Green Lake Old Pine Conservation Reserve Management Statement
This document provides policy direction for the protection, development and management of the Green Lake Old Pine Conservation Reserve and its resources.
On this page Skip this page navigation
Statement of Conservation Interest
Updated: June 2017
I am pleased to approve this Statement of Conservation Interest (SCI) for the Green Lake Old Pine Conservation Reserve.
The Green Lake Old Pine Conservation Reserve was created to protect old white pine in association with other conifers and intolerant hardwoods, the best example of this forest type in Site District 4E-3. Regulated in December 2000, this 156-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 Provincial Parks and Conservation Reserves Act (PPCRA) and associated regulations and guidelines (previously Public Lands Act). The direction for this conservation reserve is in the form of a SCI, which defines the area that is being planned, the purpose for which the conservation reserve has been proposed, and outlines the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry’s (MNRF) intent for the protected area. This SCI will provide guidance for the management of the conservation reserve and the basis for the ongoing monitoring of activities. More detailed direction is not anticipated at this time. Should significant developments be considered or complex issues arise that require additional studies, more defined management direction, special protection measures will be sought, and a more detailed Resource Management Plan will be prepared with public consultation.
The public was informed and consulted prior to the regulation of the Green Lake Old Pine Conservation Reserve under the Public Lands Act as well as during the preparation and review of this Statement of Conservation Interest.
The Green Lake Old Pine Conservation Reserve will be managed under the jurisdiction of the Sudbury District Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry under the supervision of the District Manager, and will be examined, updated or amended as required.
and Natalie Avoledo
Date: March, 2003
Recommended for approval by:
Date: March 28, 2003
Grant Ritchie for Rob Galloway
Date: August 28, 2003
Recommended for approval by:
Sudbury District Manager
Date: July 21, 2017
Administrative update approved by:
Northeast Regional Director
Date: July 24, 2017
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 and Forestry (MNRF) 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 (MNR 2000).
The Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry (MNRF) 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. Previously, 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 (MNR 1999). The Land Use Strategy (LUS) focused on four specific objectives that were established to guide the planning process. These are: to complete Ontario’s system of parks and protected areas; to recognize the land use needs of the resource-based tourism industry; to provide forestry, mining, and other resource industries with greater land and resource use certainty; and to enhance hunting, angling and other Crown land recreation opportunities. A major part of the Ontario’s Living Legacy Land Use Strategy was the government’s initiative to establish 378 new protected areas. This commitment marked the largest expansion of provincial parks and conservation reserves in Ontario’s history.
The Green Lake Old Pine Conservation Reserve (C201) 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 Provincial Parks and Conservation Reserves Act (PPCRA, 2006). Prior to its regulation, MNRF 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 (MNR 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 MNRF's intent for the protected area. This SCI will govern the lands and waters within the regulated boundary of the conservation reserve. However, to ensure MNRF 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 MNRF 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 Green Lake Old Pine 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 (MNR 1999).
The Green Lake Old Pine Conservation Reserve, protecting old white pine in association with other conifers and intolerant hardwoods, is the best example of this forest type in Site District 4E-3. Regulated in December 2000, this 156-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 the PPCRA, 2006, 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 Green Lake Old Pine Conservation Reserve will meet this goal through both short and long-term objectives.
2.2.1 Short term objectives
Objective 1: To define the purpose for which the conservation reserve has been identified and to outline the MNRF's management intent for the protected area.
- By identifying the state of the resource with respect to the natural heritage values being protected
- By identifying current land use activities that are occurring on the land base
Objective 2: To determine the best management strategy to protect the integrity of the values in the site.
- By determining the land use compatibility of current and potential land uses
- By developing specific guidelines and prescriptions to manage existing and potential land uses
Objective 3: To create public awareness of the values within this conservation reserve and promote responsible stewardship of the protected area.
- By creating fact sheets and pamphlets describing this conservation reserve and the resource(s) or values that it contains and protects
- By seeking partnerships with local stakeholders to ensure the values of the site are properly protected
This Statement of Conservation Interest meets the planning requirements for conservation reserves as determined in Procedure PL 3.03.05, the PPCRA (2006), as well as the Protected Areas Planning Manual (2014), which states that all CR’s must be examined within 20 years of the regulation date for the CR.
2.2.2 Long term objectives
Objective 1: To determine the long-term management goals of the conservation reserve.
- By identifying the research needs, client services, and marketing strategies necessary to determine the position of this conservation reserve among the system of parks and protected areas in Ontario
Objective 2: To determine the representative targets of the site.
- By identifying the scientific values in relation to provincial benchmarks
- By identifying any monitoring or research necessary to identify and maintain the integrity of these characteristics beyond this plan
Objective 3: To provide direction for the evaluation of new uses or economic ventures proposed.
- A Test of Compatibility shall be undertaken to evaluate the impact of suggested use(s), either positive or negative, on the protected values and administrative needs of the conservation reserve, as per PL 3.03.05.
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 Green Lake Old Pine 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. Since the life science values could potentially be impacted by activities adjacent to the site’s boundary, and 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. The MNRF, in conjunction with other partners, will work to ensure that the values are protected. 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 Green Lake old growth white pine stand was chosen as one of the candidate life science features and subsequently appeared in the Ontario’s Living Legacy Land Use Strategy (MNR 1999) as C201. The site was then regulated as Schedule 46, in Ontario Regulation 686/00 made under the Public Lands Act, December 20, 2000 and filed December 21, 2000 amending Ontario Regulation 805/94 (Conservation Reserves). Since then, the Provincial Parks and Conservation Reserves Act (PPCRA) was brought into effect in 2006 for the purposes of establishing and managing Ontario’s provincial parks and conservation reserves. Accordingly, the Cartier Moraine Conservation Reserve is now designated under PPCRA Ontario Regulation 315/07.
The generation of electricity or commercial forest harvest is not permitted within the conservation reserve; limited exceptions are outlined in the PPCRA (2006). 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 (PPCRA, 2006). 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 (MNR 1997b) and will be subject to the requirements outlined in the PPCRA (2006) and associated regulations, and the Class Environmental Assessment for Provincial Parks and Conservation Reserves (OMNR 2005) (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 MNRF, and will be done in accordance with the PPCRA (2006), and the Protected Areas Planning Manual (2014) along with an approved management document.
Once a conservation reserve had been established through the land use planning process it was regulated under Section 4 of the Public Lands Act as an amendment to Ontario Regulation 805/94. Following the regulation the level of management planning was determined to fulfill the protection targets. There are two policy documents involved: a Statement of Conservation Interest 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) (MNR 1997b) (now Ontario’s Protected Areas Planning Manual, 2014). The appropriate document had to 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 (MNR 1999) a RMP is warranted.
For current planning purposes, the Green Lake Old Pine 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 Green Lake Old Pine Conservation Reserve in December 2000, a Terms of Reference was written to direct the completion of the management planning for this site and four other conservation reserves that were regulated at the same time. The First Nations and the public were notified that the management planning for the five conservation reserves was beginning. This notification occurred via mail-out to the First Nations and stakeholders and an advertisement appeared in two local newspapers during the week of October 8th, 2001. The MNRF is exempt from providing notification of this planning process on the Electronic Bulletin Registry, under Section 30 of the Environmental Bill of Rights (EBR).
A draft version of this SCI was sent for review to members of the public and First Nations and MNRF staff both at the district and regional office levels during July 2002. Comments provided to MNRF were considered in this final document. Upon approval of this SCI, public notification will occurred via mail-out to interested stakeholders and a notice appeared in the same two local newspapers.
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.
The implementation of the policy will be the mandate of the MNRF at the district level; however, association with various partners may be sought to assist in the delivery. This SCI is a working document; therefore it may be necessary to make revisions to it from time to time (see section 6.4 Implementation and Plan Review).
4.0 Background information
4.1 Location and site description
The Green Lake Old Pine Conservation Reserve is approximately 60 kilometres northwest of the City of Greater Sudbury (Map 1) and is located within the Sudbury MNRF District, in the Northeast Region. The site is located in the geographic township of Cartier, approximately 5 kilometres east of the Town of Cartier. The western tip of the conservation reserve is adjacent to Green Lake (Map 2). Table 1 describes the location and provides administrative details of the site.
Table 1: Location and administrative details for the Green Lake Old Pine Conservation Reserve
|Name||Green Lake Old Pine Conservation Reserve|
|Eco-Region Eco-District (Hills 1959)||4E Mississagi 4E-3|
|Eco-Region Eco-District (Crins and Uhlig 2000)||4E|
|MNRF Administrative Region/ District/Area||Northeast Region Sudbury District Sudbury Area|
|Topographical Map Name/Number||Chelmsford/ Cartier 41 I/11, 12|
|Latitude/ Longitude||46°43'N 81°30'W|
|Elevation||Minimum: 425 m Maximum: 475 m|
|Watershed||Lake Huron Basin 2CF|
|Wildlife Management Unit||WMU 39|
|Forest Unit||Spanish Forest|
The Green Lake Old Pine Conservation Reserve is located in Eco-District 4E-3, also known as the Mississagi Site District. This Eco-District is located in the center of Eco-Region 4E approximately between 81° 30'W and 84° W Longitude, and 46° 20'N and 47° 50'N Latitude, see Map 3 (Crins 1996).
4.1.2 Physical site description
The climate in Eco-District 4E-3 has been classified as a humid low boreal (LBh) eco-climatic region. Monthly precipitation ranges from 50-100 mm with maximums occurring in the summer period. The frost-free period extends from May to mid-September, while temperatures above 0°C last approximately seven months (Ecoregions Working Group 1989).
The vegetation of Eco-District 4E-3 is a transition between that associated with Boreal forest types and those characteristic of the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence forest region. The Green Lake Old Pine Conservation Reserve is within the Temagami Forest Section of the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence Forest Region (Rowe 1972). The Temagami Forest Section is defined as a large upland area north of Lake Huron, stretching east and west from Lake Temagami, and occupying a generally southward-sloping surface. The typical association of this forest section consists of eastern white pine with scattered white birch and white spruce or a mixture of white birch, pine and spruce, with balsam fir, trembling and largetooth aspens (Rowe 1972).
The 1990 Forest Resource Inventory (FRI) for the Spanish Forest was examined to determine the forest composition of the conservation reserve. The FRI revealed that the site is composed of five working groups: black spruce (Sb), white pine (Pw), poplar (Po), and white birch (Bw) and jack pine (Pj) (Map 4). The majority of the site is occupied by one large white pine stand and a group of white birch stands.
The white pine stand is the central feature of the site and has a composition of 60% white pine with a mixture of poplar, black spruce and white birch. The white birch stands are variable with the composition ranging from 40-60% white birch with a good component of white pine and poplar, plus small amounts of white spruce (Sw), black spruce, soft (red) maple (Ms) and jack pine (Map 5).
The other forest stands are smaller in size and are composed of stands dominated by either black spruce or poplar. There is one upland black spruce stand with a good component of white pine and a lesser component of balsam fir (B). The other black spruce stand is a lowland stand composed mostly of black spruce and cedar (Ce). The poplar stand is small and is 50% poplar with a mixture of white birch, black spruce, soft maple and white pine.
The forest in the conservation reserve is mature to over-mature. The ages for the forest stands range from 95 to 110 years for the white birch, black spruce and poplar stands and 135 years of age for the white pine stand (Map 6). Fire records indicate that no fires occurred in the area after 1920, and no records are available prior to 1920. The site has been free from major disturbances for many decades.
Non-forest vegetation communities also exist in this site district such as wetlands of varied composition (bogs
The Green Lake Old Pine Conservation Reserve is located within the dome-like topography of the Canadian Shield, which is composed of Precambrian bedrock. The site is within the southern limits of the Abitibi Uplands subdivision. In Ontario, the Abitibi Uplands physiographic area is further divided into the Cobalt Plain in the east and the Penokean Hills that forms the north shore of Lake Huron. It is within the northeast corner of the Penokean Hills that the conservation reserve is located. This landscape is controlled by folded Proterozoic
Folds and faults are frequent throughout the Abitibi Subprovince and the granite
During the Pleistocene Epoch, all of Ontario was covered by a succession of ice sheets separated by interglacial periods. The last glacial advance, referred to as the Late or Classical Wisconsinan Stage, began approximately 23,000 years before present (Barnett 1992). During these periods a thin, discontinuous cover of till was deposited throughout the area by glacial ice. The till in along the northern rim of the Sudbury Basin, just south on the conservation reserve, has been generally described by Burwasser (1979) as sandy loam till with the actual range from sandy silt till through sand till.
Erosional activity has been minimal since the disappearance of the ice sheet and the lowering of glacial lake water to present day levels. The northern portion of the site sits on the Cartier Moraine composed of stratified materials. The southern portion of the site is mostly overlaying bedrock drift complexes with small pockets of glaciofluvial outwash deposits. Organic deposits have been developed in depressions in the land surface. These organic deposits often overlie sand, silt and clay material (Kor 2002). Modern alluvium
The Green Lake Old Pine Conservation Reserve lies within the Spanish River Watershed. The northern boundary of the site follows a creek system from Green Lake through three other small waterbodies to Carhess Creek. Carhess Creek subsequently drains into Onaping River, which flows south into the Vermillion River eventually meets up with the North Channel of Lake Huron.
4.1.3 Administrative description
The legal description of the Green Lake Old Pine Conservation Reserve, regulated as Schedule 46 in Ontario Regulation 686/00 made under the Public Lands Act on December 20, 2000 and filed on December 21, 2000 amending Ontario Regulation 805/94, reads:
In the geographic Township of Cartier, in the Territorial District of Sudbury, containing 156 hectares, more or less, being composed of that part of the said Township of Cartier designated as Part 1 on plan known as C201 Green Lake Old Pine Conservation Reserve filed on October 19, 2000 in the Office of the Surveyor General.
The Green Lake Old Pine 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 Green Lake Old Pine Conservation Reserve is also located within the legal boundaries of the Spanish Forest Sustainable Forest License area, which encompasses approximately 1.2 million hectares and spans three MNRF Districts – Chapleau, Timmins and Sudbury.
4.2 History of the site
The area where the Green Lake Old Pine Conservation Reserve is located would have been ice-free approximately 10,000 to 11,000 years ago and would have been inhabited by Ontario’s First Nations shortly after. There has been a European presence in the area since the mid-1700's when competition in the fur trade became intense. This lasted until the late 19th century when logging became the primary industry. The immediate area was logged for white and red pine and the Spanish River was used to transport the logs downstream. The arrival of the railway in 1883 changed the transportation of supplies and workers in the area (MNR 1985). Following the 1930s, the focus of logging changed from the red and white pine days to the harvest of spruce pulp, jack pine axe made ties, and mining timbers. During the late 1940s, a small sawmill was operated at Cartier station with mining timbers and lumber being shipped by rail to Sudbury (Thorpe 1950).
Table 2 indicates the current status of natural heritage inventory that has occurred or that will be required in the near future.
Table 2: Inventory and survey information for the Green lake Old Pine Conservation Reserve
|Earth Science||Life Science||Cultural||Recreational||Site inspection|
|2001 (Kor) Aerial Photo Interpretation||1996 (Crins)|
|N/A||2001 (Phillips & Thomspon)|
2011 - August
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 in order 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 to determine the current quality of that representation are discussed below (MNR 1997c).
Completing the system of parks and protected areas is based on the concept of representation – 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 Eco-District level
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 in some areas to meet the targets of representation in each of the Eco-Districts.
The Green Lake Old Pine Conservation Reserve has been identified to contribute to the life science representation of the protected areas system in Ontario. Selection criteria for identification of the best representative life science features includes, diversity, integrity, associated earth science values and special features. Due to the nature of very different types of life science values the application of the criteria may vary on a per-site basis. The Green Lake Old Pine Conservation Reserve has provincial significance and is therefore an important representative feature of Ontario’s life science diversity.
Noble’s (1983) classification system defines the landform pattern of Green Lake Old Pine Conservation Reserve as Ivd-3 or weakly broken valley train and it is thought to be an extension of the Cartier Moraine. The existence of a better representative portion of the Cartier Moraine however, means that this particular location does not have significance with respect to its earth science feature. The provincially significant old white pine complex that grows in association with other conifers and hardwoods, is the best example of this vegetation interrelationship in the site district.
Quality of present representation
The quality of the representation or the current characteristics of the natural features found within the conservation reserve are as important as the overall representative features that are being protected. A number of factors are considered in evaluating a site and they include the following criteria: diversity, condition, ecological factors, special features and current land use activities.
Diversity is the measure of the relative number and range (i.e. amount of richness and evenness) of vegetative communities or special features found within the conservation reserve. Natural landscapes and known generalized vegetative communities will be the scale used for this SCI. Future aerial or ground reconnaissance surveys will enhance the MNRF's knowledge of these features and possibly allow verification at a lower scale (e.g. species assemblages).
The Green Lake Old Pine Conservation Reserve’s diversity is considered to be low. The pine stand is over 150 years old and adjacent to this pine stand are forests dominated by black spruce and trembling aspen. The old pine stand is in the eastern side of the unit, while the birch-maple-pine stands cover the western portion. Some birch, maple and aspen occur in the eastern portion of the unit as well.
Although comparatively the Green Lake Old Pine Conservation Reserve does not have a high degree of diversity in landform/vegetation units it still contributes to the overall diversity of Ontario’s protected areas system through its life science contribution. The site itself is not very large, at only 156 hectares, but the life science value it represents has both regional and provincial significance thus the vegetation unit contribution is highly important.
b) Ecological factors
Ecological factors refer to the current design of the conservation reserve as noted by its size, shape, buffering capacity to adjacent land use activities. In addition the site’s current linkage to undisturbed landscapes also contribute to the conservation reserve’s ecological integrity.
The Green Lake Old Pine Conservation Reserve is relatively small but its boundaries have mostly been delineated by following the natural forest sector. This type of boundary delineation is much better than artificially vectoring (straight lining) the boundaries, which could sever the core values being protected. However, because there has been recent forestry operations in the vicinity of the site, supportive landscape management (i.e. Forest Management Planning) will be required in order to ensure protection of the core values during forestry rehabilitation measures. This site will thus require more direct management protection to prevent disturbance and to ensure that the site can continue to contribute to the parks and protected areas system.
Finally, the site is somewhat supported by the presence of nearby candidate and currently regulated protected areas which as a collective contribute to the representation of that portion of the parks and protected areas system and surrounding landscape located near Sudbury.
Condition is the degree of past human and natural disturbances observed or recorded for the site. The existence of old pine within the site suggests that the area is still in relatively good condition. However, there are recent cut-overs immediately adjacent to the site on the western edge. Background information suggests that some of the area was shelterwood cut in 1995, including the removal of some of the old white pine. This had an effect on the feature; however, an intact white pine stand remains on the hill. The proximity of the forest access road on the southern boundary and other trails may be allowing for human disturbance, however, this disturbance is likely minimal and is not seen to be site compromising at this time.
Natural disturbances may also occur on this site. The possibility of natural disturbances such as minor rock-slides on exposed ridge faces and past fire disturbances exist, but neither has been confirmed. There is also the possibility of experiencing fire disturbances in the future, which could either be caused by natural mechanisms or human interference. Further ground work is required to positively identify any natural disturbances present.
d) Special features
The special feature for the conservation reserve is the provincially significant old white pine in association with other conifers and hardwoods on weakly broken valley train landform.
The life science inventory points out that sections of the shoreline of Green Lake contain very large, angular lag stones. These were seen to extend through the forested area in a southeasterly direction towards the meadow at the southern edge of the unit. Additional potential microhabitats will be associated with this rock feature (Figure 1).
e) Current land use activities
Current land use activities within or near the conservation reserve include snowmobiling, all terrain vehicle (ATV) use and hunting. Its location along Green Lake makes it a favored 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 two active traplines and one active bear management area as well as one baitfish harvest area.
Figure 1: Lag stones on Green Lake shore
This conservation reserve is considered the best representative example of old white pine in association with other conifers and hardwoods. As such, this combination is considered provincially significant.
The site is somewhat disturbed and has a low diversity level, however the core white pine communities appear to be adequately protected within the site’s boundaries. Additional protection of core values will require consideration for the values within large landscape management plans or strategies. The natural heritage features are not significantly sensitive to current permitted uses; however, additional disturbance due to increased trail development or any forest or wetland community disturbance by humans would impact on the quality of the present representation within the Green Lake Old Pine Conservation Reserve.
5.1 Social/economic interest in the area
The Green Lake Old Pine Conservation Reserve contributes to the local economy and society through the opportunities presented below.
a) Linkage to local communities
The Green Lake Old Pine Conservation Reserve is accessible via forest access roads also doubles as a snowmobile/ATV trail that provides a connection to the major trails under the jurisdiction of the Onaping Falls Snowmobile Club. 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 town of Cartier and the economic benefits are felt through spending at the local convenience stores, restaurants and gas station.
Some of the recreational/commercial activities that the Green Lake Old Pine Conservation Reserve represents may include hiking, bird watching, wildlife viewing, photography, fishing, small game hunting/trapping, and large game hunting (moose, bear). Hunting, trapping and fishing are long-standing traditional activities and they are also a vital part of the local economy. 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 Green Lake Old Pine 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 and 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/historical significance. The designation of an area as a conservation reserve helps define its role in the system.
The Green Lake Old Pine Conservation Reserve’s distinct contribution is a combination of life science/glacial history preservation, and educational and recreational opportunities. The Green Lake Old Pine Conservation Reserve may also offer cultural/historical preservation, as the area has been an important part of the native culture/history. 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.
Long term management must consider public access to the site, the conservation reserve protection objectives, and commitments made in the OLL Land Use Strategy (MNR 1999).
c) Indigenous peoples
The Green Lake Old Pine Conservation Reserve lies within the Robinson-Huron Treaty Area, Treaty #61. The area in question has been identified as being within Sagamok First Nation’s traditional area. 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 First Nations for the area in question.
d) Mining interests
This conservation reserve has no mining tenure within it. Mining and surface rights have been withdrawn from staking within the conservation reserve boundaries under the Mining Act (RSO 1990 Chapter M.14). Mining will not occur in any regulated protected area.
e) Forest and fire management history
The conservation reserve is somewhat disturbed and portions were harvested in 1995. The are has not been recently affected by forest fires.
f) Other government Agencies, departments or crown corporations
Other Government Agencies that may have an interest in the site include the Ministry of Citizenship (MCzP), the Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Recreation (MTCR), 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 MNRF would work with the MCzP to ensure proper protection of any cultural heritage resources. The MNRF will also work in conjunction with the MTCR to identify/enhance any potential tourism opportunities, in particular where resource-based tourism (RBT) potential is identified. RBT operations include hunting and fishing as well as eco-tourism opportunities. Proper evaluation will be undertaken where opportunities are identified to ensure consistency with the management policies of this conservation reserve. The MMAH also needs to be aware of the location of this site in order to comment on proposed cottage lot development.
g) Non-government organizations and other industry interests
Non-government organizations who may express an interest in the Green Lake Old Pine Conservation Reserve could 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, and the Sudbury Trail Plan Association.
The existence of this protected area will provide enhanced recreation potential and these associations may wish to approach the MNRF as stewards of the protected area. The MNRF will work in conjunction with any association who identifies an interest or compatible use potential within the site.
Other industries or companies that may have an interest in the conservation reserve may include the Prospector’s Association, the Sustainable Forest Licensee (Domtar Inc.), and the Aggregate Producer’s Association. The interests of these companies or industries may be limited to recognizing the boundaries and values protected within in order to uphold the MNRF's management policies within the conservation reserve.
5.2 Fisheries and wildlife
There are four bodies of water on the northern boundary of the site. Green Lake is the largest and is a coldwater, self-sustaining lake and brook trout lake. This lake is connected by a stream to two small waterbodies as well as one medium sized waterbody that is south of Paddy’s Lake. This medium sized waterbody is known for its aquatic vegetation and is therefore an excellent moose feeding area. There is also a small water body on the southern boundary of the site.
Green Lake is mostly accessed in the winter for ice fishing since access is generally easier by snowmobile.
The wildlife that could be found on the site would be consistent with typical wildlife found in Eco-District 4E-3 including birds, small furbearers and large ungulates. The site is within two registered traplines and falls into one bear management area. Traplines have been present in the area since the 1950's and the local area has been successfully managed to maintain a healthy balance of wildlife populations. Local knowledge indicates that this area is a particularly good moose hunting area and there is a known moose feeding area nearby. MNRF's most recent moose surveys demonstrate however that this area contains a low moose population density. This area is within Wildlife Management Unit 39.
It is not known if any vulnerable, threatened or endangered species exist on or near the site. Further detailed habitat studies may be warranted.
5.3 Natural heritage stewardship
The Green Lake Old Pine Conservation Reserve, a regionally and provincially significant old pine location, contributes to the natural heritage life science representation through its landform/vegetation complexes. A complete inventory of flora would identify species that inhabit the site. Earth science representation is also present in the weakly broken valley train. 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.
The current condition of the vegetation within the conservation reserve is intact but has been disturbed where forest access roads have been cleared near the site and where forestry operations including harvesting, site preparation, planting and aerial seeding took place.
5.4 Cultural heritage stewardship
The Class Environmental Assessment for Provincial Parks and Conservation Reserves defines cultural heritage resources as any resource or feature of archaeological, historical, cultural or traditional use significance. This may include terrestrial or marine archaeological resources, built heritage or cultural heritage landscapes (OMNR 2006).
There are no known cultural heritage values within the Green Lake Old Pine 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, especially considering the close proximity to settled areas.
5.5 Land use/current or past development
The conservation reserve consists entirely of Crown land and is unencumbered by any land use permits, licenses of occupation, leases or mining claims. There is no mining tenure near the site and no mines have been developed on the site in the past. There is a trap cabin located in the center of the site near the small meadow. There is a trail to the trap cabin as well as to a boat cache on Green Lake.
5.6 Commercial use
Commercial use of the site includes black bear hunting, and commercial fur harvesting. The area is also included in a bait fish license.
5.7 Tourism/recreational use/opportunities
Current recreational uses and opportunities of the site include hiking, fishing, hunting, bird watching, etc. Winter activities such as ice fishing, skiing and snowshoeing are also potential recreational uses. Further detailed recreation inventory studies need to be undertaken to confirm the existence of recreational uses and potential.
Any proposed new trails will be subject to the requirements outlined in the PPCRA (Statutes of Ontario 2006) and associated regulations, the Class Environmental Assessment for Provincial Parks and Conservation Reserves (OMNR 2005) and the Protected Area Compatibility Test.
Two existing tourist outfitters operate in the area, Yvon Goudreau and Sons and Tomiko Lake Lodge, both of which cater to bear hunting. Other tourism opportunities include snowmobiling and moose hunting.
The forest access road network is the only form of existing infrastructure near the site.
There are currently no proposals for new recreational uses or tourism facilities within this site.
5.8 Client services
Currently visitor services at the Sudbury District MNRF office are limited to responding to inquiries about access, natural heritage features and boundaries. No formal information or interpretive facilities currently exist within the conservation reserve. Other client services include providing clients with information gathered on the area, such as the Earth, Life and Recreational Inventory work.
6.0 Management guidelines
6.1 Management planning strategies
The land use intent outlined in the OLL Land Use Strategy (MNR 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 Green Lake Old Pine 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 (MNR 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.
Management strategies will also be consistent with the objectives of increasing public awareness, promoting responsible stewardship, providing marketing opportunities, and identifying Inventory Monitoring Assessment Reporting (IMAR) potential.
6.2 "State of the resource" management strategies
The development of this SCI and the long-term management and protection will be under the direction of the MNRF's Sudbury District Manager. 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 Green Lake Old Pine Conservation Reserve.
Natural heritage values
The management intent for the Green Lake Old Pine 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.
Fire Protection will be carried out in accordance with the Wildland Fire Management Strategy (2014), which provides direction for how the MNRF manages wildland fire across Ontario. All wildfire occurrences will be considered a high priority and will actively be suppressed. Prescribed burning will be conducted only under the direction of the provincial fire strategy and authorized for the conservation reserve under a separate vegetative management plan. Prescribed burning may be utilized if deemed necessary to emulate natural disturbances and renew forest communities, prepare seed beds for research and/or education purposes or to meet additional objectives determined within a separate vegetative management plan. Consideration for the life science values will be the governing priority in any future vegetative management plan.
Defining compatible uses, enforcing regulations and monitoring and mitigating issues will protect all earth and life science features. Industrial activities such as commercial timber harvest and new electricity 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 representation features that require protection. Alternatives should be reviewed via larger landscape planning processes. New roads for resource extraction and/or private use will not be permitted. Other activities that do not pass a Test of Compatibility will be prohibited (MNR 1997a).
The introduction of exotic and/or invasive species will not be permitted. Programs may be developed to control forest insects and diseases where there is a concern that significant values may be compromised. Remedies must focus on the outbreak or infestation. Native biological or non-intrusive solutions should be applied whenever possible.
The collection/removal of vegetation and parts thereof may be permitted subject to a Test of Compatibility, the District Manager 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.
MNRF will provide leadership and direction for maintaining the integrity of this site as a heritage estate. To ensure MNRF 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. MNRF via input and plan review will ensure the conservation reserve’s values are considered in local and adjacent land use strategies and plans. Research, education and interpretation will be encouraged to provide a better understanding of the management and protection of the natural heritage values and will be fostered through local and regional natural heritage programs, initiatives and partnerships. Furthermore, adequate protection of core values will require cooperation with adjacent land users to help compensate for the conservation reserve’s small size any design flaws.
Fisheries and wildlife
Sport fishing and hunting will be permitted within this conservation reserve. Fishery and wildlife resources will continue to be managed in accordance with specific policies and regulations defined by the MNRF under the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act and the District Manager. 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. Any trail development must consider the conservation reserve’s core values that are protected within the boundaries of this site. Any proposed new trails will be subject to the requirements outlined in the PPCRA and associated regulations, the Class Environmental Assessment for Provincial Parks and Conservation Reserves and the Test of Compatibility (Appendix B). As a condition to any new trail development, all new and existing trail heads and trail routes must be identified using new technologies (i.e. global positioning systems) to ensure the most accurate record of the feature.
Cultural heritage values
It is not known if cultural heritage values exist in the Green Lake Old Pine Conservation Reserve, however, if values are confirmed management would be consistent with A Technical Guideline for Cultural Heritage Resources for Projects Planned Under the Class Environmental Assessment for MNR Resource Stewardship and Facility Development Projects and the Class Environmental Assessment for Provincial Parks and Conservation Reserves (OMNR 2006).
There is a high possibility that cultural or historical resources do exist since the Green Lake Old Pine Conservation Reserve has been accessible for over a century.
Research and studies should be conducted to determine the potential and/or existence of cultural or archeological resources. However, at this time additional field surveys are not a priority. Written authorization is required by the conservation reserve manager to conduct research within the CR, as per O.Reg. 319/07.
Land use/past and existing development
The sale of lands within the conservation reserve is not permitted as per the OLL LUS (MNR 1999). 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 not be permitted. As per the PPCRA, 2006, new leases, land use permits, and licenses of occupation for approved activities will be considered, but not for private, non-commercial purposes.
Through the Ministry’s plan input and review program, applications for more intense use will be reviewed to ensure natural heritage values within the conservation reserve are considered and protected in planning decisions on adjacent private land.
Any new developments (e.g. tourism developments) proposed for the conservation reserve must go through a Test of Compatibility to ensure that the activity is permitted and to ensure the natural heritage values within the site are protected. If a proposal is considered, public consultation may be required. If accepted, an amendment of the SCI would be required.
The economic contribution of the Green Lake Old Pine Conservation Reserve to the local community could be harnessed through marketing strategies that will maintain existing tourism use in the area allowing the Town of Cartier and local tourist outfitters to benefit through money spent at the local businesses. Socially, this area provides a recreational reserve for the local people and tourists to enjoy for their own health and well being. The people of Ontario will generally benefit from this conservation reserve through direct enjoyment of the area or through the knowledge that a provincially significant life science feature and our glacial history has been preserved. Other interest groups, such as colleges and universities, can benefit from this conservation reserve as a place to study the natural features and processes.
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 (MNR 1999). Fur harvesting 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, and new BMA opportunities will be considered as per the intent of the PPCRA, 2006, which supports hunting if the Test of Compatibility supports its use. MNRF managers will work with operators to ensure that the natural heritage values within the conservation reserve are respected.
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. All Aboriginal and treaty rights will continue to be respected. The First Nation communities are encouraged to continue to use these areas as they have in the past.
Tourism and recreation
The earth and life science features and their protection, shall be the overall theme for tourism and recreation within the conservation reserve. There are no existing tourism facilities located in or directly adjacent to this conservation reserve. Any proposed tourism infrastructure or facilities would be required to undergo at Test of Compatibility and if accepted, further planning would occur, requiring public consultation and an amendment to this document. The existing local tourist outfitters can continue accessing this reserve as they have in the past, however, MNRF 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 bird watching, hiking, skiing, ATV use and snowmobiling. Camping may also be a current use of the conservation reserve and will be permitted to continue. As per the PPCRA, 2006, camping permit fees are required for resident and non-resident camping. Further details can be found in O.Reg. 319/07 and 344/07.
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 big game only. To protect the natural heritage features within the conservation reserve, MNRF will seek direction from local communities on how to reduce off trail use, if such activities become problematic.
Clients indicating their interest in the management, planning and future use in 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. In the future, information may be delivered from different sources; however, MNRF Sudbury District office will be the lead agency for responding to inquiries regarding access permitted and restricted activities, values and recreation opportunities.
6.3 Promote inventory monitoring and assessment reporting and research
Scientific research by qualified individuals or institutions, which contributes to the knowledge of natural and cultural history and to environmental and recreational management, will be encouraged. Requests or applications to conduct research will be filtered through the Sudbury District MNRF 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 objective. Any inventory, monitoring, assessment reporting (IMAR) or research developments or facilities will not be considered until a Test of Compatibility is conducted and proposal is approved by the Sudbury District Manager. The Test of Compatibility or environmental screening process could include a review of the demand for structures or activities and may require more detailed life or earth science or cultural information and possibly more detailed planning. IMAR will be consistent with provincial/regional protocols and/or strategies. Permanent plots or observation stations may be established to which researchers can return over time. The Sudbury District Manager may approve the removal of any natural or cultural specimen by qualified researchers. Any materials removed will remain the property of the MNRF. Any site that is disturbed will be rehabilitated as closely as possible to its original state. The Sudbury District Manager may apply additional conditions.
Particular 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/provincial strategies and all research studies must be approved by the District Manager, as per O.Reg. 319/07 requirement that written authorization of the conservation reserve manager is required to conduct research in a conservation reserve.
6.4 Implementation and plan review
The Green Lake Old Pine Conservation Reserve Statement of Conservation Interest will be examined as per the schedule outlined in the PPCRA. Implementation of the SCI and management of the reserve are the responsibility of the Sudbury District Manager. 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. Administrative updates to the SCI may be considered and approved by the Sudbury District Manager and Regional Director without further consultation. In assessing amendments, public and Indigenous consultation will occur. All updates and amendments will follow the process outlined in the Protected Areas Planning Manual (OMNR 2014).
The Green Lake Old Pine Conservation Reserve will be marketed as a distinctive old white pine forest growing in association with other conifers and intolerant hardwoods in conjunction with a valley train landform. Marketing efforts to increase use are not a priority and will be kept to a minimum.
Barnett, P.J. 1992. Quaternary geology of Ontario, in Geology of Ontario; Ontario Geological Survey, Special Volume 4, Part 2, p.1011-1088.
Boissonneau, A.N. 1965. Surficial geology of Algoma, Sudbury, Timiskaming and Nipissing; Ontario Department of Lands and Forests; Map S465, Scale 1:506 880.
Boissonneau, A.N. 1966. Glacial history of northeastern Ontario: I the Cochrane to Hearst area; Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences, Vol.3, p.559-578.
Boissonneau, A.N. 1968. Glacial history of northeastern Ontario: II the Timiskaming-Algoma area; Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences, Vol.5, p.97-109.
Burwasser, G.J. 1979. Quaternary geology of the Sudbury area, District of Sudbury; Ontario Geological Survey, Report 181, 103 p.
Bostock, H.S. 1970. Physiographic subdivisions of Canada; in Geology and Economic Minerals of Canada, Geological Survey of Canada, Economic Geology Report no. 1, p. 11-30.
Card, K. D., and Innes, D. G. 1981. Geology of the Benny Area, District of Sudbury. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. 117 p., ill., maps.
Clayton, J. S., Ehrlich, W.A., Cann, D.B, Day, J.H. and Marshall, I.B. 1977. Soils of Canada. Volume 1 Soil Report. Research Branch, Canada Department of Agriculture, Ottawa, Canada.
Cosec, M. 1998. Impact Statement. Lands for Life/Ontario’s Living Legacy – Site Archive C194. Internal Report.
Crins, W. J. 1996. Life Science Gap Analysis for Site District 4E-3. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources Internal Report.
Crins, W.J. and Uhlig, P.W.C. 2000. Ecoregions of Ontario: Modifications to Angus Hills' Site Regions and Districts. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources internal report.
Davidson, R. J. 1997. Completing the Provincial Park System, A Priceless Legacy. Occasional Paper 3. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. 23 p.
Ecoregions Working Group, Canada Committee on Ecological Land Classification. 1989. Ecoclimatic Regions of Canada, Ecological Land Classification Series No. 23. Sustainable Development Branch, Canadian Wildlife Service, Conservation and Protection, Environment Canada, Ottawa, Ontario. 118 p., ill., maps.
Ferris, N., Ross, B., and Wong, W. 1997. Conserving A Future For Our Past: Archaeology, Land Use Planning and Development in Ontario; Ontario Archaeology Society, Inc.
Harris, A.G., McMurray, S.C., Unlig, P.W.C., Jeglum, J.K., Foster, R.F. and Racey, G.D. 1996. Field Guide to the Wetland Ecosystem Classification for Northwestern Ontario. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Northwest Science and Technology. Thunder Bay, ON. Field Guide FG-01. 74 pp. + Appendices.
Hills, G. A. 1959. A ready reference to the description of the land of Ontario and its productivity. Ontario Department of Lands and Forests.
Kor, P.S.G. 2002. Green Lake Old Pine C201 Earth Science Inventory. MNRF internal inventory record.
Ministry of Citizenship, Culture and Recreation. 1997. Conserving a Future for out Past: Archaeology, Land Use Planning and Development in Ontario. Revised 1998. Ontario Archaeological Society, Inc. 43 p.
Noble, T. W. 1983. Life Science Report, Site Region 4E, Northeastern Region. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. 150 p. (with additional pages in checksheets and appendix, 1:250 000 maps).
Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources (OMNR).1985. Chapleau District Background Information – Historic Use. Sudbury District Office Spanish River Files – 82.3 History and Culture.
OMNR, 1997a. Conservation Reserves, Policy PL 3.03.05. 8 p.
OMNR, 1997b. Conservation Reserves, Procedure PL 3.03.05. 22p.
OMNR, 1997c. Nature’s Best. Ontario’s Parks and Protected Areas: The Framework and Action Plan. 37 p.
OMNR, 1999. Ontario’s Living Legacy Land Use Strategy. Queen’s Printer for Ontario. 136 pp.
OMNR, 2000. Beyond 2000. Queen’s Printer for Ontario. 20 p.
OMNR, and Ministry of Northern Development and Mines. 2001. Implementing Ontario’s Living Legacy Land Use Strategy (July 1999), MNR_MNDM Answers to Frequently Asked Questions, Version 1.0. Unpublished. 14 p.
OMNR, 2005. A Class Environmental Assessment for Provincial Parks and Conservation Reserves . Queen’s Printer for Ontario. Ontario. 120pp.
OMNR, 2006. A Technical Guideline for Cultural Heritage Resources for Projects Planned Under the Class Environmental Assessment for MNR Resource Stewardship and Facility Development Projects and the Class Environmental Assessment for Provincial Parks and Conservation Reserves. 45pp.
OMNR, 2014. Ontario’s Protected Areas Planning Manual. Queen’s Printer for Ontario. Peterborough, Ontario. 33pp.
Rowe, J. S. 1972. Forest Regions of Canada. Department of Fisheries and the Environment Canadian Forestry Service Publication No. 1300, Ottawa, Ontario. 172 p., maps.
Thompson, J. E. 1999. Building the System. Criteria to Consider when Allocating to Parks and Protected Areas. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Internal Report. 7 p.
Thompson, J. E. 2001. Planning Process for Conservation Reserves Statement of Conservation Interest (SCI) and Resource Management Plans (RMP), Northeastern Region Guidelines, Version 2.1. Unpublished, 49 p.
Thorpe, T. 1950. Review of the Logging and Pulp Operations in the Sudbury District During the Years (1901-1950). Ontario Department of Lands and Forests Internal Report. 66 p.
Map 1: Inset of Ontario showing location of Sudbury; larger map showing location of Green Lake Old Pine Conservation Reserve in relation to Sudbury
Enlarge photo for the location of Sudbury and Green Lake Old Pine Conservation Reserve.
Map 2: Site map of the Green Lake Old Pine Conservation Reserve
Enlarge map for Green Lake Old Pine Conservation Reserve Site map.
Map 3: Location of site district 4E-3 (Crins 1996)
Enlarge map for Location of Site District 4E-3 (Crins 1996).
Map 4: 1990 Forest Resource Inventory (FRI) map and chart
Enlarge 1990 Forest Resource Inventory (FRI) map
|161||174605170||21300||36||67936||20||0||920||70||17.0||1.0||2||BW 5PO 2SB 1MS 1PW 1|
|161||174605170||25350||36||4||20||0||920||70||16.0||1.0||3||BW 4PW 3SB 2PO 1|
|161||174605170||24380||36||9||20||0||920||70||17.0||1.0||2||BW 5PO 2PW 1MS 1SB 1|
|161||174605170||24280||36||191052||20||0||920||70||16.0||1.0||3||BW 4PW 2PO 2SB 1SW 1|
|161||174605170||17260||36||245890||20||0||905||85||17.0||0.9||2||BW 4PW 3PO 2SB 1|
|161||174605170||35220||1||598096||20||0||880||110||22.0||0.5||2||PW 6BW 2PO 1SB 1|
|161||174605170||36280||36||12090||20||0||915||75||17.0||0.9||2||BW 6PO 2SB 1PJ 1|
|161||174605170||40280||11||60429||20||0||915||75||19.0||0.5||X||SB 6CE 3PO 1|
|161||174605170||22230||7||11533||20||0||905||85||19.0||0.8||2||PJ 5BW 2PW 1SB 1MS 1|
|161||174605170||22230||7||4562||20||0||905||85||19.0||0.8||2||PJ 5BW 2PW 1SB 1MS 1|
|161||174605170||29200||11||232404||20||0||910||80||16.0||0.7||1||SB 6PW 3B 1|
|161||174605170||39180||33||58520||20||0||915||75||19.0||0.8||3||PO 5BW 2SB 1MS 1PW 1|
Map 5: Species composition
Enlarge map for species composition
Map 6: Age distribution
Enlarge map for age distribution.
Maps 7: Aerial photograph showing landforms
Enlarge photograph showing landforms.
Maps 8: Aerial photograph showing landforms
Enlarge photograph showing landforms.
(2 = bedrock drift complexes, a = till, b = stratified sediment, c = discontinuous cover, e = galciofluvial outwash; 4 = ice contact stratified drift deposits, d = end moraine; 5 = glaciofluvial outwash deposits; 9 = organic deposits)
Appendix A: Permitted uses table
Permitted uses table for conservation reserves as per policy
|Activities||Conservation Reserve Policy|
|Conservation Reserve Policy|
|Facility Infrastructure||Maybe||Maybe||Any new facilities are subject to a "test of compatibility" and approval by the Area Supervisor.|
|Rock Climbing/ Caving||Maybe||Maybe||Rock climbing and/or caving is permitted where it does not detrimentally affect the values to be protected.|
|Camping||Maybe||Maybe||Camping is permitted where it does not detrimentally affect the values to be protected.|
|Activities||Conservation Reserve Policy|
|Conservation Reserve Policy|
|Hiking Trails||Yes||Maybe||Any new hiking trails will be subject to a "test of compatibility" and approval by the Area Supervisor.|
|Cross-Country Skiing Trails||Yes||Maybe||Any new cross-country skiing trails are subject to a "test of compatibility" and approval by the Area Supervisor.|
|Cycling/Mountain Biking Trails||Yes||Maybe||Any new cycling trails are subject to a "test of compatibility" and Approval by the Area Supervisor.|
|Horse Riding Trails||Yes||Maybe||Any new horse riding trails are subject to a "test of compatibility" and approval by the Area Supervisor.|
|Snowmobiling Trails||Yes||Maybe||Any new snowmobiling trails are subject to a "test of compatibility" and approval by the Area Supervisor.|
|Non-Trail Snowmobiling||Maybe||Maybe||Non-trail snowmobiling is only permitted for the retrieval of game.|
|ATV Trails||Yes||Maybe||Any new ATV trails are subject to a "test of compatibility" and approval by the Area Supervisor.|
|Non-Trail ATV Use||Maybe||Maybe||Non-trail ATV use is only permitted for the retrieval of game.|
Science, education and heritage appreciation
|Activities||Conservation Reserve Policy|
|Conservation Reserve Policy|
|Photography and Painting||Yes||Yes|
|Outdoor Education/ Interpretation||Yes||Yes|
|Collecting||No||No||Collecting may be permitted as part of an authorized research project. The issuance of permits will be considered on a per-site basis.|
|Activities||Conservation Reserve Policy|
|Conservation Reserve Policy|
|Food Harvesting||Maybe||Maybe||Any new food harvesting is subject to a "test of compatibility" and approval by the Area Supervisor".|
|Fishing||Yes||Maybe||Any new commercial fishing is subject to a "test of compatibility" and approval by the Area Supervisor.|
|Baitfish Harvesting||Yes||Maybe||Any new baitfish harvesting operations are subject to a "test of compatibility" and approval by the Area Supervisor. Transfer requests for existing baitfish operations will be considered on an on-going basis subject to a review of potential impacts.|
|Trapping||Yes||Maybe||Any new traplines are subject to a "test of compatibility" and approval by the Area Supervisor. Transfer requests for existing traplines will be considered on an on-going basis subject to a review of potential impacts.|
|Resort – Outpost Camps||Yes||Maybe||Any new outpost camps/resorts are subject to a "test of compatibility" and approval by the Area Supervisor. Transfer requests for existing outpost camps/resorts will be considered on an on-going basis subject to a review of potential impacts.|
|Outifitting – Bear Management||Yes||No||Transfer requests for existing Bear Management Areas will be considered on an on-going basis subject to a review of potential impacts.|
|Wild Rice Harvesting||Yes||Maybe||Any new wildrice operations will be subject to a "test of compatibility" and approval by the Area Supervisor.|
|Activities||Conservation Reserve Policy|
|Conservation Reserve Policy|
|Featured Species Management||Maybe||Maybe||Any new featured species management is subject to a "test of compatibility" and approval by the Area Supervisor.|
|Natural Systems Management||Maybe||Maybe||Any new natural systems management will be subject to a "test of compatibility" and approval by the Area Supervisor.|
|Activities||Conservation Reserve Policy|
|Conservation Reserve Policy|
|Hydro Power Generation||No||No|
|Energy Transmission Corridors/ Communication Corridors||Yes||No||New communication lines and transmission corridors are discouraged from within conservation reserves but can be considered under unusual circumstances where there are no other viable alternatives and where the line/corridor does not significantly impact the values the site is trying to protect. Approval from the Area Supervisor is required.|
|Resource Access Roads||Yes||No||Existing roads can continue to be used. Continued use will include maintenance and may include future upgrading. New roads for resource extraction will not be permitted, with the exception of necessary access to existing forest reserves for mineral exploration and development.|
|Private Access Roads||Yes||No|
|Fuelwood Cutting||No||No||The cutting of trees for non-commercial purposes may be authorized by permit subject to a review of the impact of the values to be protected. This flexibility is only for leaseholders and property owners who do not have road access.|
|Extraction of Peat, Soil, Aggregate||No||No|
|Activities||Conservation Reserve Policy|
|Conservation Reserve Policy|
|Land Disposition||Maybe||Maybe||Sale of Crown lands in a conservation reserve is not permitted, except for certain minor dispositions (e.g. sale of road allowance in front of existing cottage, sale of small parcels to provide adequate installation of a septic system) where it does not detrimentally affect the values the area is intended to protect. Renewals of existing leases or land use permits will be permitted. Tourism facilities can apply to upgrade tenure from LUP to lease. Requests for transfer of tenure will be considered on an on-going basis. New leases or land use permits will be allowed for approved activities.|
|Private Recreation Camps (Hunt Camps)||Yes||No||Transfer requests for existing private recreation camps will be considered on an on-going basis subject to a review of potential impacts. Existing private recreation camps may be eligible for enhanced tenure (i.e. lease) but not purchase of land.|
Appendix B: SCI Test of Compatibility
From the SCI Test of Compatibility NER Guideline in Planning process for Conservation Reserves Statement of Conservation Interest (SCI) and Resource Management Plans (RMP) Northeast Region Guidelines Version 2.1 September 17. 2001 Appendix 4, page 44.
Test of Compatibility:
- Conformity to SCI – This is not applicable to evaluating current or new uses that come forward during the SCI planning process. However, the SCI should include a statement that speaks to the required screening of any future use or uses that are not covered in the current SCI.
- Screening Process – proposed uses for the area must be assessed before they are approved. To establish a minimum standard, NER recommends that the Screening Process identified in Section 4.2 of A Class EA for Provincial Parks and Conservation Reserves Phase IIb: Draft Class EA (subject to approval by MOE) be used to screen projects and options.
The Screening Criteria from the draft Class EA (Table 4.1) is further detailed below within the context of SCI planning.
- Impact Assessment – the Test of Compatibility from the Conservation Reserve Policy PL 3.03.05 identifies the classes of values and main concepts that need to be considered in determining the impacts of uses on a specific Conservation Reserve. These include:
- Natural heritage
- Research activities
- Current uses
- Area administration
- Accommodating the use outside the CR
- Area accessibility.
The class EA (Table 4.1) presents similar values and concepts under the following considerations:
- Natural environment
- Land use, resource management
- Social, cultural and economic
The above considerations and classes of values are meant to assist planning staff in answering the following questions for any potential use:
- Will the new use impact any values within the Conservation Reserve?
- If so how?
- To what degree?
- Is it tolerable?
The new screening process and associated criteria identified in Table 4.1 of the draft Class EA gives planning staff more direction than the Conservation Reserve Policy 3.03.05. However this section attempts to assist planning staff by providing some direction for further interpreting the criteria to complete a Test of Compatibility for uses within a Conservation Reserve.
The following information for each Conservation Reserve is available and can be used to assess the required criteria:
- Background information and current inventory data
- Current inventory evaluations (e.g. earth, life and recreational check-sheets)
- Future ongoing analysis on the site
Interpretation of background information & current inventory data:
Background information files, summaries and other data can be beneficial in determining additional criteria that could be added to or address criteria already mentioned in the EA screening process. Criteria that are linked to habitat needs or specific life or earth science features are often first record during a District’s initial review of a site. Databases such as NRVIS or documents such as Lake Survey files, Site District Reports or Forest Management Plans can identify the location of values and sometimes determine a value’s significance or sensitivities.
Current inventory evaluations:
The most current state of the resource for a specific OLL Conservation Reserve will be the earth, life and recreational check-sheet. These documents determine the current earth and life science values, their present state and their significance. The recreational check-sheets determine current recreational features and current and potential recreational activities and feature significance and sensitivity to present and future uses.
For earth and life science check-sheets, five (5) major sections are completed that include; representation and the quality of the representation (e.g. based on condition, diversity and ecological considerations) and special features. These five categories are reflected within the screening criteria presented in draft Class EA document or could be used to develop additional criteria. Some thoughts concerning the five categories are further discussed below.
Representation within OLL inventoried sites contain the type, number, location and shape of the community based values within the Conservation Reserve. For example the number of different forest cover types, wetland and freshwater communities, earth science features or recreational features defined in recreational check-sheets. The survey determines if the values are totally within the site or if the value straddles the site’s boundary? This section and the significance section of the check-sheet can help you define significant earth or life science features, important wildlife habitat, or record the location and extent of old growth within a site or other features. Representation determines not only specific communities or special features but also establishes the core protected areas within the Conservation Reserve, which is a value that has to be protected as well. Finally, any list of screening criteria should mention the affect a potential permitted use may have on the quality of the representation present within the site. The quality of the site’s representation is mentioned in the following three categories below.
Condition is the level of natural and human disturbance that the site has experienced to date. The major natural disturbances in Northeast Region include; burned, blown down, flooded or insect effected stands or areas. Human disturbances could include; clear-cut areas, mining related sites, drainage areas, ditches or pits, utility corridors, railways, roads, hiking or ATV trails, assess points, dams, cottages or other facilities on site. Such actions or structures can effect the site negatively by influencing specific special features (e.g. nest sites or wildlife travel corridors) or severing significant communities or the Conservation Reserve’s core protected areas. This section could help interpret the following screening criteria; affect on water quality, specific species or habitat needs or criteria that speak to undisturbed core protected areas. Such core protected areas criteria could include for example - affect a permitted use or potential use has on natural vegetation and habitat through fragmentation or how use could affect easily eroded or sensitive wind blown deposits?
This is a measure of the site’s life and earth science heterogeneity. For earth and life sciences the evaluation is based on the number and variety of natural landscape features and landforms for earth science values and the relative richness and evenness of a site’s life science components. For our life science check-sheet inventory we determine richness by counting the number of vegetative cover types present within a site and evenness as the proportion of each cover type represented within a site. So an OLL site that has many cover types of roughly the same size is more diverse than a site with few cover types or where a site has the same number of cover types but has reduced evenness (e.g. one cover type dominates with the other cover types present but with little area devoted to them). Criteria that speak to all aspects of diversity should be part of any screening process.
This is where we discuss the design of the site, its strengths and weaknesses and potential problems that may arise during planning. Ecological considerations include; size, shape, buffering capacity from adjacent land use activities, watershed location and linkage to the larger landscape. Generally speaking the following are some rules of thumb;
- Larger sites are preferred over smaller sites because of their greater potential for ecological diversity and stability.
- Rounder sites are better than elongated sites for they have more intact core and can buffer adjacent land use activities better than elongated sites.
- Sites that contain headwaters have more control over environmental inputs than sites located down stream.
- Biological boundaries that are linked to larger undisturbed lands are better than cultural boundaries such as roads or railway lines that sever the site from its larger landscape for long periods of time. Cultural boundaries are preferred over vector boundaries that can divide or fragment core protected areas
So by looking at the size, shape and location of a site with respect to its larger environment, planners may be able to address specific screening criteria. Such screening criteria could include; affect water quality or quantity, affect on fish and wildlife habitat and linkages, affect of drainage, sedimentation and erosion, potential long term planning problems because a site is very small in size or linear in shape, etc.
Of all the data that is collected within a site, the special features section may be the most easily understood values. Generally landscape and habitat values are mentioned under the representation section of the check-sheet with specific values such as; Old Growth, Species at Risk (SAR), colonial birds, moose aquatic feeding areas, raptor nests, etc. are presented within this section. Data are available from FMP's or NRVIS databases as well as fish and wildlife files and reports and know recreation values available from District staff. The Class EA screening criteria contains a number of these values.
Note: Within the check-sheets be sure to review the significance level, recommendations and associated documentation listed with any particular check-sheet. For more information on check-sheet development see J.E. Thompson, 2001. Life science check-sheets information template. OMNR internal report. 6pp.
Future ongoing analysis on the site:
If during planning specific information is not available to complete impact assessment analysis, then SCI's should not the information gap and document the need to collect the required information in the future. In addition, future inventory, monitoring, assessment and research within the Conservation Reserve may also help planners and managers deal with future uses and impact assessments.
Appendix C: Public and Aboriginal consultation summary
- Site name and proposed size (ha): Green Lake Old Pine (156 Ha.)
- Land Use Strategy Area #: Conservation Reserve C201
- MNRF District: Sudbury District
4.0 Public and Aboriginal consultation
4.1 Public consultation
Details of public consultation:
- District Manager letter was sent in October 2001 letting stakeholders know that planning was commencing for the Green Lake Old Pine Conservation Reserve and to notify us know by mail or phone if they were interested in being contacted when the draft SCI was ready for public review. Adjacent landowners, municipalities and other groups or individuals who may have had an interest in the site were contacted, including the following breakdown:
- Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing
- Nickel District Conservation Authority
- Domtar Incorporated
- Ministry of Northern Development and Mines
- Ministry of Transportation
- Local Service Board of Cartier
- Bell Canada
- City of Greater Sudbury
- Spanish Forest Local Citizen’s Committee
- Inco Limited
- Partnership for Public Lands
- 61 interested individuals and/or adjacent landowners
- Newspaper advertisement in October 2001 asking the public to notify us if they are interested in being on the mailing list for review of the draft SCI. The ad appeared in the following papers:
- Sudbury Star
- Le Voyageur
- The following summarizes the number of responses received:
- 29 individuals and/or organizations would like to be notified when the draft SCI is for public review.
- District Manager letter sent in October 2002 letting stakeholders know the draft SCI is ready for public review. Letters were only sent to the 29 individuals and/or organizations that asked to be notified.
- The following summarizes the number of responses received:
- 6 individuals and/or organizations requested copies of the draft SCI for review.
Summary of significant issues:
No issues were raised.
Analysis of issues:
No issues were raised.
4.2 Aboriginal consultation
Details of aboriginal consultation:
- District Manager letter sent in October 2001 to initiate consultation with First Nations on the planning on the Green Lake Old Pine Conservation Reserve. The letter was sent to the following:
- Ojibways of Sucker Creek
- United Chiefs and Council of Manitoulin
- Wikwemikong Unceded Nation
- Whitefish Lake
- Sagamok Anishnawbek
- The following summarizes the number of responses received:
- 1 band member from Whitefish Lake First Nation notified MNRF that she would be interested in reviewing the draft SCI.
- District Manager letter and a copy of the draft SCI was sent in July 2002 to the following First Nations for comments:
- Ojibways of Sucker Creek
- United Chiefs and Council of Manitoulin
- Wikwemikong Unceded Nation
- Whitefish Lake
- Sagamok Anishnawbek
- Union of Ontario Indians
- The following summarizes the number of responses received:
- 12 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 First Nation (Feb. 11/03)
- The Chief of Ojibways of Sucker Creek met with MNRF 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 MNRF 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 MNRF Sudbury is involved in and how they could participate. The lands specialist met with MNRF 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.
- 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 MNRF 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 MNRF 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. MNRF 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 MNRF 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 MNRF Sudbury was invited to present all projects in treaty area within the next year. OLL was one of the projects mentioned and there was discussion on the project.
Summary of significant issues:
- First Nations do not consider any contact with MNRF 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 the planning exercise. It is our understanding that the policies which have been developed (and which are fundamentally disagreed with) are not up for further negotiation.
Recommend that the statement of conservation interest be approved as the management direction for the conservation reserve.
6.0 Approval of consultation documentation
MNR District Contact Person:
Ontario Parks Contact Person:
Date: March 2003
Ontario Parks Contact Person:
- footnote Back to paragraph Bog: Peatland with water table at or near the surface with surface often rising above surrounding terrain. Sites are strongly acid and nutrient poor. Bogs contain peat accumulations of more than 40 centimetres deep. Species include Sphagnum spp. or Peat Mosses and ericaceous shrubs including Bog Rosemary (Andromeda glaucophylla), Leatherleaf (Chamaedaphne clayculata), Creeping Snowberry (Gaultheria hispidula), Bog Laurel (Kalmia polifolia), and Labrador Tea (Ledum groenlandicum) (Harris et al. 1996).
- footnote Back to paragraph Fen: Peatland with water table at or above the surface with very slow water movement through communities via seepage that results in a more mineral, nutrient and oxygen-rich environment than bogs. Generally fens contain peat accumulations greater than 40 cm deep. Sometimes floating mat with sedges, mosses, shrubs, and sparse tree layer present. Indicator plants include: Larch (Larix laricinea) and Eastern White Cedar (Thuja occidentalis) or Black Spruce (Picea mariana), Speckled Alder (Alnus incana), Dwarf Birch (Betula pumila), Bluejoint Grass (Calamagrostis canadensis), assorted sedges, Sweet Gale (Myrica gale) with ericaceous shrubs present – especially in more nutrient poor fens (Harris et al. 1996).
- footnote Back to paragraph Proterozoic relates to the later part of the Precambrian Era, characterized by the oldest forms of life.
- footnote Back to paragraph Granite is a course-grained igneous or fire-formed rock composed mostly of minerals including: quartz, mica, feldspar, etc.
- footnote Back to paragraph Greenstone is an igneous rock containing feldspar and hornblende.
- footnote Back to paragraph Gneiss is a course grained metamorphic rock.
- footnote Back to paragraph Alluvium is defined as a deposit of fertile soils left during a time of flooding and is generally associated with river valleys or delta areas.
- footnote Back to paragraph Luvisols are well to imperfectly drained mineral soils that have developed under the influence and growth and decomposition of forest vegetation in mild to cold climates. Their main characteristics are a light colored eluvial or leached Ae horizon and an illuvial or zone of accumulation textural B horizon (Clayton et al. 1977).
- footnote Back to paragraph Terrestrial diversity is defined on the basis of the 14 Eco-Regions and 67 Eco-Districts of the province which were classified by Hills (1959) and further modified by Crins and Uhlig (2000). An Eco-District is a distinctive physiographic area found within the Eco-Region. Each of the Eco-Districts contains landform patterns and biological productivity traits that distinguish it from the other Eco-Districts. In each Eco-District, smaller landscape units are defined, based on recurring landform patterns. These patterns, and the vegetative communities and species that they support, constitute the biological systems and values to be represented (MNR 1997c).