You must be logged in to post a comment.
Water Levels for Redstone Lake
“Water Levels for Redstone Lake” Page Updated July 7, 2011
(1)Weekly Water Levels for Redstone Lake
Parks Canada now publishes on a weekly basis the water levels for all lakes in the Trent-Severn Waterway (TSW), including Redstone Lake. CLICK on the link above, “Weekly Water Levels for Redstone Lake”, to get to our Page with the same name, FOLLOW THE LINK to get to the TSW Water Level Page, ACCEPT the Disclaimer Box, SELECT the Gull River Watershed, then SELECT the Red Dot for Redstone Lake. You will then get a graph showing the up-to-date daily water levels (updated weekly) for Redstone Lake, relative to the “Historic High Water Levels” and the “Historic Low Water Levels” for the current date, AND the year-to-date graph of Redstone’s water levels.
While you are on the TSW Water Level Page, CLICK on the “What’s New” link on the top left hand side to find out useful information about what’s happening on the TSW system, as well as current weather, and water management policies.
On an intermittent basis, the Coalition for Equitable Water Flow (CEWF) provides 2-week forecasts of the expected water levels for all lakes in the Trent-Severn Waterway (TSW). To get to the CEWF Website, CLICK on the link above, “Weekly Water Levels for Redstone Lake”, to get to our Page “2-Week Forecasts of Expected Water levels for Redstone Lake”. In the CEWF Website, SCROLL DOWN to and CLICK on the link “Lake Level Forecast” to see the Table of Water Level Forecasts. Redstone Lake’s forecast is under the heading “Gull River Watershed”.
NOTES :
(1) The water levels in the Start Date columns are true values, taken on the first working day of the week.
(2) The water levels in the ‘End Date’ and ‘Target Differential’ columns are estimates.
(3) ‘Water Level’ (in metres) is measured above the sill plate (ie. the cement base where the logs sit).
(4) ‘Full Level’ is the water level above the dam sill plate, when all logs are in place. [Note that 3.66 metres is 12 feet or 144.1 inches]
(5) ‘Inches Down’ is measured from the ‘Full Level’.
Finally, Mr. Dave Ness of Parks Canada indicates that historic water level data is available in digital format in spreadsheets with data dating back to around 1988. The spreadsheets have both the actual observations and a graph depicting the average, maximum, and minimum levels. Mr Ness can provide the historic data for Redstone on request.
The 20 year compilation has been done for Kennisis Lake, and is an example of the water level fluctuations since 1988 in a lake belonging to the Gull River Watershed – Redstone Lake also belongs in the same watershed. This graph can be seen by CLICKING on the link above, “Weekly Water Levels for Redstone Lake”, to get to our Page “Historic-to-1988-water-level-data-example-kennisis-lake”, and following the appropriate links. This graph is taken from the website of the Coalition for Equitable Water Flow (CEWF), and can be viewed on that website by CLICKING on the link “Kennisis Lake 20 Year Study” on the top right side of the CEWF web page.
(2)“PREFERRED WATER LEVELS for REDSTONE LAKE” – Reaffirmation of RLCA’s 2007 Recommendation to CEWF (Coalition for Equitable Water Flow).
On May 16, 2011, Mr Chris Riddle who is Co-Chair of CEWF (Coalition for Equitable Water Flow) as well as our neighbour, being on the Board of Kennisis Lake Cottage Owners’ Association (KLCOA), asked the following question:
“Has Redstone’s position changed from 2007, when a Consultant’s report, which informed the work of the Panel on the Future of the Trent Severn Waterway (TSW), cited Redstone’s concerns about erosion, navigation and trout spawning, and included the suggestion that the high water level be set one foot lower than in recent years, and likewise the low water level be set one foot higher. It was noted that this would result in a fluctuation of five feet rather than the present seven feet?”
Mr Riddle wanted to know if this proposal from 2007 reflects the current position of Redstone property owners and/or RLCA, AND whether we would have any objection if CEWF was to cite this proposal when they next meet with the TSW. He mentioned that CEWF is working with a number of individual lake associations to identify a ‘preferred range’ for water level fluctuations during the navigation season. They plan to share this information with the Trent Severn Waterway in an effort to alert them to the impact of excessive water level fluctuations. As a cottage owner on Kennisis Lake, Mr Riddle said that the KLCOA is developing a very similar position on the basis of the need to be able to navigate between Big and Little Kennisis Lakes.
The topic of water levels concerns everyone on the lake. We constantly face issues such as erosion related to high water levels in the Spring in some parts of Redstone and low water levels overall in the Fall, and we also face navigational challenges on Pelaw, and in the narrows between Big and Little Red, just as our Kennisis friends do. This issue is very important since the submission will be made to the organization (TSW) which controls the water levels in reservoir lakes such as Redstone Lake.
Accordingly, Shal Gewurtz, President of RLCA reviewed the 2007 Consultant’s Report cited by Mr Riddle, - A Study of the Past, Present and Future of Water Management on the Trent-Severn Waterway National Historic Site of Canada. (Prepared for: Parks Canada Agency. By: EcoPlans Ltd). (pdf-748 Kb)
(A) “Trent-Severn Water Management Study”, Consultation Report, May 31, 2007
Redstone Lake’s 2007 concerns and recommendations are cited on Pages 9 & 18. of this Consultation Report. Shal provided the following response and recommendation to Mr Riddle, which was subsequently ratified by the RLCA Board of Directors:
(i) On Page 9, Section 5.1, Commonly Held Concerns, Subsection 5.1.1, Ecological issues, the 2007 Consultation Report states:
“Of all responses received, the effect of water level management on the Waterway ecosystem was mentioned most frequently (Figure 5-1). The greatest concern was with the perceived impact of water level drawdown on fish spawning and fish habitat and the belief that this is resulting in declines in fish populations and fishing success. In the reservoir lakes, there was wide-spread concern over the effect of drawdown on Lake Trout spawning with the perception that the timing of the fall drawdown is resulting in the drying of spawning areas. From comments received, there appears to be a variation in the drawdown timing. In the Kawartha Lakes, the primary concerns are impact on spring Walleye spawning and the relationship between winter drawdown and winter and spring fish mortality. Residents in the Canal and Mitchell Lake and Talbot River areas were particularly critical of the drawdown practices that resulted in fish mortality and the trapping of small fish, thereby exposing them to predators and winter kill. The importance of wetland habitats and the impact of water levels on wetlands and associated wildlife habitat was the second most frequent issue raised. Concerns related to turtle mortality, flooding of nesting areas, particularly loon nesting in such places as Lovesick, Stony and Jack Lakes, and impacts on species at risk. First Nations raised a concern with holding levels too long in the fall, particularly in Rice Lake, resulting in furbearers (beaver and muskrat) building winter lodges too high, only to then freeze out when levels are dropped in the winter. They have also raised concerns that high spring and early summer water levels are detrimental to wild rice crops in the Bald Lakes. Shoreline erosion was a very common theme heard from both the residents of the Kawartha Lakes including Rice Lake and the reservoir lakes. High water levels are reportedly exacerbating the impact of spring ice push resulting in significant damage to shorelines. Large trees and unprotected shoreline are being lost and this is resulting in people’s tendency to harden shorelines which, in turn, reduces their ecological value. These latter concerns were raised by residents of Lovesick Lake and Jack Lake. Spring shoreline erosion was also raised in responses from the CEWF and Redstone Lake. The proliferation of aquatic weeds was a very common concern heard from virtually all main navigation lakes and interconnecting channels (e.g. Talbot River). Some comments from the reservoir lakes indicate a growing problem in some areas such as in the Jack and Eels systems. These concerns were re-enforced by the commercial navigation sector and recreational boaters (Canadian Power and Sail Squadrons). Some respondents (e.g., Lower Buckhorn Lake) were particularly critical of the difficulty in obtaining permission to combat weeds”.
2011 Assessment – There is nothing which changes this 2007 position and recommendation
(ii) On Page 18, Annex A, Solutions Identified, Subsection Agency/Industry Collaboration, Subsection Water Levels Management Practices – Rule Curves the 2007 Consultation Report states:
“• Eliminate single line rule curve and work within an operating range that is appropriate to all system users.
• Redefine operating ranges on the reservoir lakes that have some buffer built in to allow for elevation changes without initiating the immediate need to make dam changes.
• Allow for finer adjustments at dams.
• An increase of a small amount of water in Lake Simcoe during the spring would provide an increase in electrical generation at the Swift Rapids station after the spring runoff.
• Provide for greater flexibility for log and dam operations in terms of frequency and timing.
• Establish and maintain a predictable range of low and high water conditions. Ideally, for some lakes, there needs to be a reduction in the range of variability reduced inside the existing historical range. For example, it is believed that a decrease in water draw down would benefit Redstone Lake significantly with the erosion problem, would result in less damage to boats, and would provide more water over the trout spawning beds. It is felt that an increase in water flow would be disastrous for the lake. Lake residents would like to see the high water level set at one foot lower than it currently is and likewise the low water level set at one foot higher than now resulting in a draw down of five feet instead of seven.”
2011 Assessment – There is nothing which changes this 2007 position and recommendation
In addition to the above-mentioned Consultation Report, there were 11 additional Reports and Discussion Papers, some produced by EcoPlans Ltd for the Panel on the Future of the Trent-Severn Waterway (Commission sur l’avenir de la voie navigable Trent-Severn), under the Trent-Severn Water Management Study. These are hereby tabled for information.
– CULTURAL RESOURCES”, May 2007 (pdf-68 Kb)
(G) “Discussion Paper #2
– ECONOMY: The Waterway’s Contributions to Sustainable Economic Development”, May 2007 (pdf-64 Kb)
(H) “Discussion Paper #4
– IMPROVING GOVERNANCE”, June 2007 (pdf-84 Kb)
(I) “Discussion Paper #5
– JURISDICTION FOR THE WATERWAY: Authorities and Responsibilities”, July 2007 (pdf-92 Kb)
(J) “Discussion Paper #6
– NATURAL ENVIRONMENT”, May 2007 (pdf-64 Kb)
(K) “Discussion Paper #1
– RECREATION”, May 2007 (pdf-76 Kb)
(L) “Discussion Paper #3
