DOCSLIB.ORG

Rouge River Rouge River

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Rouge River Rouge River Rouge River State of the Watershed Report Surface Water Quantity Goal: Surface waters of a quantity, volume and naturally variable rate of flow to: $ protect aquatic and terrestrial life and ecological functions; $ protect human life and property from risks due to flooding; $ contribute to the protection of Lake Ontario as a domestic drinking water source; $ support sustainable agricultural, industrial, and commercial water supply needs; $ support swimming, fishing and the opportunity to safely consume fish; and $ contribute to the removal of Toronto from the Great Lakes list of Areas of Concern. Surface Water Quantity Key Findings: The Main Rouge subwatershed has been subject to significant urbanization with an approximate total impervious cover of 18% as of 2002. Several studies suggest that the maximum impervious cover that a watershed can withstand before experiencing severe hydrologic changes and consequent geomorphic and ecological impacts is approximately 10%. There has been significantly less urbanization in the Little Rouge subwatershed and impervious surfaces make up only 2% of the subwatershed area. As a result, hydrologic impacts and related effects are much less severe than on the Main Rouge River. Average annual flows in the Main Rouge River show a long-term increasing trend of over 1.3% per year in the past 40 years. This rate of increase is significantly greater than that on the Little Rouge River or nearby rural watersheds and is indicative of the effect of urbanization on the hydrologic cycle. The Rouge River has become flashy and now generates high flows in response to rainfall events that caused almost no response in the river prior to widespread development. In the same time period, the response of the Little Rouge River has remained essentially unchanged. The extra stormwater flow generated in the now developed Rouge River watershed has resulted in an approximate 225% increase in summer flow volumes. The seasonal distribution of flow is beginning to resemble that of highly urbanized watersheds such as Highland Creek. Seasonal patterns in the Little Rouge River have been virtually unaffected due to a lack of development. The shallow Oak Ridges Moraine aquifer contributes between 40-80% of total baseflow in individual tributaries of the Rouge. This is especially noticeable in the northwest portion of the upper Rouge, Bruce Creek and upper Little Rouge. Significant baseflow losses were observed in the Little Rouge south of Elgin Mills Road, likely due to unreported water uses. There are one hundred and sixteen water takers in the watershed, of which 34% use surface water sources. The majority of permitted water uses are for golf course irrigation, aesthetics, and industry. Golf courses represent the largest user by volume. Flood vulnerability in the Town of Markham is greatest in March and April due to spring melt or late fall related to heavy rains from tropical storms. Summary of Current CondCondiiiitionstions Ratings: ObjectivesObjectives:::: OverOverallall Rating Protect and restore the natural variability of annual and seasonal stream flow. Fair Maintain and restore natural levels of baseflow. Good Eliminate or minimize risks to human life and property due to flooding and erosion. Good TABLE OF CCONTENTSONTENTS 5.0 SURFACE WATER QUANTITY ........................................................................................ 5-1 5.1 Introduction.................................................................................................................. 5-1 5.2 Understanding Surface Water Quantity in the Rouge Watershed.............................. 5-2 5.3 Measuring Surface Water Quantity ............................................................................. 5-4 5.4 Existing Conditions...................................................................................................... 5-7 5.4.1 Surface Flow Regime............................................................................................... 5-7 5.4.2 Baseflow................................................................................................................. 5-15 5.5 Objectives for Surface Water Quantity ...................................................................... 5-30 5.6 Summary and Management Considerations ............................................................ 5-30 5.7 References ................................................................................................................. 5-32 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 5-1: Active Stream Gauging Locations ........................................................................... 5-5 Figure 5-2: Streamflow Data from 1962 to Present for Rouge River, Little Rouge River and Highland Creek Gauges.......................................................................................... 5-8 Figure 5-3: Seasonal Flow Patterns: Rouge and Little Rouge Rivers and Highland Creek.... 5-10 Figure 5-4: Summer Flow Volume Trends, Rouge and Little Rouge Rivers and Highland Creek ............................................................................................................................... 5-11 Figure 5-5: Area-Weighted Rainfall Event Response: Rouge and Little Rouge Rivers Compared with Highland Creek .............................................................................................. 5-12 Figure 5-6: Area-weighted daily flows for summer 1965 and summer 1997........................... 5-14 Figure 5-7: Location of Baseflow Sampling ............................................................................. 5-16 Figure 5-8: Summer Mean Monthly Baseflow from Hydrograph Separation.......................... 5-17 Figure 5-9: Baseflow Normalized to Stream Length................................................................ 5-19 Figure 5-10: Flood Vulnerable Sites and Special Policy Areas ............................................... 5-27 LIST OF TABLES Table 5-1: Known Water Abstractions by Sector-Rouge River, 2006...................................... 5-21 Table 5-2: Total Water Abstractions by Subwatersheds - Rouge River, 2006 ........................ 5-23 Table 5-3: Number and Flood Frequency of Watershed Flood Vulnerable Areas and Roads5-26 Unique Rouge River Watershed Feature Urban development has increased the volume of stormwater runoff and flow in the Rouge River by about fifty percent and has created a flashy urban hydrologic regime. The Little Rouge River has avoided these effects due to a lack of development in its subwatershed. CHAPTER SURFACE WATER QUANTITY 555 5.05.05.0 SURFACE WATER QUANTITY 5.15.15.1 Introduction The accounting of the total quantity of water and its distribution within a watershed is known as the water budget. The input to this budget is the total amount of precipitation occurring in the watershed and the outputs are the proportions of precipitation that return to the atmosphere through both evaporation and transpiration, enter the groundwater system through infiltration, and run overland to rivers and streams. Combined, these input and output components and their movement through the atmosphere and over and through the ground are known as the hydrologic cycle. Surface water quantity deals with the components of water within the hydrologic cycle that move over land or within surface systems of lakes, streams, and wetlands. Surface flow includes normal low flow in rivers and streams which is comprised of groundwater discharge, overland flow from rain and snow melt and precipitation that falls directly into lakes, rivers and streams and wetlands . The physical properties of a watershed, such as drainage area, slope, geology and land use affect the distribution of the water budget and the processes that function within a watershed’s hydrologic cycle. This chapter will explain how rural and urban land uses in the Rouge River watershed have altered the hydrologic cycle, including changes in surface flow volumes, annual flow patterns and the risk of flooding. Water uses are described and represented in terms of their significance to low stream flow. The understanding of the processes controlling surface water flow are important to understanding the aquatic systems that have evolved into the existing natural flow patterns. 5-1 5.25.25.2 Understanding Surface Water Quantity in the Rouge WatershedWatershed Within the Watershed Ecosystem Climate and surficial geology are key factors in determining the quantity of surface flow within a watercourse, primarily through their effect on precipitation, evaporation and infiltration. Although surface flow varies throughout the year, there is a general tendency in the Rouge River watershed for the highest annual peak flows to occur in the late winter or spring due to snowmelt or combined rain/snowmelt events and for the lowest flows in the summer when precipitation is at a minimum. Flooding is a natural and common occurrence in most watersheds. The Rouge River watershed is typical of temperate watersheds with low to moderate slopes in that most areas have small stream channels whose banks are overtopped on average every one to two years, with flows spilling out onto relatively wide floodplain areas. A significant percentage of the precipitation within undeveloped watersheds in Southern Ontario and areas of similar climate and geology is cycled back into the atmosphere through evapotranspiration or infiltrates into the soil, leaving a relatively small surface runoff component. In undeveloped conditions, direct surface runoff comprises a relatively small
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Hurricane Turns Aurora and District Into a Lake
    FEATURING A SPECIAL GUEST SPEAKER WineWine FROM DineDineBERINGER VINEYARDS & R.S.V.P. & 905-773-9329 as space is limited PRICE $65.00 Aurora’s Community Newspaper PRICE $65.00 PER PERSON + TAX & GRATUITY OCTOBER 28TH 7 pm sharp 49 North Lake Road Oak Ridges Vol. 3 No. 1 Week of October 15, 2002 905-727-3300 Renaming policy sacked by council in a recorded vote The controversial Public on July 11 the committee Facilities Renaming Policy pre- approved the draft policy and it pared by the Leisure Services was presented to council for Advisory Committee was back adoption. before Aurora Council last week A week later, the issue was but this time it was defeated on a deferred to the September 17 4-3 recorded vote. general committee meeting and Two councillors who had indicat- staff were directed to obtain public ed earlier support of the proposal opinion regarding the draft policy. were absent when the vote was Eight replies were received from taken. citizens with the majority opposed The issue was brought about to a renaming policy. some time ago when a request There was a controversial debate was received to change the name at the September 17th general of Willow Creek Park to Elizabeth committee meeting and a motion Hader Park, as a tribute to a by Councillor John West to, in young Aurora girl who lost her life effect, leave things alone was in a horseback riding tragedy. defeated. Her death brought about A follow-up motion by Councillor changes in legislation requiring Evelina MacEachern and second- stricter controls for riding stables ed by Councillor David Griffith (the in hopes that such action would two absent from last week's meet- prevent similar-type accidents.
    [Show full text]
  • 3131 Lower Don River West Lower Don River West 4.0 DESCRIPTION
    Lower Don River West Environmental Study Report Remedial Flood Protection Project 4.0 DESCRIPTION OF LOWER DON 4.1 The Don River Watershed The Don River is one of more than sixty rivers and streams flowing south from the Oak Ridges Moraine. The River is approximately 38 km long and outlets into the Keating Channel, which then conveys the flows into Toronto Harbour and Lake Historic Watershed Ontario. The entire drainage basin of the Don urbanization of the river's headwaters in York River is 360 km2. Figure 4.1 and Figure 4.2, on the Region began in the early 1980s and continues following pages, describe the existing and future today. land use conditions within the Don River Watershed. Hydrologic changes in the watershed began when settlers converted the forests to agricultural fields; For 200 years, the Don Watershed has been many streams were denuded even of bank side subject to intense pressures from human vegetation. Urban development then intensified settlement. These have fragmented the river the problems of warmer water temperatures, valley's natural branching pattern; degraded and erosion, and water pollution. Over the years often destroyed its once rich aquatic and during the three waves of urban expansion, the terrestrial wildlife habitat; and polluted its waters Don River mouth, originally an extensive delta with raw sewage, industrial/agricultural marsh, was filled in and the lower portion of the chemicals, metals and other assorted river was straightened. contaminants. Small Don River tributaries were piped and Land clearing, settlement, and urbanization have buried, wetlands were "reclaimed," and springs proceeded in three waves in the Don River were lost.
    [Show full text]
  • Volume 5 Has Been Updated to Reflect the Specific Additions/Revisions Outlined in the Errata to the Environmental Project Report, Dated November, 2017
    DISCLAIMER AND LIMITATION OF LIABILITY This Revised Final Environmental Project Report – Volume 5 has been updated to reflect the specific additions/revisions outlined in the Errata to the Environmental Project Report, dated November, 2017. As such, it supersedes the previous Final version dated October, 2017. The report dated October, 2017 (“Report”), which includes its text, tables, figures and appendices) has been prepared by Gannett Fleming Canada ULC (“Gannett Fleming”) and Morrison Hershfield Limited (“Morrison Hershfield”) (“Consultants”) for the exclusive use of Metrolinx. Consultants disclaim any liability or responsibility to any person or party other than Metrolinx for loss, damage, expense, fines, costs or penalties arising from or in connection with the Report or its use or reliance on any information, opinion, advice, conclusion or recommendation contained in it. To the extent permitted by law, Consultants also excludes all implied or statutory warranties and conditions. In preparing the Report, the Consultants have relied in good faith on information provided by third party agencies, individuals and companies as noted in the Report. The Consultants have assumed that this information is factual and accurate and has not independently verified such information except as required by the standard of care. The Consultants accept no responsibility or liability for errors or omissions that are the result of any deficiencies in such information. The opinions, advice, conclusions and recommendations in the Report are valid as of the date of the Report and are based on the data and information collected by the Consultants during their investigations as set out in the Report. The opinions, advice, conclusions and recommendations in the Report are based on the conditions encountered by the Consultants at the site(s) at the time of their investigations, supplemented by historical information and data obtained as described in the Report.
    [Show full text]
  • Dodging the 'Perfect Storm'
    Dodging the ‘Perfect Storm’ Conservation Ontario’s Business Case for Strategic Reinvestment in Ontario’s Flood Management Programs, Services, and Structures September 2013 Introduction Flooding in Calgary, Alberta and more recently in Toronto, Ontario reminds us just how vulnerable we are when it comes to extreme weather events. The loss of life, devastation, long term social and economic disruption and the staggering cleanup costs in the aftermath of these floods clearly demonstrates how essential it is to have actionable guidelines, policies and programs in place to manage these events. Flooding in downtown Calgary (2013). Source: CTV News Flooding on the Don Valley Parkway, Toronto (2013). Source: CTV News 1 Dodging the ‘Perfect Storm’ – Conservation Ontario’s Business Case for Strategic Reinvestment in Ontario’s Flood Management Programs and Services, and Structures (2013) In Ontario, flooding is the leading cause of public emergency.1 To date, Ontario’s programs to manage floods and regulate floodplains have proven extremely effective and, indeed, the Ontario government has been a leading jurisdiction in Canada for flood planning and management. While much has been accomplished, several factors, if not addressed directly and quickly, will significantly jeopardize the ability of Conservation Authorities and all levels of governments to maintain and improve on this level of management and protection. Flood management is a shared responsibility in Ontario and Conservation Authorities are on the front lines of the Provincial Flood Forecasting and Warning program. In addition, Conservation Authorities bring added protection and benefits through watershed planning, watershed stewardship/natural heritage system management, monitoring and many other programs they deliver.
    [Show full text]
  • Download Community Based Adaptation in Brampton Through the Sustainable Neighbourhood Retrofit Action Plan
    Community Based Adaptation in Brampton Through the Sustainable Neighbourhood Retrofit Action Plan Acknowledgements Executive Director: Eva Ligeti, Clean Air Partnership Authors: Erin Tito, Ryerson University Beata Palka, Ryerson University Caroline Rodgers, Clean Air Partnership Advisors, Reviewers & Editors: Caroline Rodgers, Clean Air Partnership Kevin Behan, Clean Air Partnership Eva Ligeti, Clean Air Partnership Clean Air Partnership gratefully acknowledges the financial support of the Ontario Ministry of the Environment. We also wish to thank the representatives from the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority, Region of Peel, and City of Brampton who provided input to this report, and the staff who initiated and played a lead role in the development of this project. Clean Air Partnership, 2011. All rights reserved. For more information, contact: Clean Air Partnership 75 Elizabeth Street Toronto, Ontario. M5G 1P4, Canada 416-392-6672 www.cleanairpartnership.org About the Clean Air Partnership Clean Air Partnership (CAP) is a registered charity that works in partnership to promote and coordinate actions to improve local air quality and reduce greenhouse gases for healthy communities. Our applied research on municipal policies strives to broaden and improve access to public policy debate on air pollution and climate change issues. Our social marketing programs focus on energy conservation activities that motivate individuals, government, schools, utilities, businesses and communities to take action to clean the air. We would like to acknowledge the hard work of the SNAP Project Team members who gave us generous access to their presentations, documents, and reports. Without their cooperation, kindness, and extensive knowledge this case study would not have been possible.
    [Show full text]
  • Richmond, VA Hurricanes
    Hurricanes Influencing the Richmond Area Why should residents of the Middle Atlantic states be concerned about hurricanes during the coming hurricane season, which officially begins on June 1 and ends November 30? After all, the big ones don't seem to affect the region anymore. Consider the following: The last Category 2 hurricane to make landfall along the U.S. East Coast, north of Florida, was Isabel in 2003. The last Category 3 was Fran in 1996, and the last Category 4 was Hugo in 1989. Meanwhile, ten Category 2 or stronger storms have made landfall along the Gulf Coast between 2004 and 2008. Hurricane history suggests that the Mid-Atlantic's seeming immunity will change as soon as 2009. Hurricane Alley shifts. Past active hurricane cycles, typically lasting 25 to 30 years, have brought many destructive storms to the region, particularly to shore areas. Never before have so many people and so much property been at risk. Extensive coastal development and a rising sea make for increased vulnerability. A storm like the Great Atlantic Hurricane of 1944, a powerful Category 3, would savage shorelines from North Carolina to New England. History suggests that such an event is due. Hurricane Hazel in 1954 came ashore in North Carolina as a Category 4 to directly slam the Mid-Atlantic region. It swirled hurricane-force winds along an interior track of 700 miles, through the Northeast and into Canada. More than 100 people died. Hazel-type wind events occur about every 50 years. Areas north of Florida are particularly susceptible to wind damage.
    [Show full text]
  • Rapid Transit in Toronto Levyrapidtransit.Ca TABLE of CONTENTS
    The Neptis Foundation has collaborated with Edward J. Levy to publish this history of rapid transit proposals for the City of Toronto. Given Neptis’s focus on regional issues, we have supported Levy’s work because it demon- strates clearly that regional rapid transit cannot function eff ectively without a well-designed network at the core of the region. Toronto does not yet have such a network, as you will discover through the maps and historical photographs in this interactive web-book. We hope the material will contribute to ongoing debates on the need to create such a network. This web-book would not been produced without the vital eff orts of Philippa Campsie and Brent Gilliard, who have worked with Mr. Levy over two years to organize, edit, and present the volumes of text and illustrations. 1 Rapid Transit in Toronto levyrapidtransit.ca TABLE OF CONTENTS 6 INTRODUCTION 7 About this Book 9 Edward J. Levy 11 A Note from the Neptis Foundation 13 Author’s Note 16 Author’s Guiding Principle: The Need for a Network 18 Executive Summary 24 PART ONE: EARLY PLANNING FOR RAPID TRANSIT 1909 – 1945 CHAPTER 1: THE BEGINNING OF RAPID TRANSIT PLANNING IN TORONTO 25 1.0 Summary 26 1.1 The Story Begins 29 1.2 The First Subway Proposal 32 1.3 The Jacobs & Davies Report: Prescient but Premature 34 1.4 Putting the Proposal in Context CHAPTER 2: “The Rapid Transit System of the Future” and a Look Ahead, 1911 – 1913 36 2.0 Summary 37 2.1 The Evolving Vision, 1911 40 2.2 The Arnold Report: The Subway Alternative, 1912 44 2.3 Crossing the Valley CHAPTER 3: R.C.
    [Show full text]
  • 'Service Assessment': Hurricane Isabel September 18-19, 2003
    Service Assessment Hurricane Isabel September 18-19, 2003 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration National Weather Service Silver Spring, Maryland Cover: Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS) Rapid Response Team imagery, NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, 1555 UTC September 18, 2003. Service Assessment Hurricane Isabel September 18-19, 2003 May 2004 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Donald L. Evans, Secretary National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Vice Admiral Conrad C. Lautenbacher, Jr., U.S. Navy (retired), Administrator National Weather Service Brigadier General David L. Johnson, U.S. Air Force (Retired), Assistant Administrator Preface The hurricane is one of the most potentially devastating natural forces. The potential for disaster increases as more people move to coastlines and barrier islands. To meet the mission of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA) National Weather Service (NWS) - provide weather, hydrologic, and climatic forecasts and warnings for the protection of life and property, enhancement of the national economy, and provide a national weather information database - the NWS has implemented an aggressive hurricane preparedness program. Hurricane Isabel made landfall in eastern North Carolina around midday Thursday, September 18, 2003, as a Category 2 hurricane on the Saffir-Simpson Hurricane Scale (Appendix A). Although damage estimates are still being tabulated as of this writing, Isabel is considered one of the most significant tropical cyclones to affect northeast North Carolina, east central Virginia, and the Chesapeake and Potomac regions since Hurricane Hazel in 1954 and the Chesapeake-Potomac Hurricane of 1933. Hurricane Isabel will be remembered not for its intensity, but for its size and the impact it had on the residents of one of the most populated regions of the United States.
    [Show full text]
  • The Fish Communities of the Toronto Waterfront: Summary and Assessment 1989 - 2005
    THE FISH COMMUNITIES OF THE TORONTO WATERFRONT: SUMMARY AND ASSESSMENT 1989 - 2005 SEPTEMBER 2008 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The authors wish to thank the many technical staff, past and present, of the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority and Ministry of Natural Resources who diligently collected electrofishing data for the past 16 years. The completion of this report was aided by the Canada Ontario Agreement (COA). 1 Jason P. Dietrich, 1 Allison M. Hennyey, 1 Rick Portiss, 1 Gord MacPherson, 1 Kelly Montgomery and 2 Bruce J. Morrison 1 Toronto and Region Conservation Authority, 5 Shoreham Drive, Downsview, ON, M3N 1S4, Canada 2 Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Lake Ontario Fisheries Management Unit, Glenora Fisheries Station, Picton, ON, K0K 2T0, Canada © Toronto and Region Conservation 2008 ABSTRACT Fish community metrics collected for 16 years (1989 — 2005), using standardized electrofishing methods, throughout the greater Toronto region waterfront, were analyzed to ascertain the current state of the fish community with respect to past conditions. Results that continue to indicate a degraded or further degrading environment include an overall reduction in fish abundance, a high composition of benthivores, an increase in invasive species, an increase in generalist species biomass, yet a decrease in specialist species biomass, and a decrease in cool water Electrofishing in the Toronto Harbour thermal guild species biomass in embayments. Results that may indicate a change in a positive community health direction include no significant changes to species richness, a marked increase in diversity in embayments, a decline in non-native species in embayments and open coasts (despite the invasion of round goby), a recent increase in native species biomass, fluctuating native piscivore dynamics, increased walleye abundance, and a reduction in the proportion of degradation tolerant species.
    [Show full text]
  • Rouge River Rouge River
    Rouge River State of the Watershed Report Cultural Heritage Goal: Recognition, preservation, and celebration of cultural heritage in the Rouge River watershed to increase awareness and understanding of past human relationships with the environment . Cultural Heritage Key Findings: • For 10,000 years, the Rouge River Watershed has been used by humans in some way, beginning with aboriginal hunters and farmers, explorers, traders, men of God, soldiers, surveyors, and finally settlers. • Over 1,360 archaeological and heritage sites located in the Rouge River watershed and historical accounts reveal the watershed is rich in heritage value. Knowledge gained from these sites and many more potential sites can provide an appreciation of past human relationships with the environment. • Early aboriginal inhabitants were nomadic hunters and later farmers and villagers with the introduction of agriculture about AD 700. The 3 acre Milroy site, overlooking Little Rouge River, is an example of a Late Woodland Iroquoian longhouse village, and one of a dozen such sites in the watershed. • European settlement began in Markham Township in the eighteenth century with the German-speaking Berczy settlement. Settlement in other parts of the watershed was slower due to absentee owners. • By 1861 there were 54 mills on the River. • Over 22 architectural styles lend a unique identity to the 19 th century Rouge River landscape. This array of architecture has arisen due to the sophistication and complexity of its Euro-Canadian settlers. • The 2001 Canadian census showed that in the Rouge River watershed people of Canadian or British heritage make up 31% of the population, with the remainder being Chinese (21%), East Indian (9%) and over 35 other cultures.
    [Show full text]
  • History of Flood Control in the TRCA
    The History of Flood Control in the TRCA The need for authorities In the 1940's development increased in previously unurbanized areas. As a result, natural resources, including water, were becoming commodities which needed to be regulated and controlled. In 1944 a decision was made to find a new approach to water resource conservation in Ontario and a conference, in London was organized to discuss what needed to be done1. From this conference a conservation branch in the provincial government was born2. Its first task was to prepare a bill which would become the Conservation Authorities Act3. In 1946 the act was passed4 . In the Toronto area several Conservation Authorities, including the Etobicoke Conservation Authority, were created to deal with pressing flood control issues5. In total four conservation authorities were created. They comprised of the Etobicoke- Mimico Creek C.A., the Humber River C.A., the Don River C.A., and the Rouge-Duffins- Highland-Petticoat C.A. These four Conservation Authorities mainly dealt with local flooding issues and reforestation within their watersheds. In 1957 the four Conservation Authorities were amalgamated into the Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (MTRCA). Flooding in the region The first written account of a flood in the Toronto region was in 17976. Records since that time have shown that flooding has been a problem in the region throughout the area’s history. The first severe flood, in recorded history, to hit the Toronto region was in 18787 when five inches of rain fell in less than seven and a half hours8. Downtown Brampton was flooded, bridges were washed out, stores and houses were flooded, and almost every mill and mill dam in the area was badly damaged or destroyed9.
    [Show full text]
  • Information on Proposed Transfer of Trca and Zoo Lands to Rouge National Urban Park
    INFORMATION ON PROPOSED TRANSFER OF TRCA AND ZOO LANDS TO ROUGE NATIONAL URBAN PARK Parks Canada, Toronto Zoo and Toronto and Region Conservation Authority are responding to public statements made by interest groups concerning proposed revised boundaries of the Toronto Zoo’s lease with TRCA and the City of Toronto, as well as the subsequent transfer of TRCA lands to Parks Canada for Rouge National Urban Park. As a result of some misleading and inaccurate statements, there is a need and obligation to respond to ensure that accurate information is shared on the proposed boundary changes jointly planned and agreed to in principle by the Toronto Zoo, Toronto and Region Conservation Authority and Parks Canada for the Rouge National Urban Park. Parks Canada: Created in 1911, Parks Canada is the world’s first and oldest national park service and manages one of the finest and most extensive systems of protected areas in the world, including 47 national parks, 171 national historic sites, four national marine conservation areas and, since 2015, Rouge National Urban Park. In 2017, the Government of Canada passed amendments to the Rouge National Urban Park Act to prioritize ecological integrity in the management of the park, while also providing long-term certainty for the park's farmers. The amendments ensure the Rouge Valley will have the strongest ecological protections in its history, while affirming the role of park farmers so they can continue to provide food for Canadians as they have been doing for centuries. Once fully established, Rouge National Urban Park will span 79.1 km2 in the heart of Canada's largest and most diverse metropolitan area, overlapping the cities of Toronto, Markham and Pickering and the Township of Uxbridge.
    [Show full text]