Archambeau Lake Forest Conservation Reserve Management Statement
This document provides policy direction for the protection, development and management of the Archambeau Lake Forest Conservation Reserve and its resources.
On this page Skip this page navigation
Statement of Conservation Interest
I am pleased to approve this Statement of Conservation Interest for the Archambeau Lake Forest Conservation Reserve (C230).
The Archambeau Lake Forest Conservation Reserve, protecting a landscape of medium-aged and older forest growing over a Bedrock-Drift Complex, was regulated in October 2001. This 1,234-hectare conservation reserve is located in the Territorial District of Algoma, in Northeastern Ontario and is composed entirely of Crown lands and waters.
Direction for establishing, planning and managing conservation reserves is defined under the Public Lands Act, the Ontario’s Living Legacy Land Use Strategy, and other applicable policy. The direction for this conservation reserve is in the form of a Statement of Conservation Interest (SCI), which defines the area that is being planned, the purpose for which the conservation reserve has been proposed, and it outlines the Ministry of Natural Resources' management intent for the protected area. This SCI has been created with input from program specialists within Sudbury District. It will provide both the foundation for continued monitoring of activities and guidance for managing the conservation reserve. More detailed direction is not anticipated at this time. However, should significant facility developments be considered or complex issues arise that require additional studies, more detailed management direction in the form of special protection measures, or a detailed Resource Management Plan, will be prepared with full public consultation.
Public and Aboriginal consultation occurred prior to the regulation of this conservation reserve. An additional consultation period took place in February 2003 that provided stakeholders with an opportunity to comment during the preparation and review of this SCI. Comments from the review period have been considered in the finalization of this document.
The Archambeau Lake Forest Conservation Reserve will be managed under the jurisdiction of the Sudbury District Ministry of Natural Resources under the supervision of the Espanola Area Supervisor as designated by the District Manager.
Date: February, 2004
Recommended for approval by:
Original signed by:
Date: February 29, 2004
Original signed by:
Date: June 25, 2004
Draft Statement of Conservation Interest (SCI) for Archambeau Lake Forest Conservation Reserve C230.
The Archambeau Lake Forest Conservation Reserve, protecting a landscape of medium-aged and older forests with stands of hard maple, mature white pine and white birch, growing over and a Bedrock-Drift Complext encompasses 1,234 hectares of Crown land and waters and is located within the Territorial District of Algoma in Northeastern Ontario. This conservation reserve offers an ecological landscape representative of the Mississagi Site District 4E-3 and the Spanish Forest Section. Further studies are required to identify other possible ecological associations and their significance. This site is located approximately 30 km northeast of the Town of Elliot Lake and contains several streams, well-developed wetlands and cold-water lakes.
The Archambeau Lake Forest Conservation Reserve is one of 378 new protected areas approved through Ontario’s Living Legacy Land Use Strategy (1999), a strategy aimed in part, at completing Ontario’s system of parks and protected areas. The site was regulated under the Public Lands Act on October 5, 2001.
Once a conservation reserve is regulated, the Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR) will complete one of two approved planning documents, either a Statement of Conservation Interest (SCI) or a Resource Management Plan (RMP). Both documents address the administration of landuses and activities that occur within the regulated boundaries of the conservation reserve. The Archambeau Lake Forest Conservation Reserve experienced no new issues, conflicts, uses and/or proposals beyond those addressed during land use planning for the Ontario’s Living Legacy Land Use Strategy. As a result, a SCI was completed. For conservation reserves having more complex issues, a RMP would be required.
When considering future permitted uses and/or developments, these must be consistent with the SCI. New uses are evaluated within the context of, but may not be limited to; Test of Compatibility, Class Environmental Assessment for OMNR Resource Stewardship and Facility Development Projects (OMNR 2001), Exemption Order MNR 26/7 or its successor for future dispositions. Other protocols may be developed that address site specific sensitivities to identified features.
The goal of the Archambeau Lake Forest SCI is to describe and to protect natural and cultural heritage values while permitting compatible land use activities.
The purposes of this SCI are to:
- Provide background information and identify and describe the values of the Archambeau Lake Forest Conservation Reserve; and
- Provide guidelines for the management of current and future activities while protecting natural, social, and cultural heritage values
During the preparation of Lands for Life planning process, the public was widely consulted and provided valuable input into what became Ontario’s Living Legacy Land Use Strategy (1999). Comments received during that time, and consultation related to the formal Public Lands Act regulation of the boundaries of this conservation reserve, were generally supportive of the protection of this area. Stakeholders who provided comment during the boundary consultation for this site were consulted regarding the draft Statement of Conservation Interest, and their comments were considered in the finalization of this document.
This SCI will be reviewed on an ongoing basis. Implementation of the SCI will include monitoring activities to ensure adherence to management guidelines. Should significant facility development be considered or complex issues arise requiring additional studies, further management direction or special protection measures, this SCI will be amended or a more detailed RMP will be prepared with full public consultation.
The district will evaluate the significance of the required changes. Minor changes, which do not alter the overall intent of this SCI, may be considered and approved by the District Manager without further public consultation and the SCI will be amended accordingly. In assessing major changes, the need for a more detailed resource management plan (RMP) will first be considered. Where a RMP is not considered necessary or feasible, a major amendment may be considered with public consultation. Such amendments will also be posted on the Environmental Bill of Rights (EBR) registry. The Regional Director has approval authority for any major amendments for this SCI.
The management and administration of the Archambeau Lake Forest Conservation Reserve will be guided by the SCI and administered by the Sudbury District MNR, Espanola Area Supervisor. The SCI governs the lands within the regulated boundary of the Archambeau Lake Forest Conservation Reserve; however, to ensure MNR protection objectives are being fully met within the conservation reserve, activities on the surrounding landscape must consider the site’s objectives and heritage values. In addition, it is the intent of the SCI to create a public awareness that will promote responsible stewardship of protected areas and their surrounding lands in Ontario. With management partners such as Ontario Parks, industry, local governments, etc., the ministry will be able to pursue and advance sound environmental, economic and social strategies and policies related to the protection of this conservation reserve.
The Province of Ontario is home to a broad range of climate types, geography, and plant and animal species, all of which contribute to the variety and abundance of natural resources found here. The Ministry of Natural Resources is the lead conservation and resource management agency in the province and is therefore responsible for the management of these resources, in particular, forests, fisheries, wildlife, mineral aggregates and petroleum resources, Crown lands and waters, and provincial parks and protected areas (OMNR, 2000).
The Ministry of Natural Resources (OMNR) is committed to the protection of natural and cultural heritage values and as such has developed strategies that will maintain the integrity and sustainability of the parks and protected areas system. Recently the Government of Ontario conducted a major land use planning exercise, which resulted in the release of the Ontario’s Living Legacy Land Use Strategy (OMNR, 1999). The Land Use Strategy (LUS) focuses on four specific objectives that were established to guide the planning process. These are: to complete Ontario’s system of parks and protected areas; to recognize the land use needs of the resource-based tourism industry; to provide forestry, mining, and other resource industries with greater land and resource use certainty; and to enhance hunting, angling and other Crown land recreation opportunities. A major part of the Ontario’s Living Legacy Land Use Strategy was the government’s initiative to establish 378 new protected areas. This commitment marks the largest expansion of provincial parks and conservation reserves in Ontario’s history.
The Archambeau Lake Forest Conservation Reserve (C230) was created as part of this expansion. As a result, the planning and management of this conservation reserve is consistent with the policies outlined in the Land Use Strategy. This conservation reserve is regulated under the Public Lands Act. Prior to its regulation, MNR met the Environmental Assessment Act requirements for the establishment and management of this conservation reserve.
Ontario’s network of natural heritage areas has been established to protect and conserve areas that represent the diversity of the natural regions of the province, including the species, habitats, special features and ecological systems which comprise that natural diversity. Protecting these natural heritage areas is key to the sustainable management of natural resources. It ensures that representative sites are retained in their natural state and can continue to contribute to Ontario’s natural environment (OMNR, 1997a).
In order to preserve these sensitive areas they require protection from incompatible uses to ensure their values will endure over time. Conservation reserves have been identified as a way of providing necessary protection from incompatible uses such as forestry and aggregate extraction, while still permitting many of the traditional uses that allow the people of Ontario to enjoy our special heritage. An approved Statement of Conservation Interest (SCI) or a Resource Management Plan (RMP) will guide the management and administration of each conservation reserve.
The management direction for this conservation reserve is a Statement of Conservation Interest. As a stewardship document, the SCI is the minimum level of management direction established for this conservation reserve. SCIs define the area that is being planned, the purpose for which the conservation reserve has been proposed, and it outlines the Ministry of Natural Resources' intent for the protected area. This SCI will govern the lands and waters within the regulated boundary of the conservation reserve. However, to ensure MNR protection objectives are being fully met within the conservation reserve, the surrounding landscape and related activities must consider the site’s objectives and heritage values. In addition, it is the intent of this SCI to create public awareness that will promote responsible stewardship of protected areas and surrounding lands. With management partners such as Ontario Parks, industry, local governments, etc. the MNR District Offices will be able to pursue and advance sound environmental, economic and social strategies and policies related to the protection of conservation reserves and provincial parks.
The purpose of this SCI is to identify and describe the values of the Archambeau Lake Forest Conservation Reserve and outline the Ministry’s management intent. The management direction will protect the site’s natural heritage values for the benefit of all Ontario residents and demonstrate its compatibility within the larger sustainable landscape. This direction will comply with land use intent as stated by the Ontario’s Living Legacy Lands Use Strategy (OMNR, 1999).
The Archambeau Lake Forest Conservation Reserve protects a landscape of medium-aged and older forests growing over Bedrock-Drift Complex in Site District 4E-3. Regulated in January 2001, this 1,234- hectare conservation reserve is located in the Territorial District of Algoma, in Northeastern Ontario and is composed entirely of Crown lands and waters. The guidelines for the management of this conservation reserve are found in this document.
2.0 Goals and Objectives
2.1 Goal of the Statement of Conservation Interest
The goal of a conservation reserve, as stated in Policy PL 3.03.05, is to protect the natural heritage values on public lands while permitting compatible land use activities. The goal of this Statement of Conservation Interest is to provide the framework and direction to guide management decisions in order to ensure the Archambeau Lake Forest Conservation Reserve will meet this goal through both short and long-term objectives.
2.2.1 Short Term Objectives
Objective 1: To define the purpose for which the conservation reserve has been identified and to outline the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources' management intent for the protected area.
- By identifying the state of the resource with respect to the natural heritage values being protected
- By identifying current land use activities that are occurring on the land base
Objective 2: To determine the best management strategy to protect the integrity of the values in the site.
- By determining the land use compatibility of current and potential land uses
- By developing specific guidelines and prescriptions to manage existing and potential land uses
Objective 3: To create public awareness of the values within this conservation reserve and promote responsible stewardship of the protected area.
- By creating fact sheets and pamphlets describing this conservation reserve and the resource(s) or values that it contains and protects
- By seeking partnerships with local stakeholders to ensure the values of the site are properly protected
This Statement of Conservation Interest meets the planning requirements for conservation reserves as determined in Procedure PL 3.03.05 which states that management plans must be written within three years of the regulation date (OMNR, 1997b).
2.2.2 Long Term Objectives
Objective 1: To determine the long term management goals of the conservation reserve.
- By identifying the research needs, client services, and marketing strategies necessary to determine the position of this conservation reserve among the system of parks and protected areas in Ontario
Objective 2: To determine the representative targets of the site.
- By identifying the scientific values in relation to provincial benchmarks
- By identifying any monitoring or research necessary to identify and maintain the integrity of these characteristics beyond this plan
Objective 3: To provide direction for the evaluation of new uses or economic ventures proposed.
- A Test of Compatibility shall be undertaken to evaluate the impact of suggested use(s), either positive or negative, on the protected values and administrative needs of the conservation reserve
3.0 Management Planning
3.1 Planning Context
3.1.1 Planning Area
The planning area for this site will consist of the regulated boundary for the Archambeau Lake Forest Conservation Reserve as defined in section 4.1.3 Administrative Description. This land base will form the area directly influenced by the Statement of Conservation Interest. However, in order to ensure that the protection objectives are being fully met within the conservation reserve, the surrounding landscape and related activities must carefully consider the site’s values. Any strategies noted within this plan related to the site’s boundary or beyond will need to be presented for consideration within a larger planning context.
3.1.2 Management Planning Context
The need to complete the parks and protected areas system has long been recognized as an important component of ecological sustainability. This was reaffirmed in 1997 when the Lands for Life planning process was announced. Previous gap analysis studies were used to determine where candidate areas would be proposed in order to protect additional representative features. The Archambeau Lake Forest stand was chosen as one of the candidate life science features and subsequently appeared in the Ontario’s Living Legacy Land Use Strategy as C230. The site was then regulated as Schedule 103, in Ontario Regulation 384/01 made under the Public Lands Act, October 3, 2001 and filed October 5, 2001 amending Ontario Regulation 805/94 (Conservation Reserves).
By regulation, this conservation reserve can not be used for commercial forest harvest or hydroelectric power development as per restrictions proposed by the Ontario’s Living Legacy Land Use Strategy (OMNR, 1999). Currently no mining tenure exists within the site and the site has been withdrawn under the Mining Act. Most recreational and non- commercial activities that have traditionally been enjoyed within the conservation reserve can continue provided that they pose little threat to the natural heritage values. Similarly, most non-industrial resource uses such as fur harvesting are permitted if they are compatible with the values of the reserve (OMNR, 1999). This SCI and future management will continue to try and resolve conflicts regarding incompatibility between uses and to ensure that identified values are adequately protected.
This Statement of Conservation Interest will only address known issues or current proposals with respect to permitted uses or potential economic opportunities brought forward to the District Manager during this planning stage. However, in terms of approving future permitted uses and/or development(s), there are established mechanisms in place to address such proposals. Any future proposals will be reviewed using the Procedural Guideline B – Land Uses – Test of Compatibility Procedure PL 3.03.05 (OMNR, 1997b) or other standard MNR environmental screening processes (see Appendix A).
3.2 Planning Process
Management of a conservation reserve includes, as a minimum, the regulation, provision of public information, stewardship, and security. It also includes authorization and setting conditions on permitted uses and ongoing monitoring of compliance with the approved management document. Management of conservation reserves is the responsibility of the Ministry of Natural Resources at the district level, and will be done in accordance with Policy PL 3.03.05 (OMNR, 1997a) and an approved management document.
Once a conservation reserve has been established through the land use planning process it will be regulated under Section 4 of the Public Lands Act as an amendment to Ontario Regulation 805/94. Following the regulation it must be determined what level of management planning is required to fulfill the protection targets. There are two policy documents involved: a Statement of Conservation Interest (SCI) as the minimal requirement for providing planning direction, and a Resource Management Plan (RMP) which would deal with more complex issues where several conflicting demands are placed on the resources. The guidelines for the preparation of these documents is outlined in Procedural Guideline A – Resource Management Planning (Conservation Reserves Procedure PL 3.03.05) (OMNR, 1997b). The appropriate document must be completed within three years of the regulation date.
In most cases management direction for conservation reserves will take the form of a SCI. A SCI is the minimum level of planning direction required for a conservation reserve. This form of management direction is generally used when the conservation reserve is seen to have few or no issues associated with it and any issues that do exist are local in nature and can be easily addressed through this process. If major issues arise and/or it is recognized that new decisions will need to be made beyond what is directed in the Land Use Strategy (OMNR, 1999) a RMP is warranted.
For current planning purposes, the Archambeau Lake Forest Conservation Reserve will be managed under the auspices of a Statement of Conservation Interest. Interested parties from both the private and public sectors were consulted during the Ontario’s Living Legacy (OLL) planning process from candidate conservation reserve to regulation.
Following the regulation of the Archambeau Lake Forest Conservation Reserve in November 2002, a Terms of Reference was written to direct the completion of the management planning for this site and five other conservation reserves. The First Nations and the public were notified that the management planning for the six conservation reserves was beginning. This notification occurred via mail-out to the First Nations and stakeholders and an advertisement appeared in seven local newspapers during the week of December 9th, 2002. The Ministry of Natural Resources is exempt from providing notification of this planning process on the Electronic Bulletin Registry, under Section 30 of the Environmental Bill of Rights.
A draft version of this SCI was sent for review to members of the public and First Nations and MNR staff both at the district and regional office levels during February 2003.
Public consultation will be solicited during a review of any future land use proposals that would require new decisions to be made. In addition, any future proposal and/or any new, significant management direction considered will be published on the Environmental Bill of Rights Registry (EBR).
The implementation of the policy will be the mandate of the MNR at the district level; however, association with various partners may be sought to assist in the delivery. This SCI is a working document; therefore it may be necessary to make revisions to it from time to time (see section 6.4 Implementation and Plan Review).
4.0 Background Information
4.1 Location and Site Description
The Archambeau Lake Forest Conservation Reserve is approximately 110 kilometers northwest of the City of Greater Sudbury (Map 1) and is located in Sudbury District in the MNR's Northeast Region. The site is located in the geographic Townships of Plourde and Poncet in the Territorial District of Algoma, and is approximately 30-km northeast of the Town of Elliot Lake. It is accessible by walking from extensions off a secondary road adjacent to the eastern site boundary (Map 2). Plaunt’s road can be accessed by 4x4, ATV or snowmobile. Table 1 describes the location and provides administrative details of the site.
The Archambeau Lake Forest Conservation Reserve is located in Site District 4E-3, also known as the Mississagi Ecodistrict. This site is located approximately between 82°25'30''W Longitude and 46°36'30''N Latitude (Burkhardt et al., 2003).
4.1.2 Physical Site Description
The climate in Site District 4E-3 has been classified as a mid- humid, warm-boreal eco-climatic region. Monthly precipitation ranges from 50-100 mm with maximums occurring in the summer period. The frost- free period extends from May to mid-September, while temperatures above 0°C last approximately seven months (Ecoregions Working Group, 1989).
The conservation reserve is situated in the south central portion of the Mississagi Ecodistrict 4E-3, which is found in the Lake Temagami Ecoregion (Hills, 1959; Crins and Uhilg, 2000). The Temagami Ecoregion contains a rolling plain of rock-knob uplands, shallowly covered with stony silty sand, broken by occasional trains of sorted coarse and medium sand (gravelly in places). The Mississagi Ecodistrict features gently rolling plain of stony sandy till over bedrock with frequent flats and ridges of water–laid sand. Bedrock materials of the site are commonly granitic (acidic) in origin, with a few localized areas consisting of low-based materials.
The forest climate type is mid-humid, warm-boreal. Pine is the common regional forest component. Red Pine can be found on shallow and exposed ridges, white pine on the deeper and more retentive site and jack pine on all post-fire sites. Hard maple, red maple and yellow birch are found locally on protected elevations and valleys (Poser, 1992; Hills, 1959).
Table 1: Location reference table.
|Name||Archambeau Lake Forest Conservation Reserve|
|Site Region/Site District (Hills, 1959)||4E Temagami|
|Site Region Site District Ecodistrict (Crins & Uhlig 2000)||4E Temagami|
|MNR Administrative Region/District/Area||Northeast Region|
|Nearest Town||Elliot Lake|
|Township||Plourde & Poncet|
|Topographical Map Name/Number||Madawanson Lake 41J/09|
|Watershed||Aux Sables River Watershed|
|Wildlife Management Unit||WMU 38|
|Forest Management Unit||Spanish Forest|
Archambeau Lake Forest Conservation Reserve is also found within the Timagami section of the Great Lakes-St.Lawrence Forest. Eastern white pine with scattered white birch and white spruce are the typical forest communities of this section. Also common, are mixtures of white birch, pine, and spruce, with balsam fir, and poplar. Red pine stands are prominent in bluffs along ridges, whereas jack pine is restricted to dry sandy areas or rocky sites (Rowe, 1972). Black spruce with tamarack or eastern white cedar are typical of lowlands, poorly-drained depressions and swamps (Rowe, 1972).
Fire has been an important influence on the vegetation of the past, particularly the pine species (Burkhardt et al., 2003). Fire records indicate that no fires have occurred in the area in the past 15 years. During an aerial reconnaissance survey completed in the fall of 2002, this was confirmed.
The 1990 Forest Resource Inventory (FRI) for the Spanish Forest was examined to determine the forest composition of the conservation reserve. The FRI interpretation classified stands in the site into six Working Groups white pine (Pw), white birch (Bw), hard maple (Mh), soft maple (Ms), black spruce (Sb), and cedar (Ce). The vast majority of the site is occupied by upland stands in the white pine and white birch working groups.
The white pine stands are the central features of the site and have a composition of 40-70% white pine with a mixture white birch, black spruce and poplar, plus some scattered red pine, white spruce and balsam fir. These stands range in age from 92 to 122 years old. They are well stocked and have good height growth. The white pine stands occur in the eastern, southwestern, and northern parts of the CR.
The white birch stands are the second dominant working group in the site. They are composed of 30-60% white birch with mixtures of white pine, maple (hard and soft), white spruce, black spruce, and poplar. These stands are also healthy stands with good stocking and height growth. The white birch stands are mature to overmature ranging in age from 82 to 97 years. They occupy the central, northwestern and southeastern parts of the site. The white pine and white birch stands together compose over 80% of the conservation reserve.
The maple stands (hard and soft) occupy the remaining upland sites in the conservation reserve. They are stands dominated by combinations of hard and soft maple with mixtures of white pine and white birch with scattered spruce and yellow birch. From the FRI they also appear to have good stocking and height growth. The remaining areas of the conservation reserve are lowland sites occupied by black spruce and a couple of small cedar stands. These lowland stands are typical mixtures of black spruce and cedar with some tamarack, white pine and white birch.
The aerial reconnaissance survey confirmed that the conservation reserve contains excellent stands of mature white pine, white birch and maple (Thompson, 2002). It was found that the majority of the white pine forest communities formed mixedwood stands and are located throughout the southern half of the conservation reserve. White birch, another dominant forest community, and is found most abundantly as mixedwood stands inhabiting southern and central parts of the site (Thompson, 2002). Hard maple also makes up a significant portion as hardwood mixed stands were observed scattered throughout the southern region of the site. A soft maple hardwood mixed stand is found along the northern shoreline of Harold Lake and black spruce communities emerge in the northern part of the site (Burkhardt et al., 2003). A small eastern white cedar stand was located in the southeast corner of the conservation reserve and black spruce conifer mixed and dominant stands in the northwest portion of the site (Thompson, 2002).
Most of the stands are greater than 90 years of age suggesting a fire origin after the turn of the century (Burkhardt et al., 2003). This site contains candidate old growth stands of balsam fir and white birch communities.
Non-forest vegetation communities also exist in this site such as; wetlands of varied composition (bogs1, fens, marshes), especially around Harold Lake and Mead Lake. Pioneer communities of mosses and lichens that are associated with rock outcrops and cliffs are also found in the Archambeau Lake Forest Conservation Reserve.
Wetlands in the conservation reserve tended to be above low water levels. Leatherleaf and sweet gale dominated the shrub shore fens. Leatherleaf and grasses/sedges indicate open bog area with poor fens present. The connection between Archambeau and Harold Lakes encompasses a large wetland complex. This complex contains open bog (black spruce and grasses) areas; poor fen2 (leatherleaf, grasses, mixed with black spruce and tamarack) near the waters edge, and sheltered marshes in the water. Some cedar thickets, meadow marshes, shrub shore fens and moderately rich fen areas were also present (Thompson, 2002).
Figure 1: Wetlands and waters between Archambeau and Harold Lake.
Aquatic communities in site district 4E-3 range from coldwater to warmwater systems (Crins, 1996). However, the Archambeau Lake Forest Conservation Reserve contains predominately coldwater lake systems. Particularly, Archambeau Lake, Terrance Lake, and Harold Lake have been identified as coldwater lakes, containing Lake Trout. These lakes have undulating, rocky shorelines. Shoals are present within Harold Lake. Mead and Terrance Lakes, along with several small unnamed lakes, form the headwaters for the West aux Sables River (Crins, 1996). Furthermore, the Archambeau Lake Forest Conservation Reserve lies within the Aux Sables River Watershed. These waters eventually run into the North Channel of Lake Huron.
Earth Science Features
During the Pleistocene Epoch, all of Ontario was covered by a succession of ice sheets separated by interglacial periods. The last glacial advance, referred to as the Late or Classical Wisconsinan Stage, began approximately 23,000 years before present (Barnett, 1992). During these periods a thin, discontinuous cover of till was deposited throughout the area by glacial ice. The till in this area of the Spanish Forest (or Sudbury District) is mostly sandy in texture, non-sorted and non-stratified and ranges from less than 1m – 3m in thickness (Wilkie, 2000). Bedrock striations, glacial grooves, chatter marks, as well as the orientation of crag and tail features indicate a regional ice flow in a south-southwesterly direction (230° to 205°). In some cases, local bedrock structures caused the ice to deflect to the west yielding orientations up to 225° (Boissonneau, 1965, 1968).
Erosional activity has been minimal since the disappearance of the ice sheet and the lowering of glacial lake water to present day levels. The site is dominated by bedrock drift complexes composed of till with small patches of organic deposits that have developed in depressions in the land surface. These organic deposits often overlie sand, silt and clay material (Kor, 2002). Modern alluvium3 has been deposited along the courses of existing creeks and rivers.
Based on Map 2543, Bedrock Geology of Ontario (OGS, 1991), this site appears to be underlain by foliated to gneissic, granitic rocks of the Superior Province, Precambrian Shield (Kristjansson, 2002).
Based on a brief helicopter reconnaissance survey, review of terrain geological mapping (VanDine, 1979, Data Base Map 5006), and a review of relatively recent aerial photography (1990), the Archambeau Lake Forest Conservation Reserve appears to be immediately underlain by area of Bedrock – Drift Complex (with subordinate areas of Till Deposits) (Unit 2ad, 3), Ice Contact Stratified Drift Deposits (Unit 4), and Organic Deposits (Unit 9) (Kristjansson, 2002).
Bedrock-Drift Complex (with subordinate areas of Till Deposits) (Unit 2ad, 3) dominates the surficial geology of this conservation reserve. Bedrock knob (or knoll) forms with intervening lower elevation areas characterize the morphology of the bedrock surface. During the helicopter reconnaissance survey, the higher elevation areas, although definitely bedrock-controlled, exhibited very little bedrock outcrops. Minor bedrock exposures associated with a thin, but relatively continuous, cover of till are anticipated. Local, but difficult to delineate, areas immediately underlain by relatively thick till deposits may also be present (Kristjansson, 2002).
Two minor areas, which appear to be immediately underlain by Ice-Contact Stratified Drift Deposits (Unit 4), are locally in the extreme south and extreme east parts of the conservation reserve. Finally, various areas immediately underlain by Organic Deposits (Unit 9) are also present in this conservation reserve. Several relatively extensive areas of organic deposits situated immediately adjacent to Archambeau Lake and Harold Lake in the south half of the conservation reserve are noteworthy (Kristjansson, 2002).
The geological features described above are commonly encountered throughout this region, and are considered to be of local significance (Kristjansson, 2002).
Considering the relatively passive land uses anticipated within a conservation reserve (e.g. hunting), the various geological features (with the exception of the areas of organic deposits) are considered to have low sensitivity. The areas of organic deposits (i.e. peatlands), however, may be sensitive to ATV traffic (Kristjansson, 2002).
Luvisols4 are the typical soils found in upland sites in Site District 4E-3, while gleysols and organic soils occur in poorly drained areas (Ecoregions Working Group, 1989). The Archambeau Lake Forest Conservation Reserve has both upland and lowland areas and will therefore have a range of soil types.
4.1.3 Administrative Description
The legal description of the Archambeau Lake Forest Conservation Reserve, regulated as Schedule 103 in Ontario Regulation 384/01 made under the Public Lands Act on October 3, 2001 and filed on October 5, 2001 amending Ontario Regulation 805/94, reads:
In the geographic Townships of Plourde and Poncet, in the Territorial District of Algoma, containing 1,234 hectares, more or less, being composed of that part of the said Townships designated as Part 1 on plan known as C230 Archambeau Lake Forest Conservation Reserve filed on January 4,2001 in the Office of the Surveyor General.
The Archambeau Lake Forest Conservation Reserve is located within the Ministry of Natural Resources, Sudbury District administrative area, which covers an area of approximately 3,207,000 hectares.
The Archambeau Lake Forest Conservation Reserve is also located within the legal boundaries of the Spanish Forest Sustainable Forest License area, which encompasses approximately 1.2 million hectares and spans three MNR Districts – Chapleau, Timmins and Sudbury.
4.2 History of the Site
The area where the Archambeau Lake Forest Conservation Reserve is located would have been ice-free approximately 10,000 to 11,000 years ago and would have been inhabited by Ontario’s First Nations shortly after. There has been a European presence in the area since the mid-1700's when competition in the fur trade became intense. This lasted until the late 19th century when logging became the primary industry. In 1913 a large blow down occurred in the area of Poncet and Plourde Townships. The Spanish River Lumber Company was granted a license to salvage the blow down timber, and harvested 45 million board feet of white pine and red pine, 1 million board feet of jack pine, and 400,000 board feet of spruce. Additional harvesting occurred in 1939 when the Central Paper Co. harvested 39,000 cords of jack pine, spruce, balsam fir, and poplar (T.Thorpe 1950). The roads accessing the eastern portion of the conservation reserve were built in during the 1960's with large quantities of spruce and jack pine harvested for both pulp and sawlogs. The majority of the sawlogs were sawn into lumber at nearby sawmills in Teasdale Township.
Table 2 indicates the current status of natural heritage inventory that has occurred or that will be required in the near future.
Table 2: Inventory and Survey Information for Archambeau Lake Forest Conservation Reserve.
|Survey Level||Earth Science||Life Science||Cultural||Recreational|
|Reconnaissance||2002 (Kristjansson)||2002 (Thompson)||2002 (Avoledo)|
|Detailed||Not required||Not required||Not required||Not required|
|Further Requirements||Earth Science Checklist||Life Science Checklist||Recreation Checklist|
5.0 State of the Resource
The natural heritage of Ontario contributes to the economic, social and environmental well being of the province and its people. Protecting areas of natural heritage is therefore important for many reasons such as maintaining ecosystem health and providing habitat to maintain species diversity and genetic variability. Protected areas also provide scientific and educational benefits, they generate tourism, which bolsters local and regional economies, and they provide places where people can enjoy and appreciate Ontario’s natural diversity while enhancing their own health and well-being. In order to protect this vital natural heritage, Ontario has established a provincial parks and protected areas system to try and represent the entire suite of natural features and ecosystems within the province. This representation and criteria includes diversity, ecological factors, conditioning, [etc.] (OMNR, 1997c). These criteria are discussed in further detail below (OMNR, 1997c).
Completing the system of parks and protected areas is based on the concept of representation; that is capturing the full range of Ontario’s natural and cultural values. The goal of Ontario Parks is to place within the parks and protected areas system the best examples of our natural heritage including features, landscapes, and ecosystems at the Site District level. The complete system must therefore protect a range of natural heritage values based on the geological and biological diversity of the province (Davidson, 1997).
The best examples of representative features are considered to be provincially significant and may even be nationally or internationally significant. Locally and regionally significant areas also contribute to the system if they have been classified as the best representation currently available and have therefore have been identified as meeting the representation targets in each of the site districts.
The Archambeau Lake Forest Conservation Reserve has been identified to contribute to the life science representation of the protected areas system in Ontario. Selection criteria for identification of the best representative life science features includes, diversity, integrity, associated earth science values, and special features. Due to the nature of very different types of life science values the application of the criteria may vary on a per-site basis. The Archambeau Lake Forest Conservation Reserve may be of provincial significance and is therefore an important representative feature of Ontario’s life science diversity.
Quality of Present Representation
Diversity is the measure of the relative number of different landforms, special features, or numbers of different vegetation and wildlife communities found in an area. The greater the number and variability of these features the more diverse the area.
Overall the diversity in the Archambeau Lake Forest Conservation Reserve is considered to be moderate. The rating results because much of the site is skewed towards white birch and white pine communities. The remaining stands do not contribute significantly to the site’s overall diversity as good portions of these stands are lacking in core area (Burkhardt et al., 2003).
The Brennan Harbour Conservation Reserve has a moderate degree of diversity in landform vegetation units and so it contributes to the overall diversity of the protected areas system in Ontario through its life science and landform contribution. The original gap analysis stated that the reserve is comprised mainly of medium- aged and older forest dominated by white birch, white pine, and sugar maple on moderately broken end moraine and considered a provincially significant site. Based on this analysis, the diversity of the gap site was considered to be high at its original size of 2493 hectares. The aerial reconnaissance in 2002 confirmed this composition (Burkhardt and Thompson, 2003). Although still containing the same forest communities, which was confirmed by aerial reconnaissance in 2002, the conservation reserve at 1234 hectare is considerably smaller than the original gap site. As a result, some of the communities in the site are considerably fragmented due to vectored boundaries (Burkhardt et al., 2003). Due to the new smaller size and configuration of the site, the significance is currently unknown therefore future life science gap analysis, using the current boundary of this protected area should be conducted to determine if the conservation reserve maintains it’s provincial significance.
b) Ecological Factors
The basic components that help define ecological factors include the size, shape and the ability of the site to maintain itself over time (Thompson, 1999). The ability of a site to buffer the core areas from adjacent land uses, its general location and location within the greater managed ecosystem will make the site more viable over time and help to contribute to the overall ecosystem health. Generally, larger sites with more diversity are better than small, non-diverse areas; sites with a more rounded or naturally delineated shape are better than long, linear sites; and sites that are linked to or near other protected areas are better than isolated protected areas.
The Archambeau Lake Forest Conservation Reserve is relatively large and its boundaries have been vectored making management for the site in the future more problematic. Only small portions of the southern and eastern boundaries follow natural features (such as lakes and streams). Following natural features is preferred as opposed to artificially vectoring (straight lining) the boundaries, which at times, such as with this site, is unavoidable. Vectoring could sever the core values being protected. The western boundary was derived from the township boundary lines of Poncet and Plourde Townships. This site will thus require more direct protection to prevent disturbance and to ensure that the site can continue to contribute to the greater park system.
Another important ecological factor that the Archambeau Lake Forest Conservation Reserve has is its vicinity to several other protected areas. Within a distance of three townships from the Archambeau Lake Forest Conservation Reserve, other protected areas can be found. Recently, through Ontario’s Living Legacy, two other conservation reserves have been regulated. These areas are the Glen N. Crombie Conservation Reserve in Buckles, Lehman, Joubin, and Gaiashik Townships, and the Flat Creek Old Pine Conservation Reserve in Weeks Township (OMNR, 1999).
Also of importance is the newly created land use designation enhanced management area (EMA). EMAs have been established to provide more detailed land use direction in areas of special features or values. The Archambeau Lake Forest Conservation Reserve is located directly adjacent to the Whiskey-Quirke Lakes EMA (E232a), south of the Lac Aux Sables EMA (E231r), and Lac Aux Sables Ice Margin EMA – (E236n). E232a, a Remote Access EMA, was created to manage the important remote lake tourism, remote recreation and resource sector area and to manage the area’s important and sensitive coldwater lake fisheries. E231r, a Recreation EMA, was also identified to manage remote lake tourism, recreation and resource sector area, and so that land use direction and management activities are compatible with protecting the recreational values of Mississagi River Provincial Park. E236n, a Natural Heritage EMA, was identified to protect the earth science feature, as it contains ridges that are segments of moraines and delta-like debris deposited at the ice margin. Resource activities are permitted providing they are consistent with protecting the earth science natural heritage values. These EMAs also provides linkages with other nearby protected areas, thus allowing for corridors and preventing protected area isolation (OMNR, 1999).
Condition, the amount of man-made or natural disturbances, is ranked low for the Archambeau Lake Forest Conservation Reserve. Conditions around the site are excellent and there is little disturbance within the site. There is one recreational camp on the south side of Harold Lake (Thompson, 2002). No roads or any other man-made disturbances were visible during the aerial reconnaissance survey completed in the fall of 2002.
Natural disturbances may also occur on this site. The possibility of natural disturbances such as natural wind throw or fire disturbances exists. This possibility of experiencing fire disturbances in the future would either be caused by lightning or human interference. Further groundwork is required to positively identify any natural disturbances.
d) Special Features
The special features on the site consist of large white and red pines, large wetlands within the Archambeau/Harold Lake intersection, all set within picturesque landscapes (Burkhardt et al., 2003).
e) Current Land Use Activities
This conservation reserve is located in a fairly remote area; however it can be accessed from the eastern boundary by the means of secondary and tertiary roads. Tertiary trails allow for ATV and snowmobile access to the southern boundary near Harold Lake. Currently, this area is used for hunting and fishing, and contains one recreational camp under a land use-permit.
The Archambeau Lake Forest Conservation Reserve protects significant landscapes of medium-aged and older forests growing over a bedrock-drift complex. Due to the smaller size and configuration of the site in comparison to the original gap analysis by William Crins (1996), the significance of the conservation reserve is currently unknown therefore future gap analysis work should be conducted to determine this significance.
The forest includes white pine, white birch, and sugar maple. It also contains pockets of black spruce, cedar, and white spruce. Other forest types include balsam fir, trembling aspen, upland and lowland black spruce, white cedar, jack pine and red maple.
The site is generally undisturbed but has a moderate diversity and some inherent design limitations. The small size of the site and portions of the eastern and southern vectored boundaries ensured that some landform/vegetation features extend beyond the site’s boundaries. However the core white pine communities appear to be adequately protected within the site’s boundaries. Additional protection of core values will require consideration for the values within large landscape management plans or strategies. The natural heritage features are not significantly sensitive to current permitted uses; however, additional disturbance due to increased trail development or any forest or wetland community disturbance by humans would impact on the quality of the present representation within Archambeau Lake Forest Conservation Reserve.
5.1 Social/Economic Interest in the Area
This section will address the contribution of the Archambeau Lake Forest Conservation Reserve to the local economy and society through the opportunities it represents and the importance of these opportunities.
a) Linkage to Local Communities
When traveling along the HWY 17-west corridor, the Archambeau Lake Forest Conservation Reserve is accessible via the HWY 553 turnoff at Massey. The northbound HWY 553 soon changes into regional road 81 Approximately 45 km north of Massey, Plaunts Road provides access to the eastern boundary of the site. A secondary logging road allows direct foot or walking access to the site from the eastern boundary, where the southern limits of the site are accessible via snowmobile trails.
Some of the recreational and commercial activities that the Archambeau Lake Forest Conservation Reserve may include are; hiking, bird watching, wildlife viewing, photography, canoeing/boating, fishing, small game hunting/trapping, and large game hunting (moose, bear). Hunting, trapping and fishing are long-standing traditional activities and they are also a vital part of the local economy.
b) Heritage Estate Contribution
The Archambeau Lake Forest Conservation Reserve contributes to the province’s parks and protected areas system through its regulation, representation and the long-term management of its natural heritage values.
The protected area system allows for permanent protection of our history and special features, and it will provide valuable areas as benchmarks to scientists and educators as more of Ontario’s land base is developed or altered from its natural state. Each protected area contributes to this heritage in its own unique way – whether it is a contribution to the preservation of an earth science value, a life science value, a recreational or economic opportunity, or through its cultural/ or historical significance. The designation of an area as a conservation reserve helps define its role in the system.
The Archambeau Lake Forest Conservation Reserve’s distinct contribution is a combination of life science/glacial history preservation, and educational and recreational opportunities.
c) First Nations
The Archambeau Lake Forest Conservation Reserve lies within the Robinson-Huron Treaty Area, Treaty #61. The protection of this area as a conservation reserve and the Statement of Conservation Interest are not meant to infringe on the Treaty and Aboriginal Rights of any First Nation in any way. At the present time, there are no known land claims by First Nations for the area in question.
d) Mining Interests
This conservation reserve has no mining tenure within it. Mining and surface rights have been withdrawn from staking within the conservation reserve boundaries under the Mining Act (RSO 1990 Chapter M.14). Mining will not occur in any regulated protected area.
e) Forest and Fire Management History
The conservation reserve is relatively undisturbed and has not been recently affected by forest harvest activities or recent fires.
f) Other Government Agencies, Departments or Crown Corporations
Other Government Agencies that may have an interest in the site include the Ministry of Culture (MCL), the Ministry of Tourism and Recreation (MTR), the Ministry of Transportation (MTO), and the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing (MMAH). Although there are no known cultural heritage values present at this time if values were identified in the site the MNR would work with the MCL to ensure proper protection of any cultural heritage resources.
The MNR will also work in conjunction with the MTR to identify and enhance any potential tourism opportunities, in particular where Resource-Based Tourism (RBT) potential is identified. RBT operations include hunting and fishing as well as ecotourism opportunities. Proper evaluation will be undertaken where opportunities are identified to ensure consistency with the management policies of this conservation reserve.
The MNR would also work in conjunction with the MMAH should there be any proposed development in the area. The MMAH needs to be aware of the location of this site in order to comment on proposed cottage lot development. Proper protection of values within the site would be given due regard should development occur in the immediate area.
g) Non Government Organizations and Other Industry Interests
Non-Government organizations who may express an interest in the Archambeau Lake Forest Conservation Reserve may include: the Partnership for Public Lands, the Federation of Ontario Naturalists, Northern Ontario Tourist Outfitters, the Sudbury and Area Trapper’s Council, the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters.
The existence of this protected area will provide enhanced recreational potential and these associations may wish to approach the MNR as stewards of the protected area.
The MNR will work in conjunction with any association who identifies an interest or compatible use potential within the site.
Other industries or companies that may have an interest in the Archambeau Lake Forest Conservation Reserve may include the Prospector’s Association, the Sustainable Forest Licensee (Domtar Inc.), and the Aggregate Producer’s Association. The interests of these companies or industries may be limited to recognizing the boundaries and values protected within in order to uphold the MNR management policies within the conservation reserve.
5.2 Fisheries and Wildlife
There are three coldwater lakes that exist in this site, Terrance Lake, Archambeau Lake, and Harold Lake with all of its extensions. Lake survey data shows that each of these lakes contain Lake Trout. The abundance of lakes and wetland areas also provides late wintering habitat for Moose (OMNR, 2002).
Wildlife on the site would be consistent with typical wildlife found in Site District 4E-3 including birds (loons and herons), small furbearers and large ungulates. The site is within a small portion of one registered trapline, one commercial baitfish licence, and it also encompasses portions of three Bear Management Areas (BMA) (OMNR, 2003). Traplines have been present in the area since the 1930's and the local area has been successfully managed to maintain a healthy balance of wildlife populations. This area is within Wildlife Management Unit 38.
It is not known if any vulnerable, threatened or endangered species exist on or near the site. Further detailed habitat studies would address this.
5.3 Natural Heritage Stewardship
The Archambeau Lake Forest Conservation Reserve contributes to the natural heritage life science representation through its landform/ vegetation complexes.
Figure 2: White pine in eastern portion of site.
The aerial reconnaissance survey was brief. Therefore, a complete inventory of flora would be beneficial in identifying other species that inhabit the site. Earth science representation is also present in the bedrock-drift complex, however this common landform alone has only local significance in this location. The conservation reserve also contributes to the variety of recreational opportunities that can be found in the parks and protected areas system. Currently there are no monitoring or research programs in place for this conservation reserve.
5.4 Cultural Heritage Stewardship
There are no known cultural heritage values within the Archambeau Lake Forest Conservation Reserve and no detailed research has been conducted as of this date to document possible cultural heritage values. However, the area has been occupied for over a century and the possibility of heritage values being present does exist. As a result, the possibility of heritage values being present does exist. If archaeological/ or cultural resources are discovered within the conservation reserve proposals pertaining to the development and use of these resources may be screened through direction provided in Conserving a Future For Our Past: Archaeology, Land Use Planning & Development In Ontario (MCzCR, 1997). MNR would work with the Ministry of Culture to ensure proper protection of these cultural heritage resources.
5.5 Land Use/Current or Past Development
There is no mining tenure near the site and no mines have been developed on the site in the past. A Land Use Permit in the form of a recreation camp is located on the south shore of Harold Lake. There are no patent lands nested within the site.
5.6 Commercial Use
Due to the remote location and restricted access to this site, it is only used infrequently for commercial use. A small portion of one commercial baitfish licence is located within this reserve. Additionally, this site contains a small portion of one trapline and portions of three Bear Management Areas (OMNR, 2000b).
5.7 Tourism/Recreational Use/Opportunities
The site is remote, but remote recreational opportunities exist such as hiking, canoeing/ boating, fishing, hunting, bird watching, etc. Winter activities such as ice fishing, skiing and snowshoeing are also potential recreational uses. Further detailed recreation inventory studies need to be undertaken to confirm the existence of recreational uses and potential.
The secondary road access/trail network is the only form of existing infrastructure near the site. No roads or any other man-made disturbances were visible from air reconnaissance (Thompson, 2002).
5.8 Client Services
Currently, client services are being provided at the Sudbury District MNR office in the form of knowledgeable staff and available fact sheets and site maps. Further client services will be developed as a result of this plan, please see section 6.2 State of the Resource Management Strategies.
6.0 Management Guidelines
6.1 Management Planning Strategies
The land use intent outlined in the OLL Land Use Strategy (OMNR, 1999) provides context and direction to land use, resource management, and operational planning activities on Crown land. Commitments identified in the above strategy and current legislation (Policy 3.03.05 PLA) will form the basis for land use within Archambeau Lake Forest Conservation Reserve. Management strategies for these uses must consider the short and long-term objectives for the reserve. For up to date information on permitted uses refer to the Crown Land Use Atlas.
Protected areas will be managed to retain and/or restore natural features, processes and systems. They will also provide opportunities for compatible research, education and outdoor recreation activities (OMNR, 1997c). Proposed uses and development will be reviewed on a case-by- case basis. A Test of Compatibility, (Procedural Guidelines B – Land Uses PL 3.03.05) must be passed before they are deemed acceptable. The emphasis will be on ensuring that the natural values of the conservation reserve are not negatively affected by current and future activities. Therefore any application for new specific uses will be carefully studied and reviewed via the above environmental screening process, as well as any other MNR environmental screening processes.
Management strategies will also be consistent with the objectives of increasing public awareness, promoting responsible stewardship, providing marketing opportunities, and identifying Inventory Monitoring Assessment Reporting (IMAR) potential.
6.2 "State of the Resource" Management Strategies
The development of this SCI and the long- term management and protection will be under the direction of the MNR's Espanola Area Supervisor. The following section will deal with the management strategies that are specifically laid out to maintain, protect and enhance the existing natural heritage values and land use activities of the Archambeau Lake Forest Conservation Reserve.
Natural Heritage Values
The management intent for the Archambeau Lake Forest Conservation Reserve will be to allow for natural ecosystems, processes and features to operate undisturbed with minimal human interference while providing educational, research and recreational activities. Forest ecosystem renewal will only be entertained via a separate vegetative management plan.
The MNR recognizes fire as an essential process fundamental to the ecological integrity of conservation reserves. In accordance with existing Conservation Reserve Policy and the Forest Fire Management Strategy for Ontario, forest fire protection will be carried out as on surrounding lands.
Whenever feasible, the MNR fire program will endeavor to use "light on the land" techniques, which do not unduly disturb the landscape, in this conservation reserve. Examples of light on the land techniques may include limiting the use of heavy equipment or limiting the number of trees felled during fire response efforts.
Opportunities for prescribed burning to achieve ecological or resource management objectiives may be considered. These management objectives will be developed with public consultation prior to any prescribed burning, and reflected in the document that provides management direction for this conservation reserve. Plans for any prescribed burning will be developed in accordance with the MNR Prescribed Burn Planning Manual, and the Class Environmental Assessment for Provincial Parks and Conservation Reserves (approval pending).
Defining compatible uses, enforcing regulations and monitoring and mitigating issues will protect all earth and life science features. Industrial activities such as commercial timber harvest and new hydro generation will not be permitted within the conservation reserve. Extraction of unconsolidated sand, gravel, soils or peat is not permitted. Energy transmission, communication and transportation corridors or construction of facilities are discouraged within the boundaries of the conservation reserve. Such structures negatively impact on the quality of representative features that require protection. Alternatives should be reviewed via larger landscape planning processes. New roads for resource extraction and/ or private use will generally not be permitted, nor will additions to existing roads or up-grading of existing roads be permitted (OMNR, 1999). Other activities that do not pass a Test of Compatibility will be prohibited (OMNR, 1997a).
The deliberate introduction of exotic and/or invasive species will not be permitted. Management activities on the site will strive to reduce the chance of unintentional introductions. Programs may be developed to control forest insects and diseases where there is a concern that significant values may be compromised. Remedies must focus on the outbreak or infestation. Native biological or non-intrusive solutions should be applied whenever possible.
The collection/removal of vegetation and parts thereof may be permitted subject to a Test of Compatibility, MNR's Espanola Area Supervisor may authorize such activities for purposes of wild rice harvesting, food harvesting, removing exotic species, rehabilitating degraded sites within the reserve, collecting seeds for maintaining genetic stock and/or for inventory or research. The cutting of trees for non- commercial purposes (e.g. fuel-wood) is not permitted.
MNR will provide leadership and direction for maintaining the integrity of this site as a heritage estate. To ensure MNR protection objectives are being fully met within the conservation reserve, activities on the surrounding landscape should consider the site’s objectives, heritage values and the design flaws currently present. MNR via input and plan review will ensure the conservation reserve’s values are considered in local and adjacent land use strategies and plans. Research, education and interpretation will be encouraged to provide a better understanding of the management and protection of the natural heritage values and will be fostered through local and regional natural heritage programs, initiatives and partnerships. Furthermore, adequate protection of core values will require cooperation with adjacent land users to help compensate for the conservation reserve’s small size and any design flaws.
Cultural Heritage Values
It is not known if cultural heritage values exist in the Archambeau Lake Forest Conservation Reserve. However, if values are confirmed, management would be consistent with Conserving a Future For Our Past: Archaeology, Land Use Planning & Development In Ontario (MCzCR, 1997). MNR would work with the MCL, should any cultural or archaeological values be discovered within the site to ensure adequate protection. Research and studies should be conducted to determine the potential and/or existence of cultural or archeological resources. Since the Archambeau Lake Forest Conservation Reserve has been accessible for many years there is a possibility that cultural or historical resources do exist.
Land Use/Past and Existing Development
The sale of lands within the conservation reserve is not permitted as per the OLL LUS (OMNR, 1999). No new recreational camps will be permitted. Road realignments, telecommunications and other resource networks will be discouraged from crossing the site and interrupting the conservation reserve’s natural state. New roads for resource extraction and/or private use will generally not be permitted, nor will additions to existing roads, or up grading of existing roads be permitted.
No mineral exploration is permitted within this conservation reserve. This direction is based on a commitment made by the Ministry of Natural Resources and the Ministry of Northern Development and Mines in the spring of 2002. This direction replaces that identified in the 1999 Ontario’s Living Legacy Land Use Strategy, which stated that controlled mineral exploration would be permitted in new conservation reserves which were identified as having provincially significant mineral potential.
Through the ministry’s plan input and review program, applications for more intense use will be reviewed to ensure natural heritage values within the conservation reserve are considered and protected in planning decisions on adjacent private land.
Any new developments (e.g. tourism developments) proposed for the conservation reserve must go through a Test of Compatibility to ensure that the activity is permitted and to ensure the natural heritage values within the site are protected. If a proposal is considered, public consultation may be required. If accepted, an amendment of the SCI would be required.
The economic contribution of the Archambeau Lake Forest Conservation Reserve to the local community could be harnessed through marketing strategies that will maintain existing tourism in the area, while allowing the nearby towns and tourist operators to benefit through money spent at the local businesses. Socially this site provides a recreational area for local people to enjoy for their own health and well being. The people of Ontario generally benefit either through direct enjoyment of the area or through the knowledge that a piece of our life science and glacial history has been preserved. Other interest groups such as colleges and universities can benefit from this reserve as a place to study several natural features and processes and the local parks, towns and tourist outfitters would benefit economically through the presence of researchers.
Fisheries and Wildlife
Sport fishing and hunting will be permitted within this conservation reserve. Fish and wildlife resources will continue to be managed in accordance with specific policies and regulations defined by the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources under the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act and the Espanola Area Supervisor. Management of these resources will have consideration for the earth and life science features contained within the site.
Wildlife viewing activities may be enhanced via client services with the existing trail networks supporting this activity. New trail development may be entertained for this activity providing a Test of Compatibility is conducted and passed.
Commercial, non-industrial activities such as fur harvesting, bait fish harvesting and Bear Management Areas will be managed according to prescriptions in the Land Use Strategy (OMNR, 1999). Fur harvesting by registered traplines and bait fishing harvesting operations will be permitted to continue since there are no demonstrated conflicts between these activities and the values being protected. New operations would be subjected to a Test of Compatibility to ensure that the wildlife populations could sustain additional activity. Existing Bear Management Areas (BMAs) will be permitted to continue, however, new operations will not be permitted as per the Land Use Strategy (OMNR, 1999). MNR managers will work with operators to ensure that the natural heritage values within the conservation reserve are respected.
Tourism and Recreation
The earth and life science features and their protection, shall be the overall theme for tourism and recreation within the conservation reserve. There are no existing tourism facilities located in or directly adjacent to this conservation reserve. Any proposed tourism infrastructure or facilities would be required to undergo at Test of Compatibility and if accepted, further planning would occur, requiring public consultation and an amendment to this document. The existing local tourist outfitters can continue accessing this reserve as they have in the past, however, MNR will work with the proponents to ensure the values of the conservation reserve are respected and maintained to the highest level possible (see previous Commercial Activities Strategies).
Most recreational activities that have traditionally been enjoyed in the area can continue provided they pose little or no threat to the natural ecosystems and features protected by the conservation reserve. Current activities include fishing, hunting, bird watching, hiking, skiing, ATV use and snowmobiling. Camping may also be a current use of the conservation reserve and will be permitted to continue.
Snowmobiles and ATVs are permitted on existing trails. Under the OLL LUS (OMNR, 1999), all mechanized travel is restricted to existing trails. Off trail vehicle use is permitted for the retrieval of game only. To protect the natural heritage features within the conservation reserve, MNR will seek direction from local communities on how to reduce off trail use, if such activities become problematic.
Clients indicating their interest in the management, planning and future use of the conservation reserve will be put on a mailing list and notified of any future planning initiatives for the site.
Client services will be provided at the Sudbury District office and at nearby provincial parks through interpretive pamphlets and knowledgeable staff. In the future, information may be delivered from different sources; however, MNR Sudbury District office will be the lead agency for responding to inquiries regarding access permitted and restricted activities, values and recreation opportunities. A management agreement may be pursued with an appropriate partner to share responsibilities for information services and the delivery of other aspects of this SCI. For example having the interpretive pamphlets available at local convenience stores and other appropriate businesses could provide additional client services venues.
It is further recommended that visitors and conservation reserve users and the local population be informed of the significance and sensitivity of the site via fact sheets, community visits and other educational or interpretive programs.
Traditional activities and aboriginal rights as defined in the Robinson-Huron Treaty #61 and other relevant Acts, will not be affected within the boundaries of this conservation reserve. The First Nation communities are encouraged to continue to use these areas as they have in the past.
6.3 Promote Inventory Monitoring and Assessment Reporting and Research
Scientific research by qualified individuals or institutions, which contributes to the knowledge of natural and cultural history and to environmental and recreational management, will be encouraged. Requests or applications to conduct research will be filtered through the Sudbury District MNR office to ensure that the studies are non- invasive and that no values will be damaged in the process. Research programs will be subject to ministry policies and other legislation.
Approved research activities and facilities will be compatible with the protection objectives. Any inventory, monitoring, assessment, and reporting (IMAR) or research developments or facilities will not be considered until a Test of Compatibility is conducted and proposal is approved by the Espanola Area Supervisor. The Test of Compatibility and environmental screening process could include a review of the demand for structures or activities and may require more detailed life or earth science or cultural information and possibly more detailed planning. IMAR will be consistent with provincial and regional protocols and and strategies. Permanent plots or observation stations may be established so researchers can return over time. The Espanola Area Supervisor may approve the removal of any natural or cultural specimen by qualified researchers. Consultation with local First Nation communities shall occur prior to the removal of aboriginal cultural specimens. Any materials removed will remain the property of the Ministry of Natural Resources. Any site that is disturbed will be rehabilitated as closely as possible to its original state. The Espanola Area Supervisor may apply additional conditions.
Encouraged research may focus on the interrelationship with other nearby protected areas. In particular, to gauge the effectiveness of isolated protected areas and how these areas need to be connected through supportive landscape management in order to maintain ecosystem health and diversity. Also the effects of straight boundaries versus naturally delineated boundaries should be explored. Further research and monitoring requirements will be determined through forthcoming regional and provincial strategies.
Further inventories are required for life science evaluation, earth science evaluation and recreation use and potential. This research should be conducted at the earliest opportunity and this information should be incorporated into this report immediately following completion. The checksheets that are completed as a requirement for this research should be appended to the updated Statement of Conservation Interest upon completion as well.
Other specific research projects that could be undertaken may include: the effects of human disturbance on the site, determination of the existence of any rare, vulnerable or threatened species, and/or vegetation climax community.
6.4 Implementation and Plan Review
The Archambeau Lake Forest Conservation Reserve Statement of Conservation Interest will be reviewed on an ongoing basis and as required. Implementation of the SCI and management of the reserve are the responsibility of the Espanola Area Supervisor. Partnerships may be pursued to address management needs.
Adaptive management strategies will be used in the event of new information that has a significant effect on the current Statement of Conservation Interest. If changes in management direction are needed at any time, the significance of the changes will be evaluated. Minor changes that do not alter the overall protection objectives may be considered and approved by the District Manager without further public consultation and the plan will be amended accordingly. In assessing major changes, the need for a more detailed Resource Management Plan will first be considered.
Where a RMP is not considered necessary or feasible, a major amendment may be considered with public consultation. The Regional Director will approve major amendments.
The Archambeau Lake Forest Conservation Reserve will be marketed as a landscape of medium-aged and older forests growing oven a Bedrock-Drift Complex. Factsheets will be prepared to inform the public about these values which will be available at the Sudbury District MNR office, local provincial parks and potentially at tourist outfitters. Marketing efforts to increase use are not a priority and will be kept to a minimum.
Barnett, P.J. 1992. Quaternary geology of Ontario, in Geology of Ontario; Ontario Geological Survey, Special Volume 4, Part 2, p.1011-1088.
Boissonneau, A.N. 1965. Surficial geology of Algoma, Sudbury, Timiskaming and Nipissing; Ontario Department of Lands and Forests; Map S465, Scale 1:506 880.
Burkhardt, B., King, L., Longyear, S., Noordhof, J. and J.E. Thompson. 2003. Archambeau Lake Forest Conservation Reserve. C 230. Life Science Checksheet – Step 2. Sudbury District. Draft. 2003.
Cosec, M. 1998. Impact Statement. Lands for Life/Ontario’s Living Legacy – Site Archive C194. Internal Report.
Crins, W. J. 1996. Life Science Gap Analysis for Site District 4E-3. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources Internal Report.
Crins, W.J. and P.W.C. Uhlig, 2000. Ecoregions of Ontario: Modification to Angus Hills' Site Regions and Site Districts Revisions and Rational.
Davidson, R. J. 1997. Completing the Provincial Park System, A Priceless Legacy. Occasional Paper 3. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. 23 p.
Ecoregions Working Group, Canada Committee on Ecological Land Classification. 1989. Ecoclimatic Regions of Canada, Ecological Land Classification Series No. 23. Sustainable Development Branch, Canadian Wildlife Service, Conservation and Protection, Environment Canada, Ottawa, Ontario. 118 p., ill., maps.
Harris, A.G., McMurray, S.C., Unlig, P.W.C., Jeglum, J.K., Foster, R.F. and Racey, G.D. 1996. Field Guide to the Wetland Ecosystem Classification for Northwestern Ontario Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Northwest Science and Technology. Thunder Bay, ON. Field Guide FG-01. 74 pp. + Appendices.
Hills, G. A. 1959. A ready reference to the description of the land of Ontario and its productivity. Ontario Department of Lands and Forests.
Kor, P.S.G. 2002. Archambeau Lake Forest C230 Earth Science Inventory. OMNR internal inventory record.
Kristjansson, Rik. 2002. Draft Earth Science Planning Summary. Archambeau Lake Forest (C230). Earth Science Features. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources.
Ministry of Citizenship, Culture and Recreation. 1997. Conserving a Future for out Past: Archaeology, Land Use Planning and Development in Ontario. Revised 1998. Ontario Archaeological Society, Inc. 43 p.
Noble, T. W. 1983. Life Science Report, Site Region 4E, Northeastern Region. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. 150 p. (with additional pages in checksheets and appendix, 1:250 000 maps).
Ontario Geological Survey, 1991:Bedrock Geology of Ontario, East-Central Sheet: Ontario Geological Survey, Map 2543 Scale 1:100,000.
Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. 1985. Chapleau District Background Information – Historic Us Sudbury District Office Spanish River Files – 1234.3 History and Culture.
Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. 1997a. Conservation Reserves, Policy PL 3.03.05. 8 p.
Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. 1997b. Conservation Reserves, Procedure PL 3.03.05. 22p.
Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. 1997c. Nature’s Best. Ontario’s Parks and Protected Areas: The Framework and Action Plan. 37 p.
Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. 1999. Ontario’s Living Legacy Land Use Strategy. Queen’s Printer for Ontari 136 pp.
Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. 2000. Beyond 20 Queen’s Printer for Ontario. 20 p.
Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. 2000b. Lands for Life-Ontario’s Living Legacy- Site Archive. Archambeau Lake Forest Conservation Reserve-C230. 2000.
Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. 2002. Natural Resources Values Information System. Sudbury District Database. 2002.
Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and Ministry of Northern Development and Mines. 2001. Implementing Ontario’s Living Legacy Land Use Strategy (July 1999), OMNR_MNDM Answers to Frequently Asked Questions, Version 1.0. Unpublished. 14 p.
Rowe, J. S. 1972. Forest Regions of Canada. Department of Fisheries and the Environment Canadian Forestry Service Publication No. 1300, Ottawa, Ontario. 172 p., maps.
Thompson, J. E. 1999. Building the System. Criteria to Consider when Allocating to Parks and Protected Areas. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Internal Report. 7 p.
Thompson, J. E. 2001. Planning Process for Conservation Reserves Statement of Conservation Interest (SCI) and Resource Management Plans (RMP), Northeastern Region Guidelines, Version 2.1. Unpublished, 49 p.
Thompson, J.E. 2002. Aerial Reconnaissance Notes.
Thorpe, T. no date. A review of the logging and pulp operations in Sudbury District during the years 1901 to 1950. Mimeograph. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Sudbury. 30pp.
VanDine, D.F., 1979. Northern Ontario Engineering Geology Terrain Study, Data Base Map, Bark Lake; Ontario Geological Survey, Map 5006, Scale 1:100,000.
Map 1: Map showing location of the Archambeau Lake Forest Conservation Reserve in relation to Espanola.
Map 2: Site map of Archambeau Lake Forest Conservation Reserve.
Map 3: Species Composition.
Appendix A: Permitted Uses Table
Permitted Uses Table for Conservation Reserves As Per Policy
|Activities||Conservation Reserve Policy|
|Conservation Reserve Policy|
|Facility Infrastructure||Maybe||Maybe||Any new facilities are subject to a "test of compatibility" and approval by the Area Supervisor.|
|Rock Climbing/ Caving||Maybe||Maybe||Rock climbing and/or caving is permitted where it does not detrimentally affect the values to be protected.|
|Camping||Maybe||Maybe||Camping is permitted where it does not detrimentally affect the values to be protected.|
|Activities||Conservation Reserve Policy|
|Conservation Reserve Policy|
|Hiking Trails||Yes||Maybe||Any new hiking trails will be subject to a "test of compatibility" and approval by the Area Supervisor.|
|Cross-Country Skiing Trails||Yes||Maybe||Any new cross-country skiing trails are subject to a "test of compatibility" and approval by the Area Supervisor.|
|Cycling/ Mountain Biking Trails||Yes||Maybe||Any new cycling trails are subject to a "test of compatibility" and Approval by the Area Supervisor.|
|Horse Riding Trails||Yes||Maybe||Any new horse riding trails are subject to a "test of compatibility" and approval by the Area Supervisor.|
|Snowmobiling Trails||Yes||Maybe||Any new snowmobiling trails are subject to a "test of compatibility" and approval by the Area Supervisor.|
|Non-Trail Snowmobiling||Maybe||Maybe||Non-trail snowmobiling is only permitted for the retrieval of game.|
|ATV Trails||Yes||Maybe||Any new ATV trails are subject to a "test of compatibility" and approval by the Area Supervisor.|
|Non-Trail ATV Use||Maybe||Maybe||Non-trail ATV use is only permitted for the retrieval of game.|
Science, Education and Heritage Appreciation
|Activities||Conservation Reserve Policy|
|Conservation Reserve Policy|
|Photography and Painting||Yes||Yes|
|Collecting||No||No||Collecting may be permitted as part of an authorized research project. The issuance of permits will be considered on a per-site basis.|
|Activities||Conservation Reserve Policy|
|Conservation Reserve Policy|
|Food Harvesting||Maybe||Maybe||Any new food harvesting is subject to a "test of compatibility" and approval by the Area Supervisor".|
|Fishing||Yes||Maybe||Any new commercial fishing is subject to a "test of compatibility" and approval by the Area Supervisor.|
|Baitfish Harvesting||Yes||Maybe||Any new baitfish harvesting operations are subject to a "test of compatibility" and approval by the Area Supervisor. Transfer requests for existing baitfish operations will be considered on an on- going basis subject to a review of potential impacts.|
|Trapping||Yes||Maybe||Any new traplines are subject to a "test of compatibility" and approval by the Area Supervisor. Transfer requests for existing traplines will be considered on an on-going basis subject to a review of potential impacts.|
|Resort – Outpost Camps||Yes||Maybe||Any new outpost camps/resorts are subject to a "test of compatibility" and approval by the Area Supervisor. Transfer requests for existing outpost camps/resorts will be considered on an on-going basis subject to a review of potential impacts.|
|Outifitting – Bear Management||Yes||No||Transfer requests for existing Bear Management Areas will be considered on an on-going basis subject to a review of potential impacts.|
|Wild Rice Harvesting||Yes||Maybe||Any new wildrice operations will be subject to a "test of compatibility" and approval by the Area Supervisor.|
|Activities||Conservation Reserve Policy|
|Conservation Reserve Policy|
|Featured Species Management||Maybe||Maybe||Any new featured species management is subject to a "test of compatibility" and approval by the Area Supervisor.|
|Natural Systems Management||Maybe||Maybe||Any new natural systems management will be subject to a "test of compatibility" and approval by the Area Supervisor.|
|Activities||Conservation Reserve Policy|
|Conservation Reserve Policy|
|Hydro Power Generation||No||No|
|Energy Transmission Corridors/ Communication Corridors||Yes||No||New communication lines and transmission corridors are discouraged from within conservation reserves but can be considered under unusual circumstances where there are no other viable alternatives and where the line/ corridor does not significantly impact the values the site is trying to protect. Approval from the Area Supervisor is required.|
|Resource Access Roads||Yes||No||Existing roads can continue to be used. Continued use will include maintenance and may include future upgrading. New roads for resource extraction will not be permitted, with the exception of necessary access to existing forest reserves for mineral exploration and development.|
|Private Access Roads||Yes||No|
|Fuelwood Cutting||No||No||The cutting of trees for non-commercial purposes may be authorized by permit subject to a review of the impact of the values to be protected. This flexibility is only for leaseholders and property owners who do not have road access.|
|Extraction of Peat, Soil, Aggregate||No||No|
|Activities||Conservation Reserve Policy|
|Conservation Reserve Policy|
|Land Disposition||Maybe||Maybe||Sale of Crown lands in a conservation reserve is not permitted, except for certain minor dispositions (e.g. sale of road allowance in front of existing cottage, sale of small parcels to provide adequate installation of a septic system) where it does not detrimentally affect the values the area is intended to protect. Renewals of existing leases or land use permits will be permitted. Tourism facilities can apply to upgrade tenure from LUP to lease. Requests for transfer of tenure will be considered on an on-going basis. New leases or LUPs will be allowed for approved activities.|
|Private Recreation Camps (Hunt Camps)||Yes||No||Transfer requests for existing private recreation camps will be considered on an on-going basis subject to a review of potential impacts. Existing private recreation camps may be eligible for enhanced tenure (i.e. lease) but not purchase of land.|
Appendix B: SCI Test of Compatibility
From the SCI Test of Compatibility NER Guideline in Planning process for Conservation Reserves Statement of Conservation Interest (SCI) and Resource Management Plans (RMP) Northeast Region Guidelines Version 2.1 September 17. 2001 Appendix 4, page 44.
Test of Compatibility:
- Conformity to SCI – This is not applicable to evaluating current or new uses that come forward during the SCI planning process. However, the SCI should include a statement that speaks to the required screening of any future use or uses that are not covered in the current SCI.
Screening Process – proposed uses for the area must be assessed before they are approved. To establish a minimum standard, NER recommends that the Screening Process identified in Section 4.2 of A Class EA for Provincial Parks and Conservation Reserves Phase IIb: Draft Class EA (subject to approval by MOE) be used to screen projects and options.
The Screening Criteria from the draft Class EA (Table 4.1) is further detailed below within the context of SCI planning.
- Impact Assessment – the Test of Compatibility from the Conservation Reserve Policy PL 3.03.05 identifies the classes of values and main concepts that need to be considered in determining the impacts of uses on a specific Conservation Reserve.
- Natural heritage
- Research activities
- Current uses
- Area administration
- Accommodating the use outside the CR Socio-economics
- Area accessibility
The class EA (Table 4.1) presents similar values and concepts under the following considerations:
- Natural environment
- Land use, resource management
- Social, cultural and economic
The above considerations and classes of values are meant to assist planning staff in answering the following questions for any potential use:
- Will the new use impact any values within the Conservation Reserve?
- If so how?
- To what degree?
- Is it tolerable?
The new screening process and associated criteria identified in Table 4.1 of the draft Class EA gives planning staff more direction than the Conservation Reserve Policy 3.03.05. However this section attempts to assist planning staff by providing some direction for further interpreting the criteria to complete a Test of Compatibility for uses within a Conservation Reserve.
The following information for each Conservation Reserve is available and can be used to assess the required criteria:
- Background information and current inventory data
- Current inventory evaluations (e.g. earth, life and recreational check-sheets)
- Future ongoing analysis on the site
Interpretation of Background Information & Current Inventory Data:
Background information files, summaries and other data can be beneficial in determining additional criteria that could be added to or address criteria already mentioned in the EA screening process. Criteria that are linked to habitat needs or specific life or earth science features are often first record during a District’s initial review of a site. Databases such as NRVIS or documents such as Lake Survey files, Site District Reports or Forest Management Plans can identify the location of values and sometimes determine a value’s significance or sensitivities.
Current Inventory Evaluations:
The most current state of the resource for a specific OLL Conservation Reserve will be the earth, life and recreational check-sheet. These documents determine the current earth and life science values, their present state and their significance. The recreational check- sheets determine current recreational features and current and potential recreational activities and feature significance and sensitivity to present and future uses.
For earth and life science check-sheets, five (5) major sections are completed that include; representation and the quality of the representation (e.g. based on condition, diversity and ecological considerations) and special features. These five categories are reflected within the screening criteria presented in draft Class EA document or could be used to develop additional criteria. Some thoughts concerning the five categories are further discussed below.
Representation within OLL inventoried sites contain the type, number, location and shape of the community based values within the Conservation Reserve. For example the number of different forest cover types, wetland and freshwater communities, earth science features or recreational features defined in recreational check-sheets. The survey determines if the values are totally within the site or if the value straddles the site’s boundary? This section and the significance section of the check-sheet can help you define significant earth or life science features, important wildlife habitat, or record the location and extent of old growth within a site or other features. Representation determines not only specific communities or special features but also establishes the core protected areas within the Conservation Reserve, which is a value that has to be protected as well. Finally, any list of screening criteria should mention the affect a potential permitted use may have on the quality of the representation present within the site. The quality of the site’s representation is mentioned in the following three categories below.
Condition is the level of natural and human disturbance that the site has experienced to date. The major natural disturbances in Northeast Region include; burned, blown down, flooded or insect effected stands or areas. Human disturbances could include; clear-cut areas, mining related sites, drainage areas, ditches or pits, utility corridors, railways, roads, hiking or ATV trails, assess points, dams, cottages or other facilities on site. Such actions or structures can effect the site negatively by influencing specific special features (e.g. nest sites or wildlife travel corridors) or severing significant communities or the Conservation Reserve’s core protected areas. This section could help interpret the following screening criteria; affect on water quality, specific species or habitat needs or criteria that speak to undisturbed core protected areas. Such core protected areas criteria could include for example - affect a permitted use or potential use has on natural vegetation and habitat through fragmentation or how use could affect easily eroded or sensitive wind blown deposits?
This is a measure of the site’s life and earth science heterogeneity. For earth and life sciences the evaluation is based on the number and variety of natural landscape features and landforms for earth science values and the relative richness and evenness of a site’s life science components. For our life science check-sheet inventory we determine richness by counting the number of vegetative cover types present within a site and evenness as the proportion of each cover type represented within a site. So an OLL site that has many cover types of roughly the same size is more diverse than a site with few cover types or where a site has the same number of cover types but has reduced evenness (e.g. one cover type dominates with the other cover types present but with little area devoted to them). Criteria that speak to all aspects of diversity should be part of any screening process.
This is where we discuss the design of the site, its strengths and weaknesses and potential problems that may arise during planning. Ecological considerations include; size, shape, buffering capacity from adjacent land use activities, watershed location and linkage to the larger landscape. Generally speaking the following are some rules of thumb;
- Larger sites are preferred over smaller sites because of their greater potential for ecological diversity and stability.
- Rounder sites are better than elongated sites for they have more intact core and can buffer adjacent land use activities better than elongated sites.
- Sites that contain headwaters have more control over environmental inputs than sites located down stream.
- Biological boundaries that are linked to larger undisturbed lands are better than cultural boundaries such as roads or railway lines that sever the site from its larger landscape for long periods of time. Cultural boundaries are preferred over vector boundaries that can divide or fragment core protected areas
So by looking at the size, shape and location of a site with respect to its larger environment, planners may be able to address specific screening criteria. Such screening criteria could include; affect water quality or quantity, affect on fish and wildlife habitat and linkages, affect of drainage, sedimentation and erosion, potential long term planning problems because a site is very small in size or linear in shape, etc.
Of all the data that is collected within a site, the special features section may be the most easily understood values. Generally landscape and habitat values are mentioned under the representation section of the check-sheet with specific values such as; Old Growth, Species at Risk (SAR), colonial birds, moose aquatic feeding areas, raptor nests, etc. are presented within this section. Data are available from FMP's or NRVIS databases as well as fish and wildlife files and reports and know recreation values available from District staff. The Class EA screening criteria contains a number of these values.
Note: Within the check-sheets be sure to review the significance level, recommendations and associated documentation listed with any particular check-sheet. For more information on check-sheet development see J.E. Thompson, 2001. Life science check- sheets information template. OMNR internal report. 6pp.
Future Ongoing Analysis on the Site:
If during planning specific information is not available to complete impact assessment analysis, then SCI's should not the information gap and document the need to collect the required information in the future. In addition, future inventory, monitoring, assessment and research within the Conservation Reserve may also help planners and managers deal with future uses and impact assessments.
Appendix C: Public and Aboriginal Consultation Summary
1. Site Name and Proposed Size (ha):
Archambeau Lake Forest (1,234 Ha.)
2. Land Use Strategy #:
Conservation Reserve C230
3. MNR District:
4.0 Public and Aboriginal Consultation
4.1 Public Consultation
Details of Public Consultation:
- District Manager letter was sent in December 2002 letting stakeholders know that planning was commencing for the Archambeau Lake Forest Conservation Reserve and to notify us know by mail or phone if they were interested in being contacted when the draft SCI was ready for public review. Adjacent landowners, municipalities and other groups or individuals who may have had an interest in the site were contacted, including the following breakdown:
- Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing
- Nickel District Conservation Authority
- Ministry of Northern Development and Mines
- Ministry of Transportation
- City of Greater Sudbury
- Inco Limited
- Partnership for Public Lands
- Other interested individuals and/or adjacent landowners
- Newspaper advertisement in December 2002 asking the public to notify us if they are interested in being on the mailing list for review of the draft SCI. The ad appeared in the following papers:
- Sudbury Star
- Le Voyageur
- Elliott Lake Standard
- Mid North Monitor
- The Manitoulin Expositor
- Northern Life
- Gore Bay Recorder
- The following summarizes the number of responses received:
- 23 individuals and/or organizations would like to be notified when the draft SCI is for public review.
- District Manager letter sent in February 2003 letting stakeholders know the draft SCI is ready for public review. Letters were only sent to the 23 individuals and/or organizations that asked to be notified.
- 1 letter received
- 1 email received
Summary of Significant Issues:
- Respondent recommended having archaeology addressed in the management plans for new conservation reserves. Recommended that planning documents commit that the altering of any undisturbed or uncultivated land would be screened by a licensed archaeologist.
Analysis of Issues:
- SCI to address cultural heritage values
4.2 Aboriginal Consultation
Details of Aboriginal Consultation:
- Sudbury District staff initiated consultation with First Nations in the fall of 2002 prior to the release of the draft statement of conservation interest for this conservation reserve. This consultation occurred concurrently with the consultation of early SCI documents.
- District Manager letter sent in December 2002 to initiate consultation with First Nations on the planning on the Archambeau Lake Forest Conservation Reserve. The letter was sent to the following:
- Ojibways of Sucker Creek
- United Chiefs and Council of Manitoulin
- Union of Ontario Indians
- Wikwemikong Unceded Nation
- Whitefish Lake
- Sagamok Anishnawbek
- Serpent River First Nation
- The following summarizes the number of responses received:
- 11 Verbal (phone conversations initiated by MNR)
- District Manager letter was sent in February 2003 to the following First Nations letting them know the draft SCIs were available for review:
- Ojibways of Sucker Creek
- United Chiefs and Council of Manitoulin
- Union of Ontario Indians
- Wikwemikong Unceded Nation
- Union of Ontario Indians
- Whitefish Lake
- Sagamok Anishnawbek
- Serpent River First Nation
- The following summarizes the number of responses received:
- 11 Verbal (phone conversations initiated by MNR)
- District staff met with:
- Chief of the Ojibways of Sucker Creek (Sept. 12/02)
- Lands technician from Sagamok Anishnawbek (Sept. 30/02)
- Robinson-Huron Chiefs (Oct. 16/02)
- Director of Sustainable Development for Wahnapitae First Nation (Nov. 1/02)
- Chief of Wikwemikong (Nov. 14/02)
- Chief of Sheshegwaning (Dec. 3/02)
- Lands technician from Whitefish Lake First Nation (Jan. 10/03)
- Lands technician from Wikwemikong (Feb. 11/03)
- The Chief of Ojibways of Sucker Creek met with MNR staff on September 12, 2002 to discuss OLL. He expressed no concern with the sites being planned for this year for his community but knew there would be an impact at the treaty level. He mentioned that he would speak to the Union of Ontario Indians (UOI) to see if they could provide us with support on OLL. We never heard anything from UOI.
- The Chief of McChigeeng First Nation was contacted by telephone on October 15, 2002 he discussed with Suzanne Arsenault the planning of this year’s OLL sites. He was not concerned with any of them.
- Zhiibaahaasing was contacted by telephone on September 23, 2002 and October 10, 2002 to discuss OLL. The lands technician mentioned he had reviewed the packages sent to the community by MNR and would contact us if the Chief wanted to meet. Despite our attempts no meeting has been scheduled to date.
- Wikwemikong Unceded Nation was contacted by telephone on November 4, 2002 to discuss OLL. At that time we were informed that the Chief would be meeting with our DM the next week. Cindy Blancher-Smith and Bruce Richard met with the chief November 14, 2002 and discussed broadly the projects MNR Sudbury is involved in and how they could participate. The lands specialist met with MNR staff on February 11, 2003 to discuss OLL. A brief overview of OLL was given. He requested that a package be sent to him with a map of all OLL sites in the district, a status list of the sites and a summary of past consultation with his community. This information was sent to the lands specialist February 24th, 2003.
- Wauwauskinga was contacted by telephone on October 10, 2002 and December 9, 2002 to discuss OLL. The lands tech will be speaking to Chief and Council about OLL and will let us know if they want to meet us. Despite our attempts no meeting has been scheduled to date.
- Sagamok Anishnawbek met with MNR staff on September 30, 2002 to discuss OLL. The lands technician mentioned the community would not be interested in the planning of this year’s sites but it is part of the area where they traditionally hunt, fish and collect herbs.
- Sheguiandah First Nation was contacted by telephone on October 1, 2002. The Chief said he would look at the packages sent to him and contact us if he would like to meet. Despite our attempts no meeting has been scheduled to date.
- Sheshegwaning First Nation was contacted by telephone on September 10, 2002 about OLL. A meeting was scheduled. December 3, 2002 a meeting was held between MNR representatives and the Chief. He did not want to discuss OLL, he was upset with the consultation process to date with respect to the project. He felt OLL was infringing on aboriginal treaty rights.
- Wahnapitei First Nation was contacted by telephone on September 12, 2002 to discuss OLL, a meeting was arranged. MNR staff met with the Director of Sustainable Development on November 1, 2002 to discuss OLL. He had an interest in reviewing 2 of this year’s SCIs for C213 and C166.
- Whitefish Lake First Nation was contacted by telephone on Nov. 1, 2002 to discuss OLL. The lands technician met with MNR staff January 10, 2003 to discuss OLL. He had no interest in the planning of this year’s sites.
- The Robinson-Huron Chiefs (15 of 19 attended) held a meeting on October 16, 2002 and MNR Sudbury was invited to present all projects in treaty area within the next year. OLL was one of the projects mentioned and there was discussion on the project.
Summary of Significant Issues:
- First Nations do not consider any contact with MNR consultation.
- First Nations feel the OLL process is flawed. They believe that decisions are already made before consultation begins.
- First Nations feel the OLL process does not respect native culture and their rights.
Analysis of Issues:
None of the above issues can be dealt with through a planning exercise – these are strictly process oriented, not how will we manage the conservation reserve. It is our understanding that the policies which have been developed (and which are fundamentally disagreed with) are not up for further negotiation.
Recommend that the statement of conservation interest be approved as the management direction for the conservation reserve.
6.0 Approval of Consultation Documentation
Ontario Parks Contact Person:
Date February 2004
Ontario Parks Contact Person:
Appendix D: Statement of Conservation Interest Amendments
1 Bog: Peatland with water table at or near the surface with surface often rising above surrounding terrain. Sites are strongly acidic and nutrient poor. Bogs contain peat accumulations of more than 40 cm deep. Species include Sphagnum spp. or Peat Mosses and ericaceous shrubs including Bog Rosemary (Andromeda glaucophylla), Leatherleaf (Chamaedaphne clayculata), Creeping Snowberry (Gaultheria hispidula), Bog Laurel (Kalmia polifolia), and Labrador Tea (Ledum groenlandicum) (Harris et al., 1996).
2 Fen: Peatland with water table at or above the surface with very slow water movement through communities via seepage that results in a more mineral, nutrient and oxygen-rich environment than bogs. Generally fens contain peat accumulations greater than 40 cm deep. Sometimes floating mat with sedges, mosses, shrubs, and sparse tree layer present. Indicator plants include: Larch (Larix laricinea) and Eastern White Cedar (Thuja occidentalis) or Black Spruce (Picea mariana), Speckled Alder (Alnus incana), Dwarf Birch (Betula pumila), Bluejoint Grass (Calamagrostis canadensis), assorted sedges, Sweet Gale (Myrica gale) with ericaceous shrubs present – especially in more nutrient poor fens (Harris et al., 1996).
3 Alluvium is defined as a deposit of fertile soils left during a time of flooding and is generally associated with river valleys or delta areas.
4 Luvisols are well to imperfectly drained mineral soils that have developed under the influence and growth and decomposition of forest vegetation in mild to cold climates. Their main characteristics are a light colored eluvial or leached Ae horizon and an illuvial or zone of accumulation textural B horizon (Clayton et al., 1977).