DOCSLIB.ORG

Grand River Water Management Study. 1982

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

GRAND RIVER BASIN WATER MANAGEMENT STUDY GRAND RIVER IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE 1982 Grand River Basin Water Management Study GRAND RIVER IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE 1982 Archivist Note: Source photos in this report were of poor quality. TABLE OF CONTENTS Page CHAPTER 1. SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS. 1.1 CHAPTER 2. INTRODUCTION 2.1 2.1 Background 2.1 2.2 The Problems 2.1 2.3 The Issues 2.1 2.4 The Basin Study 2.3 2.5 Acknowledgements 2.3 CHAPTER 3. THE GRAND RIVER BASIN 3.1 3.1 Past and Present 3.1 3.2 Future Trends 3.7 3.2.1 Urban 3.7 3.2.2 Rural 3.7 CHAPTER 4. WATER RESOURCES 4.1 4.1 Surface Water Quantity 4.1 4.2 Surface Water Quality 4.3 4.3 Ground Water Quantity 4.5 4.4 Ground Water Quality 4.8 CHAPTER 5. WATER USES? 5.2 5.1 Water Supply 5.2 5.1.1 Municipal 5.2 5.1.2 Industrial 5.2 5.1.3 Agricultural 5.5 5.1.4 Summary of Water Supply Uses 5.5 5.2 Waste Assimilation 5.5 5.2.1 Municipal Wastes 5.5 5.2.2 Industrial Wastes 5.5 5.2.3 Agricultural Wastes 5.7 5.3 Water-Based Recreation 5.8 5.4 Fish and Wildlife 5.10 CHAPTER 6. WATER RESOURCE PROBLEMS 6.1 6.1 Water Supply 6.1 6.1.1 Objective 6.1 6.1.2 Problems 6.1 6.1.3 Municipal Water Requirements 6.1 6.1.4 Industrial Water Requirements 6.4 6.1.5 Agricultural Water Requirements 6.4 6.2 Flood Damages 6.8 6.2.1 Objective 6.8 6.2.2 Problems 6.8 -i- 6.3 Water Quality. 6.15 6.3.1 Objective for Surface Water Quality 6.15 6.3.2 Problems with Surface Water Quality 6.15 6.3.3 Objectives for Ground Water Quality 6.25 6.3.4 Problems with Ground Water Quality 6.25 6.4 Public Perceptions of Water Management 6.25 CHAPTER 7. WATER MANAGEMENT MEASURES FOR LOCAL AREAS 7.1 7.1 Upper Grand River System 7.1 7.2 Middle Grand River System 7.2 7.3 Conestogo River System 7.2 7.4 Canagagigue Creek System 7.3 7.5 Nith River System 7.4 7.6 Lower Grand River System 7.6 7.7 Speed and Eramosa Rivers System 7.6 7.8 Municipal Sewage Treatment Costs for Local Areas 7.6 CHAPTER 8. FORMATION AND SCREENING OF WATER MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVES 8.1 8.1 Water Management Plans 8.1 8.2 Screening of Water Management Plans 8.1 8.3 Plan Selection 8.1 CHAPTER 9. DESCRIPTION OF MAIN PLANS 9.1 9.1 Plan A - Dykes and Channelization, 9.1 Advanced Sewage Treatment, Local Sources of Water Supply 9.2 Plan B - Montrose Reservoir, Advanced 9.12 Sewage Treatment, Local Sources of Water Supply 9.3 Plan C - Single-Purpose Reservoir for Flood Control, 9.17 Advanced Sewage Treatment, Local Sources of Water Supply 9.4 Plan D - Lake Erie Water Supply Pipeline, Advanced 9.21 Sewage Treatment, Dykes and Channelization 9.5 Reservoir Low Flow Operation 9.24 9.6 General Water Management Practices 9.27 Supporting the Main Plans 9.6.1 Practices to Reduce Flood Damage 9.27 9.6.2 Practices to Improve Water Quality 9.28 9.6.3 Practices to Reduce Water Demand 9.34 9.6.4 General Water Management Practices 9.34 -ii- CHAPTER 10. EFFECTIVENESS OF MAIN PLANS 10.1 10.1 Flood Damage Reduction 10.1 10.2 Maintain Adequate Water Quality 10.3 10.3 Provide Adequate Water Supplies 10.17 10.4 Summary of Plan Costs and Benefits 10.17 10.5 Uncertainty 10.22 10.5.1 Uncertainty in Reducing Flood Damages 10.22 10.5.2 Uncertainty in Maintaining Adequate Water Supply 10.23 10.5.3 Uncertainty in Maintaining Adequate Water Quality 10.25 10.5.4 Summary 10.25 CHAPTER 11. COMPARISON AND EVALUATION OF MAIN PLANS 11.1 11.1 Comparison of Plans 11.1 11.2 Evaluation of Plans by Technical Groups 11.1 11.3 Evaluation of Plans by Public Groups 11.1 11.4 Selection of Preferred Plan 11.4 CHAPTER 12. THE PREFERRED PLAN 12.1 12.1 What the Plan Does 12.1 12.1.1 Reduce Flood Damages 12.1 12.1.2 Provide Adequate Water Supply 12.1 12.1.3 Provide Adequate Water Quality 12.2 12.2 How Much the Plan Costs 12.2 12.3 Flexibility 12.4 CHAPTER 13. IMPLEMENTATION OF WATER MANAGEMENT PLANS BY EXISTING INSTITUTIONS 13.1 13.1 Who Pays for the Plan 13.3 REFERENCES AND TECHNICAL REPORTS 14.1 GLOSSARY 14.6 CONVERSION FACTORS 14.9 APPENDIX A GRAND RIVER IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE MEMBERS AND STUDY ORGANIZATION A.1 -iii- PUBLISHED AS SEPARATE APPENDICES APPENDIX A GRAND RIVER IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE MEMBERS AND STUDY ORGANIZATION APPENDIX B EVALUATION PROCESS TO SELECT MAIN PLANS APPENDIX C TECHNIQUES USED IN ECONOMIC ANALYSIS APPENDIX D SIMULATION MODELS APPENDIX E WATER QUALITY APPENDIX F WATER QUANTITY APPENDIX G GRAND RIVER BASIN STUDY SUB-COMMITTEE MEMBERS -iv- LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page 2.1 Location Map of the Grand River basin 2.2 3.1 Population Projections for the Grand River basin 3.6 4.1 Effects of reservoir operation upon 1977 flood at Cambridge (Galt) 4.2 4.2 Effect of reservoir regulation on 1977 summer 4.2 low flows, Grand River at Cambridge (Galt) 4.3 Effect of flow augmentation upon summer dissolved oxygen levels - 4.3 Grand River at Blair (above confluence of Grand River and Speed River) 4.4 Frequency of summer flows at Doon, Guelph and Brantford 4.4 (minimum 7-day mean flow) 4.5 Ground water yields from bedrock 4.6 4.6 Ground water yields from overburden 4.7 5.1 Sources of municipal water supply 5.1 5.2 Location of municipal sewage treatment plants 5.6 6.1 Flood damage versus probability of exceedance (1979 damages) 6.11 6.2 Communities prone to frequent flooding 6.13 6.3 Aquatic macrophyte distribution and abundance - 1979 6.18 9.1 Water Management Plan A1 9.2 9.2 Water Management Plan B2 9.14 9.3 Water Management Plan C 9.19 9.4 Water Management Plan D 9.23 9.5 Major sub-basins contributing to agricultural non-point source pollution 9.30 10.1 Flood damage reduction cost-effectiveness 10.1 10.2 Location of river reaches modelled by the water quality model 10.4 10.3 Variation in dissolved oxygen levels for the Grand River during the month 10.7 of August, average year conditions (medium population projections) 10.4 Variation in dissolved oxygen levels for the Grand River during the month of 10.8 August, worst year conditions (medium population projections) 10.5 Grand River — Variation in minimum dissolved oxygen levels at Reach 5 in 10.9 the month of August for a medium population projection 10.6 Grand River — Variation in minimum dissolved oxygen water quality 10.10 index with population growth and sewage flow 10.7 Variations in dissolved oxygen levels for the Speed River during the month 10.12 of August, average year (medium population) 10.8 Variations in dissolved oxygen levels for the Speed River during the month of 10.13 August, worst year (medium population) 10.9 Speed River — Variation in minimum dissolved oxygen levels at Reach 7 in 10.15 the month of August, worst year (medium population) 10.10 Speed River — Variation of the dissolved oxygen water quality index with population growth 10.16 10.11 Present value of costs and net benefits of main plans versus 10.21 population projections 11.1 Comparison of main plans for a medium population projection 11.4 A.1 Organization of the Grand River Basin Water Management Study A.3 -v- LIST OF TABLES Table Page 3.1 Past and Projected Urban and Rural 3.7 Population Growth Within the Grand River Basin 5.1 Existing Urban and Rural Water Uses 5.3 5.2 Existing Recreational Water Uses 5.4 5.3 Presence (X) of Common Fish Species in Reaches of the Main Grand River 5.9 5.4 Presence (X) of Common Fish Species in Reaches of the Speed and Eramosa Rivers 5.9 6.1 Additional Municipal Water Supply Necessary 6.2 to Meet Average Day Projected Demand, 2001 and 2031 6.2 Additional Municipal Water Supply Necessary 6.3 to Meet Projected Maximum Day Demand, 2001 and 2031 6.3 Summary of Existing Municipal Water Supplies 6.5 6.4 Estimated Daily Industrial Water Demand from Private Sources of Supply in 6.6 Kitchener, Waterloo, Cambridge and Guelph, 2001 and 2031 6.5 Livestock Water Demand in the Grand River Basin, 1976, 2001 and 2031 6.6 6.6 Estimated Irrigation Water Demand and Supply over Main Irrigation Season 6.7 6.7 Selected Flood Damage Chronology Within the Grand River Watershed 6.9 6.8 Contributing Sources and Seasonal Distribution 6.19 of Phosphorus and Nitrogen Loadings 6.9 Contributing Sources and Seasonal Distribution 6.22 of Suspended Sediment Loadings 7.1 Flood Damage Reduction on the Nith River 7.4 7.2 Municipal Sewage Treatment Costs for Local Areas 7.7 9.1 Costs for Flood Protection Measures Included in Plan A 9.3 9.2 Municipal Sewage Treatment Requirements for Plan A 9.5 9.3 Water Supply Requirements arid Costs for Plan A 9.6 9.3a Total costs of Plans A1 and A2 9.7 9.4 Lands Affected by the Everton Reservoir 9.10 9.4a Total costs of Plan A3 - Everton Reservoir 9.10 9.4b Total costs of Plan A4 9.12 9.5 Costs for Flood Protection Measures Included in Plan B 9.13 9.6 Municipal Sewage Treatment Requirements for Plan B 9.15 9.7 Lands Affected by the Montrose Reservoir (Multi-Purpose) 9.17 9.7a Total cost of Plans B1 and B2 9.17 9.8 Costs for Flood Protection Measures Included in Plan C 9.18 9.9 Lands Affected by St.
Recommended publications
  • What Was the Iroquois Confederacy?

    What Was the Iroquois Confederacy?

    04 AB6 Ch 4.11 4/2/08 11:22 AM Page 82 What was the 4 Iroquois Confederacy? Chapter Focus Questions •What was the social structure of Iroquois society? •What opportunities did people have to participate in decision making? •What were the ideas behind the government of the Iroquois Confederacy? The last chapter explored the government of ancient Athens. This chapter explores another government with deep roots in history: the Iroquois Confederacy. The Iroquois Confederacy formed hundreds of years ago in North America — long before Europeans first arrived here. The structure and principles of its government influenced the government that the United States eventually established. The Confederacy united five, and later six, separate nations. It had clear rules and procedures for making decisions through representatives and consensus. It reflected respect for diversity and a belief in the equality of people. Pause The image on the side of this page represents the Iroquois Confederacy and its five original member nations. It is a symbol as old as the Confederacy itself. Why do you think this symbol is still honoured in Iroquois society? 82 04 AB6 Ch 4.11 4/2/08 11:22 AM Page 83 What are we learning in this chapter? Iroquois versus Haudenosaunee This chapter explores the social structure of Iroquois There are two names for society, which showed particular respect for women and the Iroquois people today: for people of other cultures. Iroquois (ear-o-kwa) and Haudenosaunee It also explores the structure and processes of Iroquois (how-den-o-show-nee). government. Think back to Chapter 3, where you saw how Iroquois is a name that the social structure of ancient Athens determined the way dates from the fur trade people participated in its government.
  • High Returns on Better Water Management for the City of Guelph Greater Lakes Project | March 2015

    High Returns on Better Water Management for the City of Guelph Greater Lakes Project | March 2015

    Reconnecting the Great Lakes Water Cycle High Returns on Better Water Management for the City of Guelph Greater Lakes Project | March 2015 The Great Lakes Commission’s Greater Lakes project explores municipal water conservation/efficiency programs and green infra- structure projects that address human water needs in ways that are more strongly linked to the natural water cycle. This fact sheet presents our analysis of Guelph’s water resources and suggests additional programs and projects that will result in a resilient water system more in sync with nature, making it more economically and environmentally sustainable. Guelph has made major strides in water conservation and efficiency, making it a leader in this field. Nevertheless, our analysis shows that more work can show measurable and significant results, particularly with the use of green infrastructure programs. The Fractured Water Cycle Guelph, just like other municipalities, has been built in a way that disrupted the nat- ural water cycle. Water supply has been withdrawn from the ground or a stream, but is rarely returned to the same place. Once used, water was treated as waste – whether as wastewater or stormwater – to be gotten rid of as quickly as possible through pipes discharging to streams, rivers or the Great Lakes. By moving rainwater away from their homes and businesses as rapidly as possible, the water is prevent- ed from percolating into the ground, where it can restore local water supplies and be available for the ecosystem. The resulting stormwater runoff discharges at exces- sive rates leading to erosion, pollutant transport and downstream flooding. We have now come to realize that restoring the natural hydrology is a cost-effective and sus- tainable approach to addressing these problems.
  • Groundwater – Surface Water Interactions Discrete Fracture Networks of Bedrock Rivers

    Groundwater – Surface Water Interactions Discrete Fracture Networks of Bedrock Rivers

    Groundwater – Surface Water Interactions in the Discrete Fracture Networks of Bedrock Rivers by Celia Sylvia Cassis Kennedy A Thesis presented to the University of Guelph In partial fulfillment of requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Environmental Sciences Guelph, Ontario, Canada Celia Sylvia Cassis Kennedy, June, 2017 Abstract Groundwater – Surface Water Interactions in the Discrete Fracture Networks of Bedrock Rivers Celia Sylvia Cassis Kennedy Advisors: University of Guelph, 2017 Professor Beth Parker Professor Gary Parkin Professor Emmanuelle Arnaud Bedrock rivers exist where surface water flows along an exposed riverbed aquifer, but little is known about their physical and chemical properties. Groundwater and surface water are linked at the streambed interface, leading to shared sustainability issues. The sharing of common pathways into and out of the streambed fracture networks provides opportunity for the exchange of thermal, chemical and biological constituents, affecting water quality and ecosystem health. Alluvial rivers exhibit granular beds and their flow patterns are well understood. Much of our water-resource management decisions are based on alluvial river conceptual models using an equivalent porous media (EPM) approach. Since bedrock rivers are more challenging to instrument, their complex flow patterns have not been addressed in the discrete fracture network (DFN) context, thus, there is a gap in the literature. This is the first study of a bedrock river yielding a field-based conceptual model of the spatio- temporal variability of groundwater fluxes and head differentials between groundwater and surface water in the upper 0.30 m of an intact dolostone streambed. A field site along the Eramosa River, in Guelph, ON, Canada, was developed, where the longitudinally-stepped profile of a bedrock riffle-pool sequence exists within a channel meander.
  • Grand Old Bridges: the Grand River Watershed Bridge Inventory

    Grand Old Bridges: the Grand River Watershed Bridge Inventory

    Grand Old Bridges: The Grand River Watershed Bridge Inventory Report Prepared for the Grand River Conservation Authority by Stephen Robinson and Tracie Seedhouse of Robinson Heritage Consulting Submitted April 6, 2004 Grand Old Bridges: The Grand River Watershed Bridge Inventory Content Section 1 - Introduction 1.1 Background and Purpose of the Grand River Watershed Inventory 1.2 Project Goal 1.3 Scope of the Inventory Section 2 - Methodology 2.1 Bridge Inventory and Evaluation Criteria Models 2.2 Development of Criteria for Heritage Evaluation 2.3 Scoring the Criteria 2.4 Interpretation of the Scoring Results 2.5 Gathering Information 2.6 Response Summary and Missing or Pending Information Section 3 - Creating a Preliminary List of Bridges with Significant Heritage Value Contributing to the Heritage Designation of the Grand, Speed, Eramosa, Conestogo and Nith Rivers 3.1 Presentation Format 3.2 Selection of Bridge Images Section 5 - Improvements, Deterioration or Loss of Bridges with Significant Heritage Value Since 1974 Section 6 - Recommendations Section 7 - Conclusion Grand Old Bridges: The Grand River Watershed Bridge Inventory Report Date: April 6, 2004 Page 2 Appendix A - Grand River Watershed Bridge Inventory A Preliminary List of Bridges with Significant Heritage Value contributing to the Heritage River designation of the Grand, Speed, Eramosa, Conestogo and Nith Rivers Appendix B - Grand River Watershed Bridge Inventory Rating Criteria Checklist Appendix C - Contact Information Grand Old Bridges: The Grand River Watershed Bridge Inventory Report Date: April 6, 2004 Page 3 Section 1 - Introduction With this report the consultant presents a listing of bridges from the Grand River Watershed Bridge Inventory which have significant heritage value and contribute to the Heritage River designation of the Grand, Speed, Eramosa, Conestogo and Nith Rivers.

  • Transforming the Grand River

    The WCA thanks the Ontario Trillium Foundation for their support of this TRANSFORMING ‘War of 1812’ Bicentennial commemorative project. THE GRAND RIVER eography matters. In many ways, the Grand River has determined the course of history for Canada. The geography attracted Aboriginal peoples at the close of the last ice age, and led Gto the emergence of vibrant and complex agrarian aboriginal nations. Following European colonization, the region became strategically important and figured heavily in the various events that shaped modern North America. The early settlements that located along the Grand River Watershed have today become some of Ontario’s major cities and commercial centres. The region’s excellent waterways and the river’s natural capacity to provide power to operate heavy machinery made it an ideal place to locate the centres that would later provide the industrial infrastructure of the Province of Ontario, and serve as a major driver of the Canadian economy. Scan to view this panel ! Just below Brantford, The Grand River opens up into a slow and relatively shallow watercourse used for transporting goods until the 1850’s when the railways were built. Grand River Sunrise " The fast flowing water of the Grand River attracted the first settlers to this area ! The Grand River Watershed and in 1817, Roswell feeds the needs of thousands Matthews built the first house of industries and almost one in what was to become the million citizens. Village of Elora. Incorporated ! The Grand River Watershed today. as the Town of Elora in 1852, Source: Canadian Heritage River Systems website. the town soon became a # Grand River Watershed.
  • Publish Books on Canadian Literature

    Publish Books on Canadian Literature

    Publish books on Canadian literature Three areas of the rapidly emerging Canadian poetry and prose, written by Professor literary scene are represented in a trilogy of Waterston. Although it has been written books written by University of Guelph English with the high school student in mind, Survey professors, Homer Hogan, Elizabeth Waterston can be used as a basis for an entire course in and Eugene Benson. The books comprise the Canadian literature, as an introductory text News Bulletin Methuen Canadian Literature Series of the at the university level, or as a general back­ Methuen publishing company. ground for any Canadian interested in his Each work covers a special segment of our literary history. literary heritage written by a professor with a Each of the twelve chapters deals with a particular interest in that field. Professor particular facet of the Canadian experience, Hogan has assembled a collection of chronologized" as it impinges on the traditional and contemporary poets linked consciousness." Canadian landscape, native UNIVERSITY OF GUELPH with leading Canadian song-writers; a peoples, French Canada and the American Vol. 17 — No, 7 February 15, 1973 historical survey of Canadian literature has presence are some of the topics about which been written by Professor Waterston; Canadians first began to write. while Professor Benson has prepared Included in the text is a unique chronologi­ an anthology on the best short plays written cal chart linking Canadian literary develop­ in English Canada in the last 30 years. ments with historical events and other literary accomplishments throughout the world. In the past, Canadian literature was fre­ Canadian songs and poems quently an "out" subject at most Canadian The first segment of the series which has universities.
  • Rivers at Risk: the Status of Environmental Flows in Canada

    Rivers at Risk: the Status of Environmental Flows in Canada

    Rivers at Risk: The Status of Environmental Flows in Canada Prepared by: Becky Swainson, MA Research Consultant Prepared for: WWF-Canada Freshwater Program Acknowledgements The authors would like to acknowledge the valuable contributions of the river advocates and professionals from across Canada who lent their time and insights to this assessment. Also, special thanks to Brian Richter, Oliver Brandes, Tim Morris, David Schindler, Tom Le Quesne and Allan Locke for their thoughtful reviews. i Rivers at Risk Acronyms BC British Columbia CBM Coalbed methane CEMA Cumulative Effects Management Association COSEWIC Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada CRI Canadian Rivers Institute DFO Fisheries and Oceans Canada EBF Ecosystem base flow IBA Important Bird Area IFN Instream flow needs IJC International Joint Commission IPP Independent Power Producer GRCA Grand River Conservation Authority LWR Low Water Response MOE Ministry of Environment (Ontario) MNR Ministry of Natural Resources (Ontario) MRBB Mackenzie River Basin Board MW Megawatt NB New Brunswick NGO Non-governmental organization NWT Northwest Territories P2FC Phase 2 Framework Committee PTTW Permit to Take Water QC Quebec RAP Remedial Action Plan SSRB South Saskatchewan River Basin UNESCO United Nations Environmental, Scientific and Cultural Organization US United States WCO Water Conservation Objectives ii Rivers at Risk Contents Rivers at Risk: The Status of Environmental Flows in Canada CONTENTS Acknowledgements .......................................................................................................................................
  • City of Guelph Ward to Downtown Bridges Class Environmental Assessment Project File (Schedule B) Gmbp File: 116046-2

    City of Guelph Ward to Downtown Bridges Class Environmental Assessment Project File (Schedule B) Gmbp File: 116046-2

    Prepared By: City of Guelph Ward to Downtown Bridges Class Environmental Assessment Project File (Schedule B) GMBP File: 116046-2 DRAFT (Feb 6 2017) GUELPH | OWEN SOUND | LISTOWEL | KITCHENER | LONDON | HAMILTON | GTA 650 WOODLAWN RD. W., BLOCK C, UNIT 2, GUELPH ON N1K 1B8 P: 519-824-8150 WWW.GMBLUEPLAN.CA CITY OF GUELPH WARD TO DOWNTOWN BRIDGES CLASS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT PROJECT FILE (SCHEDULE B) GMBP FILE: 116046-2 DRAFT (FEB 6 2017) EXECUTIVE SUMMARY I CITY OF GUELPH WARD TO DOWNTOWN BRIDGES CLASS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT PROJECT FILE (SCHEDULE B) GMBP FILE: 116046-2 DRAFT (FEB 6 2017) TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................................................................... 1 2. MUNICIPAL CLASS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT PROCESS ...................................................................... 2 3. PROBLEM / OPPORTUNITY STATEMENT .............................................................................................................. 6 4. EXISTING CONDITIONS ............................................................................................................................................ 7 4.1 Socio-Economic Environment .............................................................................................................................. 7 4.1.1 Land Use ......................................................................................................................................................... 7 4.1.2
  • Canada's Rivers at Risk

    Canada's Rivers at Risk

    Canada’s Rivers at Risk Environmental Flows and Canada’s Freshwater Future Table of Contents ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Canada’s River’s at Risk WWF-Canada acknowledges the valuable Cover page Rivers contributions of the river scientists, advocates, Large photo © Garth Lenz / WWF-Canada Skeena © Mike Ambach / WWF-Canada and managers from across Canada who lent Dam © Ontario Power Generation Mackenzie © Tessa Macintosh / WWF-Canada their time and insights to this report. Special Sunset © Becky Swainson Fraser © Michel Roggo / WWF-Canon 2 Summary thanks to Becky Swainson for synthesizing vast Irrigation © Photodisc Athabasca © Jiri Rezac / WWF-UK volumes of information into the technical study Parliament © Jupiter Images Nipigon © Gord Ellis on which Canada’s Rivers at Risk is based, and Dry earth © Photodisc Grand © GRCA photo by Carl Hiebert 4 Introduction Ottawa © Alex Indigo to Brian Richter, Oliver Brandes, Tim Morris, Table of contents South Saskatchewan © Rob Huntley David Schindler, Tom Le Quesne and Allan Locke © Garth Lenz / WWF-Canada for their thoughtful reviews. WWF-Canada also St. Lawrence © Dave Finger wishes to acknowledge Sarah Weber of Lightning Summary Saint John © Gilbert Van Ryckevorsel / WWF-Canada 6 Environmental Flows: Threats and Impacts © Garth Lenz / WWF-Canada Editorial and the staff at Mystique Creative for Conclusion their work on the final product. Introduction © Garth Lenz / WWF-Canada © Greg Stott / WWF-Canada Finally, WWF-Canada gratefully acknowledges Back cover 8 Skeena River John McCutcheon for his long-standing commit- Environmental Flows © Garth Lenz / WWF-Canada ment to freshwater protection in Canada. We also Large photo © Frank Parhizgar / WWF-Canada thank the Pat and John McCutcheon Charitable Dam © Patricia Buckley / WWF-Canada 10 Mackenzie River Foundation and Ted Hogarth for providing financial Irrigation © Patricia Buckley / WWF-Canada support to this project.
  • Landowner Behaviour in the Upper Thames and Grand River Watersheds: a Study of Factors That May Explain the Conservation Behavio

    Landowner Behaviour in the Upper Thames and Grand River Watersheds: a Study of Factors That May Explain the Conservation Behavio

    Landowner Behaviour in the Upper Thames and Grand River Watersheds: A Study of Factors That May Explain the Conservation Behaviour of Farmers MPA Research Report Submitted to: The Local Government Program Department of Political Science The University of Western Ontario Jeffrey J. Brick July 2013 Executive Summary This study was designed to gain insight into the factors that may explain why some farmers remove conservation lands while other farmers restore conservation lands. The study gathered information from a survey that was administered to rural landowners in the Upper Thames River and Grand River watersheds in southwestern Ontario. The survey was implemented at a time when the agriculture sector appeared to be experiencing significant economic changes and many resources management professionals were expressing concern about the fate of conservation lands through the change process. A literature is included which provides insights into the value of conservation lands and the changing economic conditions in the study area. The policy framework for conservation in the study area is then reviewed and the literature reviews concludes with an in-depth analysis of the research on factors that may affect conservation behaviour. The study does not attempt to establish a link between pressure on conservation lands and changing conditions but instead, using this frame, it explores various factors that may affect a farmer’s decision to remove or restore conservation lands. Eight independent variables that may explain the conservation behaviour of farmers in the study area were assessed. A significant positive correlation was found between property size and net change in conservation land since 2006.
  • East Branch Weir Removal Project – Eramosa River Ecoaction Community Funding Grant Application

    East Branch Weir Removal Project – Eramosa River Ecoaction Community Funding Grant Application

    379 Ronka Road Worthington, ON P0M3H0 [email protected] OntarioRiversAlliance.ca 27 February 2020 Environment and Climate Change Canada EcoAction Community Funding Grant 4905 Dufferin Street Toronto, Ontario M3H 5T4 Re: East Branch Weir Removal Project – Eramosa River EcoAction Community Funding Grant Application To Whom It May Concern, The Ontario Rivers Alliance (ORA) is a Not-for-Profit grassroots organization with a mission to protect, conserve and restore Ontario riverine ecosystems, and to ensure that development affecting Ontario rivers is environmentally and socially sustainable and responsible. The ORA is pleased to support the Eden Mills Eramosa River Conservation Association (EMERCA) application for an EcoAction Community Funding Grant for the East Branch Weir Removal Project on the Eramosa River in Eden Mills, Ontario. This Project includes the removal of an existing steel control structure at the top of the East Channel of the Eramosa River, and the naturalization and remediation of this section of the River. Removing the weir would expand the coldwater fishery, increase flows and build resilience to the effects of a warming climate. Weirs change the basic hydrological characteristics of streams by reducing flow velocity and subsequent changes in temperature, turbidity, and water quality. These changes can negatively affect native species of fish and other aquatic life. Climate change is expected to amplify these negative effects (e.g. protracted low-flow regimes, elevated water temperature). This Project will
  • Position on Reclamation

    Position on Reclamation

    Haudenosaunee at Kahnawà:ke stand by Reclamation occupation at Caledonia For Immediate Release Mohawk Nation at Kahnawake – Onerahtókha/April 30, 2006 The Haudenosaunee at Kahnawake offer greetings and thanksgiving. On April 20, 2006, at approximately 4:30am; the Ontario Provincial Police launched a violent attack upon occupants of the repatriated Haudeno- saunee Territory at Caledonia. The occupants there were unarmed and peaceful. This unnecessary and insensitive measure to use violence is deplorable and intolerable, and is reminiscent of the brutal force used against our people during the events at Ipperwash in 1995, Kanehsatake in 1990, and Grand River in 1924 when the RCMP removed the traditional Haudenosaunee Confederacy Council by force of arms. The Haudenosaunee at Kahnawake desire a peaceful resolve to this issue and implore the Governments of Canada and Ontario not to employ any further acts of violence or aggression upon our people. We feel that this is the best way to ensure the safety and security of everyone in the area. The Haudenosaunee at Kahnawake would like to also take this opportunity to announce its full support for the reclamation occupation at Caledonia. Moreover, the Haudenosaunee at Kahnawake standby the Haudenosaunee Confederacy Council at Grand River as the legitimate governing authority of Oshwé:ken. It must be made clear that only through talks with the Haudenosaunee Six Nation Iroquois Confederacy can the wrongs of the past be made right. The Haudenosaunee at Kahnawake call upon other Haudenosaunee nations and territories as well as Indigenous Peoples throughout the world; to stand in solidarity with the people of Grand River throughout this reclamation occupation.