Cherriman Township Conservation Reserve Management Statement

February, 2004

Approval statement

I am pleased to approve this Statement of Conservation Interest for the Cherriman Township Conservation Reserve (C164).

The Cherriman Township Conservation Reserve, protecting a glacial landform of exposed rock, in association with treed wetlands of brush and silver maple, spruce and jack pine forests was regulated in October 2001. This 1,003-hectare conservation reserve is located in the Territorial District of Sudbury, 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 Cherriman Township Conservation Reserve will be managed under the jurisdiction of the Sudbury District Ministry of Natural Resources under the supervision of the Sudbury Area Supervisor as designated by the District Manager.

Submitted by: Joanna Samson
OLL Planner, Sudbury District
Date: February, 2004

Recommended for approval by:

Cindy Blancher-Smith
District Manager
Sudbury District

Date: February 29, 2004

Approved by:

Rob Galloway
Regional Director
Northeast Region

Date: June 25, 2004

Executive summary

Draft Statement of Conservation Interest (SCI) for Cherriman Township Conservation Reserve C164.

The Cherriman Township Conservation Reserve, protecting a glacial landform of exposed rock, in association with treed wetlands of brush and silver maple, spruce and jack pine forests encompasses 1,003 hectares of Crown lands and waters and is located with the Territorial District of Sudbury, in Northeastern Ontario. This conservation reserve offers an ecological landscape representative of Ecodistrict 5E-4 and the Sudbury Forest Section. Further studies are required to identify other possible ecological associations and their significance. This site is located approximately 10 km north of the Town of Noelville and 20 km west of Mashinonje Provincial Park, and borders a portion of Trout Lake in the southwest corner of Cherriman Township.

The Cherriman Township 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 land uses and activities that occur within the regulated boundaries of the conservation reserve. The Cherriman Township 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 MNR Resource Stewardship and Facility Development Projects (MNR 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 Cherriman Township 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:

1. Provide background information and identify and describe the values of the Cherriman Township Conservation Reserve; and
2. 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 Cherriman Township Conservation Reserve will be guided by the SCI and administered by the Sudbury District MNR, Sudbury Area Supervisor. The SCI governs the lands within the regulated boundary of the Cherriman Township 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, local First Nation communities, 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.

1.0 Introduction

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 (MNR) 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.

The Cherriman Township Conservation Reserve (C164) 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 Cherriman Township 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) and the Crown Land Use Atlas.

The Cherriman Township Conservation Reserve protects a glacial landform of exposed rock, in association with treed wetlands of brush and silver maple, spruce and jack pine forest in Site District 5E-4. Regulated in October 2001, this 1,003-hectare conservation reserve is located in the Territorial District of Sudbury, 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 Cherriman Township Conservation Reserve will meet this goal through both short and long-term objectives.

2.2 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.

Strategies:

• 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.

Strategies:

• 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.

Strategies:

• By creating factsheets 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.

Strategies:

• 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.

Strategies:

• 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.

Strategies:

• 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 Cherriman Township 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 Cherriman Township area was chosen as one of the candidate life and earth science features and subsequently appeared in the Ontario’s Living Legacy Land Use Strategy as C164. The site was then regulated as Schedule 107, 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 cannot be used for commercial forest harvest or hydroelectric power development as per restrictions proposed in the Ontario’s Living Legacy Land Use Strategy and the Crown Land Use Atlas. 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) as well as, 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 Cherriman Township 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 Cherriman Township Conservation Reserve, a Terms of Reference was written in November 2002 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 9^th, 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

4.1.1 Location

The Cherriman Township Conservation Reserve is approximately 45 kilometres southeast of the City of Greater Sudbury (Map 1) and is located within the MNR Sudbury District, in the Ministry of Natural Resources Northeast Region. The site is located in the geographic township of Cherriman in the Territorial District of Sudbury, and is approximately 10 km north of the Town of Noelville. The site is accessible by vehicle, ATV, canoe, boat, snowmobile, or by walking in from trails off Trout Lake and Cherriman Roads (Map 2). Trout Lake forms a portion of the southern border of the conservation reserve, whereas Cherriman Road forms part of the northern site boundary. Table 1 describes the location and provides administrative details of the site.

The Cherriman Township Conservation Reserve is located in Ecodistrict 5E-4 also known as the Sudbury Site District. This site district is located in Site Region 5E (Georgian Bay).

4.1.2 Physical site description

The climate in Site District 5E-4 has been classified as mid-humid warm-boreal eco- climatic region. Mean annual precipitation ranges from 900-1000 mm with maximum rainfall occurring in September. Mean daily temperatures extending above freezing occur from late March to December. The mean annual temperature is 3.5 °C (Wickware and Rubec, 1989; Environment Canada, 2002).

The Cherriman Township Conservation Reserve is situated in the Ecological Site District 5E-5 (North Bay) (Hills, 1959). However, Crins and Uhlig have redefined the site district boundaries and as result the conservation reserve is now situated in Ecodistrict 5E-4 (Sudbury) (Crins and Uhlig, 2000). The Sudbury Ecodistrict is located in the central portion of the Georgian Bay Site Region 5E. This region is characteristic of lowland areas of water-laid material frequently broken by bedrock outcrops and upland areas of rolling bedrock covered to variable depths with materials ranging from gravel to silt sands (Noordhof et al., 2003).

Regional site vegetation communities include hard maple, yellow birch, hemlock and white pine. White spruce and fir species can be found within areas containing clay soils. Cooler valleys and areas on higher altitudes contain mixed hardwood. Black spruce and tamarack dominate within cold wet areas. The forest type for this region is classified as mid-humid, warm boreal (Noordhof et al., 2003).

Currently the only Ecodistrict descriptions available are those documented by Poser (1992) based on Hills site district boundaries. Therefore a description of the current 5E-4 Sudbury Ecodistrict may require some modifications from what is represented within this Statement of Conservation Interest. The Sudbury Ecodistrict is characteristic of moderate to small-sized pockets of water-laid silt and sand, sand and gravel plains and bedrock outcrops shallowly covered by stony sand and stone-free silt. The North Bay Site District is composed of small to large pockets of water-laid silty clay, silt and sand lying between shallowly covered ridges (Hills, 1959; Poser, 1992).

Table 1: Location reference table

The Cherriman Township Conservation Reserve is found within the Sudbury-North Bay (L.4e) Section of the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence Forest Region (Rowe, 1972). This section is an area of lowlands and flats with rugged outcrops of bedrock that surround Lake Nipissing and extend west to Lake Huron. Recent erosion has removed most of the soil and vegetation from many of the rugged outcrops. Extensive disturbance by cutting, fire and smelter fumes has caused a significant decrease in the number of naturally occurring species. Most of the tree cover is now made up of hardy pioneer species such as poplar and white birch. There is a limited distribution of sugar maples and yellow birch. Jack pine is commonly found on sand flats and other coarse-textured soils. Red pine, eastern white pine, balsam fir, and black spruce occur scattered where suitable soils are found (Rowe, 1972).

The 1990 Forest Resource Inventory (FRI) for the Sudbury Forest was examined to determine the forest composition of the conservation reserve. The FRI interpretation reveals that the site is composed of eight Working Groups; black spruce (Sb), jack pine (Pj), white spruce (Sw), poplar (Po), soft maple (Ms), white birch (Bw), white pine (Pw), and hard maple (Mh). The northern, central, and northwestern portions of the site are dominated by black spruce communities intermixed with wetlands and on the western side, white spruce mixedwoods. The black spruce communities occur as conifer mixed and mixedwoods, and black spruce-white birch mixedwoods just under maturity being under 75 years old. The eastern edge of the site is dominated by jack pine communities forming jack pine predominant conifer, mixedwood, and jack pine/poplar mixed (Noordhof et al., 2003). The jack pine stands are immature to mature ranging in age from 29 to 79 years old. The black spruce and jack pine communities together with the white spruce mixedwoods and white pine dominated mixedwoods make up almost three quarters (72%) of the site.

The rest of the site, primarily in the southern half is composed of soft maple dominated mixedwoods, poplar dominated mixedwoods with white birch and maple dominated mixedwoods. These stands tend to be quite diverse frequently having a mixture of 5 to 7 species including white spruce, yellow birch, black ash, balsam fir and white pine. The poplar and white birch stands are mature with ages ranging 59 to 79 years. The soft maple communities appear from the FRI to be immature with ages ranging from 54 to 59 years. The oldest stands in the site are the white pine and hard maple stands with ages of 99 and 104 years respectively. The number of forested communities, the diversity within the communities and the associated wetlands make this a very diverse and interesting site.

Some harvesting in the site has occurred in the past with seven stands observed during aerial reconnaissance. These stands appeared to have little regeneration in them (Thompson, 2002). The FRI does identify five stands aged 29 years in the jack pine and black spruce communities with stocking estimates of 50-60%. There is current harvesting just south of the site.

Fire records indicate that no fires have occurred in the past 15 years. During the aerial reconnaissance survey completed in the fall of 2002, this was confirmed.

A good diversity of wetland communities can be found within Cherriman Township Conservation Reserve and many are associated with lakes, rivers, and streams (Noordhof et al., 2003). There is a large treed fen^{footnote 1[1]} located along the eastern boundary of the site, which is linked to a sheltered open marsh located in the southeastern corner of the site. Another large wetland community is found in the western part of the site and consists of an open bog^{footnote 2[2]} that leads south into a treed fen. Other wetland communities found within the conservation reserve are wet meadows, poor fens and shore fens (Noordhof et al., 2003). Current and past beaver activities have considerably affected treed and shoreline fen areas. These fen wetlands contain standing dead tamarack trees and have been changed into wet meadow lands (Noorhof et al., 2003).

The wetland areas also contribute to the aquatic feeding areas and late wintering moose habitat within and surrounding the site (OMNR, 2002). Aquatic communities in site district 5E-4 range from coldwater to warmwater systems (Crins, 1996).

The Cherriman Township Conservation Reserve borders a coldwater lake (Trout Lake) along its south boundary and contains extensive coldwater systems within its borders. There are warmwater systems located northwest and southeast of the site. A fish spawning area can be found in Trout Lake in close proximity to the conservation reserve. The shoreline of Trout Lake has been characterized as being wet and abundant in vegetation. A wide range of fish species, such as walleye, northern pike, lake trout, muskellunge, smallmouth bass, white sucker, lake herring, smelts, yellow perch, rock bass, and pumpkinseed can be found in Trout Lake. In the past, Trout Lake has been stocked with walleye, trout and bass. Trout Lake has been identified as one of the main muskie fishing waterbodies within the Sudbury District and also has a small annual smelt run.

Figure 1: Trout Lake with wetlands complexes in the southwestern portion of the site

Earth science features

Area history

The Cherriman Township Conservation Reserve is located within the dome-like topography of the Canadian Shield, which is composed of Precambrian bedrock. 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).

Approximately 11,000 years before present the glacial ice-sheets retreated northward from the Northeastern Ontario area. During this retreat, a belt of east-trending end moraines were left across Northern Ontario. These end moraines all lie north of Cherriman Township (Burrell, 1981).

The northward retreat also uncovered a large ice-free plain south of the North Bay/ Sudbury area. This plain, still depressed from the glacier’s weight, was later inundated by glacial meltwaters backed up against the receding ice margins. These meltwaters were part of glacial Lake Algonquin, which consisted of present day Lake Michigan, Huron, and Georgian Bay. Evidence of Lake Algonquin can be seen in discontinues shoreline features such as beach ridges and terraces that extend from Sault Ste. Marie to North Bay (Burrell, 1981).

As the ice continued to retreat northward, the Mattawa-Ottawa outlet opened, channeling meltwaters east through Mattawa to the Ottawa Valley, thus draining glacial Lake Algonquin (Burrell, 1981).

Because of the inundation of much of the area between Sudbury and North Bay, Cherriman Township is a complicated area of glaciolacustrine deposits, water-worked tills, glaciofluvial deposits, and wave-washed bedrock knobs (Burrell, 1981).

Bedrock geology

Based on Map 2544, Bedrock Geology of Ontario (Ontario Geological Survey, 1991), the Cherriman Township Conservation Reserve appears to be underlain by gneissic ^{footnote 3[3]} and migmatitic rocks of the Central Gneiss Belt, Grenville Province, Precambrian Shield (Kristjansson, 2002).

Surficial geology

Based on a brief helicopter reconnaissance survey, review of geological terrain mapping (Gartner, 1978, Data Base Map 5003), and a review of relatively recent aerial photography (1989), this site appears to be immediately underlain by areas of Bedrock- Outcrop (Unit 1), Bedrock-Drift Complex (Unit 2c), Ice-Contact Stratified Drift Deposits (Unit 4a), and Organic Deposits (Unit 9) (Kristjansson, 2002).

Bedrock terrain, including Bedrock Outcrop (Unit 1) and Bedrock-Drift Complex (Unit 2c), dominates the surficial geology of this conservation reserve. With reference to morphology, a knobby although low local relief, bedrock surface is anticipated. Relatively extensive areas of Bedrock Outcrop (Unit 1) are present in the northeast part of the conservation reserve. Major bedrock exposure associated with a thin, discontinuous drift cover is expected within areas delineated as Bedrock Outcrop (Unit 1). In addition, relatively extensive areas of the Bedrock-Drift Complex (Unit2c) occur in the northwest, southwest, and southeast parts of the conservation reserve. Moderate to major bedrock exposure associated with a discontinuous drift cover is anticipated within areas of the bedrock drift complex (Kristjansson, 2002).

Several areas, which appear to be immediately underlain by Ice-Contact Stratified Drift Deposits (Unit 4a), are present in the south central part of the conservation reserve. A number of apparent esker ridges and kame terraces were defined using the available aerial photography. One of the areas of ice-contact stratified drift deposits contains two borrow pits. It should be noted that the borrow pits, and the immediate area of these excavations, have been excluded from the conservation reserve. During the helicopter reconnaissance survey, the larger of the two borrow pits was briefly examined. Several meters of sand and gravel, consisting of medium to coarse sand and pebble, cobble gravel (with occasional small boulders), was observed (Kristjansson, 2002).

Finally, relatively extensive areas of Organic Deposits (Unit 9) occur throughout the conservation reserve in low-lying areas (Kristjansson, 2002).

Significance

The geological features described above are commonly encountered throughout this region, and are considered to be only of local significance (Kristjansson, 2002).

It should be noted, however that this site is located within a region where abundant bedrock exposures and minimal drift appear to be characteristic, despite the proximity of Lake Huron and Lake Nipissing. Intuitively, considering the presence of these large lake basins, the apparent absence, or paucity, of abundant glaciolacustrine sediment appears to be unusual (refer to Gartner, 1978, Data Base Map 5003). In addition, the conservation reserve is located 35 to 40 kilometers from the French River-Georgian Bay area, where major bedrock exposures and minimal drift are probably a result of a catastrophic, subglacial, meltwater flood event. It should be noted that bedrock exposures in the French River-Georgian Bay area are often associated with distinctive sculptured erosional forms, referred to as S-forms, which have been attributed to a catastrophic, subglacial, meltwater flood event (Kor et al., 1991). The presence of major bedrock exposures and the apparent paucity of drift within the conservation reserve, admittedly, very broad distinctions, might nevertheless be related to the same (or similar) event. If so, the Cherriman Township Conservation Reserve might better be accorded regional significance (Kristjansson, 2002).

Sensitivity

Considering the relatively passive land uses anticipated with a conservation reserve (e.g., hunting, fishing, etc), the various geological features, with the exception of the organic deposits, are considered to have low sensitivity. However, the areas of organic deposits (i.e., peatlands), may be sensitive to ATV traffic (Kristjansson, 2002).

Recommendations

It is recommended that a ground visit be undertaken to investigate the possibility that a catastrophic, subglacial, meltwater flood event has influenced the surficial geology of the Cherriman Township Conservation Reserve (Kristjansson, 2002).

Soil types

The soil profile of the site has been classified as being 60% glacial-fluvial deposits, 20% rock and 20% till. The till and glacial-fluvial deposits have been further subdivided into 40% coarse sand, 20% coarse loam, 10% fine loam and 10% fine sand. The soil moisture regime of the deposits have been classified as being 40% dry, 30% fresh and 10% moist. The particle size distribution has been described as having none to few cobbles, excessive gravel and stones, and no loam (OMNR, 1975).

Cherriman Township Conservation Reserve lies within the French River Watershed. The site’s waters drain into the French River water system, which eventually drains into Lake Huron.

4.1.3 Administrative description

The legal description of the Cherriman Township Conservation Reserve, regulated as Schedule 107 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 (Conservation Reserve), reads:

The Cherriman Township 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 Cherriman Township Conservation Reserve is also located within the legal boundaries of the Sudbury Forest Sustainable Forest License area, which encompasses approximately 1.0 million hectares and spans two MNR Districts – Sudbury and North Bay.

4.2 History of the site

The area where the Cherriman Township 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 19^th century when logging became the primary industry (OMNR, 1985).

4.3 Inventories

Table 2 indicates the current status of natural heritage inventory that has occurred or that will be required in the near future.

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.

Representation

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 been identified as meeting the targets of representation in each site district.

The Cherriman Township Conservation Reserve has been identified to contribute to the life and earth science representation of the protected areas system in Ontario. Selection criteria for the identification of the best representative life science features includes, diversity, integrity, associated earth science values, and special features.

The Cherriman Township Conservation Reserve has been classified as being provincially significant due to spruce and jack pine stands on a Bedrock-Drift Complex landform and lowland areas consisting of silver maple, treed fens black and white spruce stands (Thompson, 2003).

Quality of Present Representation

a) Diversity

Diversity is the measure of the relative number of different landforms or 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.

Table 2: Inventory and survey information for Cherriman Township Conservation Reserve

This site supports an even distribution of mixed hard and sugar maple, mixed white birch, dominant and mixed jack pine, mixed poplar, and dominant and mixed black and white spruce. There are four major landforms found within the site including bedrock outcrops, bedrock-drift complexes with discontinuous drift cover, ice-contact stratified drift deposits and organic deposits (Kristjansson, 2002).

The Cherriman Township Conservation Reserve’s diversity is considered to be moderate (Noordhof et al., 2003). This diversity rating is based on the rather small size of the site, its location within the Great Lakes St. Lawrence forest, its number of vegetative communities, its expected increase in landform/vegetative combinations and its past history of considerable human disturbance. A landform/vegetation analysis may increase the site’s diversity significantly (Noordhof et al., 2003).

Cherriman Township 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. This site has been classified as being provincially significant due to the combination of life and earth science features (Thompson, 2003). This provincial significance designation is based on the site as it sits within Site District 5E-5. Since the site has been moved to Ecodistrict 5E-4, due to the redefinition of the site district boundaries by Crins in 2000, no evaluation have been made to date on this change. As a result, further analysis within Ecodistrict 5E-4 should be completed to confirm the provincial significance designation (Noordhof et al., 2003).

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 and its general 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 (Noordhof et al., 2003).

The Cherriman Township Conservation Reserve is relatively large. There is a substantial portion of the boundary that is vectored, which may become problematic for the long-term protection of the core values. Ideally the highly vectored eastern boundary could have been extended to include more small lakes, wetlands, and forest communities. Extension to the western boundary could have included whole lakes or could have followed shorelines. The natural and cultural boundaries that exist within the site include shorelines, which are found in the north, west, and south and a wetland’s edge in the northwestern part of the site. The cultural boundary is in the form of a road, which makes up a large part of the northeastern boundary (Noordhof et al., 2003).

The conservation reserve, identified in the Ontario’s Living Legacy Land Use Strategy was established to protect spruce, jack pine, soft maple, and treed wetlands on ground moraine (OMNR, 1999). Large portions of the spruce communities that are not affected by past harvest are well buffered by the boundaries of the conservation reserve due to their more central location within the site (Noordhof et al., 2003). In addition, the treed wetlands are well nested within the site although beaver activity has altered the characteristics of some of the treed fen areas. However, the jack-pine communities and soft maple stands have been severed by straight-line boundaries or affected by harvested reducing core areas and making these communities more susceptible to adjacent land activities and influences (Noordhof et al., 2003).

Another important ecological factor of the Cherriman Township Conservation Reserve is its vicinity to several other protected areas. Within a distance of four townships from the Cherriman Township Conservation Reserve, two other conservation reserves have been regulated. These areas are the Attlee Conservation Reserve and the Attlee Central Forest Conservation Reserve, both in Attlee Township. Also within 20 km east the Cherriman Township Conservation Reserve is the existing Mashkinonje Provincial Park located in Haddo and Loudon Townships (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 (OMNR, 1999). The Cherriman Township Conservation Reserve is located east of the Kilarney East Area EMA – E211a, north of the Eighteen Mile Island EMA – E168a, and west of the Latchford EMA – E163n. E211a and E168a are remote access EMAs that were created to manage recreational and resource sector uses to maintain the remote access characteristics of the areas. E168n is designated a natural heritage EMA. Natural Heritage EMAs were created to protect areas with significant natural values, while allowing a range of resource activities. In addition, these three EMAs also provide linkages with other nearby protected areas, thus allowing for corridors and preventing protected area isolation (OMNR, 1999).

c) Condition

A primary road, which borders the southwestern part of the site and a tertiary road that runs along the northern boundary bound the Cherriman Township Conservation Reserve. The primary road has snowmobile, ATV, and walking trails coming off of it. The site is heavily disturbed with widespread harvested areas and old lumber roads with sparse regeneration (Thompson, 2002). Past harvesting practices include extensive harvesting in the 1970’s and in the early 1990’s in the north, east, and southern parts of the site (Noordhof et al., 2003).

Disturbance may be increased in the long run due to the possibility of unauthorized occupations for hunting and a plan by the Cottage Association to put trails in the area (OMNR, 2000b). The western boundary of the site abuts a gravel operation, as well as some buildings along the shore of Trout Lake located outside the boundary.

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 good diversity of wetlands and the white pine mixedwoods forming and interesting rocky shoreline along Trout Lake are landscape features that enhance the site (Noodhof et al., 2003). This area also includes late wintering habitat and aquatic feeding areas for moose.

e) Current land use activities

Current land use activities within or near the conservation reserve include snowmobiling, ATV use, hiking, fishing and hunting. However, only one authorized snowmobile trail currently exists within and adjacent to the site along the eastern boundary. The location of the Cherriman Township Conservation Reserve along Trout Lake makes it a favoured travel corridor for recreationalists travelling to other destinations within the surrounding landscape or for hunting moose, bear or deer. The site falls within a small portion of one active trapline and one active bear management area as well as one baitfish harvest area.

Summary:

This site supports an even distribution of hardwoods and softwoods on four major landforms. The conservation reserve has a moderate degree of diversity in landform and vegetation units and so it contributes to the overall diversity of the protected areas system in Ontario through its life science/landform contribution. This site has been classified as being provincially significant due to the combination of life and earth science values present although further analysis may be required to confirm this provincial significance designation.

At 1003 hectares in area, the Cherriman Township Conservation Reserve is relatively large compared to other protected areas within the area. There is a substantial portion of its boundaries that are vectored which may become problematic for the long- term protection of the core values.

The site is heavily disturbed with widespread harvested areas and old lumber roads with sparse regeneration. Past harvesting practices include extensive harvesting in the 1970’s and in the early 1990’s in the north, east, and southern parts of the site. Disturbance may also be increased in the long run due to the possibility of unauthorized occupations for hunting and a plan by the Trout Lake Cottage Association to put trails in the area (OMNR, 2000b).

5.1 Social/economic interest in the area

This section will address the contribution of the Cherriman Township Conservation Reserve to the local economy and society through the opportunities it represents and the importance of these opportunities.

a) Linkage to local communities

The Cherriman Township Conservation Reserve is accessible from Trout Lake Road, Cherriman Township Road, Shaw Road and other secondary roads to the north of the reserve. This general area is popular for cottages and land use permits as well as for recreational opportunities such as hunting, fishing and Crown land camping. Residents and visitors to Ontario seeking recreation at other nearby protected areas, lakes or outfitter camps may also seek complimentary recreation opportunities in the area of this conservation reserve. The site is located on the north side of Trout Lake.

The forest access roads in the area also double as snowmobile/ATV trails which provide a connection to the major trails under the jurisdiction of the French River Snowmobile Club. There is a registered snowmobile trail located within and adjacent to the site along eastern boundary of the conservation reserve. This trial is on the Nipissing Veuve River Snowmobile Club trail system. Snowmobiling and ATV use are popular pastimes of many local people, as well as tourists to the area. Winter snowmobiling activities bring tourism to the local area and the economic benefits are felt through spending at the local tourist lodges.

Some of the recreational and commercial activities that the Cherriman Township Conservation Reserve supports may include hiking, wildlife viewing, camping, canoeing, boating, fishing, small game hunting, trapping, and large game hunting (moose, deer, bear). Hunting, trapping and fishing are long-standing traditional activities and they are also a vital part of the local economy. Economic benefits are seen at local establishments from bear and moose hunting parties as well as fishing enthusiasts; and trapping provides a source of income to local trapline holders.

b) Heritage estate contribution

The Cherriman Township 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 Cherriman Township Conservation Reserve’s distinct contribution is a combination of life science/glacial history preservation, and educational and recreational opportunities. The site is also accessible, therefore scientists, educators and recreationalists alike will not have difficulty in accessing the site to learn about and enjoy its values.

c) First Nations

The Cherriman Township 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. Traditional uses such as hunting, fishing, trapping and gathering will be respected. At the present time, there are no known land claims by any First Nation 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 heavily disturbed with widespread harvested areas from extensive forest harvesting in the 1970’s and in the early 1990’s. There is also proposed harvesting planned just south of the site.

Fire records indicate that no fires have occurred in the past 15 years. During the aerial reconnaissance survey completed in the fall of 2002, this was confirmed.

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. It should be noted that a small area along the Trout Lake shoreline within the site has been identified as having the potential for high cultural significance (OMNR, 2002).

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 Cherriman Township 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 Sudbury Trail Plan Association.

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.

The Trout Lake Campers Association Inc. has expressed a stewardship interest in Cherriman Township Conservation Reserve.

Other industries or companies that may have an interest in the Cherriman Township Conservation Reserve may include the Prospector’s Association, the Sustainable Forest Licensee (Vermilion Forest Management Company Inc.), and the Aggregate Producer’s Association. The interests of these companies or industries may be limited to recognizing the boundaries and values protected in order to uphold the MNR’s management policies within the conservation reserve.

5.2 Fisheries and wildlife

The Cherriman Township Conservation Reserve borders a coldwater lake along the south boundary and contains extensive coldwater streams within its borders. There are warmwater streams located northwest and southeast of the site. A fish spawning area can be found in Trout Lake in close proximity to the conservation reserve. A wide range of fish species, such as walleye, northern pike, lake trout, muskellunge, smallmouth bass, lake herring, yellow perch, rock bass, and pumpkinseed also live in Trout Lake. In the past, Trout Lake has been stocked with walleye, trout and bass.

Wildlife on the site would be consistent with typical wildlife found in Wildlife Management Unit 42, including birds, small furbearers and large ungulates. An aerial reconnaissance in September 2002 confirmed the presence of bear and moose. The site is within one registered trapline, one Bear Management area, and is in a small portion of a baitfish- harvesting unit. Local knowledge indicates that this area is a particularly good moose hunting area and there is a known moose wintering area within and adjacent to the site.

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 Cherriman Township Conservation Reserve contributes to the overall diversity of the protected areas system in Ontario through its provincially significant diverse life science/landform contribution. During a September 2002 reconnaissance flight many wetland communities were observed. A complete inventory of flora would be beneficial in identifying the species that inhabit the site. The earth science features of this site require further investigation and may be of regional significance (Kristjansson, 2002). 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 Cherriman Township 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. A small portion of the site contains a high potential for Cultural Heritage significance. 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. There are no patent lands nested within the site and there are no other forms of tenure such as land use permits or licenses of occupation. However, adjacent to the site’s southern boundary is the Trout Lake cottage community.

5.6 Commercial use

Commercial use of the site includes black bear hunting and commercial fur harvesting. The area is also included in a baitfish license.

5.7 Tourism/recreational use/opportunities

Current recreational uses and opportunities of the site include hiking, canoeing/boating, fishing, hunting, ATV use, snowmobiling and nature observation. The nearby Trout Lake system is a known boating area for cottagers. Winter activities such as ice fishing, skiing and snowshoeing are also potential recreational uses in the area. Further detailed recreation inventory studies need to be undertaken to document the existence of recreational uses and potential.

An authorized snowmobile trail is located within and adjacent to the site along eastern boundary of the conservation reserve. This trail is on the Nipissing Veuve River Snowmobile Club trail system.

A local tourist lodge, primarily catering to bear hunters, brings tourism to the area. Other tourism opportunities include snowmobiling, fishing and moose hunting.

The forest access road and trail network is one of the forms of existing infrastructure near the site. Also, there are many cottages, along Trout Lake Road, which is to the south of the conservation reserve.

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 Cherriman Township 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 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 of the site will be under the direction of the MNR’s Sudbury 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 Cherriman Township Conservation Reserve.

Natural heritage values

The management intent for the Cherriman Township 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 objectives 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, monitoring and mitigating issues will protect all earth and life science features. Industrial activities such as commercial timber harvest and new power 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 or removal of vegetation and parts thereof may be permitted subject to a Test of Compatibility. MNR’s Sudbury 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 reserves vectored boundaries, which may sever some important values.

Cultural heritage values

It is not known if cultural heritage values exist in the Cherriman Township 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 Cherriman Township 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 process, 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.

Social/economic interest

The economic contribution of the Cherriman Township 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 Sudbury 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 activities

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 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 a 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 conservation 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 hunting, ATV use and snowmobiling. Camping may also be a current use of the conservation reserve and will be permitted to continue.

Snowmobiles and All Terrain Vehicles (ATV’s) are permitted on existing trails. Under the OLL LUS (MNR, 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.

Client services

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 knowledgeable staff. In the future, information may be delivered from different sources; however, the 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.

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 factsheets, community visits and other educational or interpretive programs.

Aboriginal interests

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 scientific 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 research activity or research developments or facilities will not be considered until a Test of Compatibility is conducted and the Sudbury Area Supervisor approves the proposal. 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. Scientific research will be consistent with provincial and regional protocols and or strategies. Permanent plots or observation stations may be established so researchers can return over time. The Sudbury 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 Sudbury 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.

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 Cherriman Township 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 Sudbury 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.

6.5 Marketing

The Cherriman Township Conservation Reserve will be marketed as a glacial landform of exposed rock formation in association with treed wetlands of brush and silver maple, and a spruce and jack pine forest.

Factsheets will be prepared to inform the public about these values which will be available at the Sudbury District MNR office, local provincial parks as well as possibly at the tourist outfitters. Marketing efforts to increase use are not a priority and will be kept to a minimum.

7.0 References

Barnett, P.J. 1992. Quaternary geology of Ontario, in Geology of Ontario; Ontario Geological Survey, Special Volume 4, Part 2, pp.1011-1088.

Burrell, R. 1981. The Pleistocene Geology of Cherriman Township. District of Sudbury. Prepared for the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. Northeast Region. Unpublished.

Crins, W. J. 1996. Life Science Gap Analysis for Site District 5E-4. 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 Rationale.

Davidson, R. J. 1997. Completing the Provincial Park System, A Priceless Legacy. Occasional Paper 3. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. 23 pp.

Environment Canada. 2002 Environment Canada’s Green Lane. Available at: Canadian weather

Gartner, J.F. 1978. Northern Ontario Engineering Geology Terrain Study, Data Base Map, Sudbury; Ontario Geological Survey, Map 5003, Scale 1:100,000.

Harris, A.G., S.C. McMurray, P.W.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.

Noordhof, J., King, L., Longyear, S., and J.E. Thompson. 2003. Cherriman Township Conservation Reserve (C164) - Life Science Checksheet Step 2 – Sudbury District. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources.

Kor et al. 1991. Erosion of Bedrock by Subglacial Meltwater, Georgian Bay, Ontario; A Regional View; Canadian Journal of Earth Science, Vol. 28. Pages 623-642.

Kristjansson, R. 2002. Draft Earth Science Planning Summary. Cherriman Township C164-Earth Science Features. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources.

Ministry of Citizenship, Culture and Recreation (MCzCR). 1997. Conserving a Future for our Past: Archaeology, Land Use Planning and Development in Ontario. Revised 1998. Ontario Archaeological Society, Inc. 43 pp.

Ontario Geological Survey, 1991. Bedrock Geology of Ontario, Southern Sheet; Ontario Geological Survey, Map 2544, scale 1:1,000,000.

Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. 1975. Forest Land Productivity Survey. Northeast Region. Noelville Map 41-I/1 1:50, 000.

Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. 1985. Chapleau District Background Information – Historic Use. Sudbury District Office Spanish River Files – History and Culture.

Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. 1997a. Conservation Reserves, Policy PL 3.03.05. 8 pp.

Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. 1997b. Conservation Reserves, Procedure PL 3.03.05. 22 pp.

Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. 1997c. Nature’s Best. Ontario’s Parks and Protected Areas: The Framework and Action Plan. 37 pp.

Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. 1999. Ontario’s Living Legacy Land Use Strategy. Queen’s Printer for Ontario. 136 pp.

Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. 2000a. Beyond 2000. Queen’s Printer for Ontario. 20 pp.

Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. 2000b. Cherriman Township Conservation Reserve: File C164-2000.

Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. 2002. Natural Resources Values Information System (NRVIS) data. Sudbury District.

Poser, S. 1992 Report of the Status of Provincial Parks in the Site Regions and Districts of Ontario. Ministry of Natural Resources Report.

Rowe, J. S. 1972. Forest Regions of Canada. Department of Fisheries and the Environment Canadian Forestry Service Publication No. 1300, Ottawa, Ontario. 172 pp., 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 pp.

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 pp.

Thompson, J.E. 2002. Aerial Reconnaissance Notes-C164.

Thompson, J.E. 2003. Personal Communication via Fax. February 3, 2003.

Wickware, G.M. and C.D.A. Rubec, 1989. Ecoregions of Ontario. Ecological Land Classification Series, No. 26. Environment Canada. Sustainable Development Branch.

8.0 Maps

Map 1: Larger map showing location of the Cherriman Township Conservation Reserve in relation to Sudbury

Enlarge Map 1

Map 2: Site map of Cherriman Township Conservation Reserve

Enlarge map 2

Map 3: Species composition

Enlarge map 3

9.0 Appendices

Appendix A: Permitted uses table

Permitted uses table for conservation reserves as per policy

Recreation

Trails

Science, education and heritage appreciation

Commercial activities

Resource management

Other activities

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:

1. 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.
2. 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.

3. 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. These include:
   • Natural heritage
   • Cultural
   • 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
• Aboriginal

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:

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:

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 affect 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 - effect 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?

Diversity:

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.

Ecological considerations:

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; effect on water quality or quantity, effect on fish and wildlife habitat and linkages, effect of drainage, sedimentation and erosion, potential long term planning problems because a site is very small in size or linear in shape, etc.

Special features:

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 note be 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):

Cherriman Township (1,003 Ha.)

2. Land use strategy area #:

Conservation Reserve C164

3. MNR district:

Sudbury 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 Cherriman Township Conservation Reserve and to notify MNR 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 MNR 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.
  • 2 letters received
  • 5 phone calls received
  • 1 email received

Summary of significant issues:

1. 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.
2. Respondents group interested in a high degree of protection for the conservation reserve and is interested in possible stewardship opportunities.

Analysis of issues:

1. SCI to address cultural heritage values
2. SCI makes reference to possible stewardship opportunities within the conservation reserve.

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 Cherriman Township 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
  • Sheguiandah
  • Zhiibaahaasing
  • M’Chigeeng
  • Whitefish Lake
  • Sagamok Anishnawbek
  • Sheshegwaning
  • Wahnapitae
  • Wauwauskinga
  • 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
  • Sheguiandah
  • Zhiibaahaasing
  • Union of Ontario Indians
  • M’Chigeeng
  • Whitefish Lake
  • Sagamok Anishnawbek
  • Sheshegwaning
  • Wahnapitae
  • Wauwauskinga
  • 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 24^th, 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 generated.

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.

5.0 Recommendations:

Recommend that the statement of conservation interest be approved as the management direction for the conservation reserve.

6.0 Approval of consultation documentation

MNR district contact person:

Joanna Samson
OLL Planner
Ph: 705-564-7612
Fax: 705-564-7879

Cindy Blancher-Smith
District Manager
Sudbury District
Date: February 2004

Ontario Parks Contact Person:

N/A

Appendix D: Statement of Conservation Interest Amendments