HomeMy Public PortalAbout2016-11-03_Agenda Package_Public Hearing_Final
PUBLIC HEARING AGENDA
NOVEMBER 3, 2016
CHESTER MUNICIPAL COUNCIL CHAMBERS
Amendments to the MPS and LUB to require development that provides public access to inland
waterways through the development of parks, open space, or other recreational lands to be
done through a Development Agreement.
1) CALL TO ORDER (CHAIR)
a) The Agenda
b) General Rules of Conduct
2) REPORT OF THE CLERK
a) Applicant, application date, and nature of application
b) Meetings: Council, Committees, Public Information
c) Documentation: Reports, advertisements, notifications, fees paid
d) Written submissions received
3) COMMENTS BY SOLICITOR
4) OVERVIEW BY PLANNER
a) Nature of proposal
b) Outstanding concerns
c) Recommendations
5) COMMENTS BY THE PUBLIC ON THE PROPOSAL
a) Those in favour
b) Those opposed
c) Any other comments
6) CLOSING REMARKS (CHAIRMAN) / CLOSING OF PUBLIC HEARING
a) Next step: decision by Council
7) DECISION OF COUNCIL / DEFERMENT OF DECISION
REPORT OF CLERK
Prepared By: Pam Myra, Clerk Date October 31, 2016
Reviewed By: Date
Authorized By: Date
DETAILS OF PROPOSED AMENDMENTS
Request from: Council
Request date: September 8, 2016 – Council in camera meeting– direction to staff to prepare report.
Nature of amendments:
Amendments to the MPS and LUB to require development that provides public access to inland
waterways through the development of parks, open space, or other recreational lands to be done through
a Development Agreement.
Purpose of amendments:
To regulate the development parks and open space which not owned by the Municipality of Chester or
the Crown when public access to inland waterways is provided.
(B) MEETING DATES
September 8, 2016: Council (in camera) – to refer matter to staff
October 6, 2016: Council (First Reading)
October 15, 2016: Public Information Meeting
November 3, 2016: Public Hearing
(C) DOCUMENTATION
Reports:
October 3, 2016: Application Overview and Draft Amendments
Advertisements
October 7, 2016: Notice of Public Information Meeting & Public Hearing – Chronicle Herald
October 10, 2016: Notice of Public Information Meeting & Public Hearing – Lighthouse Now
October 14, 2016: Notice of Public Information Meeting & Public Hearing – Chronicle Herald
October 20, 2016: Notice of Public Information Meeting & Public Hearing - Lighthouse Now
REPORT TO: Tammy Wilson, CAO
SUBMITTED BY: Pam Myra, Clerk
DATE: November 1, 2016
SUBJECT: Report of Clerk – MPS and LUB
Amendments
ORIGIN: Motion 2016-045, Motion 2016-046
2 Error! Reference source not found./Direction
Other notification:
October 12, 2016: Letters to Chester Village Commission, Municipality of the District of
Lunenburg, Municipality of the County of Kings, Municipality of West Hants, Halifax Regional
Municipality, advising of amendments with notification of Public Hearing
Notices of public information meeting posted on Municipal office doors
Fees paid: N/A
(D) WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS RECEIVED
1. Pat Bill - October 17, 2016 - (email)
2. Heather Dyment, October 18, 2016 (email)
3. Heather Dyment, November 1, 2016 (letter)
4. John and Elcie Littlefair, October 25, 2016 (email)
5. Gary Thomas, October 21, 2015 (email)
6. Ron Renz and Janet Whelan, October 27, 2016 (email)
7. Anthony Northey, October 27, 2016 (email)
8. Mike Morrison, October 26, 2016 (email)
9. Alison McCallum, October 26, 2016 (email)
10. Doug Earle, October 24, 2016 (email)
11. Barrie Clarke, October 27, 2016 (email)
12. Robin McAdam, November 1, 2016 (email)
13. Alice and David Patrick, October 28, 2016 (email)
14. Jon Philip, October 28, 2016 (email)
15. Ken McLaren, October 26, 2016 (email)
16. Warren Giberson, November 1, 2016 (email)
October 19, 2016
Public Information Meeting
Proposed Amendment to MPS/LUB to Require DA for Park/Open Space Development on Land Not
Owned by MODC or Crown
In Attendance:
Staff:
Tara Maguire – Director Community Development
Garth Sturtevant – Development Control/Planning Assistant
Council:
Councillor Tina Connors – District 6
Councillor Elect Danielle Barkhouse – District 3
Public:
Approximately 22 members
The meeting began at 6:30 pm:
Tara Maguire opened the meeting at 6:30pm and gave introductions for staff, Councillor Connors
and Councillor Elect Barkhouse.
Tara clarified that this proposed amendment is general in nature and would apply to the entire
General Basic Zone. Tara presented a PowerPoint with a highlight of the issue and provisions
proposed that had been considered by Council.
Following the presentation, the floor was opened to questions and comments, Tara provided a
response where appropriate:
Q Did MODL’s application get grandfathering status? Does it have existing status or will it be
required to follow the proposed amendments?
A Our position is that there was not an existing use on the lot, site visit and stated use
were vacant land. Any proposal would need to follow the proposed amendments.
Q Stated Development Agreement does not prohibit but only regulates development, could
council prohibit a park?
A Development Agreement would not prohibit parks as a land use, but we do have the
ability to restrict or control land uses that are proposed as part of an application for
a park. Council can prohibit uses in individual zones, but does need to provide a
location for all uses somewhere in the Municipality and cannot outright prohibit
throughout the Municipality.
Q Is there any way to STOP the development of the Park on Sherbrooke Lake?
A These amendments are not specific to that project. However, Council does not wish
to prohibit parks, these amendments allow Council to maintain a level of control
over the development of parks and to regulate and mitigate impacts on
neighbouring properties.
Q This proposal restricts motorized boats on lands under private ownership when providing
public access to inland waterways, but motorized boat access could be permitted in parks
developed by MODC, is Council aware of this?
A Yes, this issue was raised to Council and they are aware.
Q Do we have evidence to support a ban on motorized boats based on the issue of pollution?
A This is not meant as a ban on motorized boats and would not apply to private
ownership and private access. If Council was looking to completely ban motorized
boats, it would be prudent to have such evidence to support the proposal.
Q COMMENT: appreciate the long view that MODC Council is taking to make steps toward
environmental protection of waterways. In support of the proposed amendments and
hopes that private boat users follow suit to ensure environmental protection.
Q COMMENT: Former chair of Sherbrooke Lake Association. Does not believe a park should be
permitted with access off of a private road. Has tried to join the committee to discuss the
park proposed for Sherbrooke Lake but has not had success and does not get a response
from MODL Council. The proposal has always been to begin with a small park and study the
use and effects before looking at expansion. Believes the residents of the area both for and
against the park development are not too far apart on many issues.
Q COMMENT: Only a small percentage of respondents to the survey 93/1100 were in support of
motorized boats.
A This meeting is not specific to Sherbrooke Lake. The proposal is in response, but is
not specific to one site or project.
Q Safety and Security needs to be addressed within the Development Agreement
A This has been noted and will be brought to MODC Council’s attention.
Q The effect on neighbours properties needs to be considered to ensure when appropriate
gates, locks, evening closures, seasonal closures, patrol and emergency response to the site
are evaluated when considering a proposed park.
A This would be addressed on a per application basis if the proposed amendments
come into effect. Would not include language in the amendments that would require
all parks to have locked gates etc. because it may only be appropriate or necessary
in particular situations which would be evaluated on a per case basis.
Q Is Council aware they are walking a fine line between regulating land use and trying to
regulate activities?
A Yes, this has been addressed and Council is aware.
Q What options/rules are available to control use beyond the High Water Mark?
A Council can request from the Federal Government to designate the lake as
protected, or prohibit motorized boats.
Q Who owns the road proposed to access the park on Sherbrooke Lake?
A Once a development agreement application is received and the development
agreement process begins, access is one of the considerations Council would
evaluate.
Q Trying to prohibit motorized boats is a form of judging people. Will other access points in
MODC be gated and regulated in the same way?
A Cannot provide an answer, this would be a question for MODC Council.
Q What is the process for the Public Hearing? Does Council respond to questions from the
gallery?
A Generally, yes, if we have the information.
Q Is Public Hearing mostly focused on the amendments and not looking to discuss the park at
Sherbrooke?
A Yes, but Council is aware that the subject is likely to come up.
Q Does Council make decision at the Public Hearing?
A They can make a decision if they wish to or can defer making a decision pending
more information etc.
Q Is anyone? Who? Reporting to Council on the health of Sherbrooke Lake?
A This is a provincial responsibility through Nova Scotia Environment. Does not
normally provide reports directly to MODC Council. A request could be made to
MODC Council to establish a monitoring committee for Sherbrooke Lake, similar to
the one in place for Fox Point Lake.
Q COMMENT: The health of the lake should lead all thinking and take priority.
Q COMMENT: Thanks to staff and MODC Council for attempting to implement these
amendments.
The Meeting ended at approximately 8:00pm
Municipality of the District of Chester
Community Development Department
Staff Report #2
Prepared for: Warden and Municipal Council
Submitted by: Tara Maguire, Community Development Director
Date: November 1, 2016
Subject: Park/Open Space development on land not owned by MODC
APPLICANT Council Initiated
PROPOSAL Amendments to the MPS and LUB to require development that
provides public access to inland waterways through the
development of parks, open space, or other recreational lands to
be done through a Development Agreement.
LOCATION General amendment – all zones
LOT SIZE n/a
DESIGNATION n/a
ZONE n/a
SURROUNDING USES n/a
NEIGHBOUR NOTIFICATION Notification provided to surrounding municipalities.
Public Information meeting held October 15.
Recommendation
For discussion and decision.
Background
During an in camera discussion on September 8, Council directed staff to prepare amendments to
the MPS and LUB that would address their concerns with the development of parks that allow
public access to inland waterways. A staff report was presented to Council on October 6. Council
gave first reading to proposed amendments to the Municipal Planning Strategy (MPS) and the land
use by-law (LUB). Notice of first reading was published in the Chronicle Herald on October 7. A
public information meeting was held on the proposed amendments on October 15.
The Municipality recognizes the importance and many benefits of parks and open space. Normally,
within the municipality, parks are developed by the provincial or federal government or by the
Staff Report #2 Page 2
Park Development on land not owned by MODC November 1, 2016
Municipality of Chester (MODC). However, public spaces can be developed by other public or private
organizations, or by individuals, that may not have the same level of accountability to the residents
of the MODC. Of particular concern is development that provides public access to inland waterways
through the development of parks, open space, or other recreational lands.
Staff understand that Council is concerned about the environmental impacts of lakefront and
waterfront development as well as the impact on the neighbouring residents. Concerns include:
traffic generated on the roads that access waterways (which are often private roads,
or rural public roads which often do not meet municipal standards)
noise and pollution from motorized boating
litter and garbage
the impact of increased noise, outdoor display areas, lighting and outdoor storage
areas
environmental impact / environmental integrity of waterway
the use of the park as an off-leash dog park
ensuring adequate parking is provided while also minimizing impacts on nearby
properties
When Municipal Council develops land for public purposes, it does so for the residents of MODC as
well as visitors and there are procedures in place that ensure consultation with the public, MODC’s
recreation committee and Council with an aim to ensure that the use integrates into to the
surrounding community and the environment with minimal impact.
There is a public purpose for requiring that the development of land by interests other than the
Municipality of Chester or the Crown, which provides public access to inland waterways, should be
subject to a process that ensures adequate measures are taken to protect the environment, reduce
potential land use conflicts and engage the public in the process.
Discussion - Considerations
These proposed changes would require a development agreement process to be followed. A
development agreement is contract between council and the developer. Prior to approving a
development agreement, Council must be satisfied that a proposed development is consistent with
Council’s policies. These amendments create the policies that council would need to consider when
approving a development for the development of land by interests other than the Municipality of
Chester or the Crown, which provides public access to inland waterways.
The criteria that can be included in a development agreement are limited by the powers given to
the municipality in the Municipal Government Act (MGA). Council’s jurisdiction over land use ends
at the high water mark. When regulating development that provides access to inland waterways,
Staff Report #2 Page 3
Park Development on land not owned by MODC November 1, 2016
Council can control uses on the land, but their ability to control uses that occur in or on the water
are limited.
There are some criteria already established in the Municipal Planning Strategy that council must
consider when approving development agreements. They are outlined in Policy 8.0.4:
Policy 8.0.4
That when considering amendments to the Land Use By-law and in considering development
agreements, in addition to all other criteria as set out in the various policies of this Planning Strategy,
Council shall be satisfied that:
a) the proposal conforms to the intent of the Municipal Planning Strategy.
b) the proposal conforms to the applicable requirements of all Municipal By-laws, except where the
application is for a development agreement when the Land Use By-law requirements need not be
satisfied.
c) the proposal is not premature or inappropriate due to:
i) financial ability of the Municipality to absorb costs related to the development;
ii) adequacy of Municipal services;
iii) the adequacy of physical site conditions for on-site services;
iv) creation or worsening of a pollution problem including soil erosion and siltation;
v) adequacy of storm drainage and effects of alteration to drainage patterns including potential
for creation of a flooding problem;
vi) adequacy and proximity of school, recreation, emergency services, and other community
facilities;
vii) adequacy of street networks, on-site traffic circulation and site access regarding congestion,
traffic hazards and emergency access, including fire vehicles;
ix) adequacy of on-site water supply for domestic consumption and for fire-fighting purposes;
x) inadequate separation from watercourses or inadequate separation from the ocean shoreline;
xi) proximity to areas of high archeological potential as identified on provincial government
mapping
d) the development site is suitable regarding grades, soils, geological conditions, location of
watercourses, flooding, marshes, bogs, swamps, and susceptibility to natural or man-made hazards.
e) all other matters of planning concern have been addressed.
In creating the criteria and policies that would regulate these developments, consideration was
given to the uses which are most likely to occur in parks or open spaces.
A) Recreational Uses
Public access to inland waterways is commonly done in order to allow the public to enjoy the many
recreational benefits of the lakes and watercourses. Boating, fishing, and swimming are commonly
suggested at activities that are not possible if the waterfront is entirely under private ownership.
Swimming is probably the one activity that is the least intrusive for neighboring properties and the
other property owners around a lake. Council’s ability to regulate where swimming happens is
Staff Report #2 Page 4
Park Development on land not owned by MODC November 1, 2016
limited to the structures associated with a swimming area and ensuring that they are not located
near structures that will be used for fishing or boating.
Fishing can occur either from a boat, or from the shoreline. The concerns with fishing from a
shoreline would mainly revolve around the location of such activities and how they would impact
potential swimming areas. It would be difficult for council to address these concerns under a
development agreement. The MGA has specific criteria that can be considered by development
agreement. Land uses are able to be controlled, however, this is not the same as saying that
activities on the land can be controlled. If fishing was a land use, council could retain some control,
however, it is an activity and therefore it is difficult to control where and when fishing can occur. In
addition, the Angling Act “…permits people who are engaged in recreational fishing passage on foot
along the banks of watercourses, across uncultivated land and across Crown lands” (CBCL, 2008,
p.143). If a structure were constructed to provide a place for people to fish, the structure would be a
land use that would then fall under municipal jurisdiction. Council could review the location and
details of the structure to ensure it is located away from areas which would pose safety concerns.
One of the biggest concerns with public access to inland waterways, is the presence of boats.
Generally, passive recreational use of the lake does not pose too many concerns with regard to
environmental impact, nor do they create significant amounts of noise that could create a nuisance
for the nearby properties. The issues become more complex for motorized boats which are
generally larger, noisier, and have a greater environmental impact than non-motorized boats.
When it comes to regulating the size or types of boats or the engine size there are a number of
questions that should be considered:
What is the goal of the regulation?
Why is this a reasonable and rational purpose?
How will the regulation accomplish the goal?
Why are certain boats singled out for regulation?
Does the regulation apply equally to all properties?
In this case, it is a reasonable public purpose to protect residents who own property on the
waterway who might be affected by the introduction of additional of boats and to control motorboat
access to the waterway. However, consideration should also be given to the fact that other
properties on the waterway do not have restrictions regarding the type or size of boats they use on
the waterway, nor the engine size. If the public purpose is to prevent or control motorboats, the
courts may expect that the same restriction would apply to all property owners.
There is concern over the perception that Council is attempting to control the use or activities on a
waterway which is not under their jurisdiction. As stated earlier in this report, the MGA limits what
can be regulated through a development agreement. Land uses and structures are clearly items
that can be regulated by a development agreement. It is clear that a wharf or ramp is a type of land
Staff Report #2 Page 5
Park Development on land not owned by MODC November 1, 2016
use, however, it is less clear if this means that a development agreement can regulate how the
ramps is used. Council does not have the ability to regulate the dimensions or a structure, unless
they do this as a proportion of lot dimensions or frontage. Such an approach would not guarantee
small structures that limit they type of boats that could be used, since it would be relative to the lot
size. Council can control land uses, which may include a wharf, ramp or other structure that meets
the shore. It is not as clear how, or if, their authority extends beyond the high water mark.
Another major concern with boats is the environmental impact on water quality. While council has
some authority to control factors such as stormwater runoff, and sedimentation that are a result of
development or land use, environmental protection of the lake remains the jurisdiction of the
province.
B) Off Leash Dog Park
Increasingly, public parks are including areas for off leash dog parks. The parks often raise a number
of concerns for the surrounding community. Noise, safety, conflicts with other park users, unsafe
access, a lack of adequate fencing, are all issues that may make these parks unwelcome neighbors.
Given the growing trend towards providing a space for dogs to socialize and run off their leash, it
would be reasonable to regulate this type of land use. In terms of regulating this use though
development agreement the main issue is ensuring that the boundaries of the area are identified and
that adequate fencing is provided. The American Kennel Club (www.akc.org) suggests a four- to six-
foot high chain-link fence. Preferably, the fence should be equipped with a double-gated entry to keep
dogs from escaping and to facilitate wheelchair access.
C) Traffic, Parking and Road Access
As previously mentioned, many of the properties are adjacent to inland waterways are located on
private or rural roads that may not be constructed to a municipal standard. While council could give
consideration to a requiring the property to have roads constructed to municipal specifications, this
cannot be extended to the roads that access the property. The development agreement only applies
to the property on which the development is occurring. Council can give consideration to the road
and adjacent properties on the access road, including: safety concerns; and impact of increased
traffic. Likewise, council can include criteria to ensure sufficient parking to serve the development,
suffice lighting of the parking area, and safe access from the parking area to the rest of the
development.
D) Public Consultaiton
One of council’s concerns with development that provides public access to inland waterways when
the property is not owned by either the Crown or the Municipality of Chester, is the level of
accountability to the public and the need to involve the community as early in development
argument process as possible. The draft criteria outlined in Appendix A include a requirement for
the developer to hold at least one public information meeting in the community in which the
Staff Report #2 Page 6
Park Development on land not owned by MODC November 1, 2016
development is proposed. The intention of this meeting is for the developer to hear the concerns of
the neighbours and residents in the community and to allow them an opportunity to influence the
design and features of the development. It is recognized that not all issues may be able to be
addressed by the developer, however, council will need to give consideration if the developer has
reasonably demonstrated that they have attempted to address concerns. If a concern is outside of
the control of the developer, or is an unfair expectation to place on the developer, council will have
the ability to use their discretion in making this determination.
E) Other Concerns
In considering development agreement criteria for the development of property that allow public
access to inland waterways the following concerns have been addressed:
• where applicable, adequate measures have been taken to minimize increases in stormwater
runoff from any development in order to diminish flooding, siltation, non-point source
pollution and to minimize any impacts on water quality measures, and minimize erosion;
• consideration has been given to neighbourhood access and connection, particularly
connectivity to existing park and trail systems;
• potential compatibility issues with nearby land uses resulting from lighting, signage,
outdoor display, outdoor storage, traffic, vehicle headlights, and noise through appropriate
site design, landscaping, buffering and fencing;
• neighbouring properties will not be adversely affected as a result of traffic generation,
visual intrusion, hours of operation, noise, or lighting. Council may also consider the overall
impact of the development on all properties which abut the lake.
Options
1. That Council give second reading to the Land Use By-law and Municipal Planning Strategy
amendments as outlined in Appendix A.
2. That Council defer second reading to the Land Use By-law and Municipal Planning Strategy
amendments as outlined in Appendix A.
3. That Council decide not to amend the Land Use By-law and Municipal Planning Strategy.
References
CBCL Limited. “Our Coast. Live. Work. Play. Protect: The 2009 State of Nova Scotia’s Coast Technical Report”.
2009. Province of Nova Scotia. http://novascotia.ca/coast/state-of-the-coast.asp
Municipality of the District of Chester
A BY-LAW AMENDING THE MUNICIPALITY OF THE DISTRICT OF CHESTER
MUNICIPAL PLANNING STRATEGY AND LAND USE BY-LAW
Municipal Planning Strategy Amendments
Be it enacted by the Council of the Municipality of the District of Chester as follows:
1) Amend the Municipal Planning Strategy by adding the following sections and renumbering
subsequent sections as necessary.
2.8 Land Adjacent to Inland Waterways for public access and use
The Municipality recognizes the importance and many benefits of parks and open space.
Within the Municipality of Chester, parks are developed by the provincial or federal
government or by the Municipality of Chester. However, public spaces can be developed by
other public or private organizations, or by individuals, that may not have the same level of
accountability to the residents of the Municipality of Chester (MODC). Of particular concern
is development that provides public access to inland waterways through the development
of parks, open space, or other recreational lands.
Council is concerned about the environmental impacts of lakefront and waterfront
development as well as the impact on the neighbouring residents. When Municipal Council
develops land for public purposes, it does so for the residents of MODC as well as visitors
and there are procedures in place that ensure consultation with the public, MODC’s
recreation committee and Council with an aim to ensure that the use integrates into to the
surrounding community and the environment with minimal impact.
Council believes that the development of land by interests other than the Municipality of
Chester or the Crown, which provides public access to inland waterways, should be subject
to a process that ensures adequate measures are taken to protect the environment, reduce
potential land use conflicts and engage the public in the process.
In order to ensure that the development and use of land adjacent to inland waterways for
public purposes has a minimal impact on the environment, and the surrounding
community, Council adopts the following policies:
2.8.1 To consider the development of land that provides public access to inland
waterways identified on Schedule A-11, which are not owned by the Crown, or the
Municipality of the District of Chester, only by Development Agreement subject to
policies 8.0.4 and 8.0.12. For the purpose of this policy access to inland waterways
comprises activities such as, but not limited to, boat launches, beaches, picnic areas,
parking areas and associated public amenities.
Park Development on land not owned by MODC November 1, 2016
2.8.2 Prior to a development agreement for a development subject to Policy 2.8.1 being
considered by Council or any committee of Council, the developer must hold at least
one public information meeting in the community in which the development is
proposed to receive feedback and input from the community on the design, layout,
and use of the development.
2) Further amend the Municipal Planning Strategy by adding added after Section 8.0.11:
8.0.12 In addition to policy 8.0.4, when approving a development agreement for uses that
provides public access to inland waterways on property that is not owned by
interests other than the Municipality of Chester or Crown, Council shall be satisfied
that:
a) neighbouring properties will not be adversely affected as a result of traffic
generation, visual intrusion, hours of operation, noise, or lighting. Council may
also consider the overall impact of the development on all properties which abut
the lake.
b) that the proposed development resolves any potential compatibility issues with
nearby land uses resulting from lighting, signage, outdoor display, outdoor
storage, traffic, vehicle headlights, and noise through appropriate site design,
landscaping, buffering and fencing;
c) the development site is suitable in regards to grading, soils, geological
conditions, and susceptibility to man-made or natural hazards.
d) areas used for the purpose of an off-leash dog park shall be fenced with chain
link fencing or a suitable alternative, that is at least four feet high. Preferably,
the fence should be equipped with a double-gated entry to keep dogs from
escaping and to facilitate wheelchair access.
e) sufficient, adequate parking areas are provided and that safe access to the
parking areas has been provided for the public.
f) safe and adequate roadway access is provided.
g) where applicable, adequate measures have been taken to minimize increases in
stormwater runoff from any development in order to diminish flooding,
siltation, non-point source pollution and to minimize any impacts on water
quality measures, and minimize erosion.
h) boat launches shall be limited to those that provide access to non-motorized
water-craft.
i) Any structures, such as boat launches, piers or wharves used for fishing or boat
access, are located away from any areas designated as summing areas.
Park Development on land not owned by MODC November 1, 2016
j) consideration has been given to neighbourhood access and connection,
particularly connectivity to existing park and trail systems.
k) the developer has reasonably demonstrated that they have attempted to address
the concerns that were raised at the public information meeting required under
Policy 2.8.2 which are able to be controlled though the development agreement
process according to the Municipal Government Act.
Land Use By-law Amendments
3) The Land Use By-law is amended by adding the following sections and renumbering
subsequent sections as necessary.
4.3.5 Development and use of land adjacent inland waterways for public purposes
Where a development provides public access to inland waterways for public purposes,
including parks, open space, recreational purposes, a development agreement is required in
accordance with Municipal Planning Strategy Polices 2.8.1 and 2.8.2.
4) Further amend the Land Use by-law is amended at Section 6B.1.1 by adding:
b) (v) Developments subject to Section 4.3.5
Clerk’s Annotation for Official By-law Book
Date of First Reading:
Date of Advertisement – Notice of Intention
Date of Second Reading:
Date of Advertisement of Passage of By-law:
Certification and seal:
1
Sherbrooke Lake
Water Quality Report
2015
Windy Autumn Day on Sherbrooke Lake (Barrie Clarke Photo)
D. Barrie Clarke (clarke@dal.ca)
LaHave River Watershed Committee
2
Table of Contents
Important Notice………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….3
Executive Summary ................................................................................................................................................... 4
Introduction …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………5
A Brief History of Sherbrooke Lake………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..6
Water Quality Index (WQI) 2015 ............................................................................................................................... 7
Trend Analysis............................................................................................................................................................. 8
Primer on Algae and Phosphorus ............................................................................................................................... 9
An Old Water-Quality Snapshot of Sherbrooke Lake……………………………………………………………………………………………10
Current Water Quality Issues………………………………………………………….……………………….………………………………………….13
Water Quality Monitoring Costs ............................................................................................................................... 15
Acknowledgements .................................................................................................................................................. 15
Appendix 1 Field and Laboratory Analytical Data for 2015 ...................................................................................... 16
Appendix 2 A Preliminary Investigation of Algae and Cyanobacteria in Lake Torment and Sherbrooke Lake ....... 22
Appendix 3 PowerPoint Presentation…………………….…………………………………………………………………………………………..36
DISCLAIMER – This report is issued to the residents of Sherbrooke Lake on April 4, 2016. It is for informative purposes only.
Readers should use these data with caution and at their own risk. The author and Bluenose Coastal Action Foundation
(Coastal Action) accept no liability for the accuracy, availability, suitability, reliability, usability, completeness, or timeliness
of the data or graphical depictions rendered from the data. It is the responsibility of all persons who use these data to
independently confirm the accuracy of the data, information, or results obtained through its use.
The author and Coastal Action expressly disclaim any warranties or representations, either expressed or implied, including
but not limited to, the implied warranties of fitness for the purpose of accessing water quality, hydrological, meteorological,
climatological, or other data. In no event will Coastal Action or its employees, servants, agents, or committee members
have any obligation arising from contract or tort, or for loss of revenue or profit, or for indirect, special, incidental, or
consequential damages arising from the use of this information.
3
IMPORTANT NOTICE
During an internal audit of its database, Bluenose Coastal Action Foundation (Coastal
Action) detected a problem with the reliability of some of its data through parts of the
2013 and 2014 sampling seasons. As a result of this situation, the Water Quality
Indexes (WQIs) cannot be properly calculated for those two years, and so the
Sherbrooke Lake Water Quality Reports (SLWQRs) for 2013 and 2014 have been
temporarily withdrawn from the Coastal Action website. They will eventually have to
be re-written and re-issued. In the meantime, the vertical profiling in the 2013 SLWQR
(partly reproduced in this report) was done independently of Coastal Action, and is
entirely unaffected by the database problem.
4
Executive Summary
This is a long report, so this summary draws attention to the main points:
1. Some data from 2013 and 2014 were unreliable (p. 3). The reports for those years have been
withdrawn from the Coastal Action website, and they will eventually have to be re-issued.
2. A brief history of Sherbrooke Lake (p. 6) helps to put the present condition of the lake in
historical context.
3. The Water Quality Index (WQI) for inlet Franey Corner is 84.5, and for outlet Sherbrooke it is
77.7 (p. 7). The drop in WQI as water passes through the lake appears to be largely related to a
decrease in dissolved oxygen.
4. These WQI values are in the middle of readings for the entire LaHave watershed for 2015.
Sherbrooke Lake meets most CCME guidelines for recreational water and aquatic life, but not
for the drinking water guideline.
5. The most consistent trend is that of decreasing dissolved oxygen in the water of the LaHave
watershed (p. 8). In addition, phosphorus and nitrogen continue to accumulate in Sherbrooke
Lake, a process known as “nutrient loading”. Some combination of natural- and human-caused
nutrient loading with increased temperatures probably contribute to the apparent increase in
algal growth in the lake.
6. This report contains some important guidelines on how to reduce the amount of phosphorus in
the lake (p. 9).
7. Sampling specifically for algae in early September shows that blue-green algae (cyanobacteria)
are present in the lake, and that two species of Anabaena are toxic (Appendix 2, p. 29).
8. In recent years, there have been several small algal blooms in Sherbrooke Lake. If you notice
that the lake water looks like dilute green pea soup (pictures on p. 26 in Appendix 2), please
note the date, time, and location, take some pictures (with something for scale), collect some
green water in a clean glass bottle, put the bottle in a cooler or refrigerator, and send me an
e-mail at clarke@dal.ca. We’ll arrange for a transfer, and I will try to find out what kind of
organisms these are, in particular if they are toxic or non-toxic.
5
Introduction
Sherbrooke Lake is the largest body of water in the entire LaHave River watershed. It was scoured out
of the bedrock by continental glaciers in the last Ice Age, and is now the home of numerous species of
aquatic and terrestrial life, including humans, all depending on the lake for sustenance of one kind or
another. The lake receives drainage from small rivers and brooks mainly to the north, east, and south.
The outlet (North Branch LaHave River) from the lake is located on the southwest side of the lake. The
North Branch LaHave River is a main tributary of the LaHave River that eventually joins the main
branch through Wentzell’s Lake. The volume of Sherbrooke Lake is approximately 141 million cubic
metres, and the mean residence time of water in the lake is approximately 5-6 months, meaning that
on average, it flushes itself about twice a year, more frequently in the north, and less in the south.
Sampling locations at Site 14 Franey Corner (inlet) and Site 15 Sherbrooke (outlet)
This document is the sixth in a series of annual reports on the quality of water in the vicinity of
Sherbrooke Lake. All currently valid reports are available at:
http://www.coastalaction.org/index_home.php?project=lrwp&page=fieldreports
For more detail on methods and parameters measured, please refer to the reports for 2010 and 2011.
The major topics in this report are the analytical data (Appendix 1), the water-quality index (WQI) for
2015, an examination of trends for 2010-2015, some further information about the link between
phosphorus and algae (Appendix 2), and information relevant the question of public access
(Appendix 3).
6
A Brief History of Sherbrooke Lake
Ancient History
Sherbrooke Lake formed by continental glaciation during the last Ice Age, and the lake has been a prominent
feature of the Southwest Nova Scotia Upland landscape for about 10,000 years. During almost all of that lengthy
period of time, the lake existed in a stable, natural, equilibrium with its local physical, chemical, and biological
environment, and it was not detectably degraded by thousands of years of sustainable utilization by the
Mi’kmaq people. So, millennium after millennium, the lake would not have changed from its pristine state at all,
or it would have changed only very slowly in response to changes in the gradually warming Inter-glacial climate.
Recent History
In contrast, during the last 200 years (i.e., just the last 2% of the lake’s existence), many profound changes have
taken place. They began globally in the early 1800s with the industrial revolution (rapid warming, acid rain
resulting in decreasing pH, increasing mercury), and continued locally since the 1950s with increased human
activity (logging, damming, farming, cottage development, shoreline modification, introduction of invasive
species). All these activities put new, and relatively sudden, stresses on the former long-term natural stable
equilibrium between the lake and its local environment. The results include anecdotal decreases in biodiversity
(fewer fish species and fewer fish total, fewer amphibians, fewer reptiles, reduced breeding success of loons, no
bats/more bugs, etc.) in the lake basin.
Today
Like some other lakes in Nova Scotia, notably our neighbouring Lake Torment, Sherbrooke Lake is showing some
early signs of developing an algal problem. Those signs include more evidence of macroscopic algae growing on
rocks, and detectable microscopic blue-green algae (cyanobacteria) in the water column. We are only just
beginning to learn about this problem. Next, we need to investigate the water-circulation patterns, study the
fish populations, do a much-needed riparian zone assessment with a view to controlling run-off and nutrient
loading, and adopt a King’s County approach to water-quality monitoring to lakes in Lunenburg County. So, we
should immediately be doing everything we can to mitigate the stressors we can already identify (e.g., STOP on
p. 9 of this report), and not introducing any new stressors (e.g., mining, forestry, farming, public access) until we
fully understand the capacity of the lake to accommodate those additional stresses. Natural systems take a long
time to respond to sudden changes (like big snow piles in shopping mall parking lots that remain for weeks after
the warm weather arrives), and also a long time to recover, if they can recover at all, once the stressors are
removed. Even if we were to remove all the known stressors today, the lake still might change negatively for
some time.
In the Future
Sherbrooke Lake will probably be a prominent feature of the Upland for another 10,000 years. Will our
generation be remembered as the one that saw its problems and ignored them, or as the one that saw its
problems and began to do something about them? Willingly or unwillingly, formally or informally, we are all
stewards of the lake; thus, it is incumbent on us to pass the lake on to future generations in the same, or better
condition, as we see it today. To do anything less would be to irresponsibly repeat the mistakes of the past.
7
Water Quality Index (WQI) 2015
The Water Quality Index (WQI), developed by the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment
(CCME), is a complex way of combining all the measurements on T, pH, dissolved oxygen, iron,
phosphorus, nitrate, total suspended solids, and fecal coliforms into a single number. That number, the
WQI, can range from 0 – 100; the higher the number, the better the quality of the water. The WQI
score decreases depending on how many of these eight parameters have measurements falling outside
the CCME guidelines, how many individual measurements of each parameter exceed the guidelines,
and by how much the individual measurements exceed the guidelines.
The 2015 WQI for Franey Corner is 84.5, and for Sherbrooke it is 77.7. The best 2015 WQI in the
LaHave watershed is 85.4, and the worst 69.2. The graph below shows that, except for this reporting
year (2015), the WQI of water leaving the lake at Sherbrooke has WQI values about the same as Franey
Corner, meaning that usually little or no degradation of water quality takes place as water passes
through the lake. The cause of this lower WQI at Site 15 seems to be just one measurement of
dissolved oxygen (DO) on March 3, 2015. Because of the heavy snow and ice cover last winter, the
water in the lake probably became strongly deoxygenated.
A bar graph showing all valid WQIs for Franey Corner (Site 14) and Sherbrooke (Site 15).
Values for 2013 and 2014 cannot be computed because of the missing data problem.
Read more about WQIs at:
https://www.ec.gc.ca/indicateurs-indicators/default.asp?lang=En&n=5D193531-1&offset=4&toc=show
8
Trend Analysis
For the record, all the raw data for 2015 are in Appendix 1. When Bluenose Coastal Action Foundation
began monitoring in 2007, the inlet at Franey Corner was a field and laboratory analysis sampling site,
whereas the outlet at Sherbrooke was only a field measurement site. In January 2010, the residents of
Sherbrooke Lake began to cover the costs of upgrading Sherbrooke to a full field and laboratory site so
that we could compare it with Franey Corner. Until monthly monitoring was introduced in 2014, each
field site was visited 26 times a year, and every field and sampling site was visited 13 times a year, and
sampling for metals occurred twice a year (only once in 2014). The longer we collect data and the more
data we have, the more confident we can be that we are seeing genuine trends.
Even with the problematic data in 2013 and 2014 removed, trend analysis is able to project through
this hole in the data and detect the following trends:
Parameter Franey Corner Sherbrooke
Specific Conductivity no trend detected decrease
Dissolved Oxygen decrease decrease
Barium no trend detected decrease
Strontium decrease no trend detected
Uranium decrease no trend detected
Summary of trends at Franey Corner (Site 14) and Sherbrooke (Site 15). Red – decrease problematic. Green – decreases not
problematic. Trends were determined at the 95% confidence level, taking seasonality into account. Details of the methods
used for the trend calculations in the 2010 NGMP Calculator Version NS-6 Excel spreadsheet are provided by:
Daughney, C. J. (2005) Spreadsheet for Automatic Processing of Water Quality Data: Theory, Use and Implementation in
Excel. GNS Science Report 2005/35. 84 p.
Of these trends, perhaps the decrease in dissolved oxygen (DO) is the most important because DO is so
essential for the health of many forms of aquatic life. The decrease in DO occurs not only at Sites 14 and 15,
but also at most of the other monitoring sites in the LaHave River watershed. The causes may be increasing
temperatures (although we detect no increasing trend in T) or increasing amounts of decaying organic matter
(such as algae). These reductions, if sustained for a long period of time, could result in hypoxia (oxygen
concentrations falling below the level necessary to sustain most animal life) of the lake. At this stage, the
cause(s) of these reductions in dissolved oxygen are unknown.
Also, although we do not see any evidence of trends in phosphorus (P) at Sites 14 and 15, many other
sites downstream do show decreases in P. What might be the cause(s)? One reason might be the
sequestration of P by algal growth in the lakes (called “nutrient loading”), and every year our data do
show that the concentration of P is lower at the outlet Site 15 than the inlet Site 14. But the
downstream sites may be showing decreases in P as a result of better fencing there to keep cattle out
of the river. As is often the case, we have one observation, but more than one possible explanation!
9
A Primer on Algae and Phosphorus
Algae are becoming a major problem in many Nova Scotia lakes. They foul the water, making
swimming and boating unpleasant, and some types of blue-green algae (cyanobacteria) contain
neurotoxins that are dangerous to health. Favourable conditions for algal growth include: warm water,
sunlight, and high concentrations of the critical nutrient, phosphorus (P). (All living cells contain
phosphorus; for example, the human body is about 1% P by weight.)
Sherbrooke Lake is beginning to show signs of developing an algae problem (Appendix 2). We can’t do
much about the warm water and sunlight, but to make it more difficult for algae to grow, we need to
starve them of phosphorus. We can reduce the level of phosphorus in the lake by:
1. Not using any fertilizers for flower gardens, vegetable gardens, or grass.
2. Not using any cleaning compounds (detergents, deck wash, etc.) that contain phosphorus.
3. Not using the lake as a bathtub for personal hygiene.
4. Inspecting your septic system to make sure that there is no leakage straight into the lake.
5. Eliminating any “straight-pipe” sewage disposal systems (they are illegal anyway).
6. Managing pet waste, just as you would do in an urban environment.
7. Limiting storm-water runoff, by making sure there is a buffer zone of plants along the shoreline.
8. Composting organic materials.
If all these efforts to keep P out of the lake don’t work, and the algae still bloom, then we will have
to move on to expensive remediation. There are all sorts of techniques (ultrasonic, alum treatment,
aeration, dredging, pumping out), but they would cost a fortune in a body of water as large as
Sherbrooke Lake.
Phosphorus budget diagram. Brylinsky 2004:
http://www.novascotia.ca/nse/surface.water/docs/nspmodelreport.pdf
We must limit phosphorus inflow, so join STOP = Sherbrookers To Obstruct Phosphorus!
10
An Old Water-Quality Snapshot of Sherbrooke Lake
Garth Bangay of Headwaters Association has done some historical research on Sherbrooke Lake, and
discovered a report entitled “Water Quality Survey, Sherbrooke Lake, Nova Scotia” (ISSN 0701-7634)
written by D. K. MacPhail and J. C. Calder in 1978, almost 40 years ago. The motive behind this piece of
research was to assess the potential of Sherbrooke Lake to be a source of water for a proposed fish
hatchery on the North LaHave River. The big difference between the work of MacPhail and Calder
(1978), and our work, is that they sampled in the lake, whereas almost exclusively we sample rivers
that enter and leave the lake. The only exception is the profiling work we did in the lake in 2013.
MacPhail and Calder (1978) chose several locations in the lake for their vertical profiling. Their site A1
corresponds closely to our South Deep site, their site C1 corresponds roughly to the location of our
North Deep site, and their P site corresponds closely to our Narrows site.
Some of the vertical profiling locations of MacPhail and Calder (1978). Left: general location of site A1.
Centre: general location of site C1. Right: general location of site P.
The data of MacPhail and Calder (M&C) and our data of 2013 are difficult to compare because:
(i) they measured temperatures at the surface, at 1.7 m, and then at varying wide intervals (3-7 m) to
the bottom, whereas we measured temperatures every 1 m from surface to bottom; and
(ii) they measured oxygen and pH only at the surface, middle depth, and bottom, whereas we
measured oxygen and pH every 1 m from the surface to the bottom. As a result, any attempt to make
detailed comparisons between the two data sets concerning the water stratification is difficult, but
three generalizations are possible:
(i) M&C measured the same strong depletion in DO at the bottom of the South Deep (only 25-
50% of the concentrations in the surface waters) as we did in 2013;
(ii) M&C showed a similar decrease in pH with depth that we measured in 2013 (roughly 0.5 pH
units); and
11
(iii) M&C also showed that their site A1 (our South Deep) showed the most extreme depletions
in DO with depth.
Finally, M&C merely presented their abundant data, but they made no attempt to analyze or interpret
it, but we did interpret our vertical profiling done in 2013. Here are the final two pages of the report by
Barrie Clarke, Garth Bangay, and Denis Parent, beginning with the summary graphs and ending with
our comments, deductions, and conclusions, verbatim:
12
Comments
1. The temperature variation in Sherbrooke Lake generally conforms to what is normal for most
lakes in summer, namely at any given time they are warmer on top and colder at depth, and
with the passage of time they are warmer in the height of summer and cool off as autumn
approaches, as well as pushing the thermocline to greater depths (well illustrated by South
Deep where the thermocline begins at 5 m in August, 8 m in September, and 12 m in October).
2. The pH variation is interesting. The deeper waters are more acidic, but the reason is not clear.
3. The dissolved oxygen variation is significant from top to bottom in the water column, and
shows some of the greatest change with time. Near-surface waters should be the most
oxygenated, and they are. The oxygen profile for the South Deep is reasonably consistent over
the three measuring dates, but profiles at the other locations are highly variable. In October,
the high winds essentially had mixed and homogenized the oxygen levels completely, even in
the North Deep location which had shown significant oxygen depletion in September. The
reason for that strong September depletion is unknown. Overturn of stratified lakes can occur
by temperature differences between top and bottom, or by wind, and both processes result in
transfer of more oxygenated waters to the bottom, where biological processes eventually
consume the oxygen.
4. Broadly speaking, the four most northerly locations are similar, and the South Deep is
distinctly different on every profile. It is almost as if the southern end of the lake is its own lake
and, given the shallow water at the Narrows, it means there is restricted exchange between the
southern end of the lake and the rest of Sherbrooke Lake.
5. One implication of this finding is that the previously calculated mean residence time (MRT) of
~6 months for water in Sherbrooke Lake should be revised: MRT for water north of The
Narrows is less than 6 months, and MRT for water south of The Narrows is more than 6
months, especially because of the great depth at the southern end).
6. Another implication of this finding is that if the lake becomes polluted from external sources,
the northern part of the lake will see the effects first (because the principal inlet rivers are
there, and because the southern end has restricted exchange with the northern part), but if the
lake becomes polluted from local sources, all sources being equal, the southern end of the lake
will see the effects first (because the residence time is longer and that part of the lake flushes
itself less often).
Conclusions
This profiling work shows, for the first time, how different the northern and southern parts of the lake
are. Every time we learn something new about the lake, we also learn something about what we have
to do to take care of it. The message here is that the north is generally more vulnerable to externally
derived pollution, whereas the south is generally more vulnerable to internally derived pollution. We
must continue to be vigilant on both counts.
13
Current Water Quality Issues
1. Public Access and Water Quality
As covered previously in these reports, there is a well-established, global, negative correlation
between human activity and water quality. The higher the number of people (especially those with
no vested interested in keeping it clean), the lower the quality of the water. The new stressors
related to public access would include: physical (traffic, noise, garbage, shore erosion), chemical
(gas, oil, nutrients from human waste), and biological (invasive species on the hulls of boats).
So it is easy to predict that public access to Sherbrooke Lake will inevitably degrade water quality.
The question is by how much? A proper environmental impact study must be done to determine
the capacity of the lake to accommodate increased stress by increased human activity. Given that
the lake may already be in a fragile state with respect to algae, any move to put additional stress on
the lake without proper scientific study would be irresponsible.
In an e-mail message on February 18, 2016, Dr. Tri Nguyen-Quang of Dalhousie University stated: “I
have just one comment for the ‘public access’ to SL: we will certainly increase the possibility and
probability of algal bloom occurrence by the fact that the combination of anthropogenic nutrient
loading, rising temperatures, enhanced vertical stratification (by boating activities for example),
and increased atmospheric CO2 supplies will favor cyanobacterial dominance in a wide range of
aquatic ecosystems.”
2. County Involvement in Water-Quality Monitoring
The undisputed leader in water-quality monitoring of lakes in Nova Scotia is our neighbour to the
north, King’s County. They run a coordinated program that monitors 17 lakes 6 times each summer,
pays for the analytical work, and issues a single report each year:
http://www.countyofkings.ca/residents/lakemon/
With two decades’ worth of data, King’s County has some ability to predict what the impact of any
particular development might be. By comparison, Lunenburg County has absolutely no idea what
the impact of any proposed development, such as public access, might be. Its position seems to be:
despite the warnings, let’s do it anyway, and hope nothing bad happens. That type of position is
unacceptable in 2016.
14
3. Phosphorus
The regular monthly sampling of Sites 14 (Franey Corner) and 15 (Sherbrooke) show some high
levels of phosphorus at the Franey Corner inlet site, but these are not mirrored by high levels of P
at the Sherbrooke outlet. This mismatch suggests that P is being sequestered in the lake,
presumably by growth of algae. What happens in the lake, stays in the lake, and so these nutrients
build up in it. Of more concern is the high level of P at the mouth of the Forties River, as measured
on September 4, 2015 (Appendix 2). If we are worried about the nutrient levels in the lake, and if
the Forties River is a major supplier of P to the lake, we need to investigate this source of
phosphorus. A targeted sampling program is planned for the summer of 2016.
4. Water Quality in the News
It is interesting how much reporting there is in the print and electronic media these days about
water quality issues. For example, the article “Council looks to curb lake pollution” (Chronicle
Herald, February 25, 2016, p. A5) reports a new “no-net phosphorus loading policy” for any future
developments. “Once these lakes are ruined, they’re ruined”, said the indomitable HRM Councillor
Gloria McCluskey. A sensible policy, and words of warning for the wise!
http://thechronicleherald.ca/metro/1344459-halifax-regional-council-looks-to-curb-lake-pollution
5. Other Work We Could Do
Although we test for many parameters in our water, there is always more we could do. First, we
need to keep a sharp eye out for algal blooms. And, with more financial resources, i.e., more
support from those who have not yet contributed, we could and probably should be testing for
additional parameters, such as microplastics, chlorophyll, hydrocarbons, pharmaceuticals,
pesticides, and mercury.
6. Additional Information
For more information on the work being done in the LaHave watershed, contact:
Bluenose Coastal Action Foundation 1 902-634-9977
http://www.coastalaction.org/index_home.php
15
Water Quality Monitoring Costs
Every person who spends any time at all at Sherbrooke Lake is a witting or unwitting stressor on its
water quality. Those stresses come in the form of swimming, boating, gardening, cooking, washing,
excretory functions, etc. As scientific studies have shown, water quality decreases as the population
density increases. So we are all inadvertently responsible for degrading, to various degrees, the quality
of the water in the lake and, therefore, it would certainly be appropriate if we all contributed to the
cost of checking to make sure the quality remains good. As we are learning from the unfortunate
situation in Mattatall Lake, monitoring costs are nothing compared to remediation costs!
All that is needed is $10 per property per year (less than 3 cents a day) to continue this work. In this
project to date, some individuals and associations have over-contributed, compensating for those who
have under-contributed or not contributed at all. Here is the breakdown of contributors to the financial
costs of monitoring Sherbrooke Lake in 2015:
Headwaters Park Homeowners’ Association $300 about $12.00 per property
One Individual in Russell’s Cove Association $200
Other Individual Contributions $40
Sherbrooke Forest Homeowners’ Association $679 about $22.00 per property
Wil-Dor Park Association $650 about $10.00 per property
Total (= Invoice from Coastal Action) $1869
Many thanks to all those who contributed. If you think this work is important and haven’t contributed
yet, you can make a contribution directly to Bluenose Coastal Action, earmarking it for Sherbrooke
Site 15, or send your individual or collective association contribution to: Barbara Mealiea, Treasurer,
Sherbrooke Forest Homeowners’ Association, 981 Ritchie Drive, Halifax, Nova Scotia B3H 3P4. Thanks.
Acknowledgements
This report constitutes only a small part of the work being done in the whole watershed by the LaHave
River Watershed Committee, under the auspices of the Bluenose Coastal Action Foundation. Thanks
are due to Bluenose Coastal Action Foundation for funding the sampling at Site 14. Many thanks to
Shanna Fredericks and all others who worked to sample the river 12 times in 2015, despite the often
awful weather conditions. Thanks also to Denis Parent of Environment Canada who, as always, offered
many helpful comments on an early draft of this report and who calculated the WQIs and the trends.
Any remaining errors of omission or commission belong to the author.
16
Appendix 1
Field and Laboratory Analytical Data for 2015
17
SHERBROOKE SITE 15 DOWNSTREAM
Date_Time T oC BP mm Hg pH Sp Cond mS/cm TDS mg/L TSS mg/L Salinity_ppt Cl- mg/L
2015-01-21 13:25 0.0 768.8 4.92 0.02 16.25 LT1 0.01 3.8
2015-03-03 14:12 0.2 753.6 5.58 0.03 18.00 LT1 0.01 5.3
2015-04-14 9:45 1.1 753.1 5.15 0.03 19.50 1.20 0.01 5.3
2015-05-15 15:00 12.8 756.6 4.75 0.02 13.65 LT1 0.01 4.3
2015-06-12 9:05 15.2 748.8 6.65 0.02 14.30 1.00 0.01 4.7
2015-07-13 13:10 23.2 750.2 4.75 0.02 14.30 1.00 0.01 4.0
2015-08-17 12:57 25.4 753.7 5.83 0.02 14.95 LT1 0.01 4.2
2015-09-21 9:05 19.6 757.0 5.76 0.02 14.95 LT1 0.01 3.6
2015-10-20 9:02 9.2 754.6 6.12 0.03 16.90 LT1 0.01 4.2
2015-11-17 8:45 5.7 761.9 6.11 0.03 16.25 LT1 0.01 4.1
2015-12-16 8:50 3.6 749.9 5.80 0.03 16.90 LT1 0.01 5.4
FRANEY CORNER SITE 14 UPSTREAM
2015-01-21 12:56 0.0 750.5 4.53 0.04 22.76 1.00 0.02 6.8
2015-04-14 10:05 0.2 749.5 4.79 0.03 21.45 1.40 0.01 6.6
2015-05-15 14:35 15.2 753.6 4.83 0.02 13.65 LT1 0.01 4.6
2015-06-12 9:30 18.1 745.5 5.12 0.02 14.30 LT1 0.01 4.8
2015-07-13 12:46 23.4 747.1 5.12 0.02 14.30 LT1 0.01 4.0
2015-08-17 12:30 23.7 750.7 6.06 0.03 18.20 LT1 0.01 5.1
2015-09-21 9:41 17.5 754.2 5.45 0.03 20.15 LT1 0.01 5.3
2015-10-20 9:27 7.2 750.8 5.66 0.03 20.15 LT1 0.01 5.4
2015-11-17 9:14 4.4 758.9 5.60 0.03 18.85 LT1 0.01 5.9
2015-12-16 9:14 2.7 747.2 5.38 0.03 16.90 LT1 0.01 4.5
MEAN 15 - MEAN 14 0.34 *0.33 0.00 -2.28 *0.00 -0.9
LAKE IS A NET:SOURCE SOURCE SINK SINK
NOTES:1. MEAN 15 excludes March; MEAN 14 includes all values.
2. SOURCE means the lake is somehow increasing this parameter in the water (more coming out
of the lake than going in). In this case, the temperature and pH of the water increase
as it passes through the lake.
3. SINK means the lake is somehow decreasing this parameter in the water (more going into
the lake than coming out). In this case, Total Dissolved Solids and Chloride appear
to be left in the lake as the water passes through.
4. "LT" means "less than, so in the case of TSS, the measured value is less than 1 mg/L.
5. Sp Cond is specific conductivity, TDS is total dissolved solids, TSS is total suspended solids.
18
SHERBROOKE SITE 15 DOWNSTREAM
Date_Time DO mg/L DO %Nitrate + Nitrite_mg/L as N N mg/L as N P mg/L TOC mg/L Fecal Col CFU/100ml
2015-01-21 13:25 13.3 92 0.06 1.21 0.01 8.0 LT10
2015-03-03 14:12 2.7 19 0.07 0.59 0.01 6.9 LT10
2015-04-14 9:45 13.6 97 0.06 0.59 0.01 6.6 10.00
2015-05-15 15:00 12.5 119 LT0.05 0.26 0.01 5.9 LT10
2015-06-12 9:05 9.2 91 LT0.05 0.31 0.01 5.7 LT10
2015-07-13 13:10 8.2 96 LT0.05 0.31 0.01 5.8 10.00
2015-08-17 12:57 7.6 92 LT0.05 0.44 0.01 5.5 10.00
2015-09-21 9:05 7.8 85 LT0.05 0.35 0.01 5.5 30.00
2015-10-20 9:02 10.4 91 0.09 0.28 0.01 6.7 LT10
2015-11-17 8:45 12.2 97 LT0.05 0.33 0.01 7.5 LT10
2015-12-16 8:50 12.6 95 LT0.05 0.36 0.01 7.6 10.00
FRANEY CORNER SITE 14 UPSTREAM
2015-01-21 12:56 13.0 99 0.09 0.39 0.01 6.5 30.00
2015-04-14 10:05 14.2 98 0.07 0.25 0.01 6.0 LT10
2015-05-15 14:35 10.5 105 LT0.05 0.38 0.02 7.6 10.00
2015-06-12 9:30 8.6 90 LT0.05 0.48 0.02 11.0 10.00
2015-07-13 12:46 6.3 74 LT0.05 0.53 0.03 10.0 10.00
2015-08-17 12:30 6.3 74 0.06 0.62 0.03 9.1 10.00
2015-09-21 9:41 8.1 86 LT0.05 0.78 0.02 16.0 LT10
2015-10-20 9:27 11.7 98 0.08 0.45 0.01 17.0 LT10
2015-11-17 9:14 12.8 100 LT0.05 0.56 0.02 14.0 LT10
2015-12-16 9:14 13.4 99 LT0.05 0.38 0.01 8.3 LT10
MEAN 15 - MEAN 14 0.2 3 *-0.04 -0.01 -4.1 *
LAKE IS A NET:SOURCE SOURCE SINK SINK SINK
NOTES:1. The one very low DO measurement at Site 15 on 2015-03-03 is probably related to extensive snow/ice
cover, and consequent inability of the lake water to replenish its oxygen content.
2. As noted every year, the lake is a SINK for the principal nutrients, nitrogen and phosphorus (N and P).
This observation means that nutrients are building up in the lake, and the build-up may account
for the increasing occurrences of algae in the lake.
3. Phosphorus is right at the CCME recreational limit at Franey for July and August (red shading).
(Note also the high level of phosphorus at the mouth of the Forties River in Appendix 2, but
also note that the units of measurement are different, so 250 μg/L in Appendix 2 would be the
same as 0.25 mg/L in this report - still nearly 10 times the CCME guidline for recreational water.
More work on the Forties River should be done.)
4. Total Organic Carbon (TOC) is a new determination this year, and is a measurement of the amount of
decaying natural organic material in the water. Here, too, the lake is a SINK.
5. Fecal coliform bacteria counts are much less than CCME recreational limit of 400 CFU/100ml.
19
SHERBROOKE SITE 15 DOWNSTREAM
Date_Time Al ug/L Be ug/L B ug/L Mg ug/L Na ug/L K ug/L Ca ug/L
2015-01-21 13:25
2015-03-03 14:12
2015-04-14 9:45
2015-05-15 15:00
2015-06-12 9:05
2015-07-13 13:10 170 LT1 LT50 350 2400 240 960
2015-08-17 12:57
2015-09-21 9:05
2015-10-20 9:02
2015-11-17 8:45
2015-12-16 8:50 220 LT1 LT50 520 3200 340 1300
FRANEY CORNER SITE 14 UPSTREAM
2015-01-21 12:56
2015-04-14 10:05
2015-05-15 14:35
2015-06-12 9:30
2015-07-13 12:46 240 LT1 LT50 400 2800 200 1200
2015-08-17 12:30
2015-09-21 9:41
2015-10-20 9:27
2015-11-17 9:14
2015-12-16 9:14 260 LT1 LT50 380 2500 240 1100
MEAN 15 - MEAN 14 -211 **-303 -2090 -162 -924
LAKE IS A NET:SINK SINK SINK SINK SINK
NOTES:1. All the light chemical elements appear to be accumulating in the
lake, either by precipitation or by settling of particulate
material.
20
SHERBROOKE SITE 15 DOWNSTREAM
Date_Time Ti ug/L V ug/L Cr ug/L Mn ug/L Fe ug/L Co ug/L Ni ug/L Cu ug/L Zn ug/L
2015-01-21 13:25
2015-03-03 14:12
2015-04-14 9:45
2015-05-15 15:00
2015-06-12 9:05
2015-07-13 13:10 LT2 LT2 LT1 26 120 LT0.4 LT2 LT2 LT5
2015-08-17 12:57
2015-09-21 9:05
2015-10-20 9:02
2015-11-17 8:45
2015-12-16 8:50 3 LT2 LT1 27 230 LT0.4 LT2 LT2 LT5
FRANEY CORNER SITE 14 UPSTREAM
2015-01-21 12:56
2015-04-14 10:05
2015-05-15 14:35
2015-06-12 9:30
2015-07-13 12:46 3 LT2 LT1 16 280 0 LT2 LT2 7
2015-08-17 12:30
2015-09-21 9:41
2015-10-20 9:27
2015-11-17 9:14
2015-12-16 9:14 3 LT2 LT1 27 270 LT0.4 LT2 LT2 LT5
MEAN 15 - MEAN 14 ***-16 -240 ****
LAKE IS A NET:SINK SINK
NOTES:1. These first transition series elements occur in low concentrations, except for
manganese and iron, both of which appear to accumulate in the lake.
21
SHERBROOKE SITE 15 DOWNSTREAM
Date_Time Mo ug/L Ag ug/L Cd ug/L Sn ug/L Sb ug/L As ug/L Ba ug/L Bi ug/L Pb ug/L Se ug/L Sr ug/L Tl ug/L U ug/L
2015-01-21 13:25
2015-03-03 14:12
2015-04-14 9:45
2015-05-15 15:00
2015-06-12 9:05
2015-07-13 13:10 LT2 LT0.1 LT0.01 LT2 LT1 LT1 2.60 LT2 LT0.5 LT1 3.80 LT0.1 LT0.1
2015-08-17 12:57
2015-09-21 9:05
2015-10-20 9:02
2015-11-17 8:45
2015-12-16 8:50 LT2 LT0.1 0.02 LT2 LT1 LT1 3.00 LT2 LT0.5 LT1 5.80 LT0.1 LT0.1
FRANEY CORNER SITE 14 UPSTREAM
2015-01-21 12:56
2015-04-14 10:05
2015-05-15 14:35
2015-06-12 9:30
2015-07-13 12:46 LT2 LT0.1 LT0.01 LT2 LT1 LT1 2.20 LT2 LT0.5 LT1 5.00 LT0.1 0.13
2015-08-17 12:30
2015-09-21 9:41
2015-10-20 9:27
2015-11-17 9:14
2015-12-16 9:14 LT2 LT0.1 0.01 LT2 LT1 LT1 2.90 LT2 LT0.5 LT1 4.50 LT0.1 LT0.1
MEAN 15 - MEAN 14 ******-1.99 ***-3.79 **
LAKE IS A NET:SINK SINK
NOTES:1. These are all trace elements in surface waters, and most have concentrations below the limit of detection of the analytical method.
2. Barium and strontium occur in measurable concentrations, and both appear to accumulate in the lake.
22
Appendix 2
Previously issued separately on 20151106
Included here for the record
Latest link (20160208):
http://www.trurodaily.com/News/Local/2016-02-08/article-4430091/Continued-growth-of-blue-
green-algae-across-the-province-a-concern,-Dal-AC-prof-says/1
23
A Preliminary Investigation
of Algae and Cyanobacteria in
Lake Torment and Sherbrooke Lake
A glass of green water, not from local lake, at least not yet.
http://neblandvm.outdoornebraska.gov/2010/07/bluegreen-algae/
Barrie Clarke
clarke@dal.ca
Sherbrooke Forest
20151106
DISCLAIMER – This report is issued for informative purposes only. Readers should use these data with caution and at their own risk. The
author accepts no liability for the accuracy, availability, suitability, reliability, usability, completeness or timeliness of the data or graphical
depictions rendered from the data. It is the responsibility of all persons who use these data to independently confirm the accuracy of the
data, information, or results obtained through its use.
The author expressly disclaims any warranties or representations, either expressed or implied, including but not limited to, the implied
warranties of fitness for the purpose of accessing water quality, hydrological, meteorological, climatological, or other data. In no event
will the author have any obligation arising from contract or tort, or for loss of revenue or profit, or for indirect, special, incidental or
consequential damages arising from the use of this information.
24
INTRODUCTION
Two types of “algae” grow in fresh-water systems: 1. large macroscopic algae, or freshwater “seaweed” of
hundreds of different species, some of which attach themselves to the bottom and others that are buoyant in
the water, and 2. tiny microscopic blue-green cyanobacteria suspended in the water, some species of which are
highly toxic.
Algal blooms are the result of large increases in the amount of phytoplankton* or cyanobacteria in a water body,
and these large increases in biomass lead to chemical and physical changes of the water. If cyanobacteria
species dominate in a bloom, that bloom is potentially toxic, because some cyanobacteria species contain toxins
in their cells that can be released during their life, or even after their death.
Experimental Lakes Area, NW Ontario. The lake in the foreground was artificially fertilized with phosphorus and
has developed a green algal bloom. The lake in the background is natural.
http://sevenhillslake.com/technical.html
A common factor in triggering these blooms appears to be human activity, whether it is spraying of defoliants,
clear-cutting, mink farms, cattle farms, malfunctioning sewage systems, straight pipes, use of fertilizers for farms
or gardens or lawns, or some combination. All of these factors contribute an oversupply of nutrients to the
waterways and promote the growth of algae and bacteria. (Under ideal conditions, 2 kg of fertilizer can produce
1000 kg (1 metric tonne!) of algae, so if every property on Sherbrooke Lake over-used just 1 kg of fertilizer, it
could result in the growth of 100 tonnes of algae.)
http://www.cleanwatermn.org/app_themes/cleanwater/pdfs/forTeachers/Algae.pdf
_________________________________________________________________________
*Phytoplankton are microscopic organisms occupying the sunlit upper layer of most bodies of salt and fresh
water. By the process of photosynthesis, they use CO2 dissolved in the water to create organic compounds that
form the foundation of the food chain. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phytoplankton
25
In recent years, several waterways in Nova Scotia have been negatively affected by cyanobacteria blooms, to the
point that at least some of them were temporarily closed for health and/or recreational purposes. They include
Mattatall Lake in Cumberland County, Blair Lake near Amherst, Lake Ainslie in Cape Breton, the Tusket-Carleton
River system in Yarmouth County, and Lake Torment in King’s County. The first four are far away, but Lake
Torment is only 8 km from Sherbrooke Lake.
Aerial photo of Mattatall Lake, October 2015 (courtesy of Bob MacLean)
Sherbrooke Lake has already shown the initial signs of developing algal blooms, the first one on June 23, 2014,
and the second one on September 3, 2015. In both cases, these blooms showed up as narrow bands of green
soup along the east shore of the lake (upper photo on next page). We should regard these two events as
Nature’s warning shots across our bow.
26
Incipient algal bloom in Sherbrooke Lake, June 23, 2014. (Width of this photo is about 1 m.)
Western end of Lake Erie with Detroit-Windsor upper left. (Width of this photo is about 200 km.)
Lake Erie is the smallest and shallowest of the Great Lakes, and is probably the one bordered by the most
agricultural land. These conditions made it ideal for the lake to go green, but researchers worry that the other
Great Lakes may go the same way. As Lake Erie is to the other Great Lakes, so Lake Torment may be to
Sherbrooke Lake.
For more on Lake Erie, visit:
http://news.algaeworld.org/2014/10/lake-erie-increasingly-susceptible-large-cyanobacteria-blooms/
27
NEW OBSERVATIONS ON SHERBROOKE AND TORMENT
On September 4, 2015, Dr. Tri Nguyen-Quang, of Dalhousie University, took five new surface water samples in
Sherbrooke Lake and Lake Torment. Note that he analyzed not only for some components that we regularly
monitor (nitrogen and phosphorus), but also for components that we have not been measuring (Chlorophyll-a,
Phycocyanin, and actually identifying the species of bacteria that are present).
In all these plots, FRB = Forties River Bridge (on the Forties Road), FRM = Forties River Mouth in
Sherbrooke Lake, SLS = Sherbrooke Lake South, LTE = Lake Torment East, LTS = Lake Torment South,
WHO = World Health Organization maximum standard.
Phosphorus is a critical nutrient for algal growth. On the day of sampling, all Sherbrooke Lake and Lake
Torment samples exceeded the WHO standard of 20 μg/L.
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
FRB FRM SLS LTE LTS WHO
To
t
a
l
P
h
o
s
p
h
o
r
u
s
(
μ g/
L
)
Sample Location
Total Phosphorus
28
Chlorophyll-a is a measure of the total algal biomass. It imparts the green colour to algal blooms. All
samples are below the WHO standard of 10 μg/L, but Lake Torment East was close to exceeding this
limit on the day of sampling.
Phycocyanin is an accessory pigment to Chlorophyll and a strong indicator of the presence of
cyanobacteria (“blue-green algae”). It imparts the blue colour to algal blooms. Most of the samples have
very low levels of Phycocyanin, but Lake Torment East, which also has high Chlorophyll-a, is way off the
chart (the actual value is 12.35 μg/L).
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
FRB FRM SLS LTE LTS WHO
Ch
l
o
r
o
p
h
y
l
l
-a
(
μ g/
L
)
Sample Location
Chlorophyll-a
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
5
FRB FRM SLS LTE LTS
Ph
y
c
o
c
y
a
n
i
n
(
μ g/
L
)
Sample Location
Phycocyanin
29
Source: Biofluids and Biosystems Modeling Lab, Department of Engineering, Faculty of Agriculture, Dalhousie University.
Pie charts showing bacteria counts at the mouth of the Forties River in Sherbrooke Lake and at Lake Torment
East. The Sherbrooke Lake sample has a greater variety of species, and contains some cyanobacteria species
such as Anabaena flos-aquae, Anabaena subcylindrica, Merismopedia minima, Planktolyngbya limnetica,
Pseudanabaena mucicola, Aphanocapsa planctonica, adding up to 41% of the total. The Lake Torment sample
shows less diversity and contains much more cyanobacteria, with Anabaena flos-aquae, Merismopedia minima,
and Aphanothese clathrata, adding up to 80% of the total. Anabaena is the variety that contains neurotoxins –
Anabaena constitutes 12% of all bacteria at Sherbrooke Lake, and 33% of all bacteria in Lake Torment. For more
information about toxic cyanobacteria, download the World Health Organization report entitled “Toxic
Cyanobacteria in Water: A guide to their public health consequences, monitoring and management” from:
http://www.who.int/water_sanitation_health/resourcesquality/toxcyanbegin.pdf
30
DISCUSSION
Summary of Results
The bottom line from these five new measurements is that phosphorus exceeds the WHO guidelines in both
lakes (the reason for the very high concentration of P at FRM is unknown), and Chlorophyll-a and Phycocyanin
are higher in Lake Torment than in Sherbrooke Lake. The toxic cyanobacteria Anabaena constitutes 12% of the
bacteria in Sherbrooke Lake and 33% of the bacteria in Lake Torment.
Conditions Controlling Algal Growth (from: Clarke - Sherbrooke Lake Water Quality Report 2014)
Sometimes and in some places, there are a lot of algae, whereas in other times and places not so much. What
conditions control their growth?
1. Lake size, shape, depth, amount of shore line, extent of shoals, and character of the bottom. So two
adjacent lakes with different geometries could have different algal populations.
2. Soils of the watershed
3. Rate of precipitation
4. Sunlight
5. Nutrients in the water
6. Water pH (increases during photosynthesis in the day and decreases during respiration at night)
7. Wind mixing and concentrating
The algal population, both abundances and species, of a lake depends on all these factors. So, a narrow deep
lake with no shoals, minimum shore line, little wind mixing, and unproductive watershed won’t have many
algae, but Sherbooke Lake which is wide, mostly shallow, maximum shoreline, and highly susceptible to wind
mixing will potentially have more algae.
Effects in Sherbrooke Lake
Lake Torment has already gone green more than once; Sherbrooke Lake has similar compositional properties,
and is showing tendencies to do the same. Could we on Sherbrooke Lake be the cause these incipient blooms?
The table below summarizes four important parameters over the last five years.
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Average
WQIin 76 63 85 85 82 78
WQIout 71 62 85 78 82 76
Nout - Nin mg/L -0.082 -0.073 -0.077 -0.117 NR -0.087
Pout - Pin mg/L -0.002 -0.005 -0.007 -0.002 NR -0.004
WQI = Water Quality Index; N = nitrogen; P = phosphorus; NR = not reported
31
The first two rows show the Water Quality Index for water entering the lake (WQIin) and for water leaving the
lake (WQIout). Within error, they are basically the same, suggesting that there is very little degradation of the
quality of the water as it passes through the lake. The next two rows summarize two critical nutrients, nitrogen
(N) and phosphorus (P). What is reported here are the concentrations of N and P in the water leaving the lake
minus the concentration of these nutrients entering the lake. In every case, the differences are negative,
meaning that the concentrations of nutrients going out of the lake are lower than the concentrations coming in.
The lake apparently consumes some of these nutrients, and there appears to be no overcompensating addition
as a result of the current human activity on the lake.
Lessons from Mattatall Lake
Presumably the same might have been said about the impact of human activity Mattatall Lake at one time, but
in September 2014 that lake suddenly went green. Should we start doing more in Sherbrooke Lake by analyzing
for Chorophyll-a and testing for cyanobacteria? The cost of monitoring for algal toxicity would be much higher
than what we currently spend for our water quality monitoring, but the costs of remediation are MUCH higher
still.
Remediation has two aspects: one is to determine the source of nutrients to the lake and take appropriate steps
to reduce their supply (but easier said than done - see Appendix at the end of this report), and the other is to
clean up the algae that are already there. At Mattatall Lake, a small lake compared to Sherbrooke Lake, the
remediation costs are estimated to be steep. And the cottage owners suffer a double jeopardy – first they have
to pay for most or all of the remediation themselves, and second, their property values may decrease in the next
assessment. Whatever that decrease is will cause a proportionate decrease in tax revenue from this lake for
Cumberland County.
Mattatall Lake has about 85 cottages, divided into four cottage owners’ associations. The greening of the lake
has led the residents to form a Mattatall Lake Stewardship Committee consisting of two members from each
association, plus one additional member to avoid tie votes. So far, they have raised about $15,000 to begin the
work of remediating this small lake. Is now the time to formally create a stewardship committee for Sherbrooke
Lake? If not, are we just going to wait until the lake turns green?
One of the findings at Mattatall Lake was that some of the species of algae appear to be “invasive”, meaning
that they are not native to that lake. One of the ways that species can invade is on the hulls of boats that have
been in other waterways. That being the case, would we really want boats from places having high levels of toxic
cyanobacteria to be frequenting Sherbrooke Lake, either from our own residents moving boats to another lake
and coming back, or by opening the lake to more boats via some public access point?
A lake that turns green is not good for anyone, not the visitors (the lake would be closed for their recreational
use), not the residents (can’t use their own lake, drop in property values), and not the municipal councils of
Lunenburg and Chester (loss of tax revenue). If closures and health advisories can happen in nearby Lake
Torment, they certainly can happen in Sherbrooke Lake. As noted in the Introduction, the greater the degree of
human activity, the greater the risk.
32
CONCLUSIONS
Sherbrooke Lake is showing some signs of developing an algae problem (occasional high levels of nutrients,
increasing quantities of macroscopic algae, and occurrence of cyanobacterial blooms, some components of
which are now known to be toxic). The one-time surface water sampling done on September 4th, 2015 confirms
this concern. We now need to collect much more data on nutrients, Chlorophyll-a, Phycocyanin, and bacteria
species to better understand the sources of nutrients, to take measures to reduce them in Sherbrooke Lake, and
to assess the risk to public health.
Now is probably the time to form a Sherbrooke Lake Stewardship Committee. Its first task should be to find
some person or agency with the interest, expertise, and perhaps also the money, to conduct a systematic
investigation of the algal/bacterial levels in Sherbrooke Lake beginning in calendar year 2016.
In the meantime, it would be prudent to do nothing that might potentially increase the levels of nutrients and
the populations of toxic cyanobacteria already in Sherbrooke Lake. The era of officially ignoring science has just
recently come to an end in Canada. From now on, government policy at all levels should be informed by solid
scientific evidence and advice.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Dr. Tri Nguyen-Quang, of the Faculty of Agriculture, Dalhousie University, for his interest in these lakes, for
underwriting the costs of analysis, and for advice and assistance in preparing this report.
Bob and Marilyn MacLean, of Mattatall Lake, for sharing information about the algal blooms there.
33
Appendix: Restoring the Phosphorus Balance (in the Great Lakes)
Source: https://www.ec.gc.ca/grandslacs-greatlakes/default.asp?lang=En&n=6201FD24-1
Managing phosphorus levels in lakes is complex, and inputs are only one part of the problem. Once in
the lake, phosphorus and nutrients move throughout the system via the food web. The food web
includes plants, animals and people as well as the habitats that support them. Along with nutrient
sources, the structure of the food web and the organisms within it significantly influence the amount of
nutrients available to contribute to excessive algal blooms.
In recent years, the food web has been altered with the arrival of non-native invasive species. Over 180
aquatic non-native species have been either intentionally or accidently introduced into the Great Lakes
since 1840. In some cases, these non-native invasive species have contributed to the increase in
excessive algal growth in the Great Lakes, despite nutrient source reductions that were achieved in the
1970s. Non-native invasive organisms can take phosphorus and nutrients away from organisms that are
native to the Great Lakes, altering the food web and ultimately changing the availability and forms of
phosphorus in the ecosystem.
As a result of these ecosystem changes and changes in phosphorus sources, the nutrient management
approaches used in the 1970s are no longer adequate.
To keep up with the ever-changing Great Lakes ecosystem of today, nutrient management must
constantly adapt. New nutrient management approaches require research, monitoring and assessment,
goal-setting, project implementation, and reporting that are reviewed and revised on a regular basis. By
using this cyclical adaptive management model, changes related to phosphorus sources, the
effectiveness of our management actions can be better understood. Nutrient management plans can be
more targeted and more effective restoration actions can be identified and implemented.
THE NEXT TWO PAGES ARE THE NOVA SCOTIA INFORMATION SHEET ON “BLUE-GREEN ALGAE”
34
35
https://www.novascotia.ca/nse/water/docs/BlueGreenAlgae.pdf
36
Appendix 3
In case you missed it, here is the PowerPoint presentation I made at the
Sherbrooke Lake Public Access meeting in New Ross on 20151210
37
38
39
40
41
42