DOCSLIB.ORG

Muskoka Heritage Areas Program Results of Field

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Muskoka Heritage Areas Program Results of Field MUSKOKA HERITAGE AREAS PROGRAM A Project of the D~ct Municipality of MUlkoka and the MUlkoka Heritage Foundation 10 Pine Street, Bracebrldge, Ontatlo P1 L 1N3 RESULTS OF \ 1991 FIELD PROGRAM MUSKOKA HERITAGE AREAS PROGRAM REPORT NO. 2 RESULTS OF THE 1991 FIELD PROGRAM Ron Reid Bonnie Bergsma Bob Bowles Adr i ane Po 11ard Dan Whittam Andrew White February 1992 The Heritage Areas Program is sponsored by the District Municipality of Muskoka and the Muskoka Heritage Foundation, with major financial support from the Ministry of Natural Resources and other agencies. TABLE OF CONTENTS: 1. PROGRAM ORGANIZATION AND FUNDING ... 1 2. METHODOLOGY FOR BIOTIC FIELD PROGRAM ... 6 3. RECOMMENDATIONS .. 17 RECOMMENDED NATURAL HERITAGE AREAS 8;g East River .. 20 Novar Bog .. 36 Axe Lake .. 43 Lewisham wetlands ,.. 48 Jevins Lake .. 54 Br itann·; a Es k e r . 5 9 Beaumont Bay Carbonates .. 64 Dwight Bog .. 71 OTHER SITES OF INTEREST .. 76 LITERATURE CITED .. 83 1. PROGRAM ORGANIZATION AND FUNDING: The Muskoka Heritage Areas Program was established to identify the best examples of the Distrlct's natural and cultural heritage, using a systematic, objective evaluation process, and to seek mechanisms for the protection of these heritage landscapes. 1991 was the second year of a planned three-year program, with field activities relating to natural heritage features, both biotic and abiotic. Evaluation of cultural heritage wi 11 begin in 1992. This report provides a preliminary analys;'s of the significance o~ candidates studied in 1991 by the Heritage Areas field crew. The final evaluation of all candidates will take place late in 1992, after field work has been completed. A review of technical measures such as regional rarity of species, the 'diversity/area index, and the percentage of introdu~ed species will be carried out in preparation for this final evaluation. Evaluation of heritage areas is guided by a series of selection criteria, approved by District Council in March 199q after review by various agency staff and interest groups. (Table 1) Program direction is provided by a Technical Steering Committee, with representation from the District Municipality, the Muskoka Heritage Foundation, the Ministry of Natural Resources Bracebridge District and Algonquin Region. The 1991 field program had two major components: i) A joint earth sc;ence program was carried out by the Ontario Geological Survey, with participation by the Ministry of Natural Resources and the District Municipality of Muskoka. This program mapped surficial geological deposits and evaluated landform features for inclusion in the "Heritage Areas Program and the provincial Areas of Natural and Scientific Interest program. OOS field work is ·direc·ted Andy Bajc. Total co~t of the two-year program is appro~imately $140,000. F;.W mapp;ng was completed for the Huntsville and Br.eebr;dge map sheets in 1990; 1991 work covered the Gravenhurst and Penetanguishene sheets, to provide complete coverage for the District. The results of the 1991 mapping will be published by the' Ontario Geological Survey in the spring of 1992. As well, the ·OOS will provide a sunmary document of - 1 ­ surficial geology in Muskoka, together with their recommendations on candidate areas for protection. This report is expected early in 1992. i;) The second year of the biological field program, at a cost of approximately $120,000, was co-sponsored by the District Municipality and the Muskoka Heritage Foundation. Additional support for this program included: * Funding provided through the Regional Parks and Recreational Areas program of the Ministry of Natural Resources; * The secondment of a knowledgable local field naturalist from Ontario Hydro for part of the field season, along with a support vehicle; * The provision of an Environmental Youth Corps grant from the Ontario Ministry of Environment to hire two field assistants and one data input person; * A three-year grant provided by Wildlife Habitat Canada to assist with landowner contact. and stewardship components of the program. * A,Natural Heritage Grant provided by the Ontario Heritage Foundation to assist in carrying out studies along the Georgian Bay coast; * Financial support provided for the Severn River corridor study by the County of S~mcoe, Ministry of Natural Resources Southern Region, and Canadian Parks Service. The 1991 biological field· program included three components: a) Severn River Corridor study: . A contracted study" carried out by the consulting firm Gartner Lee, examined nine candidate areas on both sides of ta.. Severn River. As well, the consultants examined the length of the River to document the presence of speci.l flor;stic elements, particularly aquatic and prairie yegetation 'features. - 2 ­ b) Georgian Bay study: A contracted study carried out by Geomatics International examined ten candidate areas in Georgian Bay Township. c) Heritage Areas Field Crew: A seasonal field crew based in Bracebridge carried out field work on fifteen candidate areas, plus initial reconnaissance of another nine areas. Results of this field work is included in this report. Field staff for 1991 included: Project Coordinator: Ron Reid, Bobolink Enterprises Field Biologists: Bob Bowles Bonnie Bergsma Field Assistants: Adriane Pollard Dan Whittam Data Input: Andrew White Field work was also assisted on several occasions by the volunteer input of Bill Crins, Jim Goltz, Barrie Malloch, Jan McDonnell, Bob Whittam, and several members of the Muskoka Field Naturalists. - 3 ­ Table DISTRICT OF MUSKOKA HERITAGE AREAS SELECTION CRITERIA January 1990 ABIOTIC CRITERIA: Objective: To identify a system of physical landscapes that incorporate the full diversity of bedrock, surficial, and aqu~tic landform types and features within Muskoka. 1. The area has landform features or elements that are distinctive or unusual in the District, Ontario, or Canada. 2. The area is representative of at least one landform type, process, or phase of development not adequately represented within existing protected areas. 3. The area exhibits unusually high diversity of landform features or types. 4.· The area contributes to regional hydrological systems through ground or surface water storage or protection or enhancement of water quality. BIOTIC CRITERIA: Objective: To identi,fy in a systematic way the best examples of the full range of Muskoka's biological heritage, including both aquatic and terrestrial habitats critical to the survival or healthy populations of native wild ·species. 1. The area is representative of at least one biotic community type not adequately represented within existing protected areas. 2. The area exhibits high diversity of native flora and fauna, either at the species or community level,. 3. The area contains biotic communities of unusually high quality or showing little recent disturbance, or remnants of community types greatly reduced from their earlier distribution. - 4 ­ 4. The area provides habitat for species of plants or animals that are rare, threatened, or endangered in the District, Ontario, or Canada. 5. The area serves as a breeding,· shelter, or feeding site for seasonal concentrations of wildlife or fish. 6. The area is large enough to support species requiring extensive undisturbed habitats, or provides linkages between other significant natural areas. CULTURAL CRITERIA: Objective: To identify a system of significant cultural landscapes and features within Muskoka, including historic and contemporary elements. 1. The area is representative of an historic or prehistoric theme or process significant to the development of Muskoka. 2. The area contains sites or landscapes associated with well-known events or people, or distinctive ethnic groups. 3. The area contains buildings, artifacts, travel routes, or landscape patterns of relative antiquity or duration. 4. The area exhibits cultural charact~ristics unusual or unique to Muskoka, possessing high artistic values, or embodying distinctive examples of a type, period, or method of construction. 5. The area contains elements that reflect the distinctive values, attitudes, traditions, and lifeways of the people of Muskoka. 6. The area has high archaeological potential, or known -archaeological significance. 1. The area contains sites or landscapes with patterns of form, line, colour, or texture that together present outstanding scenic value. - 5 ­ 2. METHODOLOGY FOR BIOTIC FIELD PROGRAM: 2.1 Selection of Candidate study Areas: Candidate study areas wer~ selected on the basis of: i) local knowledge of signif~cant or interesting features; i;) previous records of rare species from the National Museum Atlas of Rare Vascular Plants, the Ontario Herpetofaunal Summary, or the 'Ontario Breeding Bird Atlas; iii) distinctive or unusual landform features which could be combined with potential biotic significance; iv) representation of biotic types not adequately represented within existing protected areas; v) candidates identified during previous studies for potential park status, ANSI designation, or Atlantic coastal plain species. 2.2 Boundary Delineation: Tentative site boundaries were established using air photo analysis and preliminary site visits. Boundaries were refined and confirmed during field study, with buffer zones incorporated where necessary to protect sensitive ecological areas. On the individual Heritage Area maps, buffers have been noted with broken dash lines. Although final bounda~y and buffer delineation was made on Ontario Base Maps at a 1:10,000 scale, all boundaries must be considered
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Lake Water Quality Program Components
    2008 Lake System Health Monitoring Program Year End Report February 2009 Prepared by The District Municipality of Muskoka Planning and Economic Development Department With Technical Support from the Dorset Environmental Science Centre, Ministry of the Environment 2008 Lake System Health Monitoring Program Year End Report Table of Contents Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 4 Muskoka Water Strategy ............................................................................................................ 4 Lake System Health ................................................................................................................... 4 Summary of Lake System Health Monitoring Activities ............................................................... 5 Partners ..................................................................................................................................... 6 1) Program Partners ........................................................................................................... 6 2) Volunteer Participants .................................................................................................... 6 Monitoring Staff .......................................................................................................................... 7 Lake System Health Monitoring Program Components .............................................................. 7 1) Spring phosphorus sampling
    [Show full text]
  • 1003 Moon River Road, Bala Commercial Properties for Lease
    1003 MOON RIVER ROAD, BALA COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES FOR LEASE 3.2 ACRE SITE WITH 8,900 SQ. FT. SHOWROOM/RETAIL SHOP AND FREESTANDING 20,000 SQ. FT. STORAGE WAREHOUSE Located on Moon River Road, just off Highway 169 in Bala INQUIRIES Michael J. Saperia Martin Scott Senior Vice President, Broker Sales Representative 416 636 8898 x229 416 636 8898 x239 [email protected] [email protected] Ron Fehler Sales Representative 416 636 8898 x235 CAPITAL MARKETS [email protected] 1003 MOON RIVER ROAD, BALA COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES FOR LEASE PROPERTY OVERVIEW • The subject property is a unique 3.2-acre site at 1003 Moon River Road in Bala, Ontario • 15 minutes access to Highway 400 with direct connection to Trans Canada Highway (Highway 401) • Close proximity to two municipal airports • Site is 1 hour and 45 minutes to the GTA • Site is improved with an 8,900 sq. ft. showroom/retail shop and a freestanding 20,000 sq. ft. storage warehouse • Bala is the gateway to Muskoka, and internationally recognized as one of the finest resort areas in Canada. This highly visible property fronts directly onto Highway 169 and is one of the main arteries into the Muskoka Lakes area, the largest and wealthiest recreational community in Ontario • Muskoka Lakes is home to many high net-worth families from all over North America, including an ever- increasing presence of Hollywood celebrities, musicians and sports stars who are attracted to the spectacular scenery and pristine lakes and rivers • Bounded by Huntsville to the North, Gravenhurst to the South, Georgian Bay to the West, and Bracebridge to the East, it is a one-hour, 45 minute drive from Toronto, and is the primary access point to the breathtaking Lakes Muskoka, Rosseau and Joseph • Muskoka Lakes has a permanent growing population of over 6,500, ballooning seasonally to over 33,000.
    [Show full text]
  • MOON RIVER Grades SUBWATERSHED Land: a Water: a Wetland: —
    MOON RIVER Grades SUBWATERSHED Land: A Water: A Wetland: — The Moon River subwatershed is 71,434 hectares in area and is located in the western portion of The District Municipality of Muskoka, flowing from Lake Muskoka at Bala in the Township of Muskoka Lakes westerly through both the Moon and Musquash Index Map Rivers in the Township of Georgian Bay and finally emptying into Georgian Bay. Less that 5% of the subwatershed is developed with 49% of the land through which the river flows being Crown land. There are no major urban areas within the subwatershed and shoreline residential development comprises most of the land use. 17% of the subwatershed is protected through provincial parks, crown nature reserves, or local land trusts. There are 37 lakes in the subwatershed that are 8 hectares or greater. The subwatershed is divided into two distinct reaches: the Moon River and Musquash River branches. There are 2 dams at Bala with power generation at the Burgess Dam site. On the Moon River there is one dam with no power generation. The river is approximately 35 kilometers in length. The Musquash River is approximately 30 kilometers in length and there are two dams with power generation: Big Eddy and Ragged Rapids. There are automatic water level gauges downstream from the Big Eddy Dam and at both dams in Bala. There are also flow gauges on both the Moon and Musquash Rivers and one located upstream from the point at which the rivers separate. This report card describes the health of the land, water and wetlands of the Moon River subwatershed and is part of the larger report The 2010 Muskoka Watershed Report Card that is posted on the MWC website www.muskokaheritage.org/watershed.
    [Show full text]
  • C94) and Lower Moon River Conservation Reserve (C90
    Moon River Conservation Reserve (C94) and Lower Moon River Conservation Reserve (C90) Statement of Conservation Interest March 2005 Moon River Conservation Reserve (C94) and Lower Moon River Conservation Reserve (C90) Statement of Conservation Interest Ministry of Natural Resources Parry Sound District Prepared with the assistance of: Meteek & Company Huntsville, Ontario March 2005 i Approval Statement We are pleased to approve this Statement of Conservation Interest for Moon River Conservation Reserve (C94) and Lower Moon River Conservation Reserve (C90). Together these two conservation reserves provide protection for approximately 15 kilometres of diverse habitats along the Moon River, from just west of Highway 400 (formerly Highway 69) to Arnolds Bay and The Massasauga Provincial Park on the Georgian Bay shoreline. Moon River Conservation Reserve (C94) is the upstream component of these two protected areas. It consists of 457 hectares of Crown land, located in southern Freeman Ward in the Area Municipality of Georgian Bay, in the District of Muskoka. The site is approximately seven kilometres southwest of the hamlet of Mactier. At its closest point on the east it is about ½ kilometre west of Highway 400, and it abuts Lower Moon River Conservation Reserve at its west boundary. This conservation reserve, located in Hills’ ecological Site District 5E-7, includes steep rocky slopes and low cliffs on the Moon River. The surrounding uplands support representative sugar maple and old hemlock forests growing on gently sloping hills with shallow sandy soils or bare bedrock. It provides habitat for the nationally threatened eastern Massasauga rattlesnake and the threatened eastern hog- nosed snake. Lower Moon River Conservation Reserve (C90) is a 2723 hectare area of Crown land, located about 10 kilometres due west of the hamlet of Mactier.
    [Show full text]
  • Exploring Malibu of the North
    FEATURE Architectural eye candy. Lake Rosseau Lighthouse. PUBLIC LAUNCHES lakes, how they connect, and where the key towns and roads There are several pre-requisites for a good trailer boating desti - are, including Gravenhurst (south end of Lake Muskoka), Port nation. One is a serviceable launch site with available docks, Carling (between Lake Muskoka and Lake Rosseau), Rosseau parking and bathroom facilities. Fortunately, the big three (north end of Lake Rosseau), Port Sandfield (at the southern Muskoka lakes are well equipped in this regard. About a dozen connection of Lakes Rosseau and Joseph) and Bala (west side of public (free) launches are scattered around the big three, Lake Muskoka). That accomplished, it’s hard to get lost, espe - Exploring Malibu although more of them are located on Lake Muskoka than the cially if you’re not too proud to stop at any cottage dock to ask other two. In addition, there are several marinas with gas on for directions. Also, there’s normally enough other boat traffic on each lake, most with their own pay-as-you-go launch. the water that, when in doubt about where to go, it’s easy to play of the North follow the leader. MUSKOKA WHARF One other aspect of trouble-free navigation is crucial for Story and photos by Craig Nicholson, For most of our Muskoka Sea-Doo tours, we hit the water at trailer boats. That’s being able to avoid rough water as much as The Intrepid Cottager Muskoka Wharf, located at the southeast end of Muskoka Bay possible on a windy day.
    [Show full text]
  • District 7 Area
    ! Little Patterson Lake Blue Lake Dunchurch 30 Snakeskin Lake C104D 0 603 Dunchurch Lake Ahmic Lake D123 C104D Burk's Falls Kearney 1 1 ! ! 7 303 5 305 0 8 Algonquin Park Bell Lake 302 06 East Ryan Lake D Shawanaga Lake 7 Algonquin Park ! 803 Emsdale D ! Mckellar Lake McKellar C101 Hart Lake ! Clear Lake 95 Bay Lake 807 Whitehall 704 Swindon Manitouwabing River ! ! Manitouwabing Lake D C 80 8 4 Belfry Lake 3 8 78 06 Nine Mile Lake 7 ± 0 0 D101B Luck Lake Wolf Lake 405 83 Crown Lake 702 8 9 85 5 2 93 66 7 Portage Lake Manitouwaba Lake 85 Clark Lake D102B 79 7 Seguin River 8 7 Big East River C103D! C102 C 86 Deavy Lake 4 8 77 7 74 8 3 4 80 2 Peninsula Lake 1 Parry Sound ! 4 ! 10 320 8 Dwight 3 4 Huntsville 75 Mcfadden Lake Fairy Lake 4 Ashworth Lake Vernon ! 00 ! 210 Yarrow Lake 20 2 65 Brennan Lake 4 01 8 Horseshoe Lake 8 54 6 Kawagama Lake C102 7 63 350 Rosseau 50 68 4 ! 7 Wolfsban e Lake 64 5 Lake Of Bays 0 Kimmins Lake 3 0 0 2 3 Mary Lake 12 3 51 Dorset Hamer Lake ! 61 53 Lake Of Bays 340 Port Sydney 64 2 Kennisis Lake 11 2 ! 6 2 9 2 6 1 Lake Joseph 33 Avery Lake D103B Code Lake Lake Rosseau Lake Joseph 3 Ufford 64 7 Fawn Lake Black Lake 18 Pairo Lakes 0 Lake Rosseau ! 55 C102D 7 Baysville Mug Lake Kapikog Lake ! D102B Stewart Lake D103B 4 10 ! Teapot Lake Grouse Lake 1 Port Carling 5 MacTier 7 45 ! North Branch Muskoka River B Moon River Bass Lake Brandy Lake 4 ! 15 C102D 36 3 0 B Gullfeather Lake 4 C102D 35 41 6 ! C102D South Branch Muskoka River C Milford Bay Bracebridge B Anson Lake C114 32 B ! 7 Bala ! 44 Musquash River C114 Long
    [Show full text]
  • Somerset Island, Sans Souci Georgian Bay, Ontario, Canada Island B-195, Pcl 566 S/S Township of the Archipelago (Conger), District of Parry Sound
    SOMERSET ISLAND, SANS SOUCI GEORGIAN BAY, ONTARIO, CANADA ISLAND B-195, PCL 566 S/S TOWNSHIP OF THE ARCHIPELAGO (CONGER), DISTRICT OF PARRY SOUND LEGAL DESCRIPTION: ISLAND B-195, PCL 566 S/S. TOWNSHIP OF THE ARCHIPELAGO (CONGER), DISTRICT OF PARRY SOUND REGION: CANADA LOCATION: GEORGIAN BAY SIZE: 20 ACRES, APPROX. 4,500 SQ. FT., 17 ROOMS AGE: 51+ YEARS OWNER: PAUL MICHAEL TRUST, PMT XII LLC ZONING: R02 GEORGIAN BAY NAME • Georgian Bay was charted by Captain Henry W. Bayfield of the Royal Navy in 1822, he named the area after King George IV. The area of Georgian Bay located in the District of Muskoka was formed on January 1st, 1971 due to the amalgamation of several regional governments. The District of Muskoka portion of Georgian Bay includes many of the tens of thousands of islands that dot the uneven shoreline. In 1991 there were 2,069 permanent residence and 14,238 seasonal. • Imagine being in a position to choose virtually any island in Sans Souci at the turn of the 20th century! In 1902 a railroad Baron from Cleveland purchased Somerset Island from the Crown as it was one of the grand islands of the area. One hundred years later, it remains eminently clear why he made Somerset his choice. Comprising more than 20 acres, with two natural harbours, densely covered in original growth white pine and a completely unobstructed view to the west. • Comprising a total of 20 acres, Somerset is actually two distinct sections of land joined by a low lying rock cleft. The island’s present zoning designation of R2 would allow for a severance essentially creating roughly a 12 and an 8 acre parcel.
    [Show full text]
  • Monitoring of Municipal Salt Management Plans in the District of Muskoka
    Monitoring of Municipal Salt Management Plans In the District of Muskoka December 2010 Monitoring of Municipal Salt Management Plans in the District of Muskoka INTRODUCTION The mission of the Muskoka Watershed Council (MWC) is to Champion Watershed Health. In pursuing this mission, MWC evaluates the watershed through research on, and analysis of, issues impacting the health of the watersheds. The Muskoka Watershed Report Card is the primary tool used to communicate the results of this work. MWC also prepares position papers on issues of concern. PURPOSE AND RECOMMENDATIONS The purpose of this paper is to report on the implementation of municipal salt management plans across Muskoka. The Province also uses salt on provincial highways and private shopping centres use salt on their parking lots to ensure safe conditions. These applications will not be addressed in any detail in this report. In general, municipalities have methodically implemented their respective plans over the last four years. In particular, significant capital investment has been made in the construction of new salt domes with impervious floor surfaces, the installation of proper facilities to store pre-wetting material (water or a de-icing solution added to road salt or sand before, or during, application to the road ), and the acquisition of trucks and computers with pre-wetting capability. This effort should be commended. Not all actions can be implemented at the same time, and additional work is required to completely implement the salt management plans. In particular, the following activities, recommended in the salt management plan, are outstanding: 1. Monitoring of snow storage areas to determine the levels of salt, oil/grease and heavy metals present in the snow melt that are released to the environment.
    [Show full text]
  • Results of Field Program
    MUSKOKA HERITAGE AREAS PROGRAM A Project of the District Municipality of Muskoka and the Muskoka Heritage Foundation 10 Pine Street, Bracebridge, Ontario PIL IN3 RESULTS OF 1992 FIELD PROGRAM MUSKOKA HERITAGE AREAS PROGRAM REPORT NO. 3 RESULTS OF THE 1992 FIELD SEASON Bonnie Bergsma Ron Reid Terry Rasmussen Genevieve Taeger March 1993 The Heritage Areas Program is sponsored by the District Municipality of Muskoka and the Muskoka Heritage Foundation, with major financial support from the Ministry of Natural Resources and other agencies. TABLE OF CONTENTS: 1. PROGRAM ORGANIZATION AND FUNDING ... 1 2. METHODOLOGY FOR BIOTIC FIELD PROGRAM ... 5 3. RECOMMENDATIONS .. 15 4. TECHNICAL SUMMARY: RECOMMENDED HERITAGE AREAS .. 17 Clipsham Woods .. 18 Fawn Lake Wetland .. 23 Gray Rapids .. 29 Langmaids Island .. 35 Lower Oxtongue River .. 40 Muldrew Creek .. 46 Riley Lake North .. 51 Scarcliffe Bay .. 57 Shack Creek Wetland .. 62 Spring Creek .. 70 Tasso Creek - Upper Big East River .. 71 Walker Point - Wells Creek .. 83 Westermain Woods .. 89 5. ADDITIONAL SITES OF INTEREST Sites from previous years - 1990 .. 93 Sites from previous years - 1991 .. 97 Other sites of interest from 1992 .103 6. LITERATURE CITED .106 7. APPENDIX 1 : RARE SPECIES STATUS .108 1. PROGRAM ORGANIZATION AND FUNDING: The Muskoka Heritage Areas Program was established to identify the best examples of the District's natural and cultural heritage, using a systematic, 6bjective evaluation process, and to seek mechanisms for the protection of these heritage landscapes. 1992 was the third year of a planned three-year program, with field activities relating to natural heritage features, both biotic and scenic. Evaluation of cultural heritage also began in 1992.
    [Show full text]
  • News Release
    NEWS RELEASE Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks Ontario Protecting the Health of the Muskoka River Watershed Funding will support projects that reduce impacts of flooding NEWS April 20, 2021 GRAVENHURST — The Ontario government is investing more than $4.25 million to further protect the Muskoka River Watershed. The funding will support projects that will help safeguard the region from environmental pressures, such as severe weather and flooding, while also improving the health of the watershed, a key commitment in the Made-in-Ontario Environment Plan. “The Muskoka Region is one of Ontario’s crown jewels, and we want to ensure that we continue to protect its environment which is so important to the local economy and the great people who live there,” said Premier Doug Ford. “This investment will help protect this area known around the world for its spectacular lakes and rivers so it can continue to be a thriving hub for Ontario’s tourism industry.” The Ontario government is funding 16 projects led by the District of Muskoka and the Town of Bracebridge, as part of the province’s initial $5 million commitment to the Muskoka Watershed Conservation and Management Initiative. Approximately $750,000 will support other projects that are in development. “We are protecting the Muskoka River Watershed while supporting the local economy and its $400- million recreational and tourism industry,” said Jeff Yurek, Minister of the Environment, Conservation and Parks. “By funding these projects and working with the local community, we are supporting this vital region in Ontario and ensuring its water resources are protected now and for future generations.” Following careful review and consideration of the Muskoka Watershed Advisory Group’s recommendations, the government selected projects that support the development and implementation of the Muskoka Watershed Conservation and Management Initiative.
    [Show full text]
  • Muskoka River Flood Plain Mapping Study
    The District Municipality of Muskoka Technical Report For Muskoka River Flood Plain Mapping Study H356689-00000-200-230-0002 Rev. 0 February 12, 2020 This document contains confidential information intended only for the person(s) to whom it is addressed. The information in this document may not be disclosed to, or used by, any other person without Hatch's prior written consent. The District Municipality of Muskoka Technical Report For Muskoka River Flood Plain Mapping Study H356689-00000-200-230-0002 Rev. 0 February 12, 2020 This document contains confidential information intended only for the person(s) to whom it is addressed. The information in this document may not be disclosed to, or used by, any other person without Hatch's prior written consent. The District Municipality of Muskoka Engineering Report Muskoka River Flood Plain Mapping Study Engineering Management H356689 Technical Report Report Technical Report H356689-00000-200-230-0002 B. Heppner, G. 2020-02-12 0 Final A. Breland A. Breland Schellenberg DATE REV. STATUS PREPARED BY CHECKED BY APPROVED BY Manager Manager H356689-00000-200-230-0002, Rev. 0, Page 1 Ver: 04.03 © Hatch 2020 All rights reserved, including all rights relating to the use of this document or its contents. The District Municipality of Muskoka Engineering Report Muskoka River Flood Plain Mapping Study Engineering Management H356689 Technical Report IMPORTANT NOTICE TO READER This report was prepared by Hatch Ltd. (“Hatch”) for the sole and exclusive benefit of The District Municipality of Muskoka (the “Client”) for the sole purpose of updating flood line mapping for particularly vulnerable portions of Muskoka River flood plains (the “Project) and may not be used or relied upon by any other party.
    [Show full text]
  • The Evolution of Water Management in the Muskoka River Watershed | November 2020
    T H E E V O L U T I O N O F Water Management I N T H E M U S K O K A R I V E R W A T E R S H E D B y C h r i s C r a g g N o v e m b e r 2 0 2 0 The Evolution of Water Management in the Muskoka River Watershed | November 2020 Table of Contents Table of Contents .............................................................................................................................................. 2 Introduction ........................................................................................................................................................ 3 History of Water Management in Muskoka .................................................................................................. 3 Watershed Description ..................................................................................................................................... 4 Technical Considerations ................................................................................................................................ 8 Impact of Water Retaining Structures ......................................................................................................... 10 The Current Water Management Plan ....................................................................................................... 11 Fish Spawning Impacts ................................................................................................................................... 11 Recent Water Quantity Experience ...........................................................................................................
    [Show full text]