Figure 1 Muskoka Study Area Figure 2 Physiography and Quarternary Geology Figure 3 Muskoka Watersheds Figure 4 Gravenhurst Natural Features Figure 5 Bracebridge Natural Features Figure 6 Huntsville Natural Features Figure 7 Georgian Bay Natural Features Figure 8 Lake of Bays Natural Features Figure 9 Muskoka Lakes Natural Features

M:\PROJECTS\DRAFT\03\032633\Reports\Problem Identification\Waste Quantities and Existing Environment Draft June'05.doc Draft - June 2005 Page i

Long Range Solid Waste Management Plan Environmental Assessment Waste Quantity Projections and Existing Environment Profile

1.0 INTRODUCTION

The District of Muskoka (Muskoka) is preparing a Long Range Solid Waste Management Plan to determine the preferred way to meet the waste management needs of the community until at least 2035. The plan will consider opportunities for both waste diversion and waste disposal.

In the Fall of 2004, an Environmental Assessment (EA) Terms of Reference was prepared documenting the planning process required to obtain EA approval for the disposal component of the solid waste management plan. The EA Terms of Reference were approved in January 2005.

Two of the initial steps in Muskoka’s EA are to 1) describe the waste management problem/opportunity, ie. need for additional waste disposal capacity, and 2) profile the existing environment potentially affected by the proposed undertaking. This report documents both steps.

2.0 WASTE QUANTITIES PROJECTIONS

In order to determine the future waste quantities requiring handling by Muskoka, a number of factors have to be taken into consideration and include:

• population projections; • waste generation rates; and • diversion rates.

The following sections provide additional information on each.

2.1 Population Projections

Muskoka retained Marshall Macklin Monaghan (MMM) to prepare a twenty year permanent population projection based on the 2001 census data.1

The report prepared by MMM concluded that the permanent population is expected to increase by approximately 5,500 people by 2021. This represents an increase of approximately 10.4% or, on an annual basis, just over 0.5%. The report outlined that the growth rate is less than previous projections but is reflective of general trends in current demographic profiles, declining birth rates and migration in rural Ontario.

1 District Municipality of Muskoka, Permanent Population Projections 2001 – 2021, April 2004, Marshall Macklin Monaghan Draft - June 2005 Page 1 Long Range Solid Waste Management Plan Environmental Assessment Waste Quantity Projections and Existing Environment Profile

For the purpose of the EA, the projections for 2001 to 2021 developed by MMM were used. A population increase of 0.5% per year was used beyond 2021 to project the population to 2035. The population projections to 2035 are shown in Table 2.1.

TABLE 2.1 DISTRICT OF MUSKOKA MUNICIPALITIES PERMANENT POPULATION PROJECTIONS 2001 2006 2011 2016 2021 2026 2031 2035 Bracebridge 13,751 14,312 14,767 14,984 15,228 15,629 16,040 16,376 Georgian Bay 2,176 2,176 2,176 2,177 2,177 2,234 2,293 2,341 Gravenhurst 10,899 11,248 11,529 11,662 11,811 12,122 12,440 12,702 Huntsville 17,338 18,268 19,032 19,398 19,813 20,334 20,689 21,307 Lake of Bays 2,900 2,946 2,983 3,000 3,020 3,099 3,181 3,248 Muskoka Lakes 6,042 6,250 5,417 6,4997 6,586 6,759 6,937 7.083 District of 53,106 55,200 56,905 57,719 58,635 60,177 61,760 63,056 Muskoka

Based on these projections, it is anticipated that the permanent population in Muskoka will increase to 63,056 by 2035.

Muskoka also has a significant seasonal population which has been estimated at 100,000 persons. The significant seasonal population spikes will be accounted for in the waste generation rates. The waste generation rates are based on the entire year and account for the spikes in population during the recreational season.

2. Waste Generation Rates

Three different waste streams are handled by Muskoka and include:

• residential; • IC&I; and • biosolids.

In order to project future generation rates, each has to be dealt with separately. Each stream is discussed in greater detail below.

Residential Waste Stream

The total residential waste handled by Muskoka between 2001 and 2004 is summarized in Table 2.2.

Draft - June 2005 Page 2 Long Range Solid Waste Management Plan Environmental Assessment Waste Quantity Projections and Existing Environment Profile

TABLE 2.2 RESIDENTIAL WASTE GENERATION RATES 2001 2002 2003 2004

Waste Landfilled 16,821 17,809 19,087 23,607 (tonnes) Waste Diverted (tonnes) 11,561 8,532 11,068 9,740 Total Waste (tonnes) 28,382 26,341 30,154 33,347 Permanent Population 53,106 53,525 53,944 54,363 kg/person/year 534 492 559 613

The per capita residential waste generation rate over the past four years has ranged from 492 to 613 kg/person/year. The average generation rate over the past four years is 550 kg/person/year, although it has been on an upward trend since 2002.

For the purpose of projecting the residential waste stream, the generation rate of 600 kg/person/year will be used. It is 9% above the Muskoka average for the last four years and comparable to the 2002 generation rate in Ontario based on Statistics Canada survey data as discussed below. This residential generation rate uses the yearly totals and therefore takes into consideration the seasonal influx of residents during the recreational season.

According to a Statistics Canada survey in 2002, the residential waste generation rate in Ontario was 363 kg/person/year. This is lower than Muskoka’s generation rate because it does not account for the seasonal population. The seasonal population for Muskoka is estimated at 100,000 persons; if we assume that on average each person spends approximately four months in Muskoka, the equivalent permanent population would be 33,000, for an average total population in Muskoka of 86,500 over the past four years, or 1.62 times the permanent population. If we add this seasonal population factor to the Stats Can residential rate we get 588 kg/person/year, which is comparable to the Muskoka generation rate of 600 kg/person/year.

IC&I Waste Stream

The total IC&I waste handled by Muskoka between 2001 and 2004 is summarized in Table 2.3.

Draft - June 2005 Page 3 Long Range Solid Waste Management Plan Environmental Assessment Waste Quantity Projections and Existing Environment Profile

TABLE 2.3 IC&I WASTE DISPOSAL RATES 2001 2002 2003 2004

Waste Landfilled 17,115 15,201 17,523 20,535 (tonnes) Permanent Population 53,106 53,525 53,944 54,363 kg/person/year 322 284 325 378

In addition to the above IC&I waste, other IC&I waste is being exported out of Muskoka each year. Muskoka has no control over this waste and therefore cannot predict if it will return to local landfills. The IC&I waste disposal rate has been on an upward trend since 2002.

According to the Statistics Canada survey, in 2002 in Ontario 6.2 million tonnes of IC&I and C&D waste was disposed (after diversion of 1.44 million tonnes, or approximately 19%); this is equivalent to a disposal rate of 513 kg/person/year, much higher than the disposal rates in Muskoka over the past four years, the difference likely being exported out of the District.

Therefore, the disposal rate to be used for the IC&I sector is 500 kg/person/year beginning in 2006.

Biosolids

The total amount of biosolids landfilled by Muskoka between 2001 and 2004 is summarized in Table 2.4.

TABLE 2.4 BIOSOLIDS GENERATION RATES 2001 2002 2003 2004

Biosolids Landfilled 3,028 4,418 4,178 4,100 (tonnes) Permanent Population 53,106 53,525 53,944 54,363 kg/person/year 57 83 77 75

In addition to this tonnage, there is currently 2,000 to 3,000 tonnes being land applied each year by Muskoka. It is anticipated that this material may eventually have to be landfilled. Therefore, an additional 2,000 tonnes is being added to the amount landfilled

Draft - June 2005 Page 4 Long Range Solid Waste Management Plan Environmental Assessment Waste Quantity Projections and Existing Environment Profile by 2006. The generation rate for biosolids will be 115 kg/person/year beginning in 2006.

2.3 Diversion Rates

As with waste generation rates, diversion rates for the three streams have to be identified separately. Each is discussed in greater detail below.

Residential Diversion Rate

The Minister of the Environment has announced a 60% diversion rate from disposal by 2008 for the Province of Ontario. In the MOE’s June 2004 Discussion Paper, it is outlined that mandatory diversion targets for municipalities could be phased in. The approach proposed is as follows:

• largest municipalities with populations over 250,000 could have a waste diversion target rate of 60% by 2008; • medium sized municipalities with populations over 50,000 and less than 250,000 could be given a lower interim waste diversion target, achieving 60% diversion over a longer period of time.2

For waste projections, we have assumed a residential target of 60% by 2008. This will be further defined in the Diversion Plan prepared as part of the Long-Range Waste Management Plan.

IC&I Sector

Muskoka does not have control over the IC&I sector. Assuming the Ministry of the Environment enforces the current recycling regulations and the sector begins more aggressive diversion programs, it is anticipated that a 20% reduction in the amount of waste generated in Muskoka for disposal may be realized by 2008. The diversion rate ignores the potential for IC&I waste to be exported outside of Muskoka.

Biosolids Disposal

Muskoka has initiated a biosolids composting feasibility study. The results of this study will determine the feasibility of this material being diverted from the waste stream. For waste projections, it is assumed all the material will go to disposal over the planning period.

2 Ontario’s 60% Waste Diversion Goal Discussion Paper, Ministry of the Environment, June 10, 2004. Draft - June 2005 Page 5 Long Range Solid Waste Management Plan Environmental Assessment Waste Quantity Projections and Existing Environment Profile

2.4 Waste Generation

Table 2.5 outlines the weight of waste generated, diversion rate, quantity diverted and residual for the years 2002 to 2035 for the three sectors. Also included in the table is the remaining disposal capacity in tonnes as reported in 20033.

Based on the assumptions used for these projections, Muskoka would run out of disposal capacity at the end of 2014.

Based on the projections, Muskoka would require residual disposal capacity of approximately 950,000 tonnes to 2035.

2.5 Summary The following conclusions are provided for this section:

• it is anticipated that the permanent population in Muskoka will increase to 63,056 by 2035; • a residential waste generation factor of 600 kg/person/year would be used in the projections; • an IC&I waste disposal factor of 500 kg/person/year would be used in the projections; • a biosolids generation factor of 115 kg/person/year would be used in the projections; • Muskoka could be out of disposal capacity by the end of 2014; • Muskoka requires approximately 950,000 tonnes of residual capacity to 2035.

3 District Municipality of Muskoka Gravenhurst Landfill, Rosewarne Landfill and Stisted Landfill Operation & Development Reports for 2003, Pinestone Engineering Ltd. Draft - June 2005 Page 6 Table 2.5 District Municipality of Muskoka Waste Generation and Remaining Disposal Capacity

Residential Residential IC & I IC & I Sludge Sludge Total Total Remaining Disposal Year Population Waste Generation Diversion Rate Waste Generation Diversion Rate Generation Diversion Rate Diverted Residual Capacity (tonnes) (%) (tonnes) (%) (tonnes) (%) (tonnes) (tonnes) (tonnes) 2001 557,370 2002* 53,525 26,341 32 15,201 0 4,418 0 8,532 37,428 519,942 2003* 53,944 30,154 36 17,523 0 4,178 0 11,068 40,787 492,952 2004* 54,362 33,347 33 20,535 0 4,100 0 9,740 48,242 444,710 2005 54,781 32,869 40 24,000 5 4,200 0 14,347 46,721 397,989 2006 55,200 33,120 45 27,600 10 6,348 0 17,664 48,756 349,233 2007 55,541 33,325 50 27,771 15 6,387 0 20,828 46,654 302,578 2008 55,882 33,529 55 27,941 20 6,426 0 24,029 43,867 258,711 2009 56,223 33,734 60 28,112 20 6,466 0 25,863 42,448 216,263 2010 56,564 33,938 60 28,282 20 6,505 0 26,019 42,706 173,557 2011 56,905 34,143 60 28,453 20 6,544 0 26,176 42,963 130,594 2012 57,068 34,241 60 28,534 20 6,563 0 26,251 43,086 87,507 2013 57,230 34,338 60 28,615 20 6,581 0 26,326 43,209 44,299 2014 57,393 34,436 60 28,697 20 6,600 0 26,401 43,332 967 2015 57,555 34,533 60 28,778 20 6,619 0 26,475 43,454 -42,487 2016 57,718 34,631 60 28,859 20 6,638 0 26,550 43,577 -86,064 2017 57,901 34,741 60 28,951 20 6,659 0 26,634 43,715 -129,780 2018 58,085 34,851 60 29,043 20 6,680 0 26,719 43,854 -173,634 2019 58,268 34,961 60 29,134 20 6,701 0 26,803 43,992 -217,626 2020 58,452 35,071 60 29,226 20 6,722 0 26,888 44,131 -261,757 2021 58,635 35,181 60 29,318 20 6,743 0 26,972 44,269 -306,027 2022 58,940 35,364 60 29,470 20 6,778 0 27,112 44,500 -350,526 2023 59,247 35,548 60 29,624 20 6,813 0 27,254 44,731 -395,258 2024 59,555 35,733 60 29,778 20 6,849 0 27,395 44,964 -440,222 2025 59,865 35,919 60 29,933 20 6,884 0 27,538 45,198 -485,420 2026 60,177 36,106 60 30,089 20 6,920 0 27,681 45,434 -530,854 2027 60,490 36,294 60 30,245 20 6,956 0 27,825 45,670 -576,524 2028 60,805 36,483 60 30,403 20 6,993 0 27,970 45,908 -622,431 2029 61,122 36,673 60 30,561 20 7,029 0 28,116 46,147 -668,578 2030 61,440 36,864 60 30,720 20 7,066 0 28,262 46,387 -714,966 2031 61,760 37,056 60 30,880 20 7,102 0 28,410 46,629 -761,594 2032 62,081 37,249 60 31,041 20 7,139 0 28,557 46,871 -808,466 2033 62,404 37,442 60 31,202 20 7,176 0 28,706 47,115 -855,581 2034 62,729 37,637 60 31,365 20 7,214 0 28,855 47,360 -902,941 2035 63,056 37,834 60 31,528 20 7,251 0 29,006 47,607 -950,548

* Waste generation and diversion tonnages shown for 2002, 2003, 2004 are actual values; 2003 and 2004 diversion rates are three year averages.

Assumptions: residential waste generation rate = 600 kg/person/year IC & I waste disposal rate = 500 kg/person/year biosolids generation rate = 115 kg/person/year placed waste density = 690 kg/m3

June 2005 Long Range Solid Waste Management Plan Environmental Assessment Waste Quantity Projections and Existing Environment Profile

3.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE MUSKOKA ENVIRONMENT

The purpose of this section is to provide a general overview of the District of Muskoka environment which could potentially be affected by the undertaking.

The study area for this EA is all of Muskoka, shown in Figure 1: Muskoka Study Area, which includes the Town of Gravenhurst, Town of Bracebridge, Town of Huntsville, Township of Lake of Bays, Township of Georgian Bay, and the Township of Muskoka Lakes.

Located in central Ontario, Muskoka is approximately 381,619 hectares (3,816 km2) in area. The municipality is bounded by Georgian Bay to the west, Algonquin Park and Haliburton County on the east, County of Simcoe and City of Kawartha Lakes to the south and the District of Parry Sound to the north. Muskoka is approximately 120 km north of the Greater Toronto Area (GTA).

Muskoka is a well-known recreational destination; during the summer months the population almost triples from 53,106 to an estimated 143,5964.

3.1 Muskoka Overall Characteristics

NATURAL ENVIRONMENT

Geology/Hydrogeology The District of Muskoka falls within three physiographic regions: the Highway 11 Strip, the Georgian Bay Fringe and the Algonquin Highlands (Chapman & Putnam, 1984), as shown on Figure 2. Muskoka is mostly located on the Canadian Shield, which is not particularly conducive to farming or forestry. The mostly granite bedrock is usually overlaid by vast areas of shallow soils punctuated by massive bedrock outcrops.

The Highway 11 Strip runs from Gravenhurst to North Bay along a corridor of sand, silt and clay deposits left behind by the glacial Lake Algonquin. Along the corridor, the soils are mostly of a permeable sand nature. Deeper soils can also be found in this area – a result of an esker that ran from Bonfield to near Gravenhurst.

The Georgian Bay Fringe encompasses the area to the west of the Highway 11 Strip bordering Georgian Bay, as well as a portion south of Bracebridge on the east side of

4 Source for 2001 permanent population: Statistics Canada 2001. Source for 2001 estimated total (permanent and non-permanent population) Marshall Macklin Monaghan, The District Municipality of Muskoka 1996-2016 Population Projections, December 1997.

Draft - June 2005 Page 8 Long Range Solid Waste Management Plan Environmental Assessment Waste Quantity Projections and Existing Environment Profile

Highway 11. This area represents the majority of the Muskoka region and is characterized by very shallow soil and bare rocky outcrops.

The Algonquin Highlands are also covered in a thick layer of soil, however, variations in soil depth vary greatly in the area, and the region is generally more hilly and rugged. The soil is also more stony, sandy and acidic.

The larger urban centres (e.g., Huntsville, Bracebridge, etc.) derive the majority of their drinking water from lake-based systems, and this water is treated and distributed to the population within the urban area. Residents who live outside the area serviced by the towns generally utilize groundwater (i.e. wells) as a source of potable supply. The municipal systems of: Huntsville, Bracebridge, Gravenhurst, Port Carling, Bala, MacTier, and Port Severn, are lake-based surface water systems. There is a small municipal well-based system that services a subdivision in Port Sydney.5

Groundwater is obtained from two primary sources in the Muskoka area: overburden and bedrock. Overburden supplies are relatively localized and occur where a sufficient thickness of overburden is present to sustain a viable aquifer. These areas are usually associated with glacial deposits such as eskers, kames, glacio-fluvial deposits, etc. Typically these are coarser grained, consisting of sand and gravel, and are capable of producing a sufficient amount of water for small-scale residential/domestic use. In areas where coarse grained overburden materials are either not present or present but only in thin layers, bedrock is used for groundwater supply. The area is located on the Canadian Shield which is composed of a mix of igneous and metamorphic rocks including granites and gneisses. These rocks form aquifers when a sufficient amount of fracturing is present, and the fractures are connected sufficiently well to permit the transmission of water through the rock. These areas are normally associated with weathered rock, where exposure has enhanced the fracture system through weathering mechanisms. The fractures in the bedrock can also be enhanced to produce greater quantities of water through a process known as hydro-fracturing, where pressure is used to “open-up” the fractures. These types of wells also typically produce sufficient water for small-scale residential/domestic uses.

Groundwater quality in the area is highly variable and is usually dependent on the type of aquifer (i.e., overburden or bedrock). Overburden supplies are typically of higher quality, consisting of waters with chemical qualities indicative of fresher recharge (i.e., enriched in calcium, bi-carbonate, etc). Bedrock water is typical of ‘older’ water in which chemical evolution has occurred to a more sulphate rich state. Bedrock waters can also be high in elements such as iron and manganese, to the point where some form of on- site treatment is required to make the supply aesthetically acceptable for consumption.

5 Mary Lou Brown, Drinking Water Inspector for the district, May 20, 2005. Draft - June 2005 Page 9 Long Range Solid Waste Management Plan Environmental Assessment Waste Quantity Projections and Existing Environment Profile

Surface Water Several watersheds are located within the Muskoka area as shown in Figure 3. These watersheds include the Lake Muskoka watershed, the Black River watershed, the Georgian Bay watershed, and the Severn River watershed. The headwaters of the Muskoka River, the main watershed in Muskoka, arise on the western slopes of Algonquin Park. The entire watershed area represents 466,000 hectares, over 17% of which is covered by lakes. Within this watershed, Indian River is the largest tributary to Lake Muskoka, flowing out of Lake Rosseau (Muskoka River Watershed Council, 2005). Flooding occurs along Muskoka River due to the shallow soil characteristics of the Canadian Shield and the corresponding low rate of absorption resulting in significant runoff.

There are more than 2,000 lakes scattered throughout Muskoka, notably including Lake Muskoka, Lake Rosseau, Lake Joseph, Three Mile Lake, Lake of Bays, Vernon Lake, Fairy Lake, Mary Lake, Six Mile Lake and Peninsula Lake. Several of these lakes are deep and support cold water fisheries. In addition, Muskoka’s western border follows the Georgian Bay shoreline from Honey Harbour to Manitou Dock (west of Moon River).

It is the policy of the District Municipality of Muskoka that all development within urban areas is connected to full municipal services, including municipal water supply and sanitary sewage. Private lots outside of the urban areas are responsible for potable water supply and sanitary sewage disposal. Water supply is either from surface water or groundwater (wells). The District is responsible for monitoring water quality in the watersheds within Muskoka. The Muskoka Recreational Water Quality Monitoring Program monitors approximately 150 lakes on a rotational basis. The objectives of the program are to raise awareness about water quality, establish water quality trends and provide information for better management of water quality. In addition, the Official Plan of the Muskoka District Area (Muskoka Official Plan) identifies water quality objectives for all lakes as part of a monitoring system to maintain existing trophic states in the lakes. The system monitors and predicts chlorophyll levels based on the current level of development. When a lake reaches its chlorophyll limit, further development will not be permitted.

Biology Muskoka has a diverse range of wildlife, including over 250 birds, 50 mammals, 25 reptiles and amphibians, and a variety of fish and plant species. Rare species include five lined skink, Massassauga rattle snake, Hognose snake and 65 rare breeding birds of which 6 are nationally rare species (Least Bittern, Cooper’s Hawk, Red-shouldered Hawk, Caspian Tern, Eastern Bluebird and Prairie Warbler). Muskoka also boasts the richest diversity of herptiles in the provinces (Muskoka Heritage Council, 2005).

Red oak, jack pine, hemlock and hardwoods (including hard maple, beech, basswood, white birch, popular and yellow birch) can all grow in the predominantly shallow soil. Sugar maple, yellow birch, white pines, hemlock and balsam fir can be found growing in the deeper soils. White, red and jack pines, and white spruce grow in the sandy and Draft - June 2005 Page 10 Long Range Solid Waste Management Plan Environmental Assessment Waste Quantity Projections and Existing Environment Profile gravely soils. Black spruce and white cedar can be found in the swamps and bogs. As a result of the large number of sugar maple, Muskoka is a major maple syrup production area.

In the upper Muskoka River watershed, most lakes and streams are cold water, supporting lake trout and brook trout. Throughout Muskoka, the larger lakes are generally deep (50+m) and cold, supporting lake trout and whitefish. Rainbow trout, brown trout and small mouthed bass are known to have been stocked in a number of lakes. In the lower Muskoka River watershed and Severn-Black River watershed, lakes support cool water habitat such as walleye, northern pike, muskellunge, smallmouth bass, yellow perch and pan fish such as black crappie, pumpkinseed, bluegill and rock bass. Important fish spawning areas are located below rapids and dams and along shorelines.

Muskoka’s Heritage Areas are those areas that “on a local, district, provincial or federal scale, exhibit entities of historic, geologic, archaeological, scenic or other heritage value (such as biologic)” (Office Consolidation of the Official Plan of the Muskoka Planning Area, 2004). Based on an extensive survey carried out in the early 1990’s, the District identified 68 sites representing six percent of the land base of Muskoka as Heritage Areas or Sites, with “the goal of protecting them from any future development that may negatively impact or harm their heritage values”. All sites fall in one of the following categories: wetlands (23), barrens (3), rivers (6), biogeographical and geological features.

Figures 4 to 9 show the significant natural features in each of the local municipalities, including the locations of areas of natural and scientific interest (ANSI), wetlands, fish spawning areas, bird nesting sites and parks/wildlife reserves. These maps are based on information from the Ministry of Natural Resources and the District of Muskoka.

SOCIAL-CULTURAL ENVIRONMENT

Archaeology and Cultural Heritage Prior to arrival of European settlers, Muskoka was inhabited by First Nations for over 5,000 years. Algonquins were the first to locate in the area, followed by Iroquois and Ojibway. There are two distinct aboriginal groups residing in Muskoka: the Wahta Mohawks and the Moose Deer Point First Nations.

In 1881 a group of Wahta Mohawks were relocated from Oka, Quebec to Muskoka due to a land ownership dispute with the Seminary of St. Sulpice. In 1881, the Government of Canada agreed to purchase land from the District of Muskoka to establish a 10,000 hectare reserve. A dispute between the provincial and the federal governments resulted in 4,000 hectares being returned to the province in 1918 without the consent of the Wahta Mohawks. After years of negotiations, a settlement was reached in 1993 in which the Wahta Mohawks received financial compensation plus 3,300 hectares of Draft - June 2005 Page 11 Long Range Solid Waste Management Plan Environmental Assessment Waste Quantity Projections and Existing Environment Profile

provincial Crown land. The Wahta Mohawk First Nation currently occupy two reserves on a total of 5,991 hectares. Gibson Reserve is located in the Township of Muskoka Lakes near the town of Bala. The Mohawks of Gibson and the Chippewas of Rama jointly own the Indian River Reserve, approximately 1 hectare (2.5 acres) of land located in the village of Port Carling. Approximately 127 aboriginal people live on both reserves (Indian and Northern Affairs Canada, 2005).

Beginning in the 1960’s, the Wahta Mohawks began to grow cranberries commercially on the Gibson Reserve – cranberries being an important traditional food. The farm is fully owned and operated by the Wahta Mohawk and is Ontario’s largest cranberry farm (near Bala on Muskoka Road 38 just off of Highway 400).

The Pottawatomi of Moose Deer Point First Nation have lived for over 150 years along Georgian Bay in the western part of Muskoka. Moose Deer Point Reserve is located in three parcels of land along Georgian Bay, north of Twelve Mile Bay, approximately 51 kilometres west of Bracebridge (total area of 250 hectares). Approximately 132 people currently live on the reserve6.

European settlers were drawn to the Muskoka area in the mid to late 1800’s because of the emerging timber industry. The timber industry reached a peak in 1865, and was gradually replaced with tourism as the main economic activity. As a result of the introduction of steamship navigation in the 1860’s and the high accessibility of the area by rail from the US and Southern Ontario, Muskoka became (and is this day) a very popular recreational area, particularly during the summer months.

The District Official Plan addresses significant heritage areas by identifying areas and sites with significant historical, geological, scenic, archaeological and biological features. Guidelines for preserving important areas and sites are specified in the plan. With respect to historical features, the Official Plan provides a list of historically significant buildings and structures. Furthermore, the Plan states that “development should not be encouraged where it would adversely affect historic buildings and structures”. The list of historic buildings and structures is presented in Table 3.1.

6 Moose Deer Point First Nations, www.moosedeerpoint.com, 2005, United Anishnaabeg Councils, www.uac.org, 2005. Draft - June 2005 Page 12 Long Range Solid Waste Management Plan Environmental Assessment Waste Quantity Projections and Existing Environment Profile

Table 3.1: Historically Significant Buildings and Structures

Historic Feature Municipality Significance Woodchester Villa Bracebridge Provincial (Des) Old Post Office Bracebridge Local (Des) Birds Mill Pump House Bracebridge Local (Des) Anglican Church Bracebridge Local (Des) Library Bracebridge Local (Des) Big Chute Georgian Bay Provincial Bethune House Gravenhurst National RMS Segwun Gravenhurst Provincial Opera House Gravenhurst Regional (Des) Train Station Gravenhurst Regional (Des) Albion Hotel Gravenhurst Local (Des) Library Gravenhurst Local (Des) Augustine House Gravenhurst. Local (Des) Severn River Inn Gravenhurst Local (Des) Muskoka Centre Gazebo Gravenhurst Provincial Fire College Gravenhurst Provincial Post Office Gravenhurst Local Gilmour Hotel Gravenhurst Local Fire College - Scott Hall Gravenhurst Provincial Knox Presbyterian Church Gravenhurst Regional The Locks Huntsville Regional Hart House Huntsville Local (Des) Proudfoot House Huntsville Local (Des) Town Hall Huntsville Local (Des) Howland House Huntsville Local (Des) The Forester Huntsville Local (Des) Christ Church (Ang.) Huntsville Local (Des) Butcher Rumney House Huntsville Local (Des) Former Bandshell Huntsville Local (Des) Stisted Agricultural Society Building Huntsville Local (Des) Madill Church Huntsville Local Dyer Memorial Huntsville Local CNR Station Huntsville Local (Des) Muskoka Pioneer Village Huntsville Regional The Canal (between Fairy and Peninsula Lake) Huntsville Local Source: Appendix G: Office Consolidation of the Official Plan of the Muskoka Planning Area, May 18, 2004.

In addition, an Archaeology Master Plan for Muskoka was created in 1994 by the Ministry of Culture that identifies archaeological sites. The plan is not available to the

Draft - June 2005 Page 13 Long Range Solid Waste Management Plan Environmental Assessment Waste Quantity Projections and Existing Environment Profile

public; however, it is referred to while processing development applications. If there are any conflicts, the issue is deferred to the Ministry of Culture.

Socio-Cultural Muskoka is located north of the Greater Toronto Area. Distance from Toronto is approximately 160 kilometres to Gravenhurst, 175 kilometres to Bracebridge and 210 kilometres to Huntsville. The three largest municipalities are Huntsville (permanent population: 7,338), Bracebridge (13,751) and Gravenhurst (10,899). During the summer months, the permanent population of just over 53,000 almost triples to 143,596 (see Table 3.2). The permanent population is expected to rise to 58,762 by 2021, as shown in Table 3.3 (Muskoka Economic Profile, District Municipality of Muskoka, 7 October 2004) .

Table 3.2: Muskoka Population (Statistics Canada, 2001)

Municipality Permanent Population Estimated Seasonal Households Bracebridge 13,751 2,144 Georgian Bay 2,1761 4,255 Gravenhurst 10,899 3,320 Huntsville 17,338 2,082 Lake of Bays 2,900 3,274 Muskoka Lakes 6,042 6,983 Muskoka 53,106 22,058 Notes: 1Does not include the Wahta Mohawk Territory but does include Moose Deer Point First Nation.

Source: Statistics Canada Census data (2001) as reported in Muskoka Demographic Profile, District Municipality of Muskoka, October 2004.

7 It is noted that the population projections include the population of the Moose Deer Point First Nation, whereas population projections used to determine waste quantities projections do not. Draft - June 2005 Page 14 Long Range Solid Waste Management Plan Environmental Assessment Waste Quantity Projections and Existing Environment Profile

Table 3.3: Estimated Permanent Population Projections 2006-2021

Source: Muskoka Demographic Profile, District Municipality of Muskoka, October 2004.

The six lower tier municipalities include a number of smaller towns and villages that are scattered throughout, ranging in population from 2,000 to less than 100. 2005 Seasonal Population estimates are not yet available.

Official Plans The most recent version of The Official Plan is the Office Consolidation of the Official Plan of the Muskoka Planning Area dated May 18, 2004. An update of the Official Plan is currently underway.

The Official Plan sets the overall directions for growth in Muskoka and includes policies to achieve the desired growth pattern. In addition, the plan coordinates activities with the six lower tier municipalities and provides a framework for more detailed planning.

The policies of the plan are based on the following principles:

• The forested landscape of Muskoka will be protected; • Development will be based on the principle of a carrying capacity to ensure that the quality of the environment is maintained; • Tourism and recreational opportunities will be enhanced; • Improvement to services that support economic development will be promoted; and, • Urban-type development will occur in serviced urban areas.

Draft - June 2005 Page 15 Long Range Solid Waste Management Plan Environmental Assessment Waste Quantity Projections and Existing Environment Profile

The focus of future development in Muskoka is within the designated urban centres. These centres include the major towns in Muskoka – Bracebridge, Gravenhurst and Huntsville as well as Hidden Valley (Huntsville), Baysville (Lake of Bays), Bala (Muskoka Lakes), MacTier (Georgian Bay), Port Carling (Muskoka Lakes), and Port Severn (Georgian Bay) (Muskoka Economic, Community and Demographic Profile, October 2004).

All of the Lower Tier municipalities have Official Plans which they are required to update every five years. The following summarizes the status of the local Official Plans:

• Huntsville – The current Huntsville Official Plan is dated 1996. An Official Plan review is scheduled to finish this fall. • Bracebridge – The current Bracebridge Official Plan is dated 2005. • Gravenhurst – The current Gravenhurst Official Plan is dated 1989. An Official Plan review has been initiated. • Lake of Bays – The current Lake of Bays Official Plan is dated 1999. The municipality has no plans for an Official Plan review. • Muskoka Lakes – An Official Plan review is currently underway. • Georgian Bay – The current Official Plan is dated 1999. Georgian Bay plans to begin an Official Plan review next year.

Land Use Muskoka covers 381,619 ha, 31% of which is Crown land (excluding lakebeds). Outside of the urban boundaries land is generally identified as rural.

Permitted uses in the rural areas include resource management, wildlife management, recreation and low density development areas. The majority of the rural areas are forested. Agriculture is clustered along the Highway 11 corridor. Industrial areas are located throughout the District on serviced and unserviced land. Most properties are located in industrial and commercial parks, on the edge of urban areas with excellent highway access.

Waste Disposal Official Plan Policies The District of Muskoka has responsibility for solid waste management (collection, disposal and diversion) under the Regional Municipalities Act. The Official Plan provides land use related procedural and locational guidelines for waste disposal sites, including landfill sites, dumps and recycling facilities. The Ministry of the Environment has jurisdiction over the approval and regulation of waste disposal sites as detailed in the Certificates of Approval.

According to the Official Plan, no development will be permitted within 30 metres of any waste disposal site, and, conversely, no waste disposal site will be permitted within 30 metres of any other development. The Official Plan also states that recycling programs will be encouraged in the private and public realm. Draft - June 2005 Page 16 Long Range Solid Waste Management Plan Environmental Assessment Waste Quantity Projections and Existing Environment Profile

The following are guidelines for locating solid waste disposal sites from the District Official Plan:

Note: The guidelines provided are for locating private landfills, however; with the exception of (g), the same criteria can be applied to public landfills.

Muskoka currently has three existing landfill sites: Stisted in Huntsville, Rosewarne in Bracebridge and Beiers in Gravenhurst.

Development Pressures and Activity The District of Muskoka is a distinct natural environment resulting in a wide variety of well established recreational and tourist activities and a significant non-permanent population that consists primarily of summer cottagers. The popularity of the area as a summer retreat is expected to increase as the population of the GTA and Hamilton area to the south continues to grow. In addition, more restrictive planning policies in the GTA, a burgeoning retirement population interested in moving north and fractional ownership of vacation chalets have resulted in increased development pressure in Muskoka.8 This will in turn place pressure on the development capacity of lakes and other environmentally sensitive areas.

In response to these pressures a number of community and environmental organizations, such as the Muskoka Heritage Foundation and the Muskoka Watershed Council, have been established to work towards ensuring that development is carried out in a responsible manner.

8 Based on a conversation with Samantha Hastings, Director, Policy & Programs, District Municipality of Muskoka, May 20, 2005. Fractional ownership is similar to time share units. Draft - June 2005 Page 17 Long Range Solid Waste Management Plan Environmental Assessment Waste Quantity Projections and Existing Environment Profile

The Muskoka Heritage Foundation is a non-profit, charitable organization that works with private landowners to encourage protection of natural areas in Muskoka. Over 31,000 acres of land are protected by 340 volunteer private landowners in Muskoka. The Muskoka Watershed Council was founded by the District Municipality of Muskoka and the Muskoka Heritage Foundation in October of 2001. The Council is committed to the enhancement of the health and sustainability of those watersheds lying partially or totally within the District of Muskoka. The Council publishes material on best management practices related to issues that affect watershed quality, such as pesticide use and septic system care.

TRANSPORTATION Muskoka is accessible by land, water and air. Figure 1 highlights the key elements of Muskoka’s transportation network. The two main north-south routes through Muskoka are Highway 11 and Highway 400/69. The major east-west routes include Highways 118, 60, 141 and Muskoka Roads 118 and 169. The remainder of the roadway network is a combination of Muskoka District Roads and local municipal roads, as well as many private roads.

The CN Railway provides both passenger and cargo service to Muskoka. Ontario Northland Railway provides service from Toronto to Gravenhurst, Huntsville and more recently Bracebridge. CP Railway and VIA Rail are available from Washago and Parry Sound. (District Municipality of Muskoka, Economic Profile, 2004).

The Muskoka Airport is a full service airport located next to Highway 11 midway between Gravenhurst and Bracebridge. In addition, Muskoka Airport is located 140km north of Pearson International Airport in Toronto, and 101km south of Jack Garland Airport in North Bay. Northern Airport Service provides a shuttle service to and from Pearson.

The Trent-Severn Waterway runs through the southern portion of the District, a major recreational waterway that links Georgian Bay with Lake Simcoe and the lake system to the east. Georgian Bay is a major recreational boating area, providing access to Lake Huron.

PMCL and Ontario Northland provide regularly scheduled bus service to Muskoka.

ECONOMICS The tourism and service sector represents 43% of the labour force in Muskoka. Other sectors are as follows: public sector (25%), manufacturing (16%), trades (15%) and natural resources (1%). Tourism has traditionally been an important economic activity in Muskoka, although the economy is expanding in different sectors. Tourism is the largest employment sector is Georgian Bay, Muskoka Lakes and Lake of Bays (50%,

Draft - June 2005 Page 18 Long Range Solid Waste Management Plan Environmental Assessment Waste Quantity Projections and Existing Environment Profile

47% and 46%, respectively). Table 3.4 has more information on the labour force (Muskoka Economic Profile, 2005).

Tourism and Recreation According to Muskoka Tourism, the area hosts over 2 million visitors annually. Muskoka has 1,150 tourism related businesses. In 2001, Muskoka had 1,714,000 person visits, generating over $220,000,000 to the local economy. Major attractions include: Santa’s Village and Highfalls Park in Bracebridge, Georgian Bay Islands National Park in Georgian Bay, the R.M.S. Segwun (Canada’s oldest coal fired operating steamship) and the Bethune Memorial House in Gravenhurst, Hidden Valley Highlands Ski Area in Huntsville, Lake of Bays Boat Tours in Lake of Bays, and Bala’s Museum and the Kee to Bala in Muskoka Lakes.

Algonquin Provincial Park is another significant tourist attraction, located just north of Muskoka. The park is home to 7,725 km2 of forests, lakes and rivers with a number of historical and cultural sites of importance. Provincial parks within Muskoka include Arrowhead Provincial Park (Huntsville), Six Mile Lake Provincial Park (Georgian Bay), Georgian Bay Islands National Park (Georgian Bay), Hardy Lake Provincial Park (Gravenhurst) and Torrance Barrens Conservation Area Dark Sky Reserve (Muskoka Lakes).

The Ontario Federation of Snowmobile Clubs maintains a fairly extensive network of trails throughout Muskoka. During the summer, these trails are used for biking and other sports. Muskoka’s many lakes also provide excellent fresh water fishing opportunities.

Draft - June 2005 Page 19 Long Range Solid Waste Management Plan Environmental Assessment Waste Quantity Projections and Existing Environment Profile

Table 3.4: Labour Force by Industry Type

Source: Statistics Canada, Census 2001, as reported in Muskoka Demographic Profile, District Municipality of Muskoka, October 2004.

Draft - June 2005 Page 20 Long Range Solid Waste Management Plan Environmental Assessment Waste Quantity Projections and Existing Environment Profile

Forestry The forest industry consists of four main segments: logging, wood product manufacturing, paper and allied products manufacturing and forestry services. The natural resources sector, which includes forestry, represents only 1% of the employment base, however forestry is recognized as having a significant spin-off impact on the economy, with over 2,400 jobs being supported by the industry. In addition, logging and primary wood manufacturing activities in Muskoka employ four times the provincial average.

Agriculture According to Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food, very little Class 1, 2 and 3 agricultural land can be found in the Muskoka area. Farming along the Highway 11 corridor is much better than other areas in Muskoka where the land is primarily bare bedrock and shallow soil. Very few farms exist outside of the Highway 11 corridor. Originally, Bracebridge, Huntsville, Burk’s Falls, Sundridge, South River, Trout Creek and Powassan were established as supply outlets for local farming communities (Chapman & Putnam, 1984).

According to the Muskoka Soil and Crop Improvement Association, agricultural activities represent $5 million in annual sales with spin-off economic opportunities in the range of approximately $15 million. The Association reports that over 200 farms are located in Muskoka with Farmers’ Markets in or near Bala, Baysville, Bracebridge, Gravenhurst, Huntsville and Rosseau. Farming activities range from horse breeding to cranberries and maple syrup production. Muskoka Soils and Crop Improvement Association is active in working with the District Municipality to promote and protect agricultural land. According to the Muskoka Economic Profile, there is no agricultural employment in Georgian Bay and Lake of Bays.

Aggregates/Mining The Official Plan describes Muskoka as a “transition zone between agricultural southern Ontario and the forests of northern Ontario; between the rich aggregate deposits south of the Severn River and the granite bedrock of the Canadian Shield”. Potential primary and secondary aggregates are generally found along the Highway 11 strip and/or the larger lakes such as Lake Muskoka, Lake of Bays and Vernon Lake. Existing pits and quarries are shown on Figure 1.

Draft - June 2005 Page 21 Long Range Solid Waste Management Plan Environmental Assessment Waste Quantity Projections and Existing Environment Profile

REFERENCES

District Municipality of Muskoka, Economic Profile, October 2004.

District Municipality of Muskoka, Community Profile, October 2004.

District Municipality of Muskoka, Demographic Profile, October 2004.

District Municipality of Muskoka, Office Consolidation of the Official Plan of the Muskoka Planning Area, May 18, 2004.

Gartner Lee, District Municipality of Muskoka Solid Waste Management Master Plan, Draft Phase 1 Report, October 1991.

Chapman, L.J., & D.F. Putnam The Physiography of Southern Ontario, Third Edition, Ministry of Natural Resources, 1984.

Muskoka Watershed Council, Ontario Living Legacy and the Disposition of Crown Lands, October 2003.

Town of Gravenhurst, Gravenhurst Official Plan, January 1987.

Draft - June 2005 Page 22

Long Range Solid Waste Management Plan Stisted Landfill Figure 1: Muskoka Study Area

HUNTSVILLE Upper Tier Municipality Lower Tier Municipality MUSKOKA LAKES LAKE OF BAYS Pits or Quarries Wetlands Wooded Areas GEORGIAN BAY Lakes - Rivers 11 Hydro Lines Railways Rosewarne Drive Landfill 400 Major Highway BRACEBRIDGE Highway Major Local p Airports Existing Landfill Sites GRAVENHURST Beiers Landfill / 0 5 10 15 20 11 Kilometres

This mapping should be used for information purposes only. The data displayed here was obtained from different sources and all layers should be considered approximate. Data on this map was provided by the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, the District of Muskoka and its municipalities, and other agencies.

Long Range Solid Waste Management 1 3 Plan Figure 2: Physiographic and HUNTSVILLE Quaternary Geology

Bedrock

MUSKOKA LAKES LAKE OF BAYS Catfish Creek Till Fluvial deposits Glaciofluvial ice-contact deposits Glaciofluvial outwash deposits

GEORGIAN BAY 11 Glaciolacustrine deposits 1 Lacustrine deposits 2 Lake Newmarket Till 400 3 Organic deposits BRACEBRIDGE Till Physiographic Regions 1 Algonquin Highland 2 Georgian Bay Fringe 3 Number 11 Strip

GRAVENHURST 3 2 / 11 0 5 10 15 20

Kilometres

Long Range 14 Solid Waste Management Plan Figure 3: Muskoka Watersheds

Black River

Lake Muskoka 2 9 11 15 4 Severn River 16 3 Georgian Bay Georgian Bay Secondary Watersheds 1 Georgian Bay 2 Twelve Mile Bay 3 Tadenac Lake 4 Moon River 5 12 5 Musquash River 1 10 Severn River Secondary Watersheds 6 Severn River 7 Morrison Lake 13 8 Sparrow Lake Lake Muskoka Secondary Watersheds 6 9 Lake Joseph 10 Lake Muskoka 11 Lake Rosseau 12 North Branch Muskoka River 17 13 South Branch Muskoka River 7 14 Lake Vernon 15 Mary Lake 16 Lake of Bays

Black River Secondary Watershed 8 17 Black River 17 / 0 5 10 15 20

Kilometres

HUNTSVILLE MUSKOKA LAKES MUSKOKA LAKES LAKE OF BAYS

GEORGIAN BAY BRACEBRIDGE Long Range GRAVENHURST Solid Waste Management KEY MAP Plan Figure 4: Gravenhurst Natural Features BRACEBRIDGE Lower Tier Municipality Upper Tier Municipality 11 118 Pits or Quarries Airports Parks or Wildlife Reserve ANSI Wetlands Wooded Areas Lakes - Rivers GRAVENHURST Fish Spawning Area #0 Bird Nesting Sites Streams Trail Segments Hydro Lines Railways

11 / QUEEN ELIZABETH II WILDLANDS PROVINCIAL PARK 0 2 4 6 8

Kilometres

This mapping should be used for information purposes only. The data displayed here was obtained from different sources and all layers should be considered approximate. Data on this 1:125,000 map was provided by the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, the District of Muskoka and its municipalities, and other agencies. HUNTSVILLE HUNTSVILLE MUSKOKA LAKES LAKE OF BAYS

GEORGIAN BAY

BRACEBRIDGE 11 Long Range GRAVENHURST Solid Waste Management KEY MAP Plan

LAKE OF BAYS Figure 5: Bracebridge Natural MUSKOKA LAKES Features

Lower Tier Municipality Upper Tier Municipality Pits or Quarries Airports Parks or Wildlife Reserve ANSI Wetlands Wooded Areas BRACEBRIDGE BIGWIND LAKE PROVINCIAL PARK Lakes - Rivers Fish Spawning Area #0 Bird Nesting Sites

118 Streams

11 Trail Segments Hydro Lines Railways / GRAVENHURST 0 2 4 6 8

Kilometres

This mapping should be used for information purposes only. The data displayed here was obtained from different sources and all layers should be considered approximate. Data on this 1:125,000 map was provided by the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, the District of Muskoka and its municipalities, and other agencies. HUNTSVILLE MUSKOKA LAKES LAKE OF BAYS

GEORGIAN BAY BRACEBRIDGE Long Range GRAVENHURST Solid Waste Management KEY MAP Plan Figure 6: Huntsville Natural Features ARROWHEAD PROVINCIAL PARK Lower Tier Municipality Upper Tier Municipality Pits or Quarries

11 J. ALBERT BAUER PROVINCIAL PARK Airports HUNTSVILLE Parks or Wildlife Reserve S 60 E ANSI K A

L Wetlands

K Wooded Areas O

K Lakes - Rivers S

U Fish Spawning Area M #0 Bird Nesting Sites Streams Trail Segments Hydro Lines

141 Railways

LAKE OF BAYS / 0 2 4 6 8 11 Kilometres

This mapping should be used for information purposes only. The data displayed here was obtained from different sources and all layers should be considered approximate. Data on this 1:125,000 map was provided by the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, BRACEBRIDGE the District of Muskoka and its municipalities, and other agencies. HUNTSVILLE MUSKOKA LAKES LAKE OF BAYS

BRACEBRIDGE Long Range GRAVENHURST Solid Waste Management 69 KEY MAP Plan Figure 7: Georgian Bay Natural Features Lower Tier Municipality Upper Tier Municipality GEORGIAN BAY Pits or Quarries Airports

MUSKOKA LAKES Parks or Wildlife Reserve

Wahta Mohawk ANSI Territory Wetlands Wooded Areas

HARDY LAKE PROVINCIAL PARK Lakes - Rivers Fish Spawning Area #0 Bird Nesting Sites Streams AWENDA PROVINCIAL PARK Trail Segments Hydro Lines Railways / Out of Study Area 400 0 2 4 6 8 10

Kilometres

This mapping should be used for information purposes only. The data displayed here was obtained from different sources and all layers should be considered approximate. Data on this 1:155,000 map was provided by the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, the District of Muskoka and its municipalities, and other agencies. HUNTSVILLE BIG EAST RIVER PROVINCIAL PARK (WATERWAY CLASS) MUSKOKA LAKES

GEORGIAN BAY BRACEBRIDGE Long Range GRAVENHURST Solid Waste Management ARROWHEAD PROVINCIAL PARK KEY MAP Plan Figure 8: Lake of Bays Natural Features J. ALBERT BAUER PROVINCIAL PARK Lower Tier Municipality

HUNTSVILLE 60 Upper Tier Municipality Pits or Quarries Airports

11 Parks or Wildlife Reserve

60 ANSI Wetlands Wooded Areas Lakes - Rivers 35 LAKE OF BAYS Fish Spawning Area #0 Bird Nesting Sites Streams Trail Segments Hydro Lines Railways /

0 2 4 6 8 10

Kilometres

This mapping should be used for information purposes only. BRACEBRIDGE The data displayed here was obtained from different sources and all layers should be considered approximate. Data on this 1:175,000 map was provided by the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, the District of Muskoka and its municipalities, and other agencies. HUNTSVILLE LAKE OF BAYS

GEORGIAN BAY

BRACEBRIDGE ARROWHEAD PROVINCIAL PARK Long Range 69 GRAVENHURST Solid Waste Management KEY MAP Plan Figure 9: Muskoka Lakes

141 Natural Features Lower Tier Municipality

HUNTSVILLE Upper Tier Municipality Pits or Quarries Airports Parks or Wildlife Reserve ANSI GEORGIAN BAY MUSKOKA LAKES LAKE OF BAYS Wetlands Wooded Areas Lakes - Rivers 11 Fish Spawning Area

Wahta Mohawk #0 Bird Nesting Sites 400 Territory Streams HARDY LAKE PROVINCIAL PARK Trail Segments Hydro Lines Railways

BIGWIND LAKE PROVINCIAL PARK BRACEBRIDGE / 0 2 4 6 8 10 GRAVENHURST Kilometres

This mapping should be used for information purposes only. The data displayed here was obtained from different sources and all layers should be considered approximate. Data on this 1:210,000 map was provided by the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, the District of Muskoka and its municipalities, and other agencies.

Table of Contents