DOCSLIB.ORG

Results of Field Program

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Results of Field Program MUSKOKA HERITAGE AREAS PROGRAM A Project of the District Municipality of Muskoka and the Muskoka Heritage Foundation 10 Pine Street, Bracebridge, Ontario PIL IN3 RESULTS OF 1992 FIELD PROGRAM MUSKOKA HERITAGE AREAS PROGRAM REPORT NO. 3 RESULTS OF THE 1992 FIELD SEASON Bonnie Bergsma Ron Reid Terry Rasmussen Genevieve Taeger March 1993 The Heritage Areas Program is sponsored by the District Municipality of Muskoka and the Muskoka Heritage Foundation, with major financial support from the Ministry of Natural Resources and other agencies. TABLE OF CONTENTS: 1. PROGRAM ORGANIZATION AND FUNDING ... 1 2. METHODOLOGY FOR BIOTIC FIELD PROGRAM ... 5 3. RECOMMENDATIONS .. 15 4. TECHNICAL SUMMARY: RECOMMENDED HERITAGE AREAS .. 17 Clipsham Woods .. 18 Fawn Lake Wetland .. 23 Gray Rapids .. 29 Langmaids Island .. 35 Lower Oxtongue River .. 40 Muldrew Creek .. 46 Riley Lake North .. 51 Scarcliffe Bay .. 57 Shack Creek Wetland .. 62 Spring Creek .. 70 Tasso Creek - Upper Big East River .. 71 Walker Point - Wells Creek .. 83 Westermain Woods .. 89 5. ADDITIONAL SITES OF INTEREST Sites from previous years - 1990 .. 93 Sites from previous years - 1991 .. 97 Other sites of interest from 1992 .103 6. LITERATURE CITED .106 7. APPENDIX 1 : RARE SPECIES STATUS .108 1. PROGRAM ORGANIZATION AND FUNDING: The Muskoka Heritage Areas Program was established to identify the best examples of the District's natural and cultural heritage, using a systematic, 6bjective evaluation process, and to seek mechanisms for the protection of these heritage landscapes. 1992 was the third year of a planned three-year program, with field activities relating to natural heritage features, both biotic and scenic. Evaluation of cultural heritage also began in 1992. This report provides a preliminary analysis of the significance of biotic candidates studied in 1992 by the Heritage Areas field crew. The final evaluation of all candidates will t~ke place early in 1993, after field work has been completed. A review of technical measures such as regional rarity of species, the diversity/area index, and the percentage of introduced species will be carried out in preparation for this final evaluation. Evaluation of heritage areas is guid~d by a series of selection criteria, approved by District Council in March 1990 after review by various agency staff and interest groups. (Table 1) Program direction is provided by a Technical Steering Committee, with representation from the District Municipality, the Muskoka Heritage Foundation, the Ministry of Natural Resources Bracebridge Area office and Central Region (Huntsville). The 1992 field program had two major components: i) A Muskoka Scenic Evaluation was carried out by staff of the Heritage Areas Program, primarily through an Environmental Youth Corps grant. This project measured public responses to a "Scenic Muskoka" questionnaire, to determine public preferences for various landscape types, and to solicit specific nominations for sceni~ areas. A second part of the project used field surveys to evaluate and document the nominated areas, and to identify additional similar landscapes that would meet the expressed public preferences. Resu'l ts of th i s study have been sunmar i zed ina separate report. ii) The third year of the biological field program, at a cost of approximately $65,000, was co-sponsored by the District Municipality, the Ministry of Natural - 1 ­ Resources, and the Muskoka Heritage Foundation. Additional support for this program included: * The provision of an Environmental Youth Corps grant from the Ontario Ministry of Environment to hire one field assistant and one data input person; * A three-year grant provided by Wildlife Habitat Canada to assist with landowner contact and stewardship components of the program. * A supporting grant provided by World Wildlife Fund (Canada) under the Endangered Spaces program; * A supporting grant from The McLean Foundation, through the Muskoka Heritage Foundation. The 1992 biological field program was carried out by a seasonal field crew based in Bracebridge. Field work included ten candidate areas, plus more limited reconnaissance of another twelve areas. Results of this field work are included in this report. Field staff for 1992 included: Project Coordinator: Ron Reid, Bobolink Enterprises Field Chief: Bonnie Bergsma Field Assistant: Terry Rasmussen Data Input: Genevieve Taeger Field work and specimen identification was also assisted on several occasions by the volunteer input of Bill Crins, Jan McDonnell, Adriane Pollard, Dan Whittam, and several members of the Muskoka Field Natura.lists. - 2 ­ Table DISTRICT OF MUSKOKA HERITAGE AREAS SELECTION CRITERIA January 1990 AS/OTIC CRITERIA: Objective: To identify a system of physical landscapes that incorporate the full diversity of bedrock, surficial, and aquatic landform types and features within Muskoka. 1. The area has landform features or elements that are distinctive or unusual in the District, Ontario, or Canada. 2. The area is representative of at least one landform type, process, or phase of development not adequately represented within existing protected areas. 3. The area exhibits unusually high diversity of landform features or types. 4. The area contributes to regional hydrological systems through ground or surface water storage or protection or enhancement of water quality. BIOTIC CRITERIA: Objective: To identify in a systematic way the best examples of the full range of Muskoka's biological heritage, including both aquatic and terrestrial habitats critical to the survival of healthy populations of native wild species. 1. The area is representative of at least one biotic community type not adequately represented within existing protected areas. 2. The area exhibits high diversity of native flora and fauna, either at the species or community level. 3. The area contains biotic communities of unusually high quality or showing little recent disturbance, or remnants of community types greatly reduced from their earlier distribution. - 3 ­ 4. The area provides habitat for species of plants or animals that are rare, threatened, endangered, or vulnerable in the District, Ontario, or Canada. 5. The area serves as a breeding, shelter, or feeding site for seasonal concentrations of wildlife or fish. 6. The area is large enough to support species requiring extensive undisturbed habitats, or provides linkages between other significant natural areas. CULTURAL CRITERIA: Objective: To identify a system of significant cultural landscapes and features within Muskoka, including historic and contemporary elements. 1. The area is representative of an historic or prehistoric theme or process significant to the development of Muskoka. 2. The area contains sites or landscapes associated with well-known events or people, or distinctive ethnic groups. 3. The area contains buildings, artifacts, travel routes, or landscape'patterns of relative antiquity or duration. 4. The area exhibits cultural characteristics unusual or unique to Muskoka, possessing high artistic values, or embodying distinctive examples of a type, period, or method of construction. s. The area contains elements that reflect the distinctive values, attitudes, traditions, and lifeways of the people of Muskoka. 6. The area has high archaeological potential, or known archaeological significance. 7. The area contains sites or landscapes with patterns of form, line, colour, or texture that together present outstanding scenic value. - 4 ­ 2. METHODOLOGY FOR BIOTIC FIELD PROGRAM: 2.1 Selection of Candidate study Areas: Candidate study areas were selected on the basis of: i) local knowledge of significant or interesting features; ii) previous records of rare species from the National Museum Atlas of Rare Vascular Plants, the Ontario Herpetofaunal Summary, or the Ontario Breeding Bird Atla~; iii) distinctive or unusual landform features which could be combined with potential biotic significance; iv) representation of biotic types not adequately represented within existing protected areas; v) candidates identified during previous studies for potential park status, ANSI designation, or Atlantic coastal plain species. 2.2 Boundary Delineation: Tentative site boundaries were established using air photo analysis and preliminary site visits. Boundaries were refined and confirmed during field study. Limited buffers were added where it was necessary to protect sensitive ecological areas (such as wetlands, habitat for sensitive species, forest interiors) by increasing their margins. On the individual Heritage Area maps, buffers have been noted with broken dash lines. Although final boundary and buffer delineation was made on Ontario Base Maps at a 1:10,000 scale~ all boundaries must be considered as approximate. In defining boundaries, the following guidelines were used: i) boundaries should incorporate the full range of natural heritage features present; ii) boundaries should follow the edge of significant geological features or habitat types; iii) where no habitat boundary is apparant, - 5 ­ boundaries should follow watershed or sub­ watershed limits, ridges, or other distinctive topographical features recognizable in the field; iv) where appropriate, boundaries should follow cultural delineations such as roads, railways, or hydro lines; v) in some cases, boundaries may be influenced by property boundaries, particularly between Crown and private lands, although this is a secondary consideration; vi) boundaries should generally exclude developed and agricultural areas, although scattered
Load more

Recommended publications
  • TOWN of GRAVENHURST Ward Boundaries
    ISLAND M92 BRADLEY RD ECCLESTONE DR STEPHENS BAY RD ISLAND 35LM FOURTH ST 11 HY ISLAND 26LM ISLAND 26LM 118 HY CAMPBELLS RD ISLAND 26LM ENNIS BAY RD TOWN OF GRAVENHURST WINHARA RD WRIGHT LAKE Ward Boundaries ISLAND 14LM SHADY LN MATTS RD BEAVER CREEK DR PIGEON LAKE BEAVER CREEK LAKE MUSKOKA CLEAR LAKE RD REAY RD UFFINGTON RD DEER LAKE MUSKOKA RD 169 ELZNER RD Ward 5 REAY LAKE ROAD 3100 HOC ROC RIVER GRAVENHURST PY MEJEMI LN MUSKOKA BEACH RD THREE RD PIGEON CREEK CHAMBERLAIN DR ROAD 3500 GAGNON RD SNOWCREST TL 1166 MURIEL CR ROAD 1000 EXIT 175 JONES RD Ward 2 GERMANIA RD MUSKOKA RD KNISTER RD BEAVER CREEK PINE LAKE ROAD 3200 WATERS RD OSPREY DR GARTERSNAKE CREEK BETHUNE DR SEEHAVER RD TOMINGAS RD LOON LAKE RD-N4 LORNE ST BEARPAW LAKE JOHN ST FIRST ST TURTLE LAKE RD DOE LAKE OLD STONE RD LOON LAKE RD WAGNER ST DOE LAKE RD MUSQUASH RD MAPLE COVE SILVER LAKE RD TURTLE LAKE PINETREE RD-S1 LOON LAKE GULL LAKE FAWN LAKE NORTH MULDREW LAKE RD PINEDALE RD DRURY LN-S2 Ward 1 BROWNS WY PARK LN SUNNY LAKE MERKLEY RD CARRICK TL RUTTANS RD PENINSULA RD HEWITT ST EXIT 169 UPPER EAGLE LAKE BARKWAY RD BARKWAY LAKE LOWER EAGLE LAKE BECK RD BEN LAKE RD SILVER LAKE BUCK LAKE JIM WOOD LN NORTH MULDREW LAKE JEVINS LAKE GARTERSNAKE CREEK NORTH LONGFORD LAKE MIDDLE MULDREW LAKE BEN LAKE RD BEN LAKE LITTLE LAKE CORNALL LAKE ISLAND 4MM LAMORIE LAKE THREE MILE LAKE HALLS RD MISTY LN SOUTH MULDREW LAKE SOUTH LONGFORD LAKE LEWISHAM RD SOUTHWOOD RD KAHSHE RIVER Ward 4 LITTLE SUNNY LAKE COOKS RD SPENCE LAKE SCHENKEL RDFISH HOOK LN BASS LAKE LUIGI RD SAM COOK RD SEDORE
    [Show full text]
  • 1003 Moon River Road, Bala Commercial Properties for Lease
    1003 MOON RIVER ROAD, BALA COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES FOR LEASE 3.2 ACRE SITE WITH 8,900 SQ. FT. SHOWROOM/RETAIL SHOP AND FREESTANDING 20,000 SQ. FT. STORAGE WAREHOUSE Located on Moon River Road, just off Highway 169 in Bala INQUIRIES Michael J. Saperia Martin Scott Senior Vice President, Broker Sales Representative 416 636 8898 x229 416 636 8898 x239 [email protected] [email protected] Ron Fehler Sales Representative 416 636 8898 x235 CAPITAL MARKETS [email protected] 1003 MOON RIVER ROAD, BALA COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES FOR LEASE PROPERTY OVERVIEW • The subject property is a unique 3.2-acre site at 1003 Moon River Road in Bala, Ontario • 15 minutes access to Highway 400 with direct connection to Trans Canada Highway (Highway 401) • Close proximity to two municipal airports • Site is 1 hour and 45 minutes to the GTA • Site is improved with an 8,900 sq. ft. showroom/retail shop and a freestanding 20,000 sq. ft. storage warehouse • Bala is the gateway to Muskoka, and internationally recognized as one of the finest resort areas in Canada. This highly visible property fronts directly onto Highway 169 and is one of the main arteries into the Muskoka Lakes area, the largest and wealthiest recreational community in Ontario • Muskoka Lakes is home to many high net-worth families from all over North America, including an ever- increasing presence of Hollywood celebrities, musicians and sports stars who are attracted to the spectacular scenery and pristine lakes and rivers • Bounded by Huntsville to the North, Gravenhurst to the South, Georgian Bay to the West, and Bracebridge to the East, it is a one-hour, 45 minute drive from Toronto, and is the primary access point to the breathtaking Lakes Muskoka, Rosseau and Joseph • Muskoka Lakes has a permanent growing population of over 6,500, ballooning seasonally to over 33,000.
    [Show full text]
  • MOON RIVER Grades SUBWATERSHED Land: a Water: a Wetland: —
    MOON RIVER Grades SUBWATERSHED Land: A Water: A Wetland: — The Moon River subwatershed is 71,434 hectares in area and is located in the western portion of The District Municipality of Muskoka, flowing from Lake Muskoka at Bala in the Township of Muskoka Lakes westerly through both the Moon and Musquash Index Map Rivers in the Township of Georgian Bay and finally emptying into Georgian Bay. Less that 5% of the subwatershed is developed with 49% of the land through which the river flows being Crown land. There are no major urban areas within the subwatershed and shoreline residential development comprises most of the land use. 17% of the subwatershed is protected through provincial parks, crown nature reserves, or local land trusts. There are 37 lakes in the subwatershed that are 8 hectares or greater. The subwatershed is divided into two distinct reaches: the Moon River and Musquash River branches. There are 2 dams at Bala with power generation at the Burgess Dam site. On the Moon River there is one dam with no power generation. The river is approximately 35 kilometers in length. The Musquash River is approximately 30 kilometers in length and there are two dams with power generation: Big Eddy and Ragged Rapids. There are automatic water level gauges downstream from the Big Eddy Dam and at both dams in Bala. There are also flow gauges on both the Moon and Musquash Rivers and one located upstream from the point at which the rivers separate. This report card describes the health of the land, water and wetlands of the Moon River subwatershed and is part of the larger report The 2010 Muskoka Watershed Report Card that is posted on the MWC website www.muskokaheritage.org/watershed.
    [Show full text]
  • C94) and Lower Moon River Conservation Reserve (C90
    Moon River Conservation Reserve (C94) and Lower Moon River Conservation Reserve (C90) Statement of Conservation Interest March 2005 Moon River Conservation Reserve (C94) and Lower Moon River Conservation Reserve (C90) Statement of Conservation Interest Ministry of Natural Resources Parry Sound District Prepared with the assistance of: Meteek & Company Huntsville, Ontario March 2005 i Approval Statement We are pleased to approve this Statement of Conservation Interest for Moon River Conservation Reserve (C94) and Lower Moon River Conservation Reserve (C90). Together these two conservation reserves provide protection for approximately 15 kilometres of diverse habitats along the Moon River, from just west of Highway 400 (formerly Highway 69) to Arnolds Bay and The Massasauga Provincial Park on the Georgian Bay shoreline. Moon River Conservation Reserve (C94) is the upstream component of these two protected areas. It consists of 457 hectares of Crown land, located in southern Freeman Ward in the Area Municipality of Georgian Bay, in the District of Muskoka. The site is approximately seven kilometres southwest of the hamlet of Mactier. At its closest point on the east it is about ½ kilometre west of Highway 400, and it abuts Lower Moon River Conservation Reserve at its west boundary. This conservation reserve, located in Hills’ ecological Site District 5E-7, includes steep rocky slopes and low cliffs on the Moon River. The surrounding uplands support representative sugar maple and old hemlock forests growing on gently sloping hills with shallow sandy soils or bare bedrock. It provides habitat for the nationally threatened eastern Massasauga rattlesnake and the threatened eastern hog- nosed snake. Lower Moon River Conservation Reserve (C90) is a 2723 hectare area of Crown land, located about 10 kilometres due west of the hamlet of Mactier.
    [Show full text]
  • Council Report Template
    PW-12-2019-3 - Attachment B Bin Site Transition Plan Prepared for the Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION September 25, 2019 The District Municipality of Muskoka Engineering and Public Works Department 70 Pine Street, Second Floor Bracebridge, Ontario P1L 1N3 TABLE OF CONTENTS PART 1 – BACKGROUND .............................................................................................................. 1 1.1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................ 1 1.2 MUSKOKA WASTE MANAGEMENT ............................................................................. 1 1.3 PROVINICIAL POLICY ................................................................................................... 2 1.3.1 Waste Sites and the Environmental Protection Act (EPA) .................................... 2 1.4 HISTORY OF THE “BIN SITE” ....................................................................................... 3 1.5 THE PROBLEM .............................................................................................................. 3 1.6 CURRENT BIN SITE NETWORK ................................................................................... 4 1.7 MUSKOKA’S WASTE MANGEMENT STRATEGY ........................................................ 5 PART 2 – CHANGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT ................................................................................ 6 2.1 ASSESSING IMPACT OF BIN SITE REMOVAL ...........................................................
    [Show full text]
  • District 7 Area
    ! Little Patterson Lake Blue Lake Dunchurch 30 Snakeskin Lake C104D 0 603 Dunchurch Lake Ahmic Lake D123 C104D Burk's Falls Kearney 1 1 ! ! 7 303 5 305 0 8 Algonquin Park Bell Lake 302 06 East Ryan Lake D Shawanaga Lake 7 Algonquin Park ! 803 Emsdale D ! Mckellar Lake McKellar C101 Hart Lake ! Clear Lake 95 Bay Lake 807 Whitehall 704 Swindon Manitouwabing River ! ! Manitouwabing Lake D C 80 8 4 Belfry Lake 3 8 78 06 Nine Mile Lake 7 ± 0 0 D101B Luck Lake Wolf Lake 405 83 Crown Lake 702 8 9 85 5 2 93 66 7 Portage Lake Manitouwaba Lake 85 Clark Lake D102B 79 7 Seguin River 8 7 Big East River C103D! C102 C 86 Deavy Lake 4 8 77 7 74 8 3 4 80 2 Peninsula Lake 1 Parry Sound ! 4 ! 10 320 8 Dwight 3 4 Huntsville 75 Mcfadden Lake Fairy Lake 4 Ashworth Lake Vernon ! 00 ! 210 Yarrow Lake 20 2 65 Brennan Lake 4 01 8 Horseshoe Lake 8 54 6 Kawagama Lake C102 7 63 350 Rosseau 50 68 4 ! 7 Wolfsban e Lake 64 5 Lake Of Bays 0 Kimmins Lake 3 0 0 2 3 Mary Lake 12 3 51 Dorset Hamer Lake ! 61 53 Lake Of Bays 340 Port Sydney 64 2 Kennisis Lake 11 2 ! 6 2 9 2 6 1 Lake Joseph 33 Avery Lake D103B Code Lake Lake Rosseau Lake Joseph 3 Ufford 64 7 Fawn Lake Black Lake 18 Pairo Lakes 0 Lake Rosseau ! 55 C102D 7 Baysville Mug Lake Kapikog Lake ! D102B Stewart Lake D103B 4 10 ! Teapot Lake Grouse Lake 1 Port Carling 5 MacTier 7 45 ! North Branch Muskoka River B Moon River Bass Lake Brandy Lake 4 ! 15 C102D 36 3 0 B Gullfeather Lake 4 C102D 35 41 6 ! C102D South Branch Muskoka River C Milford Bay Bracebridge B Anson Lake C114 32 B ! 7 Bala ! 44 Musquash River C114 Long
    [Show full text]
  • Depth Information Not Available for Lakes Marked with an Asterisk (*)
    DEPTH INFORMATION NOT AVAILABLE FOR LAKES MARKED WITH AN ASTERISK (*) LAKE NAME COUNTY COUNTY COUNTY COUNTY GL Great Lakes Great Lakes GL Lake Erie Great Lakes GL Lake Erie (Port of Toledo) Great Lakes GL Lake Erie (Western Basin) Great Lakes GL Lake Huron Great Lakes GL Lake Huron (w West Lake Erie) Great Lakes GL Lake Michigan (Northeast) Great Lakes GL Lake Michigan (South) Great Lakes GL Lake Michigan (w Lake Erie and Lake Huron) Great Lakes GL Lake Ontario Great Lakes GL Lake Ontario (Rochester Area) Great Lakes GL Lake Ontario (Stoney Pt to Wolf Island) Great Lakes GL Lake Superior Great Lakes GL Lake Superior (w Lake Michigan and Lake Huron) Great Lakes AL Baldwin County Coast Baldwin AL Cedar Creek Reservoir Franklin AL Dog River * Mobile AL Goat Rock Lake * Chambers Lee Harris (GA) Troup (GA) AL Guntersville Lake Marshall Jackson AL Highland Lake * Blount AL Inland Lake * Blount AL Lake Gantt * Covington AL Lake Jackson * Covington Walton (FL) AL Lake Jordan Elmore Coosa Chilton AL Lake Martin Coosa Elmore Tallapoosa AL Lake Mitchell Chilton Coosa AL Lake Tuscaloosa Tuscaloosa AL Lake Wedowee Clay Cleburne Randolph AL Lay Lake Shelby Talladega Chilton Coosa AL Lay Lake and Mitchell Lake Shelby Talladega Chilton Coosa AL Lewis Smith Lake Cullman Walker Winston AL Lewis Smith Lake * Cullman Walker Winston AL Little Lagoon Baldwin AL Logan Martin Lake Saint Clair Talladega AL Mobile Bay Baldwin Mobile Washington AL Mud Creek * Franklin AL Ono Island Baldwin AL Open Pond * Covington AL Orange Beach East Baldwin AL Oyster Bay Baldwin AL Perdido Bay Baldwin Escambia (FL) AL Pickwick Lake Colbert Lauderdale Tishomingo (MS) Hardin (TN) AL Shelby Lakes Baldwin AL Walter F.
    [Show full text]
  • Somerset Island, Sans Souci Georgian Bay, Ontario, Canada Island B-195, Pcl 566 S/S Township of the Archipelago (Conger), District of Parry Sound
    SOMERSET ISLAND, SANS SOUCI GEORGIAN BAY, ONTARIO, CANADA ISLAND B-195, PCL 566 S/S TOWNSHIP OF THE ARCHIPELAGO (CONGER), DISTRICT OF PARRY SOUND LEGAL DESCRIPTION: ISLAND B-195, PCL 566 S/S. TOWNSHIP OF THE ARCHIPELAGO (CONGER), DISTRICT OF PARRY SOUND REGION: CANADA LOCATION: GEORGIAN BAY SIZE: 20 ACRES, APPROX. 4,500 SQ. FT., 17 ROOMS AGE: 51+ YEARS OWNER: PAUL MICHAEL TRUST, PMT XII LLC ZONING: R02 GEORGIAN BAY NAME • Georgian Bay was charted by Captain Henry W. Bayfield of the Royal Navy in 1822, he named the area after King George IV. The area of Georgian Bay located in the District of Muskoka was formed on January 1st, 1971 due to the amalgamation of several regional governments. The District of Muskoka portion of Georgian Bay includes many of the tens of thousands of islands that dot the uneven shoreline. In 1991 there were 2,069 permanent residence and 14,238 seasonal. • Imagine being in a position to choose virtually any island in Sans Souci at the turn of the 20th century! In 1902 a railroad Baron from Cleveland purchased Somerset Island from the Crown as it was one of the grand islands of the area. One hundred years later, it remains eminently clear why he made Somerset his choice. Comprising more than 20 acres, with two natural harbours, densely covered in original growth white pine and a completely unobstructed view to the west. • Comprising a total of 20 acres, Somerset is actually two distinct sections of land joined by a low lying rock cleft. The island’s present zoning designation of R2 would allow for a severance essentially creating roughly a 12 and an 8 acre parcel.
    [Show full text]
  • Monitoring of Municipal Salt Management Plans in the District of Muskoka
    Monitoring of Municipal Salt Management Plans In the District of Muskoka December 2010 Monitoring of Municipal Salt Management Plans in the District of Muskoka INTRODUCTION The mission of the Muskoka Watershed Council (MWC) is to Champion Watershed Health. In pursuing this mission, MWC evaluates the watershed through research on, and analysis of, issues impacting the health of the watersheds. The Muskoka Watershed Report Card is the primary tool used to communicate the results of this work. MWC also prepares position papers on issues of concern. PURPOSE AND RECOMMENDATIONS The purpose of this paper is to report on the implementation of municipal salt management plans across Muskoka. The Province also uses salt on provincial highways and private shopping centres use salt on their parking lots to ensure safe conditions. These applications will not be addressed in any detail in this report. In general, municipalities have methodically implemented their respective plans over the last four years. In particular, significant capital investment has been made in the construction of new salt domes with impervious floor surfaces, the installation of proper facilities to store pre-wetting material (water or a de-icing solution added to road salt or sand before, or during, application to the road ), and the acquisition of trucks and computers with pre-wetting capability. This effort should be commended. Not all actions can be implemented at the same time, and additional work is required to completely implement the salt management plans. In particular, the following activities, recommended in the salt management plan, are outstanding: 1. Monitoring of snow storage areas to determine the levels of salt, oil/grease and heavy metals present in the snow melt that are released to the environment.
    [Show full text]
  • Muskoka River Flood Plain Mapping Study
    The District Municipality of Muskoka Technical Report For Muskoka River Flood Plain Mapping Study H356689-00000-200-230-0002 Rev. 0 February 12, 2020 This document contains confidential information intended only for the person(s) to whom it is addressed. The information in this document may not be disclosed to, or used by, any other person without Hatch's prior written consent. The District Municipality of Muskoka Technical Report For Muskoka River Flood Plain Mapping Study H356689-00000-200-230-0002 Rev. 0 February 12, 2020 This document contains confidential information intended only for the person(s) to whom it is addressed. The information in this document may not be disclosed to, or used by, any other person without Hatch's prior written consent. The District Municipality of Muskoka Engineering Report Muskoka River Flood Plain Mapping Study Engineering Management H356689 Technical Report Report Technical Report H356689-00000-200-230-0002 B. Heppner, G. 2020-02-12 0 Final A. Breland A. Breland Schellenberg DATE REV. STATUS PREPARED BY CHECKED BY APPROVED BY Manager Manager H356689-00000-200-230-0002, Rev. 0, Page 1 Ver: 04.03 © Hatch 2020 All rights reserved, including all rights relating to the use of this document or its contents. The District Municipality of Muskoka Engineering Report Muskoka River Flood Plain Mapping Study Engineering Management H356689 Technical Report IMPORTANT NOTICE TO READER This report was prepared by Hatch Ltd. (“Hatch”) for the sole and exclusive benefit of The District Municipality of Muskoka (the “Client”) for the sole purpose of updating flood line mapping for particularly vulnerable portions of Muskoka River flood plains (the “Project) and may not be used or relied upon by any other party.
    [Show full text]
  • The Evolution of Water Management in the Muskoka River Watershed | November 2020
    T H E E V O L U T I O N O F Water Management I N T H E M U S K O K A R I V E R W A T E R S H E D B y C h r i s C r a g g N o v e m b e r 2 0 2 0 The Evolution of Water Management in the Muskoka River Watershed | November 2020 Table of Contents Table of Contents .............................................................................................................................................. 2 Introduction ........................................................................................................................................................ 3 History of Water Management in Muskoka .................................................................................................. 3 Watershed Description ..................................................................................................................................... 4 Technical Considerations ................................................................................................................................ 8 Impact of Water Retaining Structures ......................................................................................................... 10 The Current Water Management Plan ....................................................................................................... 11 Fish Spawning Impacts ................................................................................................................................... 11 Recent Water Quantity Experience ...........................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Letter of Appeal
    April 11, 2011 The Honourable John Wilkinson Minister of the Environment 77 Wellesley Street West Ferguson Block 11th Floor Toronto, ON M7A 2T5 Dear Minister Wilkinson, Re: Request for Minister’s Review of Director’s Decision that an Individual Environmental Assessment is Not Required for the Proposed North Bala Falls Hydro-electric Generating Station The Moon River Property Owners Association (MRPOA) has 256 members who are property owners along the shores of the Moon River in The Township of Muskoka Lakes. There are over 300 properties on the river and our association clearly represents the majority of those owners. Of our membership, 86% have indicated their opposition to the proposal brought forward by the proponent, Swift River Energy Limited Partnership (SREL). MRPOA members have asked MRPOA to represent them vigorously in these matters. Before proceeding further, here is very small example of what Bala is about. For a clear view of what Bala and the site of the proposed development, please refer to Picture 1. Our members, many of whom wrote to the Ministry of the Environment (MoE) requesting an elevation to an individual environmental assessment, are very disappointed that the Assessment Review Branch has ignored their requests. Our members feel this project should not be permitted in any form. What follows will be a detailed analysis of the Director’s decision. I will also point out why, in my opinion and in the opinion of our members, we believe that, at a minimum, the proponent should be required to undertake an “Individual Environmental Assessment”. Public Consultation It is our opinion that inadequate public consultation on this project has taken place.
    [Show full text]