District of Muskoka Recreational Water Quality Model Review

Total Page:16

File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb

District of Muskoka Recreational Water Quality Model Review DISTRICT OF MUSKOKA RECREATIONAL WATER QUALITY MODEL REVIEW TOWNSHIP OF MUSKOKA LAKES JUNE 16, 2016 RECREATIONAL WATER QUALITY MODEL REVIEW PRESENTATION FLOW • INTRODUCTION AND CONTEXT • MODEL REVIEW: KEY FINDINGS • PLANNING IMPLICATIONS • NEXT STEPS • DISCUSSION AND QUESTIONS THE PROJECT: RECREATIONAL WATER QUALITY MODEL REVIEW KEY FINDINGS 1. MODEL IS NOT SUPPORTED ON AN INDIVIDUAL LAKE BASIS 2. ALL LAKES WARRANT PROTECTION, WITH MULTIPLE STRESSORS CONSIDERED 3. MOVE TOWARD RELIANCE ON MEASURED CHANGES AND OBSERVED WATER QUALITY - PHOSPHORUS IS STILL A GOOD INDICATOR 4. SEVEN “TRANSITIONAL” LAKES WARRANT ADDITIONAL STUDY “Phosphorus is the window into our lakes” RECREATIONAL WATER QUALITY MODEL REVIEW PLANNING IMPLICATIONS 5 MUSKOKA WATER QUALITY POLICIES Lake Classification Policy Requirement Implementation Over Threshold Lot Level Study High Sensitivity Lot Level Study SITE PLAN Moderate Sensitivity Site Plan Required Approach Current Policy Low Sensitivity Site Plan Recommended BMPs Standard Categories Implementation Vegetated Buffers X Shoreline Naturalization X Standard Protection Site Plan Required Soil Protection X On‐Site Stormwater Control X Transitional Lakes (7) Enhanced Protection Limit Impervious Surfaces X Enhanced Septic Setback (30m) X Lake Level Study Enhanced Lot Size X Direction Securities and Compliance Monitoring X • Simplified and consistent Proposed Policy • Leading-edge and defensible • Based on observable indicators • 20% of lakes impacted INTERIM COMMENTING • EXISTING POLICIES ARE OPEN TO CHALLENGE • ALSO CHALLENGES WITH ADOPTING A FORMAL INTERIM APPROACH • INTERIM COMMENTS ON DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS NEED TO: • PROTECT TRANSITIONAL LAKES • BE REASONABLE AND DEFENSIBLE REQUIREMENTS FOR ALL OTHER LAKES • CONSIDER SITE SPECIFIC CIRCUMSTANCES • IMPORTANCE OF PRE-CONSULTATION 7 RECREATIONAL WATER QUALITY MODEL REVIEW NEXT STEPS 8 PROCESS OVERVIEW We are Possible here appeal Background Adoption by Draft Public Final Council and and Interim Policies Consultation Policies Approval by Implementation Approach MMAH Consultation with: Approximately • Area Municipalities One Year • Lake Associations • MOECC • Muskoka Watershed Council • Community Groups • Public CLOSING THOUGHTS …Comes With Change… Opportunity ● Evolving story, ● Muskoka as a science is advancing leader ● All lakes deserve ● Aligns with vision to protection protect a valued asset ● Some change but ● Stronger not drastic partnerships ● 20% of lakes may ● Improved efficiency be affected and all lakes protected DISCUSSION AND QUESTIONS WHAT DOES THIS MEAN FOR MUSKOKA LAKES? 11 TO: Chair and Members Planning and Economic Development Committee FROM: Christy Doyle Director of Environmental and Watershed Programs and Summer Valentine Director of Planning DATE: April 21, 2016 SUBJECT: District of Muskoka’s Recreational Water Quality Model Review REPORT NO: PED-5-2016-2 ____________________________________________________________________________ RECOMMENDATION THAT Hutchinson Environmental Sciences Limited (HESL)’s “Revised Water Quality Model and Lake System Health Program” Final Report (April 2016), BE ACCEPTED; AND THAT the Official Plan Amendment process to address the recommendations found within HESL’s aforementioned Final Report BE INITIATED; AND THAT an Interim Approach as outlined in Report No. PED-5-2016-2 BE IMPLEMENTED effective immediately; AND THAT Area Municipalities BE REQUESTED to implement this Interim Approach. ORIGIN The District of Muskoka undertakes a comprehensive review of its Recreational Water Quality Model every ten years to update the science, confirm the calibration of the model, review policy implementation, and address emerging water quality issues. In January 2016, Hutchinson Environmental Sciences Limited (HESL) submitted its draft final technical report on the District’s Recreational Water Quality Model. Staff reviewed the District’s existing water quality policy in consideration of HESL’s findings. HESL’s Final Report was submitted in April 2016. Page 1 ANALYSIS Background and Context Water is an essential part of Muskoka’s natural environment and a critical resource, especially for people who live, work and play within the District of Muskoka’s watershed. In the face of the changing climate, and the pressures of growth and development, continued strong action is needed to protect, maintain and, where possible, enhance the health of Muskoka’s watershed for the present and future generations. In Muskoka, water quality is managed across all levels of government and with the assistance of many interested community organizations and individuals. Several departments within the District of Muskoka, together with its partner agencies including the Ministry of Environment and Climate Change (MOECC), the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry (MNRF), the Area Municipalities, Muskoka Watershed Council and various community organizations, and individuals, all have a role to play in ensuring that Muskoka’s waters remain clean and healthy. The District is widely recognized as a leader in the protection of recreational water quality. For decades, District Council has maintained its lake water quality monitoring program and implemented associated leading edge policy into its Official Plans for the protection of Muskoka’s watershed. Through these efforts, District Council has recognized the importance of water quality to Muskoka’s residents and visitors, and the importance of water-based recreation to the overall economy. District Council’s leadership includes the ongoing use of a Recreational Water Quality Model and the District has a history of generally managing the health of the lakes in Muskoka for nutrient input, particularly phosphorus. In January 2003, Muskoka District Council approved the Muskoka Water Strategy. The Water Strategy is a framework of integrated strategic initiatives to protect Muskoka’s water. In 2005, Council adopted the Lake System Health Program, which is intended to guide and minimize the impact of human development on water resources, preserve the environmental health and quality of life in Muskoka and also protect the future of Muskoka as a premier recreational region. The Recreational Water Quality Model, associated planning policies, and monitoring of Muskoka’s recreational water quality are key components of the Lake System Health Program. From a planning perspective, the past decade or so has been an important one for managing shoreline development in Muskoka. Many local practices, including Lake of Bays’ development permitting system and generally strengthened shoreline land-use planning policies in all Area Municipalities, have contributed to stabilized phosphorus levels across Muskoka’s lakes, which, in turn, is a testament that planning policy is protecting recreational water quality. However, in recognition of evolving science and changing behaviours, Council has periodically reviewed and strengthened its Recreational Water Quality Model and its associated policies and approaches to include a more holistic approach to watershed and lake management. 2016 Review: District Recreational Water Quality Model HESL was retained by the District in 2010 to review and update its Recreational Water Quality Model. While the project and HESL’s Final Report, “Revised Water Quality Model and Lake System Health Program” (April 2016) has been completed within the District’s approved project budget, Page 2 considerable time has been taken to ensure that the best available science, significant analysis, and associated implementation techniques can be addressed through this review. In its Final Report, HESL finds that planning policy based on the Recreational Water Quality Model and with a narrow focus on phosphorus is no longer warranted for several reasons, including: • the accuracy of the existing model, with results not effectively predicting measured phosphorus levels on a lake specific basis; • the evidence that phosphorus concentrations are not increasing in any of Muskoka’s lakes; • recent Ontario Municipal Board decisions favouring phosphorus abatement technologies for septic systems; and • the emergence of multiple environmental stressors that also significantly impact lake health. Based on these conclusions, HESL recommends that: 1. All lakes be afforded a high degree of protection by a requirement for a minimum set of “Standard” Best Management Practices (BMPs) for all new development or redevelopment of shoreline lots. 2. The monitoring records for all lakes be reviewed annually and results compared against the following three management “flags”: a. total Phosphorus (TP) being greater than 20 micrograms/litre; b. an increasing trend in TP; and/or c. documented presence of a blue-green algal bloom. 3. Those lakes flagged by these above-noted factors are referred to as Transitional Lakes and should be subject to: a. enhanced BMPs for new development or redevelopment of shoreline lots as a precaution against phosphorus loading; b. a detailed “causation study” to determine the role of shoreline development as a precaution against phosphorus loading, which would include targeted use of the District Water Quality Model but with detailed review of input data, land use patterns and hydrology in the immediate watershed and settlement history, implementation of the District’s “Limits to Growth” assessment, assessment of Dissolved Organic Carbon and its role in phosphorus enrichment and remedial actions if warranted; and c. a “pause” on new lot creation and development of a Remedial Plan if the causation
Recommended publications
  • Go Home Bay Summary Report
    Eastern Georgian Bay Stewardship Council www.helpourfisheries.com Project Completion Report Go Home Bay (of Eastern Georgian Bay) Walleye Spawning Habitat Enhancement Project (2009-10 Canada-Ontario Agreement Project #3-06) October 2009 Go Home Bay Chutes (October 2009) 1 Go Home Bay Walleye Spawning Habitat Enhancement – Project Completion Report Go Home Bay Walleye Spawning Habitat Enhancement Project Executive Summary The Eastern Georgian Bay Stewardship Council (EGBSC) in partnership with the Ministry of Natural Resources through the Canada-Ontario Agreement (COA) Respecting the Great Lake Basin, have embarked on a program to reintroduce walleye into the Go Home Bay area of Georgian Bay. The successful completion of walleye spawning habitat enhancement work in October of 2009 represents completion of step #4 in a seven-step plan to re-introduce walleye into the Go Home Bay area of eastern Georgian Bay. The complete seven step process entails: 1. Pre-treatment assessment of the Go Home Bay walleye population. 2. Site characterization and evaluation of the Go Home Bay chutes walleye spawning site. 3. Design a site-specific, enhanced walleye spawning bed at Go Home Chutes 4. Enhance the Go Home Bay chutes spawning site 5. Rehabilitative walleye plantings for three – four years. 6. Conduct post-treatment assessment after the four-year stocking period. 7. Based on post-treatment assessment, consider the need for walleye harvest and fishing regulation revisions. This report relates specifically to walleye spawning bed enhancement work (Step 4) conducted at Go Home Chutes in October of 2009. 1.0 Project Goal: The over-all goal of this enhancement project was to contribute to towards the successful reintroduction of walleye to Go Home Bay with the intention of creating a natural, self-sustaining population.
    [Show full text]
  • Revised Water Quality Model and Lake System Health Program
    Hutchinson Environmental Sciences Ltd. Revised Water Quality Model and Lake System Health Program Prepared for: District Municipality of Muskoka Job #: J150074 April 2016 Final Report Hutchinson Environmental Sciences Ltd. J150074 , District Municipality of Muskoka Revised Water Quality Model and Lake System Health Program April 5, 2016 HESL Job #: J150074 Ms. Christy Doyle Director of Watershed Programs District Municipality of Muskoka 70 Pine St. Bracebridge ON P1L 1N3 Dear Ms. Doyle: Re: Revised Water Quality Model and Lake System Health Program – Final Report We are pleased to submit this final report of the Revised Water Quality Model and Lake System Health Program for the District Municipality for Muskoka lakes. This has been a most challenging and scientifically interesting project, and we thank The District of Muskoka for their continued support over the course of the last several years while we worked to develop recommendations to revise the program to reflect the results of review in 2013, and again in 2015 to change the program emphasis. We appreciate that there may still be discussions required to move the technical recommendations presented herein into planning policy and look forward to the opportunity to assist with that. Sincerely, per: Hutchinson Environmental Sciences Ltd. Neil J. Hutchinson, Ph.D. President [email protected] Hutchinson Environmental Sciences Ltd. J150074 , District Municipality of Muskoka Revised Water Quality Model and Lake System Health Program Signatures Dörte Köster, Ph.D.
    [Show full text]
  • IMPORTANT INFORMATION: Lakes with an Asterisk * Do Not Have Depth Information and Appear with Improvised Contour Lines County Information Is for Reference Only
    IMPORTANT INFORMATION: Lakes with an asterisk * do not have depth information and appear with improvised contour lines County information is for reference only. Your lake will not be split up by county. The whole lake will be shown unless specified next to name eg (Northern Section) (Near Follette) etc. LAKE NAME COUNTY COUNTY COUNTY COUNTY COUNTY Great Lakes GL Lake Erie Great Lakes GL Lake Erie (Port of Toledo) Great Lakes GL Lake Erie (Western Basin) Great Lakes GL Lake Huron Great Lakes GL Lake Huron (w West Lake Erie) Great Lakes GL Lake Michigan Great Lakes GL Lake Michigan (Northeast) Great Lakes GL Lake Michigan (South) Great Lakes GL Lake Michigan (w Lake Erie and Lake Huron) Great Lakes GL Lake Ontario Great Lakes GL Lake Ontario (Rochester Area) Great Lakes GL Lake Ontario (Stoney Pt to Wolf Island) Great Lakes GL Lake Superior Great Lakes GL Lake Superior (w Lake Michigan and Lake Huron) Great Lakes GL Lake St Clair Great Lakes GL (MI) Great Lakes Cedar Creek Reservoir AL Deerwood Lake Franklin AL Dog River Shelby AL Gantt Lake Mobile AL Goat Rock Lake * Covington AL (GA) Guntersville Lake Lee Harris (GA) AL Highland Lake * Marshall Jackson AL Inland Lake * Blount AL Jordan Lake Blount AL Lake Gantt * Elmore AL Lake Jackson * Covington AL (FL) Lake Martin Covington Walton (FL) AL Lake Mitchell Coosa Elmore Tallapoosa AL Lake Tuscaloosa Chilton Coosa AL Lake Wedowee (RL Harris Reservoir) Tuscaloosa AL Lay Lake Clay Randolph AL Lewis Smith Lake * Shelby Talladega Chilton Coosa AL Logan Martin Lake Cullman Walker Winston AL Mobile Bay Saint Clair Talladega AL Ono Island Baldwin Mobile AL Open Pond * Baldwin AL Orange Beach East Covington AL Bon Secour River and Oyster Bay Baldwin AL Perdido Bay Baldwin AL (FL) Pickwick Lake Baldwin Escambia (FL) AL (TN) (MS) Pickwick Lake (Northern Section, Pickwick Dam to Waterloo) Colbert Lauderdale Tishomingo (MS) Hardin (TN) AL (TN) (MS) Shelby Lakes Colbert Lauderdale Tishomingo (MS) Hardin (TN) AL Tallapoosa River at Fort Toulouse * Baldwin AL Walter F.
    [Show full text]
  • (COMMERCIAL LIST) BETWEEN: 1711423 ONTARIO LIMITED Ap
    Court File No. CV-20-00637615-00CL ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE (COMMERCIAL LIST) B E T W E E N: 1711423 ONTARIO LIMITED Applicant and OLD MILL MARINA (KAWAGAMA) LIMITED Respondent APPLICATION UNDER Section 243(1) of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. B-3, and Section 101 of the Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.43 FIRST REPORT TO THE COURT OF MNP LTD IN ITS CAPACITY AS RECEIVER AND MANAGER OF THE ASSETS, UNDERTAKINGS, AND PROPERTIES OF OLD MILL MARINA (KAWAGAMA) LIMITED September 22, 2020 Page 1 of 18 TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION......................................................................................................................... 3 PURPOSE OF THIS REPORT ................................................................................................... 5 DISCLAIMER AND TERMS OF REFERENCE ..................................................................... 5 RECEIVER’S ACTIVITIES ....................................................................................................... 6 SALE PROCESS ........................................................................................................................... 8 SALE AGREEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS……………………………………………..12 CONFIDENTIAL APPENDICES ............................................................................................. 13 STATEMENT OF RECEIPTS AND DISBURSEMENTS ..................................................... 14 PROFESSIONAL FEES ...........................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Managed Forest Compartments
    Madawaska Club Limited Managed Forest Tax Incentive Program Forest Management Plan Prepared by: Philip Davies Mark Van Rhee This managed Forest Plan is for the 20 year period from: January 1, 2001 to December 31, 2020; with a detailed management program for the first five-year period from: January 1, 2001 to December 31, 2005 The 5 yr. Landowner Report and Approved Managed Forest Plan will be completed and submitted by: July 31, 2005. Section 1: Plan Preparation Details 1.1 Registered Property Owner Name: Madawaska Club Ltd. Address: 104 Whitehall Rd Toronto, Ontario Postal Code: M4W 2C7 Tel: Residence: (416) 964-0984 Business: (416) 586-5720 Fax: (416) 586-8093 1.2 Plan Author Information Names: Philip Davies, B.Sc, M.F.C. Mark Van Rhee B.Sc, M.F.C Address: Faculty of Forestry University of Toronto Toronto, Ontario Postal Code: M5S 3B3 Tel: (416) 929-6553 Section 2: Location and Identification of Property Municipality: Township of Georgian Bay/Geographic Township of Gibson County/Region: District Municipality of Muskoka Zoning under municipal official plan: Most of the plan area is designated open space –1 with a smaller but significant area zoned Environmental Protection. Lesser parts of the plan area are zoned Shoreline Residential –3 and Shoreline Residential –3-1. 1 Table 2.1: Location and Identification of Property Landowner Property Assessment Assessment Roll Managed Forest Location Roll Number Area (acres) Area (acres) Madawaska Club County or Reg. Mun.: Muskoka 4465020019029000000 239 185.22 Ltd. Township: Georgian Bay Lot: 44 PT lot 45 Conc: 10 Madawaska Club County or Reg.
    [Show full text]
  • Background Report
    Background Report TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ..............................................................................................................................................5 Our Supporters .......................................................................................................................................................5 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................................................................6 INTRODUCTION ..........................................................................................................................................................9 Past Indicators ........................................................................................................................................................9 Muskoka’s Watersheds ....................................................................................................................................... 11 Subwatershed Evaluation .................................................................................................................................... 14 Benchmarks ......................................................................................................................................................... 16 Value of Ecosystems ............................................................................................................................................ 17 LAND .......................................................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Great Lakes Lake Erie
    4389 # of lakes LAKE NAME COUNTY COUNTY COUNTY COUNTY 99000 GL Great Lakes Great Lakes 99005 GL Lake Erie Great Lakes 99010 GL Lake Erie (Lake Erie Islands Region) Great Lakes 99015 GL Lake Erie (Port of Toledo Region) Great Lakes 99020 GL Lake Erie (Put-In-Bay Area) Great Lakes 99025 GL Lake Erie (Western Basin Region) Great Lakes 99030 GL Lake Huron Great Lakes 99035 GL Lake Huron (With Lake Erie - Western Section) Great Lakes 99040 GL Lake Michigan (Northeastern Section) Great Lakes 99045 GL Lake Michigan (Southern Section) Great Lakes 99050 GL Lake Michigan (With Lake Erie and Lake Huron) Great Lakes 99055 GL Lake Michigan (Lighthouses and Shipwrecks) Great Lakes 99060 GL Lake Ontario Great Lakes 99065 GL Lake Ontario (Rochester Area) Great Lakes 99066 GL Lake Ontario (Stoney Pt to Wolf Island) Great Lakes 99070 GL Lake Superior Great Lakes 99075 GL Lake Superior (With Lake Michigan and Lake Huron) Great Lakes 99080 GL Lake Superior (Lighthouses and Shipwrecks) Great Lakes 10000 AL Baldwin County Coast Baldwin 10005 AL Cedar Creek Reservoir Franklin 10010 AL Dog River * Mobile 10015 AL Goat Rock Lake * ChaMbers Lee Harris (GA) Troup (GA) 10020 AL Guntersville Lake Marshall Jackson 10025 AL Highland Lake * Blount 10030 AL Inland Lake * Blount 10035 AL Lake Gantt * Covington 10040 AL Lake Jackson * Covington Walton (FL) 10045 AL Lake Jordan ElMore Coosa Chilton 10050 AL Lake Martin Coosa ElMore Tallapoosa 10055 AL Lake Mitchell Chilton Coosa 10060 AL Lake Tuscaloosa Tuscaloosa 10065 AL Lake Wedowee Clay Cleburne Randolph 10070 AL Lay
    [Show full text]
  • Final Phase 1 Report of the Master Plan of Archaeological Resources of the District Municipality of Muskoka
    FINAL PHASE 1 REPORT OF THE MASTER PLAN OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES OF THE DISTRICT MUNICIPALITY OF MUSKOKA Edited by D.A Robertson and R.E Williamson ARCHAEOLOGICAL SERVICES INC. Submitted to THE DISTRICT MUNICIPALITY OF MUSKOKA and THE MOHAWKS OF GmSON ARCHAEOLOGICAL SERVICES INC. 662 Bathurst St. Toronto, Ontario MSS 2R3 in association with . Unterman McPhail Cuming Associates Mount McGovern Co., Ltd. Dr. Carole Carpenter Ms. Susan Maltby, Conservator July, 1992 Project Personnel Project Director: Dr. Ronald F. Williamson l Project Researchers: Dr. Carole H. CarpenterS Mr. Martin S. Cooperl Mr. David Cuming2 Ms. Eva M. MacDonald1 Mr. Robert 1. MacDonaldl Ms. Barbara McPhail2 Ms. Susan L. Maltby4 Mr. David A Robertson1 Ms. Jean Simonten2 Mr. Phillip J. Wright 3 Project Information and Communication Co-Ordinators: Ms. Beverly J. Gamerl Ms. Eva M. MacDonald1 lArchaeological Services Inc. 2Untennan McPhail Cuming Associates 3Mount McGovern Co. Ltd. 4Susan L. Maltby, Conservator sYork University " ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Many individuals have contributed to the collection and compilation of data for this study. It is only through their co-operation and generosity that this work was made possible. We would like to acknowledge the assistance of Mr. Ron Reid, of the Muskoka Heritage Areas Program, for providing detailed environmental data which has been generated as part of the Heritage Areas study; Ms. Judi Brouse, of the District of Muskoka, for her support and provision of mapping; Ms. Bernice Field, of the Ministry of Culture and Communications, for providing access to the database of archaeological sites listed with that Ministry; Mr. Peter Carruthers, of the Ministry of Culture and Communications, for information regarding the survey of the Severn waterway; and Dr.
    [Show full text]
  • Inland Ontario Lakes Designated for Lake Trout Management
    Inland Ontario Lakes Designated for Lake Trout Management July 2015 . ISBN 978-1-4606-6257-1 (PDF) Fisheries Section Species Conservation Policy Branch Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry P.O. Box 7000, 300 Water Street Peterborough, ON K9J 8M5 “A prerequisite to the effective management of a resource is a knowledge of the distribution and magnitude of that resource.” Introductory sentence from “The Distribution and Characteristics of Ontario Lake Trout Lakes” (Martin and Olver 1976). ii Abstract Lake Trout lakes are rare. Only about one percent of Ontario’s lakes contain Lake Trout, but this represents 20-25% of all Lake Trout lakes in the world. The province, therefore, has a great responsibility to manage them wisely. OMNRF efforts to develop a coordinated strategy to protect Lake Trout populations in Ontario requires a comprehensive list of lakes currently designated for Lake Trout management. This report lists the inland Ontario lakes (exclusive of the Great Lakes) that are currently designated for Lake Trout management. In addition, the list classifies the lakes as to whether they are to be managed for naturally reproducing populations (‘Natural’ lakes) or as put-grow-take (‘P-G-T’) lakes. ‘Natural’ lakes include those lakes that may have lost populations but have been identified for rehabilitation. ‘P-G-T’ lakes are managed to provide recreational fishing opportunities and/or to direct angling effort away from more sensitive ‘Natural’ lakes. OMNRF policies or guidelines may be applied differently depending on the lake classification, or in other cases may be applied to both classifications in a similar manner.
    [Show full text]
  • Municipal Cultural Plan
    MUNICIPAL CULTURAL PLAN May 16, 2013 Prepared by: Planscape Inc. 104 Kimberley Avenue Bracebridge, ON P1L 1Z8 The Township of Algonquin Highlands Municipal Cultural Plan Funding Provided by: Ontario Ministry of Tourism and Culture The Township of Algonquin Highlands Table of Contents 1.0 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................. 1 1.1 Cultural Planning ........................................................................................................ 1 1.2 Purpose of a Municipal Cultural Plan ........................................................................... 1 1.3 Development of the Plan: Study Objectives and Work Program ................................... 2 1.4 Steering Committee ..................................................................................................... 3 2.0 BACKGROUND RESEARCH ......................................................................................... 4 3.0 CULTURAL PROFILE .................................................................................................... 5 3.1 Community Profile........................................................................................................ 5 3.2 Community Trends ......................................................................................................11 4.0 PLANNING CONTEXT ...................................................................................................11 4.1 Provincial Policy Direction ...........................................................................................12
    [Show full text]
  • Muskoka Watershed Report Card BACKGROUND 2018 Muskoka Watershed Report Card Background Report
    July 2018 Muskoka REPORT Watershed www.muskokawatershed.org Muskoka Watershed Report Card Council BACKGROUND 2018 Muskoka Watershed Report Card Background Report Table of Contents List of Figures ............................................................................................................................................... 3 List of Tables ................................................................................................................................................ 4 Acknowledgements ...................................................................................................................................... 5 Muskoka Watershed Council ................................................................................................................... 5 The District Municipality of Muskoka ....................................................................................................... 5 Key Scientific Advisors ............................................................................................................................... 5 Contributors ................................................................................................................................................ 6 Data Sources .............................................................................................................................................. 6 Letter from the Chair ....................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Kennisis Watershed & Lakes Management Plan September 2007
    Kennisis Watershed & Lakes Management Plan September 2007 Prepared by: The Kennisis Lake Planning Steering Committee in conjunction with French Planning Services Inc. Sponsored by: The Kennisis Lake Cottage Owners’ Association Contact: [email protected] Kennisis Watershed & Lakes Management Plan About This Version This is the approved version of the Kennisis Watershed & Lakes Management Plan. It replaces the May and August 2007 draft versions that were distributed in conjunction with an extensive consultation process. Supplementary maps and reports relating to the Plan will be released on an occasional basis. Please see www.kennisis.ca for details. Comments on this document may be sent to [email protected] © Kennisis Lake Cottage Owners Association Front Cover: The photograph on the front cover was taken by Lake Steward, Cam Douglas in the fall of 2006. It is a view of the Kennisis Watershed looking almost due north from the southernmost point of the watershed with Lipsy Lake in the immediate foreground. The image is intended to reflect that the document is about the entire Kennisis Watershed, although the focus is on the Kennisis Lakes. This document has been produced in both print and web formats. Printing by Parker Pad and Printing Limited, Markham, Ontario Web version available in PDF format at www.kennisis.ca September 2007 Page i Kennisis Watershed & Lakes Management Plan TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF MAPS .....................................................................................................3 LIST
    [Show full text]