DOCSLIB.ORG

Muskoka River Flood Plain Mapping Study

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read 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. Hatch makes no representation or warranty and assumes no liability in respect of the use of this report by any third party. By virtue of its review of this report, a third party shall be deemed to have waived, released and discharged Hatch from any liability in connection with this report or its contents, however arising. The use of this report by the Client is subject to the terms of the relevant services agreement between Hatch and Client. This report is meant to be read as a whole, and sections should not be read or relied upon out of context. The report includes information provided by the Client and by certain other parties on behalf of the Client. Unless specifically stated otherwise, Hatch has not verified such information and does not accept any responsibility or liability in connection with such information. This report contains the expression of the opinion of Hatch using its professional judgment and reasonable care, based upon information available at the time of preparation. The quality of the information, conclusions and estimates contained in this report is consistent with the intended level of accuracy as set out in this report, as well as the circumstances and constraints under which this report was prepared. As this report is a flood mapping study, all estimates and projections contained in this report are based on limited and incomplete data. Accordingly, while the work, results, estimates and projections in this report may be considered to be generally indicative of the nature and quality of the Project, they are not definitive. No representations or predictions are intended as to become the results of future work, and Hatch does not promise that the estimates and projections in this report will be sustained in future work. H356689-00000-200-230-0002, Rev. 0, Page i 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 Table of Contents 1. Introduction ........................................................................................................................................ 1-1 2. Study Area and Objectives ............................................................................................................... 2-1 2.1 Previous Studies and Current Situation ..................................................................................... 2-1 2.2 Study Objectives ........................................................................................................................ 2-2 2.3 Deliverables ............................................................................................................................... 2-2 3. Background Information Collection/Review ................................................................................... 3-1 3.1 Reports Reviewed ...................................................................................................................... 3-1 3.2 Review of Previous Flood Estimates ......................................................................................... 3-1 3.3 Review of Climate and Hydrology Data ..................................................................................... 3-3 3.3.1 Normal Streamflow and Climate Conditions ................................................................. 3-6 3.3.2 Daily Streamflow Duration Curves ................................................................................ 3-8 3.3.3 Daily Specific Runoff Duration Curves ......................................................................... 3-9 4. Hydrology Study ................................................................................................................................ 4-1 4.1 Recent Flood Events ................................................................................................................. 4-1 4.1.1 2013 Flood Event .......................................................................................................... 4-1 4.1.2 2019 Flood Event .......................................................................................................... 4-4 4.1.3 Comparison of 2013 and 2019 Flood Events ............................................................... 4-6 4.2 Single Station Frequency Analysis ............................................................................................ 4-9 4.2.1 River Flow Gauges ....................................................................................................... 4-9 4.2.2 Lake Level Gauges ..................................................................................................... 4-13 5. Hydrology Conclusions .................................................................................................................... 5-1 5.1 Conclusions ............................................................................................................................... 5-1 6. Climate Change Uncertainty ............................................................................................................. 6-1 6.1 Trend Analysis ........................................................................................................................... 6-1 6.1.1 Annual Streamflow Maxima .......................................................................................... 6-2 6.1.2 Seasonal Climate Trends ............................................................................................. 6-7 6.1.3 Trend Analysis Conclusions ......................................................................................... 6-7 7. Recommendations for Floodplain Mapping ................................................................................... 7-1 7.1 Regulatory Flood Flow Proration ............................................................................................... 7-1 7.2 Recommendations for River Flood Mapping Flows and Water Levels ...................................... 7-2 7.3 Recommendations for Muskoka River Basin Lake Flood Mapping ........................................... 7-3 7.4 Port Severn Flood Mapping ....................................................................................................... 7-4 8. River Features .................................................................................................................................... 8-1 8.1 The Muskoka River Watershed ................................................................................................. 8-1 8.2 Physiography ............................................................................................................................. 8-1 H356689-00000-200-230-0002, Rev. 0, Page ii 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 8.3 Topography and Surficial Geography ........................................................................................ 8-2 8.4 Subwatershed Characteristics ................................................................................................... 8-2 9. River Hydraulics Study ..................................................................................................................... 9-1 9.1 HEC-RAS Program .................................................................................................................... 9-1 9.1.1 HEC-RAS 1-D ............................................................................................................... 9-1 9.1.2 HEC-RAS
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Lake Water Quality Program Components
    2008 Lake System Health Monitoring Program Year End Report February 2009 Prepared by The District Municipality of Muskoka Planning and Economic Development Department With Technical Support from the Dorset Environmental Science Centre, Ministry of the Environment 2008 Lake System Health Monitoring Program Year End Report Table of Contents Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 4 Muskoka Water Strategy ............................................................................................................ 4 Lake System Health ................................................................................................................... 4 Summary of Lake System Health Monitoring Activities ............................................................... 5 Partners ..................................................................................................................................... 6 1) Program Partners ........................................................................................................... 6 2) Volunteer Participants .................................................................................................... 6 Monitoring Staff .......................................................................................................................... 7 Lake System Health Monitoring Program Components .............................................................. 7 1) Spring phosphorus sampling
    [Show full text]
  • Exploring Malibu of the North
    FEATURE Architectural eye candy. Lake Rosseau Lighthouse. PUBLIC LAUNCHES lakes, how they connect, and where the key towns and roads There are several pre-requisites for a good trailer boating desti - are, including Gravenhurst (south end of Lake Muskoka), Port nation. One is a serviceable launch site with available docks, Carling (between Lake Muskoka and Lake Rosseau), Rosseau parking and bathroom facilities. Fortunately, the big three (north end of Lake Rosseau), Port Sandfield (at the southern Muskoka lakes are well equipped in this regard. About a dozen connection of Lakes Rosseau and Joseph) and Bala (west side of public (free) launches are scattered around the big three, Lake Muskoka). That accomplished, it’s hard to get lost, espe - Exploring Malibu although more of them are located on Lake Muskoka than the cially if you’re not too proud to stop at any cottage dock to ask other two. In addition, there are several marinas with gas on for directions. Also, there’s normally enough other boat traffic on each lake, most with their own pay-as-you-go launch. the water that, when in doubt about where to go, it’s easy to play of the North follow the leader. MUSKOKA WHARF One other aspect of trouble-free navigation is crucial for Story and photos by Craig Nicholson, For most of our Muskoka Sea-Doo tours, we hit the water at trailer boats. That’s being able to avoid rough water as much as The Intrepid Cottager Muskoka Wharf, located at the southeast end of Muskoka Bay possible on a windy day.
    [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]
  • 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]
  • 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.
    [Show full text]
  • News Release
    NEWS RELEASE Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks Ontario Protecting the Health of the Muskoka River Watershed Funding will support projects that reduce impacts of flooding NEWS April 20, 2021 GRAVENHURST — The Ontario government is investing more than $4.25 million to further protect the Muskoka River Watershed. The funding will support projects that will help safeguard the region from environmental pressures, such as severe weather and flooding, while also improving the health of the watershed, a key commitment in the Made-in-Ontario Environment Plan. “The Muskoka Region is one of Ontario’s crown jewels, and we want to ensure that we continue to protect its environment which is so important to the local economy and the great people who live there,” said Premier Doug Ford. “This investment will help protect this area known around the world for its spectacular lakes and rivers so it can continue to be a thriving hub for Ontario’s tourism industry.” The Ontario government is funding 16 projects led by the District of Muskoka and the Town of Bracebridge, as part of the province’s initial $5 million commitment to the Muskoka Watershed Conservation and Management Initiative. Approximately $750,000 will support other projects that are in development. “We are protecting the Muskoka River Watershed while supporting the local economy and its $400- million recreational and tourism industry,” said Jeff Yurek, Minister of the Environment, Conservation and Parks. “By funding these projects and working with the local community, we are supporting this vital region in Ontario and ensuring its water resources are protected now and for future generations.” Following careful review and consideration of the Muskoka Watershed Advisory Group’s recommendations, the government selected projects that support the development and implementation of the Muskoka Watershed Conservation and Management Initiative.
    [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]
  • Lakes Rosseau and Joseph Subwatershed Is 42,745 Hectares in Area and Is Located in the Central Portion of the District Municipality of Muskoka
    LAKES ROSSEAU Grades AND JOSEPH Land: C Water: B Wetland: — SUBWATERSHED The Lakes Rosseau and Joseph subwatershed is 42,745 hectares in area and is located in the central portion of The District Municipality of Muskoka. The northern portion of each lake is located in the Index Map Township of Seguin in the District of Parry Sound. Lake Joseph is approximately 51 km2 and Lake Rosseau is approximately 55 km2. Approximately 7% of the subwatershed is developed with 12% of the land in the subwatershed being Crown land. Urban areas include the village and Rosseau and portions of the village of Port Carling. Shoreline residential development comprises most of the remaining land ownership. Two percent of the subwatershed is protected through provincial parks, crown nature reserves, or local land trusts. There are 52 lakes over 8 hectares in size in the subwatershed. There is a dam control structure on the Indian River between Lake Rosseau and Lake Muskoka. There is also a set of locks on the Indian River in Port Carling between the two lakes. This report card describes the health of the land, water and wetlands of the Lakes Rosseau and Joseph 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. Partnering with Nature Land Grade C Natural Interior Cover Forest 94% of the Lakes Rosseau and Joseph subwatershed is in natural habitat. The lakes themselves dominate the subwatershed and are surrounded by mixed forest vegetation. The subwatershed was one of the first areas within the larger Muskoka River watershed that was developed.
    [Show full text]
  • Bella Rebecca Stewardship Initiative Summary
    July 2005 Bella-RebeccaHow to contact us... Lakes Stewardship Initiative Summary Introduction The purpose of the Bella-Rebecca Lakes Steward- ship Initiative is to recognize and protect the unique character of our lakes, to develop specific objectives for long-term protection and mainte- nance of the lakes, and identify stewardship and land use actions to protect these values. The Stewardship Initiative recommends a series of actions that will ensure the long-term sustainability and healthy existence of our lakes for future gen- erations. These actions are designed to address the lake’s health, beauty, wildlife habitat, and recrea- tional opportunities, as well as responsible future development. The intent of the initiative process was to engage from areas covering a much wider geographic area the property owners, family and friends in commu- (including Algonquin Park) for general information pur- nity based discussions to confirm appropriate land poses and to identify potential impacts on Bella and Re- use and stewardship actions. becca Lakes, the scope of the plan comprises the shore- The Bella-Rebecca Lakes Stewardship Initiative is line community immediately surrounding Bella and Re- intended to be an on-going living document that becca Lakes. will continue to evolve over time as circumstances Some specific recommendations may assist the Town- and issues occur. Periodic updates should occur ship of Lake of Bays in defining appropriate land use every 4-5 years, or more frequently if new informa- policies and tools to protect the special features of the tion becomes available. lakes and local community, and ensure that develop- The Bella-Rebecca watershed encompasses all up- ment is sustainable.
    [Show full text]
  • Muskoka Heri1"Ageareas Program
    MUSKOKA HERI1"AGE AREAS PROGRAM A Project of the District Municipality of Muskoka and the Muskoka Heritage Foundation 10 Pine Street, Bracebridge, Ontario PIL IN3 NATURAL HERITAGE EVALUATION OF MUS KOKA P/5pared By Ron Reid aD(l Bonnie Bergsma TABLE OF CONTENTS Acknowledgements i Executive Summary and Recommendations ii 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Approach .. 1 1.2 Summary of Field Work 5 1.3 Integration 9 1.4 Evaluation of Candidate Areas 10 2.0 MUSKOKA'S NATURAL HERITAGE: AN OVERVIEW 2.1 Geology and Geomorphology 19 2.2 Climate and Hydrology 21 2.3 Vegetation 23 2.4 Wildlife 25 2.5 Definition of Subdistricts 26 3.0 INDIVIDUAL AREA AND SITE DESCRIPTIONS 3.1 Coastal Barrens Subdistrict Bone Island Heritage Area 31 Cognashene Lake-Longuissa Bay Heritage Area 34 Gibson River Corridor Heritage Area 37 McCrae Lake Heritage Area .. 40 Moreaus Bay Heritage Area :.......................................... 44 Pine Islands Heritage Area 47 3.2 Severn Corridor Subdistrict Clipsham's Wood Heritage Area 50 Ellison Bay Wetland Heritage Area 53 Lion's Head Heritage Area 57 Lost Channel Heritage Area 60 Lower Swift Slope Heritage Area 64 McLean Bay Wetland Heritage Area 67 Moose Lake Heritage Area 70 Neipage Lake Complex Heritage Area 73 Port Severn Outlier Heritage Area 76 Potato Island Heritage Area 79 Port Severn Lacustrine Deposit Heritage Site 82 3.3 Gibson Subdistrict Bala Bog Heritage Area 84 Concession Lake Heritage Area 87 Deer Lake Complex Heritage Area 90 Gray Rapids Heritage Area 95 Loon Lake Wetland Heritage Area ..~................................................................. 99 Lower Moon River Heritage Area 103 Morrison Lake Wetland Heritage Area 106 Bass Island A.C.P.F.
    [Show full text]
  • • Surveyors of the Past
    • Surveyors of The Past — — ------------------ --------- BY CHARLES FAIRHALL------------------------------ V. B. WADSWORTH Front and Wellington Streets, Toronto. Sound, which, if he found to be the best Colonization roads were to be developed navigable harbour for the Georgian Bay The narrative of a teen-aged surveying into Muskoka, Parry Sound and Nipis­ trade, was to be adopted as the terminal student on a survey party in Muskoka in sing he said. The only settlements there point for that road, and the lake-port 1860 and 1861 — V. B. Wadsworth, in 1860 were the very small ones at for the district. for whom Lake Vernon is named. Severn Bridge and Parry Sound. He said: “Thereafter a line was to be run Lake Vernon, near Huntsville, was “The Muskoka Road at that time from the north end of Lake Rosseau to named in 1860 for a teenager, Vernon was extended 12 miles from the crossing the mouth of the South River, falling Bayley Wadsworth, who as a surveying of the Severn River to where Gravenhurst into Lake Nipissing. This line was estima­ student, came to Muskoka with John is now situated. At Parry Sound three or ted at 80 miles in length and was to be a Stoughton Dennis, P.L.S., to assist in gov­ four small houses and a small sawmill theodolite line with explorations on each ernment surveys of importance to the were located, but no road thereto, nor mile extending for a distance of three later settlement of this part of Ontario. were there any farms or settlers in or four miles east and west of the main that vicinity.
    [Show full text]
  • Muskoka Heritage Areas Program Results of Field
    MUSKOKA HERITAGE AREAS PROGRAM A Project of the D~ct Municipality of MUlkoka and the MUlkoka Heritage Foundation 10 Pine Street, Bracebrldge, Ontatlo P1 L 1N3 RESULTS OF \ 1991 FIELD PROGRAM MUSKOKA HERITAGE AREAS PROGRAM REPORT NO. 2 RESULTS OF THE 1991 FIELD PROGRAM Ron Reid Bonnie Bergsma Bob Bowles Adr i ane Po 11ard Dan Whittam Andrew White February 1992 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 ... 6 3. RECOMMENDATIONS .. 17 RECOMMENDED NATURAL HERITAGE AREAS 8;g East River .. 20 Novar Bog .. 36 Axe Lake .. 43 Lewisham wetlands ,.. 48 Jevins Lake .. 54 Br itann·; a Es k e r . 5 9 Beaumont Bay Carbonates .. 64 Dwight Bog .. 71 OTHER SITES OF INTEREST .. 76 LITERATURE CITED .. 83 1. PROGRAM ORGANIZATION AND FUNDING: The Muskoka Heritage Areas Program was established to identify the best examples of the Distrlct's natural and cultural heritage, using a systematic, objective evaluation process, and to seek mechanisms for the protection of these heritage landscapes. 1991 was the second year of a planned three-year program, with field activities relating to natural heritage features, both biotic and abiotic. Evaluation of cultural heritage wi 11 begin in 1992. This report provides a preliminary analys;'s of the significance o~ candidates studied in 1991 by the Heritage Areas field crew. The final evaluation of all candidates will take place late in 1992, after field work has been completed.
    [Show full text]