workshop. We encourage you to get involved!

• Complete your survey • Volunteer as a Road Fire Representative • Engage other Cottagers about relevant issues on the lake • Help write letters, email, fax, Internet, etc. • Encourage Association membership • Vote and check variances and other development applications • Keep trees and natural growth on property, maintain a buffer • Practice safe boating • Organize social events such as a square-dance in summer 2005, to bring people together • Participate in developing the Lake Plan

Contact Information

Belmont Lake Cottagers Association

BLCA Lake Plan Committee P.O. Box 837 Havelock, ON K0L 1Z0

French Planning Services Inc.

Randy P. French, BES, RPP MCIP Jasmine H. Chabot, B.Sc.

Suite 4, 6 Dominion Street Bracebridge, ON P1L 2A6 705-646-0851 www.frenchplanning.com [email protected] [email protected]

Page 6

Worksheet – Official Plan Review

Provincial Policy Review of Issues and Values Statement (PPS) Official Plan Policy Checklist Official Plan 1997 (Insert Policy)

NATURAL HERITAGE AREAS AND FEATURES

The PPS defines Natural PPS Policy 2.3.1 1) Does the Official include a goal or objective statement that 1) Pg 7 Sect 2.7.1.1, Pg 75 Sect. Heritage Areas and “Natural heritage protects and enhances all Natural Heritage Areas and 5.1, Pg 80 Sect. 5.10.2 *Re: Lake Features to mean features features and areas Features, such as: Capacity Studies – Sect. 5.10.2 and areas such as: will be protected from does not support recommendation · Significant wetlands incompatible a. The conservation of the natural environment will take #6 Pg.5 of Appendix. · Fish habitat development.” precedence over the development when the two are The O.P. recognizes the · Significant woodlands in conflict, No such statement in OP importance of protecting the natural south and east of the b. To maintain a high level of diversity by protecting environment in the following shield natural areas and the connects between them, sections: · Significant Valleylands c. To enhance and protect the quality of the Pg 6 Appendix 9, Pg 7 Sect. 2.7.11, south and east of the environment, Pg 75 Sect. 5.1, Pg 78 Sect. 5.10.2. shield d. To encourage development in areas that are not The term Natural Heritage is used · Significant portions of sensitive, in Pg 6. of Appendix but O.P. does the habitat of e. Considers that local and regionally significant areas not include specific references for endangered and are as important as provincially significant areas, or protection of fish, woodlands of threatened species f. Encourages the review of development impacts in significance, significant wetlands, · Significant wildlife adjacent areas. endangered species. habitat · Significant ANSI’s 2) Does the Official Plan contain policy that protects locally 2) The O.P. provides protections as and regionally significant natural heritage features and follows: Pg 7 Sect. 2.7.11, Pg 75 areas? (Note – the PPS only requires protection of Sect.5.1, Pg 9 Appendix. features and areas that are of “Provincial Significance”)

Wetlands

The PPS defines wetlands The PPS provides 3) Are all wetland areas identified on a schedule and 3) Yes, although more definitive as “lands that are different policy for on- designation as “wetland” or “environmental protection”? mapping and identification is seasonally or permanently shield and off-shield (Note – It is appropriate that wetlands be placed in the required. Note Schedule ‘B1’. covered by shallow water, provincially same designation that deals with flood hazards, as well as lands where the significant wetlands development constraints or open space.) water table is close to or at (PSW). 4) Yes. The O.P. includes the the surface….” 4) Is there a general policy that recognizes the importance of P.P.S. – wetlands definition on Pg PSW’s are identified wetlands in general, and supports their protection? (Note - 15 Sect. 3.1.9. Also supported on by MNR using Such a statement could be included in the overall goals of Pgs 16 through 17, Sect’s 3.1.9 procedures the official plan as well as a specific section that deals through Sect’s. 3.1.9.4. established by the with wetland policy.) province.

Lake Plan Template 1 French Planning Services Inc. Official Plan Review Copyrighted Version October 2004

Provincial Policy Review of Issues and Values Statement (PPS) Official Plan Policy Checklist Official Plan 1997 (Insert Policy) 5) Does the Official Plan treat provincially significant wetlands on and off the shield equally? 5) The O.P. is mute on this issue. 6) Adjacent Lands - Is there a policy that requires the assessment of negative impacts by a qualified person 6) Pg 16 Sect.3.1.9.2 supports before approval is given for the development of adjacent the recommendation of 120 lands surrounding any existing or potentially provincial metres; however, it is not clear significant wetland? (Note - The Natural Heritage whether the reference is to all Reference Manual recommends that the adjacent lands wetlands, as defined in the should be a width of 120 metres surrounding the wetland O.P. or only refers to unless further evaluation proves that an alternate width Provincially Significant would be appropriate. In this area, there should be a Wetlands ‘PSW’s. mechanism that requires the consideration of impacts before development is permitted.)

Provincially Significant Wetland (PSW) - Off PPS Policy 2.3.1 a) 7) Are PSWs identified in a designation that prohibits 7) Yes – O.P. prohibits on Pg 16 Shield “Development and development and site alteration? Sect. 3.1.9.1. site alteration will not (Note – see Figure 1, page be permitted in 8) Is there policy that prohibits development on adjacent 8) Yes. Pg 16, Sect. 3.1.9.2 12 of PPS, 1997, for limit of significant wetlands lands (120 m) until an Environmental Impact Study (EIS) requires an environmental impact Precambrian Shield) south and east of the demonstrates that there will be no negative impacts on study. Canadian Shield.” the natural features or on the ecological functions for * Not clear whether this applies to which the area is identified? ALL wetlands by definition Pg 15, Sect.3.1.9 or just P.S.W’s Provincially Significant Wetland (PSW) - On PPS Policy 2.3.1 b) 9) Are PSWs identified in a designation that prohibits 9) Yes, see Map Schedules A1 and Shield “Development and development and site alteration? A2 site alteration may be (Note – see Figure 1, page permitted in … 10) Are PSWs identified in a designation that prohibits 10) Yes, see Pg 16.Sect. 3.1.9.2 12 of PPS, 1997, for limit of significant wetlands development in the wetland until an Environmental Impact Pg 16, Sect. 3.1.9.1 prohibits ANY Precambrian Shield) on Shield, if it has Study (EIS) demonstrates that there will be no negative development. been demonstrated impacts on the natural features or on the ecological that there will be no functions for which the area is identified? negative impacts on the natural features 11) Is there policy that prohibits development on adjacent 11) As noted above or the ecological lands (120 m) until an Environmental Impact Study (EIS) functions for, which demonstrates that there will be no negative impacts on the area is identified.” the natural features or on the ecological functions for which the area is identified?

Note - Limited development, compatible with wetland areas,

Lake Plan Template 2 French Planning Services Inc. Official Plan Review Copyrighted Version October 2004

Provincial Policy Review of Issues and Values Statement (PPS) Official Plan Policy Checklist Official Plan 1997 (Insert Policy) may be permitted where the integrity of the wetland resource can be preserved and the suitability of the lot is confirmed by Note: Pg 15 Sect 3.1.9, a a site evaluation report. The following uses may be permitted very god definition of if no negative impact: wetlands. · Open space and recreational uses that will not result in “council encourages the landform alteration or substantial removal of vegetation protection of wetlands”. · Uses that assist in conserving or managing water supplies, wildlife or other natural features or functions · Uses that use the area for education or scientific

12) Is there a policy that prohibits peat extraction? 12) No.

Regionally and Locally 13) Yes, both evaluated and Significant Wetlands No specific PPS 13) Are locally significant wetlands identified on a schedule? unevaluated – see schedules policy applies to A1, A2 and B1. locally significant 14) Are locally significant wetlands in a designation that

wetlands; however, prohibits development and site alteration? 14) May be development if they may contain M.N.R. and local Conservation features that are 15) Are locally significant wetlands in a designation that allows Authorities agree *It is not protected by other non-intrusive uses such as? clear that Pg 14 Sect. 3.1.8.1 policy such as fish · Open space and recreational uses that will not result refers to both E.S.A’s and and wildlife habitat. in landform alteration or substantial removal of unevaluated wetlands. vegetation

· Uses that assist in conserving or managing water 15) Pg 14 Sect. 3.1.8.1.1 supplies, wildlife or other natural features or functions places restrictions but does not · Uses that use the area for education or scientific prohibit.

16) Is there policy that requires an Environmental Impact 16) Yes. Pg 14 Sect. 3.1.8.1.1 Assessment (EIS) to mitigate impacts in a locally requires an Env. Impact study significant wetland? prior to development approval.

Unevaluated Wetland No reference 17) Is there a policy that requires an evaluation to determine 17) No. the significance of a wetland, prior to approval of (Note – significance of development applications, such as? 17a) yes. See Pg 15, Sect wetland is not known. No a. “Additional wetlands may be identified at any time 3.1.8.3 and 3.1.8.4 of O.P. wetland evaluation has through a development process. However, the policy been conducted) will only apply after the PSW is recognized and 17b) Yes confirmed by MNR b. If provincially significant wetlands are identified, no development is permitted within the wetland.”

Lake Plan Template 3 French Planning Services Inc. Official Plan Review Copyrighted Version October 2004

Provincial Policy Review of Issues and Values Statement (PPS) Official Plan Policy Checklist Official Plan 1997 (Insert Policy) Fish Habitat

The PPS defines fish PPS Policy 2.3.1 b) 18) Are “critical” fish habitats identified on a schedule and 18) No. habitat to mean “the “Development and placed in a special designation to recognize the constraint spawning grounds and site alteration may be to development, or identified on a resource information 19) Perhaps on Pg 14 Sect nursery, rearing, food permitted in: … fish map appended to the Official Plan to be addressed when supply and migration areas habitat … if it has considering new development? 3.1.8.1. Many Sections of on which fish depend been demonstrated the O.P. refer to Protecting directly or indirectly in order that there will be no 19) Is there a general policy that indicates Council’s support the Environment but nothing to carry out their life negative impacts on for the management and protection of fisheries specifically on POSWT. Ie. processes”. the natural features resources? Such a statement could be included in the Pg 79 Sect 5.10.4 requires or the ecological overall goals of the official plan as well is a specific council to consult MNR and functions for which section that deals with fish habitat. Other concepts that local Authorities re: the area is identified.” could be addressed include: Shoreline Development. a. “To protect fish habitat from harmful disruption, alteration or destruction. NO 20a) No specific Policy. This b. To encourage restoration, enhancement or creation issue is only generally dealt of fish habitat”. NO with in sections that contain Environmental Policies. 20) Is there a specific policy that applies to critical “spawning”

habitat that indicates: a. New development will only be permitted where it can 20b – f) Not specifically be carried out without negative impact on fish habitat. dealt with. b. No new lots are permitted where entire shoreline abuts a critical spawning habitat. Where a portion of 20g) Boat houses are the lot is in spawning habitat, shoreline activity areas generally allowed with no must be outside fish habitat. setbacks requirements. c. Shoreline setback of 30m (98ft) d. 15 m natural vegetative buffer is maintained adjacent 21) Not dealt with in O.P. to shoreline e. Floating or post docks or other structures authorized by appropriate authority f. Storm water and construction mitigation required g. No boathouses are allowed.

21) Adjacent Lands - Is there a requirement for further studies to investigate the potential negative impacts of new development or site alteration when it is proposed in or adjacent to “critical spawning” of “unknown fish habitat”? The province recommends that at a minimum, adjacent lands are those within 30 metres of “spawning” habitat.

Lake Plan Template 4 French Planning Services Inc. Official Plan Review Copyrighted Version October 2004

Provincial Policy Review of Issues and Values Statement (PPS) Official Plan Policy Checklist Official Plan 1997 (Insert Policy) 22) Are there increased setbacks for new development along 22) TWSP By-Laws require a 70 streams and watercourses to protect fish habitat? (Note – metre set-back for buildings other traditionally accepted setbacks are a minimum of 15 than boathouses, but this metre setback for warm water streams and a minimum 30 requirement is not specifically metre setback for cool or cold water streams.) related to protecting fish habitat.

23) Are there policies that requires consideration of planning 23a) Set-backs are under study but tools such as: not sizes & footage seem set. a. Increased lot sizes and setbacks, 23b) A site plan may be requested b. And site plan control and other agreements for the by council if the proposed Dev. is retention of vegetation. on Env. Prot. Land

Unevaluated fish habitat 24) Is there policy that additional fish habitat areas may be 24) No. evaluated and identified at any time through the development process?

Woodlands This section does not apply if your lake is on the Canadian Shield

The PPS defines Woodland Only applies to areas 25) Are significant woodlands south and east of the Canadian to mean “treed areas that south and east of the Shield identified on a schedule or does the Official Plan provide environmental and Canadian Shield. provide criteria to identify woodlands? economic benefits such as erosion, water retention, PPS Policy 2.3.1 b) 26) Is there a general policy about the protection of significant O.P. is silent on provision of habitat, “Development and woodlands such as: Significant Woodlands. recreation and the site alteration may be sustainable harvest of permitted in... “Development may be permitted if it is demonstrated that woodland products. significant woodlands there will be no negative impacts on the natural features Woodlands include treed south and east of the or on the ecological functions for which the area is areas, woodlots or forested shield… if it has been identified.” areas and vary in their level demonstrated that of significance.“ there will be no negative impacts on 27) Are there specific policies such as: Significant means areas the natural features a. The municipality, MNR and CA shall inventory that are “ecologically or the ecological important woodlands and develop policies for important in terms of functions for which stewardship and protection. features, functions, the area is identified. b. Development that is inconsistent with good forestry representation or amount, “ practices should not be permitted in these areas. and contributing to the quality and diversity of an 28) Is there policy that states woodlands may be identified as identifiable geographic area an environmentally sensitive area during the development or natural heritage system.” process, site inspection, evaluation or assessment?

Lake Plan Template 5 French Planning Services Inc. Official Plan Review Copyrighted Version October 2004

Provincial Policy Review of Issues and Values Statement (PPS) Official Plan Policy Checklist Official Plan 1997 (Insert Policy) Valleylands This section does not apply if your lake is on the Canadian Shield

The PPS defines PPS Policy 2.3.1 b) 29) Are significant valleylands south and east of the Canadian valleylands to mean “a “Development and Shield identified on a schedule or does the Official Plan natural area that occurs in site alteration may be provide criteria to identify woodlands? a valley or other land form permitted in … O.P.is silent on depression that has water significant Note - Valleylands may also be identified as those lands Significant Valleylands flowing through or standing valleylands south and that are subject to “cut and fill” areas identified by local for some period of the east of the shield… if Conservation Authorities. years.” it has been demonstrated that 30) Is there a general policy about the protection of significant Significant is defined as there will be no valleylands such as: areas that are “ecologically negative impacts on important in terms of the natural features “Development may be permitted if it is demonstrated that features, functions, or the ecological there will be no negative impacts on the natural features representation or amount, functions for which or on the ecological functions for which the area is and contributing to the the area is identified.” identified.” quality and diversity of an identifiable geographic area 31) Are there specific policies such as: or natural heritage system.” a. The municipality, MNR and CA shall inventory important woodlands and develop policies for stewardship and protection. b. Development that is inconsistent with good forestry practices should not be permitted in these areas.

32) Is there a policy that states valleylands may be identified as an environmentally sensitive area during a site inspection, evaluation or development review process?

Habitat of Endangered and Threatened Species

The PPS defines PPS Policy 2.3.1 a) 33) Is there a general policy that indicates Council’s support 33) No. But given endangered species “as “Development and for the protection of endangered and threatened species? recommendation #4 on Pg 4, those listed in the site alteration will not Note - such a statement could be included in the overall endangered and threatened Regulations under the be permitted in the … goals of the official plan as well is a specific section that species could be recognized in Endangered Species Act…” significant portions of deals with endangered and threatened species. a new land use designation. the habitat of Threatened species are endangered and 34) Is there a specific policy that indicates that new 34) No. But it could be covered “any native species that is threatened species.” development will not be permitted in the significant under broad policies such as at risk of becoming portions of the habitat of endangered and threatened identifying wetlands or endangered…” species? This policy should also apply when new habitats environmental protection that are identified. are contained in the O.P.

Lake Plan Template 6 French Planning Services Inc. Official Plan Review Copyrighted Version October 2004

Provincial Policy Review of Issues and Values Statement (PPS) Official Plan Policy Checklist Official Plan 1997 (Insert Policy)

35) Is there a specific policy requiring a site assessment for 35) No. potential habitat of endangered and threatened species? The site assessment should provide an up to date 36) No. inventory of current habitat conditions as well as an indication of mitigation measures, if appropriate.

36) Is there policy that prohibits development on adjacent lands until an Environmental Impact Study (EIS) demonstrates that there will be no negative impacts on the natural features or on the ecological functions for which the area is identified?

Significant Wildlife Habitat

The PPS defines wildlife PPS Policy 2.3.1 b) 37) Is significant wildlife habitat areas identified on a schedule 37) No. habitat to mean, “areas “Development and or resource map? where plants, animals and site alteration may be other organisms live and permitted in … 38) Is there a general policy recognizing the value of wildlife 38) Not specifically – very find adequate amounts of significant wildlife and supporting the protection of significant wildlife habitat general reference Pg14 food, water, shelter and habitat, if it has been from incompatible development? Note - Such a statement Sect. 3.1.8.1 space needed to sustain demonstrated that could be included in the overall goals of the official plan as “environmentally sensitive their populations.” there will be no well is a specific section that deals with wildlife. areas include lands being negative impacts on environmentally significant Significant is defined as the natural features 39) Is there a definition of Significant Wildlife habitat, such as as a result of Biological, areas that are “ecologically or the ecological provided by the PPS, to ensure that appropriate sites are Zoological Features. important in terms of functions for which protected? Such definition should include a broad enough features, functions, the area is identified.” scope to include: representation or amount, a. Seasonal concentrations of animals (deer wintering 39a) No. and contributing to the areas, heronries, waterfowl concentration areas, quality and diversity of an hibernacula) identifiable geographic area b. Specialized habitats and centres of diversity 39b) No. or natural heritage system.” c. Habitats of vulnerable species and species of conservation concern (provincially rare or vulnerable plants, reptiles, amphibians and birds, as well as 39c) No. nests of osprey, least bittern, tern and spring and fall waterfowl concentrations)

40) Is there a specific policy that requires an Environmental Impact Study to be completed for development in or 40) Not specifically as it adjacent to wildlife habitat to demonstrate no negative relates to wildlife habitat. impact on the features or functions?

Lake Plan Template 7 French Planning Services Inc. Official Plan Review Copyrighted Version October 2004

Provincial Policy Review of Issues and Values Statement (PPS) Official Plan Policy Checklist Official Plan 1997 (Insert Policy)

41) Is there a policy that states that additional significant 41) No. wildlife habitat may be identified and protected as 42) No – note Pg 82 may information becomes available or upon site inspection, or cover the issue very a development application? generally under Site Plan Requirements for 42) Does the Official Plan require a site plan control agreement or the use of other planning controls to deal Environmental Protection with site alteration and the removal of natural vegetation? Areas. But very general.

Deer Wintering Areas Included as 43) Is winter deer habitat identified on a schedule or a 43) No. significant wildlife resource map or by designation and recognizes it as a habitat. constraint to development? 44) No. Adjacent lands can 44) Is there specific policy such as: be considered as a · A wildlife habitat assessment may be required to part of identified properly locate new development and site alteration habitat. (buildings, driveways) to ensure that no negative impacts occur. · A site evaluation is not required if new lot creation in deer habitat areas constitute a minimum lot size of 90 metres wide by 90 metres deep and where deer wintering habitat is restricted to a narrow fringe along the lakeshore, a minimum of 120 metres frontage be required for new shoreline lots. In both of these areas the removal of vegetation should be minimized. · Other controls to consider include the following: i.Alternate lot sizes may be permitted pending an evaluation prepared by a qualified specialist indicating that winter deer habitat does not exist. ii. Development should be located in such a manner that coniferous vegetation is substantially 44 – 45) O.P. is silent. retained.

45) Does the Official Plan require a site plan control agreement or a subdivider’s agreement to minimize and control the removal of vegetation for buildings, site alteration or accessory activities such as landscaping in deer wintering areas?

Lake Plan Template 8 French Planning Services Inc. Official Plan Review Copyrighted Version October 2004

Provincial Policy Review of Issues and Values Statement (PPS) Official Plan Policy Checklist Official Plan 1997 (Insert Policy)

Nesting Habitat for Included as 46) Are the nesting sites of shoreline birds identified on a 46) No, but again note Typical Shoreline Nesting significant wildlife schedule or a resource map and recognized as a recommendation #4. Birds habitat. constraint to development? (e.g. ducks, loon, osprey) 47) No. Other natural 47) Is there a specific policy that indicates that new heritage features and development will not be permitted in the significant wildlife areas such as habitat? provincial and locally significant wetlands 48) Are there specific policies such as 48) No – and very important to likely protect most of · A 150 metre reserve surrounding existing nest sites protect the few remaining loon these features. (only a 50 metre reserve for Goshawks) is required to nesting sites for example. prohibit construction activity or site alteration between March 1 and July 31. Note - such a requirement could be implemented through the development approval process and education opportunities.

49) Is there a policy that states that additional significant 49) No. wildlife habitat may be identified and protected as additional information becomes available or upon site inspection, or a development application?

Areas of Natural and Scientific Interest

Defined to mean areas of PPS Policy 2.3.1 b) 50) Are all ANSI’s identified on a schedule and placed in a 50) Map B1 identifies ANSI’s in 3 land and water containing “Development and special designation or on a resource information map? locations. natural landscapes or site alteration may be features that have been permitted in … 51) Is there a general policy recognizing the value of ANSI’s 51) No. Although may be identified as having life significant ANSI’s …if and supporting their protection? Note - such a statement included generally in Sect. science or earth science it has been could be included in the overall goals of the official plan as 3.1.8.1 dealing with values related to protection, demonstrated that well as a specific section that deals with environmental environmentally sensitive areas. scientific study or education there will be no policies. negative impacts on Significant means areas the natural features 52) Is there specific policy that indicates: 52) No. identified as provincially or the ecological · That all ANSI’s (provincial and regional) are significant by MNR using functions for which considered equal and require the same level of evaluation procedures the area is identified.” protection. established by the province · Development and site alteration is permitted in ANSI’s and areas adjacent to (50m) if it is demonstrated that there will be no negative impacts on the natural features or on the ecological functions for which the area is identified.

Lake Plan Template 9 French Planning Services Inc. Official Plan Review Copyrighted Version October 2004

Provincial Policy Review of Issues and Values Statement (PPS) Official Plan Policy Checklist Official Plan 1997 (Insert Policy) · Development in ANSIs may be subject to site plan control

WATER QUANTITY AND QUALITY

Water quality and quantity PPS Policy 2.4.1 – 53) Is there a general policy recognizing the value of ground 53) Yes, Pg 8, Sect. 2.7.2.3 is measured by indicators “The quality and and surface water quality and supporting its protection? such as minimum base quantity of ground Such a statement should be included in the overall goals 53a) Yes – note Pg 8 Sect. flow, oxygen levels, water and surface of the official plan as well is a specific section that deals 2.7.2.3 suspended solids, water and the with water quality or environmental policies. Other 53b) Yes – note Pg 14, temperature, bacteria, function of sensitive concepts to consider include: Sect. 3.1.8 re: nutrients, hazardous ground water a. No degradation of water quality Environmentally Sensitive contaminants; and recharge/discharge b. Recognized as an environmental feature which may Areas. hydrologic regime areas, aquifers and impose a limit to development 53c) Yes – note Pg 16, Sect headwaters will be c. Encouraging cooperative development of lake 3.1.9.2 protected and specific management plans which address water 53d) Somewhat, note Pg 79 enhanced.” quality, environmental and social concerns in an Sect. 5.10. integrated manner d. Encourage development to be sensitive to the protection of water quality through natural shorelines, 53e) O.P. is silent here. increased setbacks, and implementation of abatement technology 53f) Yes, although not an e. Encourage shoreline stewardship Official Inspection f. Encourage septic inspection program and communal Programme. See Pg 8, treatment of effluent Sect. 2.7.2 g. Discourage direct discharge h. Implement a program to monitor recreational water 53g) Not in place at this quality time. Note Pg 10 Sect.

54) Is there specific policy for lakes at or near capacity such 2.12.1.2.2 (support for as: monitoring and testing). a. 30m (98ft) setback b. Retention of vegetation 54a) Yes but Boathouses c. Location and construction of tree cover and pathways are exempt. Note By-Law d. Implementation of storm water and construction (not contained in Plan). mitigation plans. 54e) No. 55) Is there specific policy regarding development on your 54d) No. lake?

55) No.

Lake Plan Template 10 French Planning Services Inc. Official Plan Review Copyrighted Version October 2004

Provincial Policy Review of Issues and Values Statement (PPS) Official Plan Policy Checklist Official Plan 1997 (Insert Policy) 56) Yes. Note Pg 10 Sect. 2.12.1.1 Water Quantity PPS Policy 2.4.1 56) Is there policy that states the quality and quantity of and 2.12.1.2 Same as above groundwater resources will be preserved? Sensitive features that are identified will be protected from incompatible development and site alteration. 57) Not specific but with respect to 57) Is there a policy requiring a hydrogeological assessment quarries, an assessment is to support a development approval when: required. · 5 or more lots with private groundwater and sewage, other than shoreline lots · Commercial or industrial use with effluent flow greater than 5,000litres a day

58) Is there a policy that states that development will not be 58) Not specifically. permitted where it would have a significant detrimental effect on groundwater?

59) Is there a policy that states that groundwater recharge 59) Yes. With respect to evaluated areas may be identified and protected as additional and unevaluated wetlands. Note Pg information becomes available or upon site inspection, or 15, Sect.3.1.9 and Pg 6-9 in a development application? Appendix re unevaluated wetlands.

Lake Plan Template 11 French Planning Services Inc. Official Plan Review Copyrighted Version October 2004

Provincial Policy Review of Issues and Values Statement (PPS) Official Plan Policy Checklist Official Plan 1997 (Insert Policy)

SOCIAL HERITAGE Cultural values and sites 60) No. But O.P does allow council Cultural heritage PPS Policy 2.5.1 60) Are cultural heritage values and sites identified on a to designate street, buildings and landscapes means a “Significant … schedule, a resource map or list in an appendix to the scenic views as having special defined geographical area cultural heritage official plan? Important scenic sites as well as the scenic historical significance but cannot so of heritage significance, landscapes will be character of road, pedestrian, river and boating routes designate “Natural” sites. See Pg which has been modified by conserved.” should be preserved and development should occur in a 81, Sect. 5.16.1 human activities. Such an manner that maintains those scenic values. area is valued by the 61) Yes – note Pg 81, Sect 5.16.1 community and is of 61) Is there a general policy recognizing the value of cultural significance to the values and sites and supporting their protection? Such a understanding of the history statement could be included in the overall goals of the of a people or place. official plan as well is a specific section that deals with social or cultural heritage. Other concepts to consider

include:

· Encourage the preservation of properties and Yes. See Pg 81. structures of historic, architectural, archaeological and scenic interest · To preserve and protect the cultural and historic No. heritage of the County

62) Is there general policy for other significant heritage 62) No. areas? Are these areas identified on a schedule or map?

Historic sites 63) No – Can we help here? Significant built heritage PPS Policy 2.5.1 63) Are historic sites identified on a schedule, a resource map resources means one or “Significant built or a list in an appendix to the official plan? 64) Yes – see Pg 81, sect. 5.16.1 – more buildings, structures, heritage resources … but not natural sites. (Clearly monuments, installations or will be conserved.” 64) Is there a general policy recognizing the value of historic seems to be a general desire to remains associated with sites and supporting their protection? Such a statement preserve as reflected in Plan. architectural, cultural, could be included in the overall goals of the official plan as social, political, economic well as in a specific section that deals with social/cultural 65) No. or military history, and heritage. identified as being important to a community. 65) Is there specific policy that requires archaeological resources to be identified at the time development is proposed?

Lake Plan Template 12 French Planning Services Inc. Official Plan Review Copyrighted Version October 2004

Provincial Policy Review of Issues and Values Statement (PPS) Official Plan Policy Checklist Official Plan 1997 (Insert Policy) 66) Is there policy that requires an archaeological impact assessment to be conducted in accordance with provincial 66) No. But some requirements, may be required as a condition of constraints. See Pg 82, development where areas of moderate to very high sect. 5.16.2 potential occur?

Natural Landscape and Aesthetics

Natural landscapes include The PPS does not 67) Are there special landscape features identified on an 67) No. shorelines, tree lines, steep include specific policy schedule, or resource map? cliffs, waterfalls and rapids. addressing natural landscape and 68) Is there a general policy recognizing the value of natural 68) Not specific. Somewhat dealt aesthetics. landscapes and aesthetics and supporting their with in sect. 2.9.1.1 Pg 89 as protection? Such a statement could be included in the recreational goals and somewhat Natural landscapes overall goals of the official plan as well is a specific dealt with in general regarding provide scenic views, section that deals with social or natural values, such as: protection of Enviro. Sensitive and help to define the a. “To preserve and encourage public use of scenic Areas and water, but not general character of views and of scenic land and water routes from or on specifically as in a goal or a the area. public lands.” statement of intent. Indiscriminate b. “Natural landscape features such as watercourses, development will significant heights of land, rock faces or cliffs. primarily result in waterfalls, rapids, beaches, vistas and panoramas visual impacts when and landmarks should be conserved.” built form is contrary to the feature. 69) Is there special policy requiring consideration and 69) Not specifically. Again the spirit protection of natural landscapes and aesthetics, such as? of this desire may be captured in a # of sections as noted above. “Development shall be located and designed so as to protect the character and prominence of public views and features including such areas as rock cliffs, waterfalls, rapids and landmarks. Where development is proposed in these areas, encourage the dedication or acquisition of such lands (conservation, public access, trails or portages).” OR “Development will be sympathetic with the natural landscape and will be designed to maintain, fit into and 69 a, b) No – Plan is specifically use the natural characteristics and features of individual silent. sites. The following principles guide lot design, road design and construction: a. Built form should not dominate the landscape b. Minimize visual impact

Lake Plan Template 13 French Planning Services Inc. Official Plan Review Copyrighted Version October 2004

Provincial Policy Review of Issues and Values Statement (PPS) Official Plan Policy Checklist Official Plan 1997 (Insert Policy) c. Maintain as much natural vegetation as possible d. Preserve natural land form and contours 69 c,d,e) No. e. Protect ridge lines and skylines”. 70) Generally but not 70) Is there policy regarding the consideration of the visual specifically. See Pg 79, impacts of development, forestry and land clearing within the viewscape of your lake? sect. 5.10.1

Shoreline Community Character

The character of shoreline The PPS does not 71) Are there specific policies recognizing the special areas is defined by its include specific policy character of shoreline communities? Consider policies natural and built form. addressing shoreline regarding the protection of shoreline character, such as: Natural elements can community character. a. Waterfront character is linked to the natural and built include vegetation, terrain form. and existence of sensitive The exiting character b. The natural form should dominate the character of environmental features. of shoreline areas is the Waterfront. Natural shorelines visually screen Official Plan is not specific on any Built form also provides a threatened when new development. of these issues. specific character by development is not c. Development shall be encouraged to have regard to architecture criteria, height, sympathetic to exiting the historic connections to the waterfront and bulk and density of form or natural complement the natural and built form. development. elements. d. The character of specific lakes shall be identified and conserved. Shoreline communities are e. The following design principles should be usually focused on a implemented: central natural feature such · Natural waterfront landscape shall prevail with as a bay or reach of the built form blending in with natural river, or an historical · Natural shorelines retained or restored settlement. · Lot sizes will respond to the natural landscape, shoreline interface and the character of the lake · Maintain vegetation on shorelines/skylines/ ridges

Recreational Opportunities

Recreational opportunities The PPS does not 72) Does the Official Plan include a general goal or objective are related to swimming, include specific policy recognizing the value of appropriate recreational 72) Yes. See Pg 9, Sect. 2.9.1 boating, water-skiing, addressing opportunities, such as fishing, trails and recreational · “To optimize recreational opportunities while conservation areas. opportunities. maintaining a high level of environmental quality, safety and user satisfaction”

Lake Plan Template 14 French Planning Services Inc. Official Plan Review Copyrighted Version October 2004

Provincial Policy Review of Issues and Values Statement (PPS) Official Plan Policy Checklist Official Plan 1997 (Insert Policy) PHYSICAL HERITAGE Steep slopes

Steep slopes are generally The PPS does not 73) Are steep slopes identified on a schedule or resource 73) No, But may be included in considered to be lands that provide policy that map? future environmental Mapping and have a slope greater than deals directly with Pg 8 Sect 2.7.2.1. 20%. This means that for steep slopes. 74) Is there specific policy regarding development on steep every 4ft of horizontal slopes? Such as: distance, the height of land Development on 74) No, buy could be covered rises 1ft. steep slopes can a. Steep slopes are recognized as “Building Hazard generally on Pg 8 Sect. 2.7.2.1 cause the following Areas” and have potential impacts related to water impacts: quality, fish and wildlife habitat, and character and visual attractiveness of landscape. Identify steep · Visual slopes on a schedule or resource map. 74 a-d) Plan isn’t specific here but attractiveness the intent is clear. Pg 8 Sect 2.7.2.1 · Building b. Create two categories: “To prevent the occurrence of instability Category 1 - 20%- 40% development on lands having · Slope instability · Substantially retain vegetation, especially on inherent environmental hazards”. shorelines, ridgelines or skylines Also – Pg 13, Sect. 3.1.3 may · Development should blend in apply. · Not permitted where erosion · Preserve scenic areas · Minimize visual impact Category 2 - >40% · All the above and will require a site evaluation report

c. Increased lot frontages are required for newly created lots. Some municipalities require increased lot frontage requirements of up to 120m (400ft).

d. Increased setbacks for development from the top of a defined bank. Many municipalities have imposed 15m (49 ft).

Narrow Waterbodies

Narrow waterbodies are The PPS does not 75) Are narrow waterbodies identified on a schedule or 75) No. portions of lakes and rivers include specific policy resource map? where opposite shorelines addressing narrow 76) No. are relatively close. waterbodies. 76) Is there specific policy regarding development on narrow

Lake Plan Template 15 French Planning Services Inc. Official Plan Review Copyrighted Version October 2004

Provincial Policy Review of Issues and Values Statement (PPS) Official Plan Policy Checklist Official Plan 1997 (Insert Policy) waterbodies, such as: Development can a. Narrow waterbodies are defined to mean: cause problems o The distance from shore to shore of 150m * Official Plan is silent. related to increased o In the case of a bay, the length will be greater congestion from than 100m docks, boathouses o The mouth of an enclosed bay would be This is an important and shoreline considered a narrow waterbody, and the issue and should be development that majority of the bay is less than 300 m from approved. results in decreased shore to shore aesthetic beauty and b. Increased lot frontage requirements navigation. o Portions of lakes that are < 90m (300’) wide require 90m (400’) lot frontage o Portions of lakes that are > 90m – <120 m wide require (300 ft) lot frontage c. New marinas, waterfront landings or other docking facilities should not be located in a narrow bay that is predominantly residential. d. A site evaluation may be required.

Small Islands

Small Islands are usually The PPS does not 77) Is there specific policy regarding development on small defined to mean 2 acres or include specific policy islands, such as: * 77) Note Pg 46 Sect’s 3.5.11.10 less. addressing small a. Islands less than 0.8 ha (2 acres) shall not be and 3.5.11.11 and Pg 126 Sect 12. islands. developed, and uses are limited to a picnic Also some requirements may be shelter and a dock. covered in By-Laws Re: Set backs Development on OR and Lot size, as well as Sect. 5.10 small islands may b. Residential development will only be permitted may provide guidelines; however have increased on islands, which are less than 0.8 ha (2 acres) impacts related to in area, where *Additional guidelines are required. water quality, · The island is greater than 0.2 ha(0.5 acres) retention of in area Sect.3.5.11.10 is simply not vegetation and · It is demonstrated that the island is suitable protective enough. aesthetics for development · Setback requirements and design principles - No minimal size are satisfied - No visual impact considerations · Not on a narrow waterbody - No outright bans · Visual impact minimized by natural vegetation c. New residential shoreline lots located on an island less the 4 ha. (10 acres) will have a min. lot area of 0.8 ha (2 acres)

Lake Plan Template 16 French Planning Services Inc. Official Plan Review Copyrighted Version October 2004

Provincial Policy Review of Issues and Values Statement (PPS) Official Plan Policy Checklist Official Plan 1997 (Insert Policy) Soils

Constraints are identified Development on poor 78) Is there specific policy that recognizes the need for on-site 78) by nature of soil soils may prevent on- evaluations of soils and slope as a prerequisite to * Not within the Official Plan itself. permeability and depth to site sewage building? Note – these requirements are already present The Plan does recognize the the water table treatment and in the Environmental Protection Act, and the Ontario importance of soils and slopes vis- threaten groundwater Building Code. à-vis potable water, sewage quality. disposal and public safety as articulated in the general goals and objectives Pg 7 and in other Sections eg. Sect 2.7.1.1.

The Plan also encourages the proper servicing and maintenance of sewage disposal systems, but leaves the enforcement to other levels of Gov’t.

Lake Plan Template 17 French Planning Services Inc. Official Plan Review Copyrighted Version October 2004

Provincial Policy Review of Issues and Values Statement (PPS) Official Plan Policy Checklist Official Plan 1997 (Insert Policy) OTHER SHORELINE ISSUES

Conversion of cottages to permanent homes

The conversion of The PPS does not 79) Is there specific policy that applies to the conversion of 79. Yes. Pg 45 sect. 3.5.11.8 residential buildings refers include specific policy seasonal shoreline residences to permanent? to the use of a building addressing *No mention of Lake Carrying changing from seasonal to conversions Capacitiy issues. year round. The land use impact associated with seasonal conversions is related to an increased demand for municipal services such as road, garbage, school busing and emergency services. The other major impact is an increased use of septic systems and input of phosphorus into adjacent waterbodies.

General Land Use Designation – Settlement Areas

A land use designation is a In many 80) Are the waterfront areas identified in a land use 80. No. Waterfront Properties are planning term used to municipalities, designation (i.e. waterfront, shoreline) that is separate included in Rural. Pg 11 sect. 3.5. identify a large shoreline areas are from the rural or community designations? geographical area for which identified as the * Official Plan generally does not specific policy applies. “waterfront” or 81) Are waterfront areas identified on a schedule or map, or deal with waterfront property within “shoreline” areas and are they described textually? If it is shown on a schedule, its own category. are not included is the line an exact measurement (e.g. 150 m) from the within the “rural” shoreline, or does it vary recognizing the land ownership designation. pattern and terrain surrounding the lake? Communities located on shorelines have 82) Is there policy that defines waterfront lands as being those separate community that “physically or functionally” relate to any standing

Lake Plan Template 18 French Planning Services Inc. Official Plan Review Copyrighted Version October 2004

Provincial Policy Review of Issues and Values Statement (PPS) Official Plan Policy Checklist Official Plan 1997 (Insert Policy) designations with waterbody greater than 8 hectares (20 acres). These special policies to lands are generally 150m (500 ft) from the shoreline and protect the character includes the beds of any waterbody As noted above. of shorelines. Rural areas (which include agricultural land uses) are usually in a separate designation and should not abut shoreline areas.

Waterfront - Rural Interface

The waterfront rural The purpose of 83) Is there policy that defines the waterfront/rural interface, interface is the line that identifying this line is such as “waterfront includes those lands beyond a separates the shoreline to ensure that rural community designation which generally extend inland 150 The Official Plan does not designation from the rural uses, that may be metres (500 ft) from any lake greater than 8 ha in area or differentiate using these categories. designation. incompatible with to any significant river. Specifically: shoreline a. Lands that physically and functionally relates to development and the waterfront, even though it is more than 150m activities (e.g. from a waterbody: farming, industrial, b. Includes all islands and land which form the bed aggregate of any lake or identified river extraction), are not c. Does not include land that does not physically or allowed on the functionally relate to the waterfront, even though shoreline area. it is closer than 150m from a waterbody. The Existing rural uses interface may be greater then 150m to may continue to encompass a significant natural or built feature, exist. or resort backlands. d. Where a road is within 150m of the shoreline it shall form the boundary e. Small remnants of rural area surrounded by water front shall be in waterfront f. The boundary shall be 150m for farms, open space and golf courses”

84) Are the precise limits of the waterfront designation identified on a schedule or resource map?

Lake Plan Template 19 French Planning Services Inc. Official Plan Review Copyrighted Version October 2004

Provincial Policy Review of Issues and Values Statement (PPS) Official Plan Policy Checklist Official Plan 1997 (Insert Policy) Public Access to the Shoreline

Public access properties There are limited 85) Does the Official Plan include policy such as: * 85 a) Yes, Pg 9 Sect. 2.9.2.2 also are owned and operated by public access points a. Public access to the waterfront and the Pg 10, Sect 8.7.1 public authorities and to waterfront areas development of water parks is a primary include parks, government and they serve a objective docks, and road allowances wide public demand. b. Public land leading to, or at the water should be 85 b) Pg 44 map 46 Sect 3.5.11 that lead to water. These areas should retained, enhanced or encouraged in accordance and Pg 9 Sect. 2.9.2.2 be protected and with the following: enhanced, while · If only public land in area addressing impacts · Property is large enough and appropriate for to adjacent public use properties. · Does not conflict with abutting properties can be mitigated · No negative impact on water quality or natural area c. Water corridors, routes and associated portages 85 c) Not dealt with. should be preserved. d. Retain all road allowances leading to water, 85 d) Yes. unless there is no possible future use or access due to physical or terrain constraints.

Commercial Development and Intensification

Commercial development The PPS does not 86) Does the Official Plan include policy such as: refers to new development include specific policy or the redevelopment of addressing a. The continued and enhanced viability of resorts, 86 a) Yes. traditional waterfront commercial other commercial uses and residential uses are commercial uses such as intensification. recognized elements in the local economy. resorts, tent and trailer Appropriate development/redevelopment needs parks and private camps. New commercial to be recognized and encouraged through policy. 86 b) Yes. development will b. Rezoning resorts from commercial to residential likely result from the is discouraged. A report may be required to intensification of demonstrate that the property is not suitable for existing resort commercial use 86 c) Not prohibited, perhaps properties. While the c. Traditional and new concepts related to the form encouraged. impacts of this form or ownership of resort commercial of development must establishments will be supported provided the be addressed, it is intent, principles and policies of the plan will be also important to satisfied. Residential condominiums are not recognize that permitted. existing properties d. Permit limited expansion within the approved 86 d) Yes.

Lake Plan Template 20 French Planning Services Inc. Official Plan Review Copyrighted Version October 2004

Provincial Policy Review of Issues and Values Statement (PPS) Official Plan Policy Checklist Official Plan 1997 (Insert Policy) must be protected limits of the zoning by-law. Provide criteria for the from downzoning to definition of approved limits. non-commercial e. New commercial development requires an uses. Once a amendment to the official plan, zoning and site 86 e) ? commercial property plan control. is lost, it will likely not f. Commercial use of shoreline resort be replaced. accommodation units must remain commercial, regardless of tenure. Criteria are provided to ensure the commercial nature of the resort is 86 f-i) maintained, such as · 50% of accommodation units will be owned No Official Plan by the resort Policy · All resort accommodation units will be available for rental by the traveling public g. Provide a list of requirements for resort development or redevelopment, such as: · 150 m (500ft) frontage · 2 ha (5 acres) · Not on a island h. Provide requirements for new marina developments, such as: · 75 m (250ft) frontage · 0.8 ha area · Increased setbacks for on land storage facilities i. Provide requirements for Waterfront Contractors.

Cluster Development

Cluster development is a The PPS does not 87) Does the Official Plan include policy such as, “Cluster * 87 a,b,c) The Official Plan does form of shoreline residential include specific policy development consists of a group of single detached not deal with it BUT Pg 43 Sect. development that has a addressing cluster dwellings each located on an individual lot, which are 3.5.11.6.2 talks about user-in- higher density than development. setback from the shoreline with the shoreline being common shore areas and this could traditional shoreline linear maintained as communal open space and is subject to the indicate a tolerance for “Cluster residential development. Higher densities are following: Developments”. permitted if the a. Max of 25 lots in one cluster and each cluster is shoreline is kept in a separated from another by at least two concession natural open space lots. category and the b. Gross density is not greater than 25 lots in 40 ha (25 residential units front lots in 100 acres) or there is a ratio of 1 lot for every on an internal road 1.6 ha of area. network. c. 15 m of water frontage per dwelling unit, min. total

Lake Plan Template 21 French Planning Services Inc. Official Plan Review Copyrighted Version October 2004

Provincial Policy Review of Issues and Values Statement (PPS) Official Plan Policy Checklist Official Plan 1997 (Insert Policy) water frontage of 120 m d. Single detached dwellings on individual lots only. 87d) e. Shoreline open space block maintained in natural 87e) Pg 44 Sect. state. 3.5.11.6.5. & 6. Deals with f. Average lot size is at least 1.2 ha. (3 acres) and the the maintenance of min road frontage is 90 m. physical attributes ie; g. Minimum lot size is 0.4 ha and the minimum road frontage is 60 m. trees, views etc. h. Requires a zoning amendment.”

Backlot Development

Backlot development The PPS does not 88) Does the Official Plan include policy such as: 88 a,b,c) consists of single-family include specific policy Backlot development is not development within the addressing backlot a. Backlot development consists of individual permitted. waterfront designation that development. dwellings within the waterfront designation, Pg 43 Sect. 3.5.11.2 is physically separated from separated from the waterbody by a legally the shore. Issues related to separate development parcel. Backlot backlot development development is generally defined as the second are primarily related tier of development adjacent to the first tier of to the intensity of use shoreline lots with the following requirements. on a shoreline. · Lot Frontage – 200 m on a public road Potential concerns to · Lot Area – 2 ha be addressed include b. Only a single tier of development is permitted visual impacts, water between the shoreline and the public road quality (additional (where it passes through the Waterfront). phosphorus loadings c. Access to waterway by right of way is not from a second tier of permitted for backlot development. development) and access to the water. Many of these impacts can be mitigated through the provision of increased lot sizes on publicly maintained roads.

Lake Plan Template 22 French Planning Services Inc. Official Plan Review Copyrighted Version October 2004

Provincial Policy Review of Issues and Values Statement (PPS) Official Plan Policy Checklist Official Plan 1997 (Insert Policy) Density and Massing

Lot Area and Frontage- Lot The PPS does not 89) Does the Official Plan include policy such as: 89a) Pg 124 Sect. 11. frontage refers to the include specific policy a. Minimum residential lot By-Laws call for minimum 150’ of amount of shoreline a lot addressing density · 0.4 ha. (1 acre) shoreline, minimum lot area and has. Lot area is the total and massing on · 60 m (200 ft) frontage minimum lot coverage. area with all lot lines lakes. b. In special situations 89b) These situations would be Lot frontage is the · 0.8 ha. (2 acre) dealt with on a situational basis. best control for · 90 m (300 ft) frontage to 120 m (400 ft) regulating the 89c) Not dealt with. number of lots on c. Water Access Properties lake. Varied lot · 0.8 ha. (2 acre) frontages where · 90 m (300 ft) frontage there are steep slopes or natural features ensure the density of development is appropriate for the situation.

Height - The height of The PPS does not 90) Does the Official Plan include policy such as: 90) Pg 124 – By-Law Sect. 11. Max buildings and structures is include specific policy height 9 metres. BUT Official Plan usually measured from the addressing height. · The height of shoreline buildings and structures should does not deal with max building finished grade to the peak generally be low profile in nature, and should not exceed heights. of the roof. Buildings that the height of the tree canopy or break the skyline horizon. protrude above the It does on Pg 44 Sect’s 3.5.11.6.5 treeline are more and 3.5.11.6.6 require development prominent and to blend into natural surroundings interrupt the natural and preserve natural surroundings landscape. Usually, such as trees, scenic views etc. the greatest visual impact is on the lakeside lot and the height of buildings should be determined from the shoreline side.

Lake Plan Template 23 French Planning Services Inc. Official Plan Review Copyrighted Version October 2004

Provincial Policy Review of Issues and Values Statement (PPS) Official Plan Policy Checklist Official Plan 1997 (Insert Policy) Monster Cottages The PPS does not 91) Does the Official Plan include policy that requires lot and lot coverage - Lot include specific policy coverage of buildings adjacent to the shoreline to relate to coverage refers to the addressing monster the area of the lot immediately adjacent to the shoreline, 91) By-Law Pg 124, maximum area of the lot cottages. such as: Sect. 11. that can be covered by buildings and structures. As new lots become · “For buildings and structures constructed within 60 m of - 70’ Set-Back and scarce, and property the shoreline, a lot coverage of 10% is permitted, based max lot coverage of This type of development, values increase, the on the portion of the lot area within 60m of the shoreline of 15%. similar to the monster redevelopment of that lot.” homes in urban areas, existing lots with refers to oversized larger more luxurious Note - Lot coverage is one of the best ways to ensure the size buildings on minimum sized homes is expected. of structures relates to the size of the lot. However, lots with lots. The size of shoreline small lot frontages and large lot areas can build large buildings must be structures on the shoreline that is not compatible in size and related to shoreline layout of adjoining properties. frontage and the buildable area of land immediately adjacent to the shoreline.

Lighting

Shoreline lighting applies to The PPS does not 92) Does the Official Plan include policy such as: * 92) Dealt with in By-Laws only all lighting facilities located include specific policy a. “Subdued exterior lighting is requested so as not with respect to appropriate lighting on docks, boathouses, addressing light to interfere with the night vision of those using in residential areas – not lake shore shoreline residences and pollution. the waterways, the habitat of nocturnal animals development. accessory structures. and privacy”. Shoreline lighting has b. “Sensitive lighting, which is oriented downward, huge impacts on the is low wattage, energy efficient, and minimizes natural landscape on glare will be encouraged, particularly in lakes and rivers. waterfront and rural areas”. Uncontrolled lighting turns waterfront areas into urban environments.

Lake Capacities * 93) Official Plan is mute with The capacity of a lake The PPS does not 93) Does the Official Plan include policy that provides a respect to Lake Plans, but refers to the amount of include specific policy framework for lake associations to undertake a community provisions are in place that allow for development and human addressing lake based planning process to identify important values and change to the O.P. Pg 106 Sect 9.7 activity that a lake can capacity. put in place land use regulations and stewardship

Lake Plan Template 24 French Planning Services Inc. Official Plan Review Copyrighted Version October 2004

Provincial Policy Review of Issues and Values Statement (PPS) Official Plan Policy Checklist Official Plan 1997 (Insert Policy) withstand before the programs, such as: features and values of a A lake’s capacity has lake are diminished. traditionally been a. To encourage optimal growth within the carrying * 93) Pg 79 Sect 5.10.2 measured by one capacity of the Township’s lakes and rivers. Plan requires a L.C.S. factor, phosphorus b. To ensure that development occurs within the for development of more loadings and water limits a lake’s carrying capacity. than 5 lots. Interesting to quality. However, c. Limits to development on lakes may be based on note here that there are a number of social, physical, biological and other measures of recommendation #6 Pg other elements that capacity. 5 in the Appendix, contribute to the d. Specific lake plans should be prepared for quality of shoreline individual lakes to identify, reflect and respond to suggested that the living that must also the character and physical capabilities. council have the right to be considered: e. Specific lake plans will identify the recreational request a L.C.S. for natural, social and water quality objectives of a lake. ANY shoreline physical. f. Lake Plans should address matters such as: development, was not · Location and access included in this section. While land use · Relation to watershed regulation is one · Drainage basin and related watercourses approach to · Size and shape of lake addressing lake · Distinct areas or neighbourhoods capacity, measures · Islands and narrow waterbodies should be taken to · Shoreline constraints 94) Plan is mute on ensure that · Boating capacity these policies. stewardship programs are put in 94) Does the Official Plan include policy that limits place to encourage capacity based on other factors such as lake size, shoreline residents to boating capacity? voluntarily nurture healthy shoreline living.

Shoreline Structures

Docking facilities include The PPS does not 95) Does the Official Plan include policy such as: 95a) Official Plan is mute on Boat residential docks, include specific policy Impact Assessment Policies; boathouses and addressing shoreline a. A boat impact assessment may be required prior however, does consider community commercial facilities structures. to the approval of an application for an official docking facilities on Pg 79 sect plan or zoning amendment. The assessment will 5.10.1.3 and also on Pg 44 sect. The development of evaluate the suitability of the land water interface 35.11.6.7. new large scale of a site and the immediate area to docking facilities can accommodate a significant boat docking facility cause impacts and its associated boast traffic.

Lake Plan Template 25 French Planning Services Inc. Official Plan Review Copyrighted Version October 2004

Provincial Policy Review of Issues and Values Statement (PPS) Official Plan Policy Checklist Official Plan 1997 (Insert Policy) related to: b. A significant boat docking facility includes: · Navigation · A facility that would cumulatively · Congestion accommodate 15 or more boats 95b) Note Sect 3.5.11.6.7, · Visual · A new or expanded facility associated with a Official Plan does not deal attractiveness commercial use on a narrow water body with these issues · Density · A new marina, waterfront landing or boat specifically. · Incompatibility livery as defined in the Municipal Act with adjacent c. Include a checklist of matters to be considered in properties an Assessment: · Proposed docking and mooring facilities · Adjacent docking and mooring · Frequency and distribution of marine traffic · Constraints and influences to navigation and safety · Analysis of project impact

Visual Impact - Visual The PPS does not 96) Does the Official Plan include policy such as: 96) The Official Plan does not impact is related to the include specific policy contain such Policies. NOTE increased scale, bulk and addressing visual · “Shoreline structures shall not impede the immediate view Boathouses do not have to be set- massing of shoreline impact. of surrounding properties, as defined by the extension of back. buildings and structures on property lines onto the water” the perception of view. The two most significant waterfront features to be considered are the shoreline and the treeline or horizon. When viewing form the opposite side of the lake, our eyes are immediately drawn to these two lines and anything that stands out on these lines can greatly impact the natural landscape.

Lake Plan Template 26 French Planning Services Inc. Official Plan Review Copyrighted Version October 2004

Provincial Policy Review of Issues and Values Statement (PPS) Official Plan Policy Checklist Official Plan 1997 (Insert Policy) Size and Shape of The PPS does not 97) Does the Official Plan include policy that restricts the size Shoreline Structures - The include specific policy and location of docks and boathouses, such as: size and shape of docks addressing shoreline and boathouses built on the structures. a. A shoreline activity area is the portion or cumulative 97a) The Official Plan shoreline. portions of developed shoreline frontage (docks, restricts docks, Uncontrolled dock boathouse pump houses and other structures). boathouses etc. only in and boathouse b. To maintain the appropriate balance between natural the most general way. development will: and built form, the extent of shoreline activity areas · Impact natural shall be based on the following targets: settings · 25% of the shoreline frontage or up to 23 m, · Cause a built whichever is less shoreline · 25% of the shoreline frontage of the open space environment block or up to 30 m, whichever is lesser for · Impact fish and residential cluster development wildlife habitat · 33% of the shoreline frontage for resort Official Plan is not · Cause impacts commercial and waterfront landings specific or is mute in on adjacent · 50% of shoreline frontage for marinas views c. The remaining shoreline frontage will be retained or this regard. restored as a natural vegetative buffer, at least 15m in depth. d. Location must have regard for fish and wildlife habitat, natural flow of water, flood and ice heaving, privacy and other policies. e. If two storey boathouses are to be allowed, consider a minimum lot frontage of at least 60m, not on a narrow waterbody of significant fish habitat, second floor area limited, and must have an increased setback from the projected lot line. If it contains a sleeping cabin, it is the only one on the lot. f. Single Storey boathouses must have 30 m (100ft) frontage, not in critical fish habitat and have an increased setback where a roof is a sundeck.

Lake Plan Template 27 French Planning Services Inc. Official Plan Review Copyrighted Version October 2004

Provincial Policy Review of Issues and Values Statement (PPS) Official Plan Policy Checklist Official Plan 1997 (Insert Policy) Minimum water setback 96a) Yes. The PPS does not 98) Does the Official Plan include policy for increased A 70’ set-back from high water. This is the distance include specific policy setbacks, such as: measured between the addressing water - No set-back for boathouses. shoreline and closest part setback. a. 20m for most residential development including - No set-back for leaching beds of any building or structure. septic systems. unless contained in County / Water setbacks are b. 30m for sensitive features such as fish habitat Provincial requirements. one of the main c. 30m for commercial uses, except marinas controls to help d. Increased setbacks may also be required to address * The only shoreline development ensure the retention additional matters set-back rule is contained on pg. of natural shorelines. e. 30 m for leaching beds 124 of the Comprehensive Zoning Increased setbacks By-Laws and does not include help to lessen: boathouses and unattached decks · Visual impacts and patios. · Phosphorus loading · Sediment transfer

Natural Shoreline Buffer

Natural Shoreline buffers The PPS does not 99) Does the Official Plan include policy regarding the refers to the vegetated include specific policy protection and restoration of natural shoreline buffers such undisturbed areas addressing buffers. as: immediately upland from a. To maintain or restore the majority of all developed the shoreline Natural shoreline and undeveloped shorelines in their natural state and buffers are one of the promote stewardship of their biological benefits. best approaches to b. To encourage the provision of a natural vegetative ensure the health of buffer and its importance of protecting lakes from The Official Plan is mute on these littoral and riparian man made impacts. issues. areas. While the c. Where a vegetative buffer is required, the removal of requirements for vegetation, including ground, shrub and or canopy these buffers can be layers, of the disruption of the natural landform or soil stated in an Official mantle will be restricted. Plan, it is important to d. Encourage tree cover and vegetation to be retained recognize and to uphold the visual and environmentally integrity of encourage the the Waterfront. private stewardship e. A natural undisturbed buffer is recommended at the of these areas. water’s edge to meet a minimum target of 8 m (25 ft) in depth for three quarters of the water frontage. (consider increasing the target to 20 m, where possible)

Lake Plan Template 28 French Planning Services Inc. Official Plan Review Copyrighted Version October 2004

Provincial Policy Review of Issues and Values Statement (PPS) Official Plan Policy Checklist Official Plan 1997 (Insert Policy) Crown or Federal Land

Crown or Federal lands are Crown or Federal 100) Does the Official Plan include policy such as: 100) The Official Plan recognizes lands that are owned by the Lands have their own a. Although the policies of the official plan and that use of Crown Land can only be province of the federal separate regulations zoning by-law are not binding on Crown land determined by the province and government. and are not directly activities, the use of Crown lands will be states some Provincial Policies on subject to municipal determined by the Province with regard for the Pg 51 Sect. 3.5.13. policy. However it is established planning policies of the municipality. important to note that b. Crown lands may be shown as either a separate activities that occur land use category or placed within a suitable on these lands can broader land use designation that recognizes greatly impact a the traditional range of crown land management municipalities land activities. use objectives. c. The release of Crown lands for private development will be discouraged.

NOTE - It is important to recognize that this document is copyrighted and that you have our expressed permission to use it for the purpose of preparing your Lake Plan. This means that you can share the information with members on your committee and use and edit the information as you see fit in the preparation of your plan, however, you may not provide this information (in written or electronic form) to other people or associations for their use, without our written permission.

Lake Plan Template 29 French Planning Services Inc. Official Plan Review Copyrighted Version October 2004