Untitled - Haliburton County Community Cooperative Inc

More documents

Recommendations

Info

(Brown, 1998). The threats imposed by shoreline development offer much threat to tourism and fishingindustries of the Muskoka region. Millions of dollars are brought into this region each year directly fromthe draw that it’s fishing provides. The following examines journals both within and external to theMuskoka district that displays the impact shoreline development can inflict on surrounding ecosystemsand an estimate to the monetary values this has cost the area.The effects of shoreline development have not gone unnoticed by anglers of the Muskokaregion. A 2005 MNR survey showed that fish habitat loss and threats were the most frequent concern ofZone 15 anglers (which covers a majority of the Muskoka region). Although shoreline development hasspiked in recent decades, the Muskoka Region is not without law and regulations pertaining to anydevelopment and infractions to shorelines. The Muskoka Lakes Township passed a bylaw in 2008 toenforce that no less than 75% of waterfront be left unchanged on new developments and any exisitingdevelopments that would push them over this 75% (Vipond, 2008). Many lakes in the Muskoka Lakeregion are also putting a stop to the development of boathouses in general. The importance of largeplants and trees within 25 metres of shoreline is also emphasized, as removing natural vegetation canseverely increase runoff into bodies of water, affecting not only fish habitats but general water quality(Hansen et al, 2005). Although it is not enforced yet in the Muskoka Region, it is recommended thatareas within this distance from shoreline keep a minimum of 5 large trees at intersects per 30 metres ofshoreline for new developments (Brown, 1998). An example from Bracebridge ON, within the MuskokaLakes Region, will be used to exemplify the magnitude of enforcement on shoreline developmentinfractions. Brian Jones of Bracebridge ON, was fined $5000 after pleading guilty to violating the FederalFisheries Act (DFO, 2003). Mr. Jones had been caught dredging the bottom of the shoreline andshallows near his property on Gibson Lake (DFO, 2003). In addition to the $5000, it is estimated it willcost another $10,000 of Mr. Jones’s money to rehabilitate the shoreline to its natural state. Such an actof simply scraping a few plants in the shallow waters of your property is held in such regard as to cost24
someone up to $15,000 for a few square metres of dredging. This shows that the importance ofshoreline habitats is recognized in the township.The Department of Oceans and Fisheries has a no net loss policy in place for shorelinedevelopment as well that Muskoka Region developments must follow (Brown, 1998). There is however alack of precedent for habitat replacement on Ontario shorelines. An estimated 80% of the Great Lakesshoreline is privately owned and more than 40% of the Canadian shoreline is covered by developmentfrom commercial, industrial, and residential sectors, and more than 17 % by agricultural means(Lawrence, 1995). Less 32% remains “natural” or forested shorelines on Canadian sides (Lawrence,1995). With well over 50% of shorelines being developed in the Great Lakes it is impossible forreestablishment of an equivalent amount.Several papers have been written exemplifying the detriments of shoreline development on fishhabitats. Paul Keddy produced a paper with particular relevance to the Muskoka Region. His work wascompleted on Axe Lake, near Parry Sound, ON. The study focused on different levels of shore disruptionand the effect of the exposure limits of the biodiversity it effects. Keddy’s work incorporated looking ataquatic plant biodiversity, and the biodiversity of small foraging fish that inhabit those plants (includingthose that are prey to targeted game species). By studying sections of shoreline with different exposuregradients Keddy was able to produce different biodiversity scores for different levels of shorelinevegetation and natural cover. Species richness was found at its lowest in areas of highest shorelineexposure (Keddy, 1983). Species richness was found to highest in areas of ‘intermediate’ or most naturallevels of exposure (Keddy, 1983). Keddy’s finding support the notion that upholding pristine shorelines,and minimizing development will help sustain healthy waters and fish habitats.A study on Lake Iowa showed similar results, when studying shoreline development effect onabundance and diversity of juvenile fish and fish larvae. Information was gathered along the shoreline ofLake Iowa comparing areas of development (cottages, docks, boathouse etc.) and areas in a natural25
Page 2 and 3: Valuing Fishing in the Southern Can
Page 4 and 5: equipment and this only begins to s
Page 6 and 7: largemouth bass proportion of 8% is
Page 9 and 10: 2.0 Healthy WatercoursesWhen analyz
Page 11 and 12: (11.8%), Largemouth Bass (1.6%), Sm
Page 13 and 14: that at $11.58 per fish any mercury
Page 16 and 17: 3.0 Fish Habitats and ShorelinesHea
Page 18 and 19: These various pollutants have negat
Page 20 and 21: • Foot Traffic-when the same rout
Page 24 and 25: state. Information was recorded on
Page 27 and 28: 4.0: Native Aquatic BiodiversityIn
Page 31 and 32: native biodiversity in the region.
Page 33 and 34: 6.0: Summary TablesTable 1: Issues
Page 35 and 36: Table 3: Native Biodiversity and as
Page 37 and 38: Johnston T., Legget W., Bodaly R.,

Untitled - Haliburton County Community Cooperative Inc

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?