wawa district’s crown land use atlas harmonization … · wawa district’s crown land use atlas...

Wawa District’s Crown Land Use Atlas Harmonization Project

Management Guidelines

Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry

Wawa District

2015

MNRF Number 62921 (English) ISBN 978-1-4606-6796-5 (PDF) © Queen's Printer for Ontario, 2015

of 86

Table of Contents List of Figures .............................................................................................. 4 List of Tables ................................................................................................ 4 Executive Summary ..................................................................................... 5 1.0 Introduction ............................................................................................ 7

1.1 Early Beginnings ..................................................................................................... 7 1.2 Policy Direction ..................................................................................................... 10 1.3 Steering Committee ............................................................................................... 10 1.4 Working Group ...................................................................................................... 10 1.5 Pukaskwa National Park ....................................................................................... 11 1.6 Aboriginal Communities ....................................................................................... 11

1.6.1 Pic Mobert First Nation ...................................................................................... 12 1.6.2 Ojibways of the Pic River First Nation ............................................................... 13 1.6.3 Michipicoten First Nation ................................................................................... 14 1.6.4 Missanabie Cree First Nation ............................................................................ 15 1.6.5 Hornepayne Aboriginal community ................................................................... 16

2.0 Planning ................................................................................................ 17 2.1 Planning Extent...................................................................................................... 17 2.2 Socioeconomic Analysis ...................................................................................... 20

2.2.1 Summary of Community Profiles ....................................................................... 20 2.2.1.1 Dubreuilville ........................................................................................................................ 20 2.2.1.2 Hornepayne ........................................................................................................................ 21 2.2.1.3 Manitouwadge .................................................................................................................... 21 2.2.1.4 Marathon ............................................................................................................................. 22 2.2.1.5 Michipicoten (Wawa) .......................................................................................................... 22 2.2.1.6 White River ......................................................................................................................... 23

2.2.2 Summary of Industrial and Non-Industrial Profiles ............................................ 23 2.2.2.1 Forestry ............................................................................................................................... 23 2.2.2.2 Mineral Exploration ............................................................................................................. 24 2.2.2.3 Power Development ........................................................................................................... 24 2.2.2.4 Crown Land Recreation ...................................................................................................... 25 2.2.2.5 Tourism ............................................................................................................................... 25 2.2.2.6 Other Commercial Activities ............................................................................................... 25

2.2.3 Summary of Potential Socio-Economic Impacts................................................ 25 Land Use Activity: Forestry ............................................................................................................. 26 Land Use Activity: Mineral Exploration and Mining ........................................................................ 26 Land Use Activity: Power Development ......................................................................................... 26 Land Use Activity: Public Recreation on Crown Land .................................................................... 27 Land Use Activity: Tourism ............................................................................................................. 28 Land Use Activity: Aggregate Extraction ........................................................................................ 29 Land Use Activity: Other Commercial Activities ............................................................................. 29

2.3 Land Use Amendment Procedure ........................................................................ 30 2.4 Planning Schedule................................................................................................. 32

2.4.1 Phase 1 ............................................................................................................. 32 2.4.2 Phase 2 ............................................................................................................. 32 2.4.3 Phase 3 ............................................................................................................. 32 2.4.4 Phase 4 ............................................................................................................. 33 2.4.5 Phase 5 ............................................................................................................. 33

2.5 Consultation Summary ......................................................................................... 33 3.0 Management Direction ......................................................................... 40

of 86

3.1 – Land Use Designations ...................................................................................... 40 3.1.1 General Use Areas ............................................................................................ 40 3.1.2 Enhance Management Areas ............................................................................ 40

3.2 – General Use Areas .............................................................................................. 41 3.2.1 Agawa Bay Recreational Fishing Area .............................................................. 41 3.2.2 Lake Superior ................................................................................................ 41 3.2.3 Lake Superior Coastline ................................................................................ 42 3.2.4 Lake Superior Sport Fishing Area .................................................................. 42 3.2.5 East and West Multiple Use Resource Management Area ............................ 43

3.3 – Designated Tourism and Recreation Values .................................................... 43 3.3.1 Designated Remote Tourism Lake .................................................................... 44 3.3.2 Canoe Routes and Portages ............................................................................. 45 3.3.2.1 Designated Canoe Routes – Category A ....................................................... 45 3.3.2.1 Designated Canoe Routes – Category B ....................................................... 46

3.4 – Recreation Areas ................................................................................................ 46 3.4.1 Recognized High Valued Recreational Areas ................................................... 47 3.4.2 Road Management ........................................................................................ 47 3.4.3 Road Use ...................................................................................................... 47

4.0 Evaluating Effectiveness ..................................................................... 48 4.1 Adaptive Management ........................................................................................... 48 4.2 Benchmarks ........................................................................................................... 49 4.3 Monitoring Schedule ............................................................................................. 50

5.0 Appendix I – Groundwork Material ..................................................... 51 5.1 – MNRF District Administrative Boundaries - Before and After 1992 ............... 52 5.2 – Philosophical Framework .................................................................................. 53 5.3 – Project Scope and Expectations ....................................................................... 55 5.4 – Planning Committees ......................................................................................... 55

5.4.1 Project Team ..................................................................................................... 56 5.4.2 Steering Committee .......................................................................................... 56 5.4.3 Working Group .................................................................................................. 56

5.5 – Decision Making and Issue Resolution ............................................................ 57 6.0 Appendix II – Area Descriptions ......................................................... 58

6.1 – Size ...................................................................................................................... 58 6.2 List of Designated Remote Tourism Lakes and Opportunity Lakes ................. 59 6.3 List of Designated Canoe Routes......................................................................... 63

6.3.1 CATEGORY A................................................................................................... 63 6.3.2 CATEGORY B................................................................................................... 63

6.4 – CLUAH Final Land Use Designation Map ......................................................... 64 6.5 Wawa District Tourism Strategy and Amendment .............................................. 65

7.0 Appendix III – Rationale ....................................................................... 66 7.1 – Rationale for Enhancement Recreational Opportunities ................................ 66

7.1.1 Spatial Patterns ................................................................................................. 66 7.1.2 Spatial and Temporal Attribute Preferences ..................................................... 67

7.2 – Rationale for Road Access Controls ................................................................. 67 7.2.1 Background ....................................................................................................... 68 7.2.2 Preferences ....................................................................................................... 68 7.2.3 Effectiveness ..................................................................................................... 68

7.3 – Rationale for Harvesting around Designated Remote Tourism Lakes ........... 69

of 86

8.0 Appendix IV – Community Socio-Economic Profiles ........................ 70 8.0 Appendix V – Aboriginal Socio-Economic Profiles ........................... 73 9.0 Appendix VI – Glossary ....................................................................... 78 9.0 Appendix VII – CLUAH Wall Map Edits ............................................... 80 9.0 Appendix VII – References .................................................................. 82

List of Figures Figure 1 - Wawa District Boundary ............................................................................................. 8 Figure 2 – Pre-CLUAH Wawa District Land Use Designations Map ................................ 19 Figure 3 - Former District Boundaries ..................................................................................... 52

List of Tables Table 1 - List of Pre-CLUAH Wawa District Land Use Designations ............................... 18 Table 2 - General Criteria for Assigning a Minor or Major Classification ...................... 30 Table 3 - Proposed Land Use Designations by Hectare ..................................................... 58 Table 4 - Designated Remote Tourism Lakes ........................................................................ 59 Table 5 - List of Previously Designated Tourism Lakes (Opportunity Lakes) .............. 61

of 86

Executive Summary The Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry (MNRF), Wawa District completed the Crown Land Use Atlas Harmonization (CLUAH) Project in order to review the districts existing land use direction for unregulated provincial Crown lands and waters to ensure the balance of social, economic, and ecological values, so to reduce access conflicts in other Wawa District planning processes. Parks and protected areas (e.g. provincial parks, conservation reserves, Pukaskwa National Park) and private lands were not subject to this review. Figure 1 illustrates the extent of the project area. The review of unregulated Crown land use in Wawa District will result in the creation of an up to date land use management plan and guidelines providing for the land use direction needed in resource management planning exercises and allocations. A formal amendment process to MNRF’s Crown Land Use Policy Atlas (CLUPA) was completed to address area-specific land use policy changes resulting from this land use planning exercise. The MNRF assembled the (CLUAH) Steering Committee and Working Group to support the MNRF staff that made up the Project Team and were responsible for completion of the project. All three groups shared a common mission statement under the project “to plan for the quality, diversity and reduction in potential conflict in recreational and industrial opportunities and to enhance and preserve biodiversity in the MNRF Wawa District.” The purpose and composition of the Steering Committee and Working Group is detailed in 1.3 and 1.4. The Crown Land Use Atlas Harmonization Management Guidelines was prepared to provide direction for the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry management of resources important to the resource based industries in Wawa District. This guideline addresses background information, the planning process and committees established to complete planning, specific management direction for land use within the new land use designations, and the rationale that supports the decisions made through this planning exercise. The Planning Process, spanning from 2006-2015, includes five Phases of planning and consultation activities which include: Invitation to Participate/Background Information Collection; Review of Preliminary Management Options; Review of Updated Preliminary Management Options, Review of Draft Management Plan; and Review of Approved Final Management Plan. During consultation with Aboriginal Communities concerns were raised that access restrictions could limit an aboriginal community’s ability to exercise their section 35 rights to harvest food. For the purposes of clarity, access restrictions related to section 3.3 of this document will not apply to Aboriginal peoples exercising an existing Aboriginal or Treaty right. Should a proposed restriction need to be enforced in regards to Aboriginal peoples, additional consultation will occur unless exigent circumstances arise. CLUAH was designed to seek local Aboriginal community engagement and participation at all phases of its development. Ontario is committed to respecting Aboriginal and Treaty

of 86

rights and the obligations that may flow from those existing and asserted rights including upholding the Honour of the Crown and the duty to consult. More information on this commitment is detailed in section 1.6 and 5.2. The MNRF recognizes the contribution the mining industry makes to the regional economy. During the CLUAH project consideration was given to concerns of the mining industry as a stakeholder in the planning process. Please note that the land use planning direction provided in the Crown Land Use Policy Atlas does not extinguish rights under the Mining Act. A glossary defining specific terminology used in this document appears in Appendix VI. Glossary terms are underlined and italicized.

of 86

1.0 Introduction Located in the western portion of the MNRF Northeast Region, Wawa District consists of an area of approximately 4,698,200 hectares (including all parks and protected areas, patent and private lands, federal lands and inland waters). The district is approximately 300 kilometres (km) wide by 400 km long at its farthest points (not including the waters of Lake Superior). The portion of Lake Superior captured within the boundary contributes approximately 8,162,000 additional hectares. Permanent resident population of the district is approximately 15,000, with a significant seasonal increase due to recreational activities such as hunting, fishing, camping and snowmobiling. Major permanent communities within or near the administrative boundary include Wawa, White River, Manitouwadge, Dubreuilville, Pic Mobert First Nation, Michipicoten First Nation, Missanabie Cree First Nation, Hornepayne, and the Ojibways of the Pic River First Nation and Marathon. Hamlets include Hawk Junction, Caramat, Hillsport, Lochalsh, Missanabie, Franz, Oba and Goudreau. Primary resource-based industries include forestry, mining, tourism, and hydro-electric power generation. Forest industry operations occur throughout the district on six Sustainable Forest Licences (SFLs). Mining operations and resource-based tourism operations are scattered throughout the district with a large concentration of remote outfitters located in the north-east portion.

1.1 Early Beginnings Prior to 1992, the MNRF Wawa District was 2, 253,300 hectares in size (excluding the waters of Lake Superior). Resulting from the MNRF Reorganization in 1992, the District more than doubled in size as it acquired portions of Terrace Bay, Hearst and Chapleau districts. Resulting from these administrative district boundary changes (see Appendix I, Section 5.1), land use policy direction from the dated Wawa District Land Use Guidelines (MNRF 1983) could not be applied to the newly acquired areas. This was reflected in policy inconsistencies across district boundaries, such as those contained in the Wawa District Tourism Strategy (MNRF 1992).

of 86

Figure 1 - Wawa District Boundary

In 1999, the Ontario’s Living Legacy Land Use Strategy was introduced as the result of an extensive provincial planning process that was carried out from 1997 to 1999. The strategy focused on the following objectives:

Completing Ontario’s system of parks and protected areas; Recognizing land use needs of the resource-based tourism industry; Providing forest mining and other resource industries with greater land and resource

certainty; and Enhancing angling, hunting and other Crown land recreation opportunities (MNRF

1999). Resulting from the implementations of the OLL Strategy, provincial Crown land would then be regarded as one of two types of geographic-specific land use categories - land use designations and enhanced management areas. Land use designations delineated in the Strategy included what is known as the Parks and Protected Areas System (e.g. provincial parks, conservation reserves) and general use areas. The general use area designation includes all Crown lands not placed into a specific designation or enhanced management

of 86

area, and where management direction occurs in the context of maintaining ecological sustainability. Aside from pre-existing Provincial Parks, Pukaskwa National Park and the Chapleau Crown Game Preserve to the OLL program, Wawa saw the landscape change with the regulation of several provincial parks and conservation reserves. The designation of these new Parks and Protected Areas left a series of unregulated provincial Crown lands and waters without specific designation, and thus the remainder of the Wawa District landscape was divided into more than 20 general use areas. Enhanced management areas were not applied to the Wawa District landscape. Following the OLL program, the Crown Land Use Policy Atlas (CLUPA) was initiated to bring together all area-specific land use policies for most of Ontario’s Crown lands into one source location. The CLUPA allows users to view both the specific policies for any given area as well as a map of its boundaries. All area-specific land use planning and policy changes for Crown lands are now undertaken as amendments to the CLUPA. Area-specific policy reports for Wawa District can be viewed by visiting http://www.ontario.ca/environment-and-energy/Crown-land-use-policy-atlas. During the last twenty years, ensuing concerns over forest road access in Forest Management Plans and in other planning processes and dispositions on Crown land in Wawa District, much conflict resolution work has been undertaken at the MNRF district and regional levels. Additionally, the Ministry of Environment has also experienced a significant increase in workload, having processed more than 22 individual environmental assessment (EA) requests under the Forest Management Planning Manual for Ontario’s Crown Forests (MNRF 2004a) related to access issues in Wawa District during the last few years in leading up to the CLUAH project. In June 2005, the Northeast Regional Advisory Committee (NERAC) conducted a study commissioned by Wawa District to find solutions to the road access conflicts on three of the six Forest Management Units in Wawa District. In Resolving Access Issues: A Case Study (NERAC, 2005). NERAC provided a series of recommendations based on their findings. Recommendation number four of the study was to carry out a new land use planning project in MNRF Wawa District. Through the CLUAH planning project the CLUAH team utilized a number of other recommendations that were provided by the case study. As per the first recommendation basic resource inventories were produced to show information on various uses of Crown land in Wawa District. This included inventories on access points, remote recreation opportunities, stocked lakes, canoe routes, etc. This information was used by the Working Group to have a better understanding of the use of Crown land in the district. Recommendation number three underlined the importance of the remote tourism industry in Northeastern Ontario. Remote areas were created to maintain non-motorized remote areas that both the general public and tourism industry can enjoy. The sixth recommendation of the report had a series of suggestions that related to effective processes. The CLUAH team used Working Group meetings to develop a common base of knowledge to help deliver stakeholder driven solutions. A group facilitator was initially retained for contentious discussions and eventually employed at all Phase 3 discussions.

http://www.ontario.ca/environment-and-energy/crown-land-use-policy-atlas

of 86

1.2 Policy Direction The CLUAH project incorporated a horizontal Government approach to Crown land use planning by considering and implementing over-arching direction from, but is not limited to, the following:

Our Sustainable Future (MNRF 2005a) Endangered Species Act, 2006 Public Lands Act, 1990 Mining Act, 1990 Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act, 1997 Caribou Conservation Plan, (MNRF 2009a) Ontario’s Biodiversity Strategy, Protecting What Sustains Us, (MNRF 2005b) Ontario Trails Strategy (Ministry of Health Promotion 2005) Ontario Tourism Strategy (Ministry of Tourism and Recreation, date unknown) Growth Plan for Northern Ontario, 2011 Horizons 2020, (MNRF, 2015)

The CLUAH land use planning exercise took into account activities and ecosystems on adjacent lands both within and outside of the planning area.

1.3 Steering Committee The Steering Committee was composed of prominent leaders representing key stakeholder groups and communities in the planning area. They provided the core source of planning direction to the working group. The Steering Committee made recommendations to MNRF on the project’s management options. Their role ended with the completion of Phase 3 in the project. Members of the Steering Committee included both, representatives from local organized townships and Aboriginal communities, industry, recreational groups and MNRF. A list of the members can be found in Appendix I.

1.4 Working Group Working Group members were identified by their ability to collaborate with other interest groups while maintaining an objective approach to their own concerns. The Working Group developed management options with the advice of the Steering Committee. The Working Group’s role ended with the completion of Phase 3 in the Project. The Working Group served four main functions:

1. To provide a transparent forum for representatives of various MNRF Wawa District constituency groups to meet to discuss issues within the context of strategic level land use planning on Crown land in MNRF Wawa District.

of 86

2. To promote Crown land use planning that sustains biological, social, and economic

values in the planning process (i.e. clear land use intent on a defined landscape area) as they relate to other resource management planning.

3. To advise the MNRF on ways to plan for quality, diversity, and lack of conflict to

create and/or enhance current and future recreational and industrial opportunities in MNRF Wawa District.

4. To develop broader and higher level Crown land use options to guide the MNRF

Wawa District Crown Land Use Policy Atlas amendment. A list of Working Group members can be found in Appendix I. In conclusion:

1. The CLUAH project and the Crown land use planning process strives to meet the common goals of economic, social and environmental sustainability.

2. Conflict over the use of Crown land is reduced as a result of lead time for discussion

and resolution of emerging issues.

1.5 Pukaskwa National Park The federal/provincial agreement signed in 1978 for the creation of Pukaskwa National Park establishes that “Ontario and Canada will consult respecting the use of lands adjacent to the National Park to ensure that such use is in keeping with the close proximity of the lands to a national park in Canada.” A Zone of Cooperation Committee is in place to ensure park values are taken into consideration when planning forestry activities near the park boundary. The Ontario-Canada Cooperative Fire Management Agreement ensures that fires within the park are managed to protect forest values outside the park. The West Multiple Resource Management Area highlights this agreement and ensures that this cooperative management intent is recognized consistently during all types of land use planning. In general, any land use activities in this General Use Area should respect the proximity of the lands to a national park and support Parks Canada's goals for ensuring high quality wilderness experiences and the maintenance of ecological integrity inside the park.

1.6 Aboriginal Communities Consultation on land use planning and amendments must also meet MNRF’s obligations to consult with Aboriginal communities. MNRF Wawa District has the lead for consultation

of 86

and engagement activities with Aboriginal communities that have Federal Reserve lands, traditional lands and/or communities within its boundaries. Communities were included on a mailing list and received notification at each phase of consultation for the planning initiative. In addition, efforts were made to include community representatives on the CLUAH Steering Committee and Working Group as well as opportunities for individual meetings with the leadership and staff of Aboriginal communities. There are several other Aboriginal communities (including Métis communities) that have known traditional territories and/or lands adjacent to or overlapping the Wawa District boundaries. These communities are included on the Wawa District MNRF mailing list and have received notification at each phase of consultation for this planning initiative. Several of the First Nation communities within and adjacent to Wawa District are undertaking forms of land claim processes, such as Treaty Land Entitlement, Addition to Reserve, Comprehensive Land Claims, Title Claims, etc. If the subject lands are agreed to be transferred through any of the above processes, a formal amendment process may occur post CLUAH, and these lands are currently not included in the scope of this project. The following section provides a brief description of each of the Aboriginal communities located in the Wawa District MNRF administrative boundary; and a brief summary of their activities and interests.

1.6.1 Pic Mobert First Nation

Pic Mobert First Nation is a member of the Anishanabek Nation (formerly the Union of Ontario Indians) – Lake Superior Region and the Assembly of First Nations. In addition, they are located within the Robinson-Superior Treaty region. Pic Mobert is “on White Lake, 60 Km. East of Marathon off of Hwy. 17.”

The community has 925 members (AANDC 2013). A total of 591 members live off the reserve while the balance of 334 live on reserve. Pic Mobert is located fully within the White River Forest Management Unit, although traditional territories overlap many of the surrounding forest management areas.

Fishing, hunting, trapping and gathering continue to be important activities for Pic Mobert. There are a number of active trappers, hunters, and anglers who maintain their hunting and gathering activities within their traditional area. Indeed, all of the rivers and lakes within the community’s identified traditional areas have been directly or indirectly used for fishing, hunting and trapping (MNRF, 2006a). Some of the locations and the extent of such activities have been identified and mapped in an Aboriginal Values Map through previous resource management planning exercises. In addition, areas for gathering plants and berry picking have been identified (MNRF, 2006a).

Historical use of the timber resource has been for fuel wood, medicines and for a wide variety of tools and implements such as birch bark canoes and tikanaagans (MNRF, 2006a).

of 86

The Pic Mobert First Nation has become increasingly involved in the development of hydro power within their traditional territory. Two such projects are currently in the construction phase on the White River in a joint venture partnership between the community and private industry.

In 2015, the Pic Mobert First Nation signed a Final Agreement under the Lands and Larger Land Base Framework Agreement with Ontario and Canada to add approximately 16 square kilometres of Crown land to the current Mobert Reserve. Implementation of that Agreement is underway.

In 2006, the Pic Mobert First Nation along with a number of other Robinson Superior Treaty First Nations commenced litigation against Ontario and Canada related to its claim to aboriginal title and additional reserve land, alleging it is not a beneficiary of the Treaty and that it has unextinguished aboriginal title to large areas of land on the north shore of Lake Superior or, in the alternative, that it is entitled to a larger reserve under the Treaty. This action has been stayed, pending the outcome of a different action.

Community socio-economic profiles are included in Appendix V. 1.6.2 Ojibways of the Pic River First Nation

The Ojibways of Pic River First Nation has a reserve located 3.2 km east of Lake Superior, near Marathon, Ontario. The reserve is 316.6 hectares in size within the administrative boundary of Nipigon District MNRF. Pic River First Nation is surrounded by the Big Pic Forest Management Unit which is managed by Wawa District MNRF.

The Ojibway people have likely occupied land at the mouth of the Pic River since “time immemorial”. There is archaeological evidence of ancient Aboriginal use and occupation of the site. The earliest documentary reference to the Ojibways of the Pic River as an organized society and distinct community is 1697. A reserve was surveyed in 1885 as some 800 acres in size on the Pic River near the community of Heron Bay. The government of Canada in 1913 confirmed the Pic River Indian Reserve. (Couchie, 2006)

Fishing, hunting, trapping and gathering continue to be important activities for Pic River. There are a number of active trappers, hunters, and anglers who maintain their hunting and gathering activities within their traditional area. Indeed, all of the rivers and lakes within the community’s identified traditional areas have been directly or indirectly used for fishing, hunting and trapping. Some of the locations and the extent of such activities have been identified and mapped in an Aboriginal Values Map through previous resource management planning exercises. In addition, areas for gathering plants, traditional medicines and berry picking have been identified. (Couchie, 2006)

Historical use of the timber resource has been for fuel wood, medicines and for a wide variety of tools and implements such as birch bark canoes and tikanaagans (Couchie, 2006).

The community is actively involved in hydro power development on the White River and surrounding waterways. Umbata Falls generating station was recently commissioned in a joint venture project with private industry.

of 86

Community socio-economic profiles are included in Appendix V.

1.6.3 Michipicoten First Nation

The Michipicoten First Nation has a reserve and a community at Gros Cap Indian reserve, located west of the community of Michipicoten Mission on the shore of Lake Superior approximately 5 kilometres southwest of Wawa and within the Algoma Forest Management Unit.

The Michipicoten First Nation is a member of the Union of Ontario Indians, Lake Superior Region, but is not affiliated with a Treaty Council. The First Nation is also a signatory of the 1850 Robinson-Superior Treaty.

Ancestors of the Michipicoten First Nation were awarded Indian Reserves 49, 49A, 61, and 61A by signing the Robinson-Superior Treaty in 1850. The reserves were surveyed in 1853. In 1955 a one square mile portion of IR #49 was ceded to the government by treaty. During the early 1960's, IR 61 and 61A, located near the Town of Chapleau, were transferred to the Chapleau Ojibwe with the transfer of a number of band members from Michipicoten First Nation in the early 1960’s. In December 1998, Indian and Northern Affairs Canada reverted IR #61 from Chapleau Ojibwe title to Michipicoten title. Michipicoten First Nation has been winding up negotiations with the Governments of Canada and Ontario over a series of "Specific Claims”, which may identify future land requirements. In early 2008, Canada, Ontario and the First Nation signed the Michipicoten Boundary Claim Settlement. This included Additions to Reserve (ATR) lands, payments, and opportunities for the purchase of additional land. (Michipicoten, 2004)

Michipicoten First Nation has a population of 1,081with the vast majority (1,018) of community members living off reserve. At Gros Cap IR #49 and 49A (southwest of Wawa), 63 community members reside on reserve while the majority of member live off reserve. Michipicoten’s Band administrative office is located on the Gros Cap Reserve (IR 49 & 49A). (Michipicoten, 2004)

Members of the Michipicoten First Nation have identified through previous resource management planning initiatives areas that are used by, or of importance to the activities of its members. These activities included hunting, fishing, trapping, and the gathering of plants for medicinal and ceremonial purposes. The members carried out these activities throughout the northerly expanses of the Algoma Forest, as outlined in values mapping, and continue to do so to this day. (Michipicoten, 2004)

of 86

Michipicoten First Nations Community Economic Development Corporation was recently established to develop the Forest Management Plan for the Magpie Forest Management Unit. The community continues to develop capacity in forestry and other industrial sectors. Community socio-economic profiles are included in Appendix V.

1.6.4 Missanabie Cree First Nation The Missanabie Cree First Nation is part of the Treaty #9 area of Northern Ontario. The First Nation belongs to the political union of fifty-two First Nations under the umbrella of Nishnawbe-Aski Aski Nation (NAN), and is affiliated to the Mushkegowuk Tribal Council of seven Cree First Nations. Missanabie Cree First Nation’s Band Office operates out of Garden River First Nation Reserve, but has a satellite office on Queen Street in Sault Ste. Marie. The Missanabie Cree Development Corporation (functioning as the band’s Economic Development Corporation) also operates out of the Sault Ste. Marie office. The ancestors of the Missanabie Cree First Nation once settled in the Missanabie area of Northern Ontario, as well as the surrounding areas including Lochalsh, Franz, Peterbell, Matice, Oba, Dalton, etc. They used the land in the area to trap, hunt, fish, pick berries, gather medicines and also harvested timber to heat and build their homes. (MNRF, 2004b) Missanabie Cree First Nation has been successful in negotiating a Land Transfer Agreement with the Government of Ontario that will provide the community with fifteen square miles of land in their traditional territory. They are the only First Nation in the Treaty 9 area that never received a reserve. (MNRF, 2004b) The execution of the Land Transfer Agreement came into effect January 5, 2011. The lands will be held in trust while Missanabie Cree First Nation concludes a successful application to the Government of Canada to have the lands set apart as reserve under the Indian Act. This Land Transfer Agreement will create opportunities for community development and marks the beginning of re-establishing the community on their traditional lands. (MNRF, 2004b) The areas used by the ancestors of the Missanabie Cree First Nation for logging, hunting, fishing, gathering and trapping were also used for spiritual and cultural reasons. These sites fall within the traditional area of the Missanabie Cree First Nation people, and include the following townships; Glasgow, Meath, Rennie, Leeson, Riggs, West, Stover, Brackin, Missinaibi, Bruyere, Copenance, Marsh and Lang. (MNRF, 2004b) In these townships, the local First Nations have identified areas that are considered sacred to them as well as other areas such as portages, campsites, logging areas, spiritual sites, historical sites and recreational sites. Many of these sites fall on the shores of Dog Lake and Big Missanabie Lake, however there are many more sites within the mentioned townships that are considered sacred. (MNRF, 2004b)

of 86

Manitou Mountain Sacred Area Of particular interest and importance to area First Nations is the Manitou Mountain Sacred Area (See Final CLUAH Land Use Planning Map in Appendix II, indicated by a star). Missanabie Cree as lead, on behalf of area First Nations, and other regional First Nation elders have formed a committee of individuals to work towards what is described as a Protection Plan for Manitou Mountain Sacred Area. This site is also recognized by several of the regional First Nations as a sacred and spiritual area that requires a greater level of protection than is currently in place on Crown lands. In 2013 several local First Nations including Missanabie Cree approached MNRF with a proposed land use amendment which will be addressed separately from the CLUAH project. Local First Nations are currently identifying the sacred area and working with MNRF in scoping measures that will form part of the Protection Plan. First Nations have a desire to have the Protection Plan completed by 2016.

1.6.5 Hornepayne Aboriginal community There are approximately 150 Status First Nation people living in the Community of Hornepayne. They are of Ojibwe, Cree and European decent with the Ojibwe and English as their working languages. Families were first attracted to trade goods and people flowing north from the Canadian Pacific Railway that first ran through Mobert area in 1885. They also came up from the Fort Albany area via the Mammamattawa River system into the Nagagamisis area, and lived a traditional lifestyle by gathering, trapping, fishing and hunting and also growing their own vegetables. Until the 1920’s, they were an autonomous group operating their own trading outposts possibly affiliated with the HBC. At the signing of Treaty # 9 in 1905, the majority of the members were assigned to the reserves of Long Lake No. 58 and Ginoogaming. (Rendell, 2005) Community socio-economic profiles are included in Appendix V.

of 86

2.0 Planning 2.1 Planning Extent

The planning area consisted of all provincial unregulated Crown lands and waters located within the Wawa District administrative boundary (see Figure 1). Patented land, private land, federal lands (including Federal Indian Reserves and Pukaskwa National Park) and provincial parks and conservation reserves (i.e. protected areas) were not part of this land use planning exercise, as well as over-arching land use direction for the Chapleau Crown Game Preserve. The former planning area was comprised of a series of land use designations known as general use areas. A general use area (GUA) is a land use designation which includes all Crown lands not placed into a specific designation or enhancement management area. A full range of resource and recreational uses can occur in GUAs (MNRF 1999). Figure 2 lists those general use areas captured all or partly within the Wawa District administrative boundary that constitute the CLUAH planning area. To view an illustration of this, see Figure 3. The 24 general use areas (GUAs) listed in the CLUPA for Wawa District, required a change or amalgamation with similar land use policies. For example, some GUAs were similar in policy and therefore amalgamated. Additionally, some policy for land use direction was changed in certain GUAs. The development of new enhanced management areas (EMAs) is supported through decisions made by the CLUAH Steering Committee, Working Group, Project Team and rationale of which is outlined in Appendix III. Any changes to Crown land use or policy direction requires an amendment to MNRF’s Crown Land Use Policy Atlas (CLUPA) to address any area-specific land use policy changes. For more detail on the Land use amendment process and procedure, see Section 2.3. In addition to all provincial unregulated Crown lands and waters located within the Wawa District administrative boundary, there were some GUAs which had overlap with the adjacent boundaries of Chapleau, Nipigon, Hearst and Sault Ste. Marie Districts. In some instances, amendments may leave inconsistent approaches with those adjacent district’s Land Use Areas. The Adjacent Districts may choose to complete an amendment process of their own in the future to harmonize their own land use areas. Addressing each and every road use management strategy on each Forest Management Unit was out of the Project’s scope. As new forest management plans (FMP) are developed under the existing FMP schedule, the FMP planning teams shall adopt the direction given in this management guideline. Caribou Conservation Plan The planning area falls within the discontinuous distribution zone for the management and recovery of Woodland Caribou (forest-dwelling boreal population) as identified by Ontario’s Woodland Caribou Conservation Plan (CCP). A management strategy for the discontinuous distribution range will be developed by the province to enhance connectivity

of 86

between the northern continuous range and the southern coastal Lake Superior populations. This connectivity will improve the prospects for persistence of the coastal population. The discontinuous range will not be managed broadly for caribou habitat to support self-sustaining populations, but instead will be managed with a focus on specific landscapes that may support temporary caribou occupancy or movement between the continuous range and Lake Superior.

Table 1 - List of Pre-CLUAH Wawa District Land Use Designations

Land Use designation

#

Land Use Designation

G1782 Crown Land Recreation Access G1786 Dog Lake Management Area G2697 Geraldton Area G1775 Gourlay Lake Area G1776 Hornepayne Urban Area G2069 Integrated Multiple Resources Management (SSM) G2694 Integrated Multiple Resources Management (Wawa) G1773 Kabinakagami Lake Area G2680 Lake Superior (Nipigon) G1785 Lake Superior Coastline G1781 Lake Superior Commercial Fisheries G1789 Lake Superior Sport Fisheries G1779 Manitouwadge G2690 Marathon G1772 Nagagami Lake Area G1778 Nagagami Lake Recreation Area G1774 Obakamiga- Bayfield Lake G1910 Offshore Lake Superior- North Channel G2692 Pic River/ Kagiano River G1784 Remote Access G1729 Resource Utilization Area G2688 The Interior G1788 Urban Areas (Wawa) G1783 Wawa Treeless Area

of 86

Figure 2 – Pre-CLUAH Wawa District Land Use Designations Map

of 86

The result of this land use planning exercise will set the direction to guide access management while ensuring ecosystem sustainability. Industry users who depend on the forest, including resource-based tourism will have more certainty and stability and, by extension, so will the recreational users and local communities.

2.2 Socioeconomic Analysis Use of new social science valuation information (e.g. use and generation of new local and/or regional economic data) are within the Project’s scope. This information was obtained via MNRF partnerships with other government agencies at the federal, provincial and municipal levels. Economic valuation audits were out of scope for the project. The Project used generally accepted community development multipliers and data (e.g. Statistics Canada) that was publicly available.

2.2.1 Summary of Community Profiles Demographic profiles provide a snap shot in time of the social and economic health of a community and all dependent communities in the Wawa District. They provide information on basic socioeconomic indicators, such as employment trends, income, labour force, migration, language and education, information on industry and community dependencies on different sectors of the economy. Data in the Demographic profiles are derived from Statistics Canada‘s Census of Population (Census 2006 and 2011) and can be found in Appendix IV. Aboriginal community profiles produced by Statistics Canada data can be found in Appendix V.

2.2.1.1 Dubreuilville In 1961, the Dubreuil Brothers’ sawmill was established at a bend in the Magpie River, north of Wawa. Within a few short years, a typical company town developed at this location. Incorporated as an Improvement District in 1977 and as a full Township in 1989, Dubreuilville lies at the terminus of Highway 519, approximately 32 kilometers east of Highway 17, and roughly midway between Wawa and White River. The closure of Dubreuil Forest Products in 2008 resulted in the permanent loss of 285 jobs. The unprecedented down turn in the forest economy had significant impacts to many communities in northern Ontario. With a population of 635 (2011 census), Dubreuilville and all five communities in Wawa District have observed a steady decline in population growth over the past 5 years in the range of 0.3 to 1.5% annually. Strong growth in the mineral sector has helped offset the negative impacts of the downturn in the forest industry. Richmont Mines is now the primary employer, and is the economic engine of Dubreuilville. The community boasts active service clubs, a figure skating club, and minor hockey. Snowmobile trail development has been aggressively pursued by the local club, and

of 86

Dubreuilville now sits at the hub of an extensive trail system, linked to the main provincial trail network. Dubreuilville residents that pursue recreational activities that include hunting, snowmobiling and all-terrain vehicle access on Crown land are likely the most highly impacted in Wawa District. The community is in close proximity to a high density of designated remote tourism lakes to the north, the Chapleau Crown Game Preserve to the east and Algoma Central Railway private land holding to the south. In many cases, motorized public access or certain recreational activities in these areas are either restricted or prohibited and is a source of significant concern to community residents and recreationalists. Full community socio-economic profiles are displayed in Appendix IV.

2.2.1.2 Hornepayne Hornepayne is the only community located directly on Highway 631. This highway is important to the area since it is used extensively by transport trucks as it provides access between Highways 11 and 17. Hornepayne is situated 103 kilometers (km) north of White River and 132 km southwest of Hearst. The community is located along the Canadian National Railway’s main line and is an important stop for the VIA train which travels to Winnipeg. The train stops in Hornepayne to replenish their supply of water. Hornepayne has a population of 1,050 (2011 census). The local economy is dependent on the forest industry, the CN Railway, and the snowmobile industry. The recently constructed Becker Cogeneration Plant went on line in August 2014. The 10-megawatt facility uses wood by-products from the neighboring Olav Haavaldsrud sawmill to generate electricity for the provincial power grid and produce heat for nearby sawmill and kiln operations. The $66 million cogeneration facility created 20 new jobs, saving 100 more at the adjacent mill, and supports an estimated 40 indirect jobs in collecting forest bio-fibre. Full community socio-economic profiles are displayed in Appendix IV.

2.2.1.3 Manitouwadge The Township of Manitouwadge is located 420 kilometers northwest of Sault Ste. Marie at the end of Highway 614. With a population of 2,975 (2011 census) the township is steeped in mining and First Nation history.

“Manitouwadj”, an Ojibway word meaning “Cave of the Great Spirit” symbolizes the rugged determination of early settlers. The three prospectors who were instrumental in the development of Manitouwadge as a mining community in the early 1950’s are depicted in the Township’s logo.

of 86

The Williams and David Bell gold mines remain the largest employers in the township and are reflective of the entire Wawa administrative district having a high mineral development potential. Public health and educational services are the second largest employer followed by the forest industry. Full community socio-economic profiles are displayed in Appendix IV.

2.2.1.4 Marathon The Town of Marathon is located midway between Sault Ste. Marie and Thunder Bay on Highway 17 with a population of approximately 3,800. The Town’s slogan, “Built on Paper… Laced with Gold”, is based on the fact that the Town is surrounded by boreal forest and rich mineral deposits. The famous Hemlo gold find fueled economic development within the regaion in the 1980’s. Mining has been and continues to be the major employer in the community employing nearly 700 in 2014. While some facilities including David Bell Mine are reaching the end of their operating life, the Williams gold mine may have a life expectancy of an additional 10 -12 years. More recent and active mineral developments include the Stillwater Mining Company which continues exploration activities at a copper-palladium-platinum mineral deposit 10 kilometers north of Marathon (Nipigon District MNRF). The closure of the Marathon pulp and paper mill in 2009 resulted in the loss of several hundred jobs in the community and surrounding area. Attempt to convert the facility to a wood pellet plant and receive an allocation of wood supply were unsuccessful. The Nawiinginokiima Forest Management Corporation (NFMC) initiated operations in 2013. This is Ontario’s first Local Forest Management Corporation. The NFMC manages the Big Pic and the Pic River Forest as a Crown corporation. Full community socio-economic profiles are displayed in Appendix IV.

2.2.1.5 Michipicoten (Wawa) Located in the District of Algoma at the junction of the Trans-Canada Highway (Highway 17) and Highway 101, Michipicoten (also known as Wawa) is located 230 kilometers (km) north of Sault Ste. Marie. Wawa has a population of 2,975 (2011 census). The iron ore, which supported the growth and development of Algoma Steel Incorporated, and Sault Ste. Marie, was mined and refined in Wawa for sixty years, until the closure of the Algoma Ore Division in 1997. Michipicoten Harbour, a natural deep-water harbour, was developed to service this mine, as was the Algoma Central Railway. With a history of gold mining reaching back 100 years, Wawa is currently the host community for one active gold mine and one active exploration camp. The mining sector employs in excess of 200 while health services and education is the second largest employer.

of 86

Wawa witnessed a significant decline in the forest industry in the last decade with the closure of the Weyerhaeuser OSB plant. Efforts are currently underway by Rentech to convert the facility to a wood pellet mill which started production in 2014. If successful, the facility could result in the creation of 40 direct jobs and an additional 200 indirect forest industry jobs. Full community socio-economic profiles are displayed in Appendix IV.

2.2.1.6 White River White River is located on the Trans-Canada Highway (Highway 17), approximately 320 kilometers north of Sault Ste. Marie, and is the birthplace of Winne-the-Pooh. Founded in 1885 as a key station on the Canadian Pacific Railway’s transcontinental line, White River still serves as a service depot. The Township of White River has a population of 607 (2011 census) with the forest industry as the largest employer. In 2007, Domtar ceased operations at their White River facility which employed 230 people and had an annual production capacity of 110 million board feet of lumber. Following the Township of White River and Pic Mobert First Nation successful purchase the site in 2009 and by 2013, the facility began production as White River Forest Products. Full community socio-economic profiles are displayed in Appendix IV.

2.2.2 Summary of Industrial and Non-Industrial Profiles Information describing the industrial and non-industrial uses of the forest provides the baseline information on the social and economic environment affected by management decisions. The information in the description will be considered in the development of management objectives, the management strategy and land use planning options.

2.2.2.1 Forestry Six forest management units make-up Wawa District: Pic River, Big Pic, White River, Nagagami, Magpie and Algoma Forest Units. The forest industry continues to consolidate operations and amalgamate licence areas throughout Ontario in order to remain competitive. Two Forest Management Units have been amalgamated and two further amalgamations are tentatively scheduled to take place by as early as 2019. Wawa District continues to lead Ontario with several initiatives designed to improve the competitive advantage of the forest industry. The only Local Forest Management Corporation in the province is successfully established in the district as a Crown agency under the provisions of the Forest Tenure Modernization Act. An enhanced Sustainable Forest Licence continues to develop on the Magpie/Martel licenced areas shared with Chapleau District as well as a resource revenue sharing pilot project under negotiation with the Northeast Superior Regional Chief’s Forum.

of 86

Local investment in the forest industry has resulted in the construction and commissioning of a co-generation plant at the Haavaldsrudd sawmill operations in Hornepayne. The facility converts waste wood into energy that supplies to both the mill and the provincial energy grid. The former Domtar sawmill in White River that closed operations in 2008 was purchased as a partnership venture with Pic Mobert First Nation and now operates as White River Forest Products. Rentech has acquired the former Weyerhaeuser OSB facility in Wawa and now operates a wood pellet mill.

2.2.2.2 Mineral Exploration There is a long history of mining in Wawa District since the late 1800’s and it continues to support significant economic activity in the Wawa Area. Approximately 50% of the total planning area is presently staked or held as mining leases or patents and is undergoing active exploration. Most exploration is taking place in the Mishibishu Lake, Schreiber-Hemlo and Michipicoten greenstone belts. The potential for new sites coming into production and old sites being brought back into production is quite high. Mineral exploration will continue to be an important part of the economy within the planning area. Exploration will continue to focus on those areas that have traditionally been the most fertile. These areas are the Michipicoten, Mishibishu Lake and Schreiber-Hemlo greenstone belts.

2.2.2.3 Power Development Wawa District has a significant renewable energy infrastructure. Approximately 300 megawatts of electric hydro power are produced within the District each year from 14 generating stations. Two facilities are currently under construction on the White River.

River Generating Station Montreal MacKay (Upper Falls) Montreal Gartshore Montreal Hogg Montreal Andrews

Michipicoten Hollingsworth Michipicoten McPhail Michipicoten High Falls Michipicoten Scott Falls

Magpie Steephill Falls Magpie Harris Magpie Mission Falls Black Wawatay

Kagiano Twin Falls White Umbatta Falls

of 86

The potential to develop more hydro and wind power sites is significant.

2.2.2.4 Crown Land Recreation Wawa District supports an extensive network of Crown land recreational opportunities.

Activity Km’s of Supporting Trail System Canoe 1,631 Portage 93 Hiking 111

X-Country Skiing 2.5 Snowmobiling 1,271

Wawa District also supports a significant amount of hunting and angling opportunities. Crown land hunting is administered under 9 Wildlife Management Units (including 21B, 21A, 22, 23, 32, 33, 34, and 35). The Crown land angling opportunities are administered under 2 Fish Management Zones (FMZ) (including Zones 7 and 10). Wawa district is adjacent to FMZ 9 located along Lake Superior. These opportunities are spread over 38,972 km2 of unregulated Crown land, 2,237 km2 of provincial parks, and 1,841 km2 of National Park.

2.2.2.5 Tourism There are over 44 Remote-based Tourism Operators in Wawa District, operating on 95 lakes. These operations are a fundamental part of the economic make-up of Wawa District. Modified existing designated remote tourism lake areas will support the maintenance of a remote recreational experience that these businesses currently provide.

2.2.2.6 Other Commercial Activities Wawa District has 205 commercial fur trap line areas, 214 bear management areas, and 280 commercial baitfish harvest areas.

2.2.3 Summary of Potential Socio-Economic Impacts The following assessment provides a brief overview of how the CLUAH amendment may potentially impact the socio-economic activities in the planning area. The assessment is based upon the Project Team’s review of information collected at Working Group meetings, public and stakeholder comments and research studies conducted over the duration of the CLUAH project.

of 86

Land Use Activity: Forestry Examples of possible

effects on the land use activity due to the

land use proposal

Risk of Positive Impacts

Examples of measures to describe effects

Risk of Negative Impacts

Examples of measures to describe

effects

o Creation of Remote EMA’s

o Low o Potential simplification of access road planning

o Low o Mitigation of operations to protect adjacent values

o Creation of Recreation EMA’s

o High o Increase in road access for Industrial purposes

o Development of partnerships for road maintenance

o Low o Potential impacts to operations in order to protect featured values

o Adjusted areas around designated remote tourism lakes

o High o Increase in forest resources available for harvest

o Medium o Mitigation of operations to protect adjacent values

Land Use Activity: Mineral Exploration and Mining Examples of possible


land use proposal





effects


o N/A o N/A o Medium o Potential new assess decreased for prospecting and mineral development


o Medium o Potential increased access for prospecting and mineral development


o NA o NA


o Medium o 1 km reduction in road proximity to designated remote tourism lakes

o N/A o N/A

Land Use Activity: Power Development Examples of possible


land use proposal





effects


o N/A o N/A o Medium o Reduction in future potential for new

of 86

road access for Industrial and recreational purposes


o Medium o Increase in road access for Industrial and recreational purposes


o N/A o N/A


o N/A o N/A o N/A o N/A

Land Use Activity: Public Recreation on Crown Land Examples of possible


land use proposal





effects


o High o Increased quality and protection of remote, non-motorized recreation opportunities

o High o Decreased road accessibility and road based recreational opportunities


o High o Increased road quality, accessibility, and road based recreational opportunities

o NA o NA


o High o 1 km reduction in road proximity to designated remote tourism lakes

o Medium o Potential impact to existing remote tourism operations

o Return of Opportunity Lakes to public use

o High o Increased public access to recreational opportunities

o Low o Reduction in future potential for new tourism development opportunities

o Development of a connective recreational trail between Dubreuilville and Hornepayne

o High o Increased public access to recreational opportunities

o Increased community connectivity

o Reduced tourism/public recreational conflict

o Low o Potential impact to remote tourism values

of 86

Land Use Activity: Tourism Examples of possible


land use proposal





effects

o Creation of Remote EMA

o High o Increased protection for remote-based recreational opportunities for the remote-based tourism sector

o Medium o Decreased road based recreational tourism opportunities for the road based tourism sector


o High o Increased road based recreational opportunities for the road based tourism sector

o Designates an area for road based recreational access to reduce pressure on remote based tourism

o Low o A small number of existing remote based tourism operations located within the new EMA may required increased government effort to maintain protection of their values

o Adjusted areas around designated tourism operations

o Low o Reduces size of area protected from road access around designated remote tourism lakes by 1 km

o Medium o Increased proximity of roads to remote based tourism operation s

o Return of Opportunity Lakes to public use

o High o demonstrates good will on part of tourism to return mostly unused designated tourism lakes to public use

o Low o Identified lakes have received little uptake by tourism industry despite designation

o Potential negative impact to future growth opportunities for the industry

o Designated remote tourism lake area protection remains in effect 12 months a year

o High o maintains protection of remote tourism values

o Medium o Continued pressure from road based tourism and public to access these resources during non-operating tourism season

o Designated remote tourism lake moose hunt restricts remain in effect for first two weeks of gun hunt

o High o Reduces conflict between remote access and road access hunters

o Maintains protection of remote tourism value

o Medium o Continued pressure from road based tourism and public to access these areas

o Inactive designated remote tourism lakes evaluated on a case by case basis

o High o Provides an opportunity for the protection of designated remote tourism lake status

o Medium o Continued pressure from road based tourism and public to access these areas

of 86

o Mode of public access to existing designated tourism lakes remains unchanged

o High o Maintains protection of remote tourism values by limiting public access by hiking and canoeing

o Medium o Continued pressure from advocates for motorized recreational group to access these areas

Land Use Activity: Aggregate Extraction Examples of possible


land use proposal





effects


o Low o Potential simplification of access road planning

o Low o Potential decreased accessibility to new aggregate resources


o Low o potential increased accessibility to aggregate resources

o Low o Potential mitigation of operations in order to protect featured values

Land Use Activity: Other Commercial Activities Examples of possible


land use proposal





effects

o Creation of Remote EMA’s – Bear hunting

o Medium o Increased certainty of high quality remote experiences

o Medium o Decreased new road based harvesting opportunities

o Creation of Remote EMA’s – Trapping

o N/A o N/A o Medium o Decreased new road based harvesting opportunities

o Creation of Remote EMA’s – Bait fishing

o N/A o N/A o Medium o Decreased new road based harvesting opportunities

o Creation of Remote EMA’s – Commercial Fishing


o Creation of Recreation EMA’s – Bear hunting

o Medium o Increased road based harvesting opportunities

o Increased certainty of high quality experiences

o NA o NA

o Creation of Recreation EMA’s – Trapping


o Increased certainty of high quality experiences and

o NA o NA

Examples of possible effects on the land

use activity due to the land use proposal





effects

of 86

economic return o Creation of

Recreation EMA’s – Bait fishing


o Increased certainty of high quality experiences and economic return

o NA o NA

o Creation of Recreation EMA’s – Commercial Fishing


2.3 Land Use Amendment Procedure MNRF’s area-specific Crown land use policies are primarily contained in the Crown Land Use Policy Atlas (CLUPA), released in 2004, and some 1983 District Land Use Guidelines (DLUGs) that are outside or straddle the current area of coverage of the CLUPA. The Crown Land Use Policy Atlas (the Atlas or CLUPA) is the source of area-specific land use policy for Crown lands in a large part of central and northern Ontario. The Atlas is also the central site for presenting amendments, and documents area-specific land use policies in the form of policy reports in both English and French. A land use amendment is required when there is a change to area-specific land use policy. Area-specific land use policy can be revised by processing a land use amendment on its own, or through a more comprehensive planning process that includes processing a land use amendment. The need and the extent of the change is dependent upon what direction is or is not already contained within the official sources of land use policy (e.g., DLUG, CLUPA, or local land use plans) and is considered when determining the classification of the amendment. If an amendment does not meet the criteria for an administrative amendment, then it must be classified as either minor or major. The amendment will be classified based on the intent of the land use policy change, extent of anticipated public reaction, and the potential environmental effects (Table 2).

Table 2 - General Criteria for Assigning a Minor or Major Classification

Criteria or Situation Minor Amendment Major Amendment Change in land use intent Minor alteration Significant alteration

Extent and Level of Public Reaction

Little to no public concern anticipated Little to no negative effect on the public or adjacent

Likely to cause significant public concern either locally, regionally, or provincially

Examples of possible


land use proposal





effects

of 86

Criteria or Situation Minor Amendment Major Amendment landowners

Environmental, Cultural or Socio-economic effect

No significant negative environmental, cultural or socio-economic effect anticipated

Significant negative environmental, cultural or socio-economic effect anticipated

Proposing a New Land Use Area That Requires a Regulation

Not Applicable All new areas requiring a regulation

The Environmental Bill of Rights (ER) is legislation which is built on the principle that residents of Ontario may participate in the making of environmentally significant decisions of the government. ER imposes legal duties and obligations that must be considered in the land use amendment process. These duties include province-wide notice via the electronic Environmental Registry and a requirement that the public be informed of how their participation and comments affected the decision. An MNRF requirement is a statement of how MNRF’s Statement of Environmental Values was considered in the proposal. Only minor and major land use amendments require a proposal and decision notice on the Environmental Registry. These notices must include an explanation of the land use amendment and will link electronically to the Land Use Amendment Index. A Statement of Environmental Values (SEV) briefing note will be required for internal use for all policy postings and should accompany the final amendment package for approval. Major amendments require a minimum of direct notification by mail to provincial, regional and local stakeholders such as adjacent landowners, stakeholder committees and interest groups, including those that have expressed an interest in the issue; as well as the ER posting. Land use policy changes require a formal amendment process to the Crown Land Use Policy Atlas (CLUPA). The amendments were coordinated and undertaken during Phase 4 of the CLUAH planning process. The CLUAH project was screened and completed as a Major CLUPA Amendment. For more information on the land use amendment process please visit http://www.ontario.ca/environment-and-energy/Crown-land-use-policy-atlas. The Minister of Natural Resources and Forestry provides final approval of land use amendments that are classified as major. Table 3 below, outlines the decision process for Major Amendments.


of 86

2.4 Planning Schedule

2.4.1 Phase 1 October, 2006

CLUAH project Team established Project planning Development and Approval of Project Terms of Reference Formation of Project Working Group Compilation of background information and materials Background education and CLUAH awareness

Phase 1 Consultation- Invitation to Participate November – December, 2006 (45 day commenting period)

Notice and opportunity to review the CLUAH project Terms of Reference 1st Environmental Bill of Rights (ER) Registry notice (refer to ER

Registry Number PB06E2025)

2.4.2 Phase 2 November, 2006 - November 2008

Review of existing land use direction Analysis of existing land use direction Building options for land use management direction Develop preliminary management options/plan

Phase 2 Consultation- Review of Preliminary Management Options November, 2008 – January, 2009 (47 days)

Notice and opportunity to review the preliminary management options/plan 2nd ER Registry notice

2.4.3 Phase 3 2009 – 2013

Prepare management options/plan Address input to preliminary management options/ plan

Phase 3 Consultation- Public Inspection of Preliminary Management Options July –September 2010 (52 days)

Notice and opportunity to inspect the preliminary management options 3rd ER Registry notice

of 86

2.4.4 Phase 4 2013 – 2015

• Address input from the final inspection of the draft management options/plan Prepare draft management plan Prepare proposed Major Land Use Amendment

Phase 4 Consultation- Public Inspection of Draft Management Plan December 2014 – January 2015 (52 days)

Provide final notice of approved management options/plan 4th ER Registry notice - Final Consultation Opportunity

2.4.5 Phase 5 Phase 5 Notification- Inspection of Final Management Plan 2015

Obtain Minister’s approval and endorsement Post Major Land Use Amendment 5th and Final ER notice - Approved Management Plan

2.5 Consultation Summary At each phase of consultation, public notice of this local land use planning exercise was initiated through the placement of paid media advertising in the Wawa Algoma News, Marathon Mercury, Manitouwadge Echo, Chapleau Express, Longlac Advertiser Plus, Sault Star, Thunder Bay Chronicle Journal, Hearst Le Nord and Jackfish Journal (Hornepayne). Direct written notification was provided to local, regional and provincial-level Aboriginal communities and organizations, non-Aboriginal communities, interest groups, government and non-government agencies, local resource users, landowners, other stakeholders and the local public. Comments and information regarding this land use planning exercise was collected by the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry under the authority of the Public Lands Act (R.S.O. 1990, Chapter P.43) to assist in making decisions and determining further public consultation needs. Comments and opinions were being kept on file for use during the planning period and may be included in study documentation, which is made available for public review. Under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act or FIPPA (R.S.O. 1990, Chapter F.31), personal information will remain confidential unless prior consent is obtained. However, this information may be used by the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry as public input for other resource management initiatives. For further information regarding these acts, please contact Wawa District F.O.I. Coordinator at 1-705-856-2396.

of 86

Phase 1 Consultation- Invitation to Participate Phase 1 – Invitation to participate was initiated on November 3, 2006 for a period of 45 days ending on December 18, 2006. Paid local and regional newspaper ads were placed during the first weeks of November 2006, and an Environmental Bill of Rights Notice was posted on September 25, 2006. In additional, a direct written notification was provided to local, regional and provincial-level Aboriginal communities and organizations, interest groups, government and non-government agencies, local resource users, landowners, other stakeholders and the local public through the MNRF Wawa District mailing list. One-On-One Information Meetings MNRF Staff conducted a series of public information centres in various locations throughout the planning process, and will engage in additional meetings with Aboriginal communities and representatives, interest groups and stakeholders as requested. Phase 2 Consultation- Review of Preliminary Management Options Phase 2 consultation was initiated on November 18, 2008 and concluded on January 5, 2009. Open-houses were held in December 2008 in the following communities: Wawa, White River, Manitouwadge, Dubreuilville, and Hornepayne. Public notice of this local land use planning exercise was initiated through the placement of paid media advertising in the Wawa Algoma News, Marathon Mercury, Manitouwadge Echo, Chapleau Express, Longlac Advertiser Plus, Sault Star, Thunder Bay Chronicle Journal, Hearst Le Nord and Jackfish Journal (Hornepayne). Efforts may also include paid advertising placements on local cable television networks and/or local radio stations. Direct written notification was provided to local, regional and provincial-level Aboriginal communities and organizations, interest groups, government and non-government agencies, local resource users, landowners, other stakeholders and the local public. In addition to the official 47 day comment period and public open house meetings, the MNRF Wawa held several Focus Group sessions with the Forest Industry, Tourism Industry, Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters, Non-Motorized recreationalists and Road based Recreationalists. Individual Focus Group Meetings were held in December 2008, January 2009 and December 2009 and January 2010. The intent of these Focus sessions was to illicit specific feedback from these industries and users of the Crown Lands into the development of the Final Draft CLUAH Land Use Map, Final Draft Land Use Policies and the CLUAH Management Guidelines. A total of 51 official responses were received during the 47 day review period.

of 86

While some responses were simple inquiries, and requests to be added to the mailing list, there were quite a few submissions of letters with very useful information, comments and opinions. The following summarizes some of the major concerns that were grouped by the stakeholders that they represent. Forestry

• Lack of consultation/participation from forest industry • Lack of scientific rationale and clarity • Conflicts with the intent of CLUAH and scope • Lack of socio-economic study • Seasonal sharing of hunting and fishing opportunities • Do not support caribou considerations in land use planning • Explanation of the rationale behind EMA 5

Tourism

• A need for a remote tourism zone and more zoning for the district • More clarity in the policies and information • Remote Tourism is a value in the Wawa District (including rail and trails)

Fishing and Hunting

• Concerns around Caribou planning • Wording in Policies needs to be addressed • Disappointed in more Opportunity Lakes not being identified for access • Outstanding issues to be addressed

Government Agencies

• Stronger wording for mining and remote access Enhanced Management Areas

Road Based Recreation/Access

• Access to all Crown land and waters • Fairness in policies • Moose Management Areas need to be examined • Caribou

Non-motorized Recreation

• There should be non-motorized EMA’s to facilitate these forms of recreation. • Stronger wording along Lake Superior

Phase 3 Consultation- Release of Management Options/Plan Phase 3 information was posted on the Environmental Registry (ER) for a 52 day comment period from July 14th, 2011 to September 8th, 2011. 279 comments were submitted online.

of 86

Open-houses were held in Wawa, White River, Manitouwadge, Dubreuilville, and Hornepayne. The total attendance at the five open houses was 450 people and 365 comment forms were submitted. A Community repository of information was also set up in other locations throughout the planning area. Public notice was placed in paid media advertising. The ads were placed in the following media: the Wawa Algoma News, Marathon Mercury, Manitouwadge Echo, Chapleau Express, Longlac Advertiser Plus, Sault Star, Thunder Bay Chronicle Journal, Hearst Le Nord and Jackfish Journal (Hornepayne). Direct written notification was provided to local, regional and provincial-level Aboriginal communities and organizations, interest groups, government and non-government agencies, local resource users, landowners, other stakeholders and the local public. An analysis of the responses received (from ER and Open House Comment Forms, Forms Letters, Letters Received by mail or e-mail) yielded the number of individuals expressing a preference for each option as follows:

o Option A – 382 o Option B – 2 o Option C – 6 o Option D – 107 o No stated to any of the options – 184 o Dislike Strongly (all Options) – 22 o No Option Prefer New – 105

Total Written Submission Received - 808

Approximately 200 individual and form letters were received that stated there was too much information to understand. The MNRF received a petition by the Ontario Recreational Alliance (OntORA) that contained 2531 signatures and requested that the CLUAH project be eliminated. Phase 3 Aboriginal Consultation Public engagement was completed through the posting of Environmental Bill of Rights Notice (ER) Registry Notice ER# PB06E2025 for a period of 52 days. An Aboriginal Community Identification Template (ACIT) for MNRF Project Approvals and Planning Activities was completed and used for the purpose of identifying Aboriginal communities where a duty to consult was required. Invitation letters were mailed from the District Manager of the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry – Wawa District to 14 local Aboriginal communities on December 17, 2012. Five communities were invited to participate in a customized consultation process and the remaining nine were invited to discuss an approach to sharing information on the project. Follow-up phone calls were made to the Chief of each community encouraging their participation. Aboriginal communities that were contacted include:

of 86

o Pic Mobert First Nation o Pic River First Nation o Michipicoten First Nation o Missanabie Cree First Nation o Batchawana First Nation o Ginoogaming First Nation o Long Lake No. 58 First Nation o Constance Lake First Nation o Chapleau Cree First Nation o Chapleau Ojibwe First Nation o Hornepayne Aboriginal Community o MNO North Shore Superior Métis Council - copy to the Métis Nation of Ontario,

Ottawa o Red Sky Métis Independent Nation o Jackfish Métis Association

What were the results? Five Aboriginal communities requested and received a presentation on the CLUAH project between March 19 and April 17, 2013. Those communities include Pic Mobert First Nation, Missanabie Cree First Nation, Chapleau Cree First Nation, Red Sky Métis Independent Nation and Jackfish Métis Association. MNRF received 75 comments. Aboriginal consultation ended May 15, 2013. Option Preference by Aboriginal community

o Option A 2 o Option B 0 o Option C 0 o Option D 0 o Undecided 1 o Disliked Strongly (all Options) 3 o Refused to participate 2 o No response received 6

Total: 14 Phase 4 Consultations - Public Inspection of Draft Management Plan

Direct written notification was provided to local, regional and provincial-level Aboriginal communities and organizations, non-Aboriginal communities, interest groups, government and non-government agencies, local resource users, landowners, other stakeholders and the local public. Public notice was placed in paid media advertising. The ads were placed in the following media; the Wawa Algoma News, Marathon Mercury, Manitouwadge Echo, Chapleau Express, Longlac Advertiser Plus, Sault Star, Thunder Bay Chronicle Journal, Hearst Le Nord and Jackfish Journal (Hornepayne).

of 86

Phase 4 information was also posted on the Environmental Registry (ER) for a 52 day comment period in which 236 comments were submitted online and an additional 149 comments were received by mail, e-mail, or fax. Comments were received from Aboriginal communities and non-Aboriginal communities and organizations, forest industry, mining industry, tourism industry, non-government interest groups and NGOs, local residents and the general public. Common themes among comments were balance between industries, uses and users, the importance of ongoing protection of remote areas and designated remote tourism areas and equitable motorized access opportunities. All comments were reviewed and resulted in changes to the proposed policy reports including modification of the Designated Remote Tourism Lake Areas, changes to the lakes listed as Designated Remote Tourism Lakes and many additional changes to the associated Crown Land Use Atlas Harmonization (CLUAH) Management Guideline. The Aboriginal Community Identification Template (ACIT) for MNRF Project Approvals and Planning Activities was updated and used for the purpose of identifying Aboriginal communities where a duty to consult was required. Invitation letters were mailed from the District Manager of the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry – Wawa District to 14 local Aboriginal communities on December 18, 2014. Four communities were invited to participate in a customized consultation process and the remaining ten were invited to discuss the project. Follow-up phone calls were made to each community encouraging their participation. Aboriginal communities that were contacted include:

o Pic Mobert First Nation o Pic River First Nation o Michipicoten First Nation o Missanabie Cree First Nation o Batchawana First Nation o Ginoogaming First Nation o Long Lake No. 58 First Nation o Constance Lake First Nation o Chapleau Cree First Nation o Chapleau Ojibwe First Nation o Hornepayne Aboriginal Community o MNO North Shore Superior Métis Council - copy to the Métis Nation of Ontario,

Ottawa o Red Sky Métis Independent Nation o Jackfish Métis Association

CLUAH presentations were request by and delivered to Pic River First Nation and the North Superior Regional Chief’s Forum representing Michipicoten First Nation, Missanabie Cree First Nation, and Chapleau Cree First Nation between December 16, 2014 and May 27, 2015. An open house was held at Pic River First Nation on May 13, 2015. Eighteen community members attended and submitted two written comments. MNRF received

of 86

response letters from three communities including Michipicoten First Nation, Missanabie Cree First Nation and Pic River First Nation. Aboriginal consultation ended June 30, 2015. Phase 5 Notification- Inspection of Final Management Plan

Direct written notification will be provided to local, regional and provincial-level Aboriginal communities and organizations, interest groups, government and non-government agencies, local resource users, landowners, other stakeholders and the local public; that the planning process is complete.

of 86

3.0 Management Direction The purpose of this section is to provide guidance and managerial direction to designated land use policies located within the Wawa district. This section begins with a brief overview of the categories of land use designations used in the Wawa district, moving towards the more specific management directions for each area. Wawa district is comprised of six General Use Areas and three Recreation Enhance Management Areas. Eastern portions of the district are also governed by the Chapleau Crown Game Preserve overlay designation.

3.1 – Land Use Designations 3.1.1 General Use Areas – The default land use designation of Ontario Crown Lands is a General Use Area. These areas include lands without specific designation or enhancement management area designations. A wide range of resource and recreational uses are permitted to occur. The intent of these areas is to allow for multiple resource and recreational uses to occur. Best practices of operations will be followed to maintain the ecological sustainability of each area. An overarching set of MNRF legislations, policies and guidelines will continue to guide the direct management of resources and activities in the area.

3.1.2 Enhance Management Areas – These areas are to be established to identify more specific land use direction in order to recognize some special feature or values in the area. A wide variety of uses may occur in these areas, yet may be subject to special conditions in order to satisfy the special land use intent of the area. More explicit, detailed and comprehensive guidelines and strategies may be developed, in partnerships with local stakeholders, in order to achieve directed land use intent.

Four specific categories were developed in Ontario and frequently adopted in order to address various scenarios requiring necessary added attention. These include: natural heritage, recreation, remote access and fish and wildlife EMA’s. Wawa district contains one of the four EMA categories:

• Recreation – These categories of EMA’s should be established to recognize the relatively high density of recreational use or values within an area. A wide variety of management intents may be implemented to promote a range of recreational values, from low to high densities recreational activities. Detailed policies will be developed on a site-by-site basis to recognize these values.

of 86

3.2 – General Use Areas

3.2.1 Agawa Bay Recreational Fishing Area The Agawa Bay Recreational Fishing Area General Use Area is to be managed for existing recreational sport fishing values. The area will be managed primarily for the development and maintenance of a high quality sport fishery. The portion of this area situated within Lake Superior Provincial Park will be managed according to the provisions of the park. All activities will take into consideration known spawning areas. Development proposals and dispositions, including water lots, on the Great Lakes shoreline, will be reviewed for conformity with the Sault Ste. Marie District Shoreline Management Plan (MNRF, 1991) and any future Fish Management Zone planning Special considerations include, but are not limited to:

• Mineral Exploration and Development - Exploration and extraction activity will continue to be encouraged. Lands under the waters of Lake Superior have been withdrawn from staking. Operating guidelines for the protection of aesthetic values and fish and wildlife habitat will be reflected in licences.

• Commercial Fisheries - Regulations and conditions may be developed and management techniques employed i.e. fish stocking, commercial fishing gear restrictions or prohibition of commercial fishing, as determined necessary to develop an expanded sport fishery. Commercial fishing will be permitted, unless determined to be detrimental to the existence of a high quality sport fishery. The recreational sport fishery will be promoted in this area.

• Crown Land Disposition - In the portion located at the mouth of the Montreal River, development proposals and dispositions, including water lots, on the Great Lakes shoreline will be reviewed for conformity with the Sault Ste. Marie District Shoreline Management Plan.

3.2.2 Lake Superior The Lake Superior General Use Area is to be managed primarily for commercial fishing; including harvest monitoring, establishing quotas and enforcing regulations. Special considerations include, but are not limited to:

• Mineral Exploration and Development - On-shore mining may expand underground, under Lake Superior subject to existing international agreements however, the bed of Lake Superior is withdrawn from staking under the Mining Act. Authority for mineral exploration activities has been granted in the past in a very limited number of areas pursuant to Section 176(3) of the Mining Act.

• Commercial Fisheries – Restrictions to commercial fishing may be considered,

including restrictions within a one kilometre radius of the mouth of all streams entering Lake Superior and including those streams entering Lake Superior within Pukaskwa National Park.

of 86

• Crown Land Disposition - In the portion located at the mouth of the Montreal River, development proposals and dispositions, including water lots, on the Great Lakes shoreline will be reviewed for conformity with the Sault Ste. Marie District Shoreline Management Plan.

3.2.3 Lake Superior Coastline The Lake Superior Coastline General Use Area was developed to promote the future development of a coastal hiking trail. Special management guidelines will be applied to resource uses and the disposition of Crown land will be restricted. Viewing and hiking associated with the future coastal hiking trail through the area will be encouraged. Special considerations include, but are not limited to:

• Commercial Timber Harvest - Operating and annual plans will contain specific guidelines for the protection of aesthetic values and fish and wildlife habitat. Timber harvesting will not be permitted within 400 metres of Lake Superior from the western boundary of the Gros Cap Indian Reserve to the boundary of the Lake Superior Highlands CR.

• Mineral Exploration and Development - Exploration and extraction activity will continue to be encouraged. On-shore mining developments may expand underground, under Lake Superior, subject to existing international agreements. Operating guidelines for the protection of aesthetic values and fish and wildlife habitat will be reflected in licences.

3.2.4 Lake Superior Sport Fishing Area The Lake Superior Sport Fishing Area is to be managed primarily to maintain and enhance fish habitat to ensure the provisions of commercial and sport fish stocks. Special considerations are in place to ensure these values are supported, including, but limited to:

• Mineral Exploration and Development - The bed of Lake Superior is withdrawn from staking under the Mining Act. However, authority for mineral exploration activities has been granted in the past in a very limited number of areas pursuant to Section 176(3) of the Mining Act. Disturbance of fish habitat as identified by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans through dredging, filling, etc. will not be permitted. Islands in this area have been withdrawn from staking.

• Sport Fishing - Within this area fishing activity will be restricted to recreational

sport fish harvesting. Management of the area will be guided by The Great Lakes Fishery Commission, the Joint Strategic Plan for Management of Great Lakes Fisheries (2007), Lake Superior Aquatic Invasive Species Complete Prevention Plan (2014), Ontario’s Great Lakes Strategy (2012), Ontario’s Biodiversity Strategy (2011), Biodiversity: It’s In Our Nature – Ontario Government Plan to Conserve Biodiversity, 2012-2020 (2012), Lake Superior Lakewide Action and Management Plan (2013), Fish Community Objectives for Lake Superior (2003), Joint Strategic Plan For Management of Great Lakes Fisheries (1997), Canada-Ontario Agreement

of 86

on Great Lakes Water Quality and Ecosystem Health (2014), and Lake Superior Lake Trout Stocking Review and Stocking Plan Update (2009).

• Crown Land Disposition - In the portion located at the mouth of the Montreal

River, development proposals and dispositions, including water lots, on the Lake Superior shoreline will be reviewed for conformity with the any existing Shoreline Management Plans.

3.2.5 East and West Multiple Use Resource Management Area The East and West Multiple Use Resource Management General Use Area were developed to promote and encourage multiple land use objectives while minimizing conflict between different uses. Special considerations have been made to further promote public access and recreational activities while maintaining strategies that protect the remote quality of designated remote tourism lakes and category A and B canoe routes. Industrial activities will occur in accordance with the guidelines listed in Section 3.3. Rationale for these directions can be found in Appendix III.

3.3 – Designated Tourism and Recreation Values Remote-based tourism and recreational operations are a vital part of Ontario’s economy (Hunt, Boxall, Englin and Haider, 2005). A central component of these operations is a feeling of remoteness gained when engaging in these activities. Levels of remoteness are greatly affected by the associated effects of Forestry and Industrial activities (McKercher, 1992; Hunt, Boxall, Englin and Haider). The Wawa District is committed to protecting remote-based tourism opportunities on Designated Remote Tourism Lakes. MNRF has a mandate to develop prescriptions for the protection of Designated Remote Tourism Lakes in all land use areas. The Wawa District Tourism Strategy was developed in 1992 to serve this purpose. The Wawa District Tourism Strategy will continue to exist as a companion document to the Management Guidelines and it will be applied equally throughout Wawa District. Where any inconsistency is identified between the Management Guidelines and the Wawa District Tourism Strategy, the Management Guidelines will prevail. For a list of sections that no longer apply in the Wawa District Tourism Strategy see Appendix II. Designated Remote Tourism Lakes are listed in Appendix II. Visual and auditory evidence of Forestry and Industrial activities within the viewshed of these lakes will be minimized. Special considerations include but are not limited to section 3.3.1 Designated Remote Tourism Lake. Currently during the first two weeks of the moose gun hunt public motorized access is restricted on a number of roads in close proximity to Designated Remote Tourism Lakes. These restrictions will continue to exist as they have been implemented through the forest management planning process. The Wawa District MNRF office will encourage innovative

of 86

opportunities for pilot projects that serve to reduce conflict between various stakeholder groups e.g. reduction of existing motorized access during the moose gun hunt to one week and introducing other land tenure instruments to the remote tourism industry. 3.3.1 Designated Remote Tourism Lake – includes a lake listed in Appendix II, Table 5 and the surrounding area of land measured from the Productive Forest Edge at the lake shoreline out to a distance of 2 km for Main Base Lodge Lakes and 1 km for Outpost Camp Lakes.

o The intent of these areas is to maintain remoteness, which normally includes:

no motorized access to the lake (excluding Benchmarked Access); access typically by air, rail or non-motorized means; high quality natural resources; and the provision of a perception of inaccessibility and isolation.

o First 120 m (from 0 to 120 m) – No roads will be constructed. No cut forest

reserve. o Next 280 m (from 121 to 400 m) – No roads will be constructed. Use of

Benchmarked Roads may continue. Forest harvesting may occur.

Within viewshed of lake – Partial/modified cutting techniques will apply to Forestry and Industrial harvesting operations. Operations must provide a Forested Appearance.

Outside of viewshed of lake – Forest management operations consistent with the Crown Forest Sustainability Act (1994) and its applicable manuals and guidelines as amended.

o Last 1.6 km (from 401 m to 2 km) (Main Base Lodge Lake) or last 600 m (from 401 m to 1 km) (Outpost Camp Lake) – Harvesting may occur.

Within viewshed of lake – Partial/modified cutting techniques will apply to Forestry and Industrial harvesting operations. Operations must provide a Forested Appearance.

Outside of viewshed of lake – Forest management operations consistent with the Crown Forest Sustainability Act (1994) and its applicable manuals and guidelines as amended.

New Operational or Winter Roads (Forestry) or roads (Industrial) may be established.

New Roads will be decommissioned upon completion of road lifespan unless otherwise specified under an approved Forest Management Plan or Road Use Management Strategy.

Roads, although discouraged, may be permitted for the purpose of access to natural resources through or between areas of operations on a forest

of 86

management unit where determined by the MNRF that there are no reasonable alternatives. Under these circumstances, the MNRF must be satisfied that the following conditions are met:

The road built to the lowest possible standard. Lowest cost is not the sole or overriding justification. Tourism values have been considered and all reasonable

measures will be undertaken to minimize harmful impacts and to protect a perception of inaccessibility and isolation.

o Benchmarked Roads will normally be open to public use during the road

lifespan.

o Within the 2 km or 1 km areas - Specific plans for road decommissioning will be established in conjunction with the MNRF.

o A seasonal timing restriction to protect Designated Remote Tourism Lakes from potential auditory disturbances as a result of Forestry or Industrial operations will be in place from the beginning of the walleye sportfishing season to the end of the second week of moose gun hunt. The seasonal timing restriction only applies to the use of heavy equipment (> a ½ ton truck). Site preparation is permitted during the hours of 8am to 6 pm throughout the seasonal timing restriction. The seasonal timing restriction will only apply during seasons where the facilities on Main Base Lodge Lakes and Outpost Camp Lakes are occupied.

o Seasonal timing restrictions can be modified on a case by case basis where

otherwise agreed upon by the MNRF, Forestry or Industrial company, and the tourism establishment through a resource stewardship agreement or other instrument.

3.3.2 Canoe Routes and Portages Specific prescriptions are currently in place for the protection of Designated Canoe Routes1. Visual and auditory evidence of Forestry and Industrial activities within the viewshed of the routes will be minimized. The designation of rivers as canoe routes will not necessarily preclude hydro development on them. Designated canoe routes and their associated portage routes are identified in Appendix II, Section 6.3. Special considerations include but are not limited to: 3.3.2.1 Designated Canoe Routes – Category A – Category A canoe routes have received minimal impact from development and will therefore receive a higher level of protection. A distance of 500 m, will be established, along each side of the river from the Productive Forest Edge of the canoe route.

o First 90 m (from 0 m to 90 m) - Providing canoeists and kayakers with a disturbance free area by protecting the lands surrounding canoe routes and portages with a no-cut area. Normally this area will extend 90 metres from

1 As described in the 1992 Wawa District Tourism Strategy.

of 86

the Productive Forest Edge of the canoe route or portage, but the width may be changed on the basis of:

• protection of other values and application of provincial guidelines that provides a larger area.

o Next 410 m (from 91 to 500 m) –

• Within viewshed of the route – Partial/modified cutting techniques will apply to Forestry and Industrial harvesting operations. Operations must provide a Forested Appearance.

• Outside of viewshed of the route – Forest management operations consistent with the Crown Forest Sustainability Act (1994) and its applicable manuals and guidelines as amended.

o Forestry and Industrial activities will ensure that portages are cleared of slash and other debris when road-building activities intersect. Portages must be easily visible at either side of the road and must be levelled within the 'road right-of-way to provide adequate footing.

o No disturbances of portages outside of road rights-of way will be permitted. 3.3.2.1 Designated Canoe Routes – Category B – These canoe routes have had their remote character affect by varying degrees of development, and will receive less protection than Category A canoe routes. Special considerations include but are not limited to:

o First 30 m - Establishing no-cut areas that will normally extend a minimum of 30 metres from the Productive Forest Edge of the canoe route or portage. Normally this area will extend 30 metres from the Productive Forest Edge of the canoe route or portage, but the width may be changed on the basis of:

• protection of other values and application of provincial guidelines that provides a larger area.

o Forestry and Industrial activities will ensure that portages are cleared of slash and other debris when road-building activities intersect. Portages must be easily visible at either side of the road and must be levelled within the 'road right-of-way to provide adequate footing.

o No disturbances of portages outside of road rights-of way will be permitted.

3.4 – Recreation Areas Recreation Enhanced Management Areas have been established to recognize the high potential of recreational values and activities within an area. Special considerations will be given to both promoting additional recreational access and protection of remote tourism values in the area. Forestry and Industrial activities will occur in accordance with the

of 86

prescriptions listed in Section 3.3. Rationale for these directions can be found in Appendix III. Other specific prescriptions unique to these land use designations include:

3.4.1 Recognized High Valued Recreational Areas o MNRF Wawa District will allow for the development of a new connecting

motorized recreational trail between Hornepayne and Dubreuilville subject to the requirements under existing legislation.

o Promotion of road-based accessible, recreational opportunities

o Further enhancements of recreational opportunities may occur, including, but are not limited to: fish stocking of lakes, campground development, boat launches, water crossings, repair and maintenance, roadway and trail development, upgrades and maintenance, etc.

o Encouraging partnerships or memorandums of understanding for the creation or improvement of public access.

3.4.2 Road Management – Road development will be conducted in a strategic manner,

with special considerations will be given to promote recreational opportunities in the area. Road management will occur in accordance with the prescriptions listed in Section 3.3. Rationale for these directions can be found in Appendix III.

3.4.3 Road Use – Benchmarked Access may continue. Policies for the use of existing

roads should maintain or enhance the recreation qualities in the area. Having regard for the land use intent, the most appropriate road system for both resource extraction and recreational uses will be developed. Road use will occur in accordance with the prescriptions listed in Section 3.3. Rationale for these directions can be found in Appendix III.

Public access to existing Benchmarked Roads and to New Roads will normally be permitted during the road lifespan as identified in a Road Use Management Strategy and any other applicable policy or legislation.

of 86

4.0 Evaluating Effectiveness Resource management and land use planning are not static in nature, but rather adaptive and evolving to the changes in economic, social and ecological structures. The CLUAH project has had these intentions from the beginning. This document in particular is to be a ‘living’ document, in that it has the ability to adapt and change according to the evolving landscape. As mentioned, resource inventories will certainly require updating and amending, but so too will the way we manage some of the values on the landscape. This section outlines some of the strategies the Wawa District could utilize in order to address the changing social and biophysical needs of the land.

4.1 Adaptive Management Adaptive management is essentially a form of experimental management that prescribes a management plan, based on researched information and variables on the land-base, that allow for continual monitoring and feedback of its success or failure (Dearden & Rollins, 2002). This system allows for decision-making to proceed based on the best information available, but with explicit guidelines to change and adapt to new information as it is presented (Laven et al, 2005). Therefore a typical adaptive management involves a series of steps that are intended to provide feedback on a particular implemented management system. The implementation of the CLUAH management project will proceed similar to these steps. Adaptive management will proceed accordingly:

of 86

Figure 4: Adaptive Management Principles

4.2 Benchmarks An example of an adaptive management framework within a resource management context is the Limits of Acceptable Change (Hendee & Dawson, 2002). The Limits of Acceptable Change framework is a form of adaptive management that sets out the initial benchmarks or limits in the social or biophysical conditions on the land base that will not be exceeded or deteriorated past. This process includes:

• Setting the acceptable or achievable social/biophysical conditions o Defined by a series of measurable attributes

• Evaluation of existing conditions o Compared to those judged as acceptable

Design and Development

• Conduct resource inventories

• Identify performance benchmarks

• Develop management strategies

Evaluation • Evaluate

effectiveness of management prescriptions through examination of set benchmarks and limits.

Learn and Adapt • Review evaluation

and implement necessary changes to re-establish benchmarks.

Implementation • Implement

management strategies

of 86

• Establish management prescription o Implement management strategy that will achieve desired conditions

• Monitor o Establish monitoring schedule to evaluate effectiveness

The key to this process is to be able to objectively set those initial limits or benchmarks to be able evaluate effectively the implemented management strategies. This can be accomplish through targeted resource inventories and demand studies to evaluate individuals preferences and benchmarks, as well as strategic coordinated efforts with regional biologists and resource planners.

4.3 Monitoring Schedule A defined monitoring schedule is an effective and efficient adaptive management strategy. Depending on the resources and prescriptions you wish to monitor, this schedule may vary accordingly. The implementation of the CLUAH project will begin with recording and setting the necessary benchmarks and resource inventories to be monitored. After completion, a monitoring schedule may be implemented, with an evaluation schedule being adopted. This schedule may be adjusted according to both the needs and available resources within the planning area.

of 86

5.0 Appendix I – Groundwork Material This section is to provide a summary of some of the foundational groundwork that was developed during the early onset and throughout the planning process of the CLUAH project. Former District Boundaries and First Nation land claims have also formed our background materials as illustrated in the following maps. Project scope and expectations were defined in the CLAUH Project Terms of Reference and have been copied into this document, while the Working Group and Steering Committee developed a Statement of Shared Objectives and Working Group Direction to assist in guiding the planning throughout the remaining Phases II – IV. This document outlines an agreed Philosophical Framework, project scope and expectations, planning committee’s and CLUAH’s decision making process.

of 86

5.1 – MNRF District Administrative Boundaries - Before and After 1992

Figure 3 - Former District Boundaries

of 86

5.2 – Philosophical Framework 1 2

Crown Land Use Atlas Harmonization (CLUAH) Project 3 4 5

STATEMENT OF SHARED OBJECTIVES AND WORKING GROUP DIRECTION 6 7

APRIL 2008 8 9 CONFIRMATION OF PROJECT FRAMEWORK 10 11 A) Philosophical Framework 12 13 Crown forests, fish and wildlife and public lands and waters provide significant social, economic and environmental benefits to the people of Ontario. 14 15 Sound sustainable management of resources is essential to the continued provision of these benefits and to the existence of healthy, vibrant communities 16 within the Wawa District. 17

18 Critical elements of healthy vibrant communities are employment and quality of life. 19

20 The forest industry, tourism (remote, semi-remote and road accessible), trapping, mining and renewable energy and the service industries that support 21 those activities remain critical to the health of the local economy and to employment. 22

23 The opportunity to hunt and fish and to participate in other forms of nature appreciation in a variety of settings; and the opportunity to participate in 24 motorized and non-motorized outdoor activities (the former including snowmobiling and use of ATV’s) are essential components of quality of life. 25 26 Sound stewardship of forest resources, including protection of other forest values, is essential to the sustainability of the forest industry both directly 27 through the supply of fiber and timber and indirectly, through ‘certification’ and salability of forest products. 28 29 Access to resources is essential to the sustainability of the forest industry and therefore to those communities which depend on that industry. 30 31 Fish and wildlife related activities including angling, hunting, and trapping are an important part of Ontario’s cultural heritage. 32 33 The ability to access and enjoy these activities is a fundamental component of quality of life. 34

35 Effective planning and management for access and for a variety of access conditions is fundamental to the provision of a diversity of high quality hunting, 36 fishing and viewing opportunities and to sound stewardship of resources. Provision and management of access is important to conservation and to the 37 quality and quantity of recreation and tourism experiences. 38

of 86

1 Crown Land Use Atlas Harmonization (CLUAH) Project 2

3 4

STATEMENT OF SHARED OBJECTIVES AND WORKING GROUP DIRECTION 5 6

APRIL 2008 7 8 Maintenance of existing access and provision of new access are required to maintain and enhance angling, hunting and other recreational and tourism 9 opportunities on Crown land. 10 11 Remoteness is an important recreation and tourism value. Limits on access and on accessibility are essential to the long-term sustainability of the remote 12 tourism industry; to maintaining a range of quality outdoor experiences for Ontario residents and non-residents vacationing in our province; and, for 13 maintaining Ontario as a world-class wilderness tourism destination location. The values to be protected through remoteness may include specific 14 fisheries and fishing quality, specific recreation and tourism experiences; a perception of wilderness and a sense and feeling of solitude. 15

16 The ability to create interconnecting trail systems and travel corridors and to provide greater direct economic benefit to local communities from the use 17 of natural resources is essential to log-term sustainability of those communities. 18

19 Recommendations in the CLUAH process should seek to provide greater clarity and assurance for the forest industry related to access to resources and 20 to reduce costs associated with the forest management planning process. 21 22 Recommendations should seek to further provide clarity and direction for mining, renewable energy production and other economic development that 23 respects Government policy and legislative direction while ensuring that other natural resource values and quality of life for communities is protected. 24 25 Recommendations should seek to ensure the provision of a variety of access conditions, in a manner which enhances road based recreational 26 opportunities and which enhances the economic benefit to local communities (and their viability); while not compromising remote recreational 27 experiences. 28 29 Recommendations should seek to enhance opportunities other forms of recreation and tourism (e.g. snowmobiling and use of ATV’s) though the ability to 30 create interconnecting and loop trail systems in a manner which does not compromise remote experiences and, where possible, enhances those 31 opportunities. 32 33

of 86

5.3 – Project Scope and Expectations

The review of unregulated Crown land use in Wawa District will assist in the building of management options, and will result in the creation of one land use management plan.

Potential change to land use policy is within the scope of this Project, as well as is change in land use classification.

Reviewing Wawa District’s Parks and Protected Areas System is out of the Project scope, as is private and patent land tenure, federal lands including Indian Reserves and Pukaskwa National Park and over-arching land use direction for the Chapleau Crown Game Preserve.

The 24 general use areas (GUAs) currently listed in the CLUPA for Wawa District, may see justification for change. For example, some GUAs may be similar in policy and therefore amalgamated. Additionally, some policy for land use direction may change in certain GUAs. There may also be rationale to support the development of new enhanced management areas (EMAs). Any changes to Crown land use or policy direction would require an amendment or series of amendments to MNRF’s Crown Land Use Policy Atlas (CLUPA) to address any area-specific land use policy changes.

Use of new social science valuation information (e.g. use and generation of new local and/or regional economic data) will be within the Project’s scope. This information will be obtained via MNRF partnerships with other government agencies at the federal, provincial and municipal levels, and potentially with Aboriginal communities.

Economic valuation audits will be out of scope for the project. The Project will need to make use of generally accepted community development multipliers and data (e.g. Statistics Canada) that is publicly available at little to no cost.

Addressing each and every road use management strategy on six Forest Management Units is out of the Project’s scope. Roads will be managed according to higher-level direction developed on a landscape level for the values that are being sustained.

The results of this land use planning exercise will set the direction to guide access management while ensuring ecosystem sustainability. Industry users who depend on the forest will have more certainty and stability and, by implementing road access and recreational planning at a landscape level, be able to conduct forest management planning more efficiently and effectively.

5.4 – Planning Committees Since the initiation of CLUAH in 2006, the Project Team, Working Group and Steering Committee saw a number of changes in the representatives that were present for meeting due to changes in staff, responsibilities and other various circumstances. Below is the best reflection of the core team members and representations which were present through the majority of the projects timeframe.

of 86

5.4.1 Project Team o Project Lead/ Manager o Resource Management Planner o Information Specialist o Resource Clerk o GIS/Data Technician

5.4.2 Steering Committee

o Executive Director, Nature and Outdoor Tourism Ontario (NOTO) o Township of Dubreuilville representative o Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters (OFAH) o Forest Industry, Green Forest Management Inc. o Aggregates Industry representative, Superior Aggregates o Mayor of Manitouwadge o Chief of Michipicoten First Nation o Ontario Prospectors Association representative o Manager, Northeast Regional Planning Unit, MNRF o District Manager, MNRF Wawa

5.4.3 Working Group

o Bait Association of Ontario o Bear Management Area (BMA) operators o Forest industry o Manitouwadge Area Co-Management Committee o Michipicoten First Nation o Mining, Prospecting and Aggregate representative o Missanabie Cree First Nation o MNDM representatives o Motorized Recreation o Nagagami Forest Local Citizens Committee o Northeast Superior Mayors Group o Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters o Ontario Fur Managers Federation o Pic Mobert First Nation o Pic River First Nation o Pukaskwa National Park o Recreational Canoeists / Non-motorized access representative o Remote-based, resource-based tourism o Road based, resource-based tourism o Superior East Community Futures Development Corporation o Township of Michipicoten o Train-based, resource-based tourism o Wawa Area Co-Management Committee/Renewable Energy Industry o White River Co-Management Committee

of 86

5.5 – Decision Making and Issue Resolution

Throughout the CLUAH land use planning process, the Working Group (WG) will operate on the basis of consensus when reviewing existing land use direction and developing new management options. To seek consensus:

• All members will be provided with the necessary opportunity to fully express theirviewpoints, and will be expected to provide input.

• All members will be respectful of the opinions of other members and will give theirinput full consideration.

• The Chair of the WG will periodically poll the group to determine if there is aprogression toward consensus and to focus discussion on any significant differenceof opinion by:

• Attempting to understanding conflicting viewpoints;

• Clarifying any misinterpretations and focusing discussions on specifics; and

• Seeking to identify modifications that will move toward a mutually acceptablesolution.

• If a consensus cannot be attained, the majority and minority opinions are to becarefully recorded and forwarded to the Steering Committee for advice or action.

If the Working Group is unable to resolve an issue through consensus, a dispute resolution process may be employed which will consist first of the use of an independent facilitator (agreed to by all parties). The Steering Committee will be contacted regarding any further unresolved issues from the WG and will render their decision in writing in a timely manner to the Chair of the Working Group. Decision-making will ultimately be made by the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry.

of 86

6.0 Appendix II – Area Descriptions

This section is to provide a summary of some of the spatial characteristics that define the 9 land use designations located within the Wawa District. These may include but are not limited to:

6.1 – Size

Table 3 - Proposed Land Use Designations by Hectare

Area ID Land Use Designation Category Size (ha)

E1771r Northeast Superior

Recreation Area Recreation EMA 480,260

E1747r Pic River Recreation Area Recreation EMA 50,258

E1724r Tikimiganda Recreation Area Recreation EMA 260,529

G1780 Agawa Bay Sport Fisheries GUA 4,782

G1787 East Multiple Resource Use

Management Area GUA 473,253

G2680 Lake Superior GUA 1,156,958

G1785 Lake Superior Coastline GUA 1,170

G1789 Lake Superior Sport Fisheries GUA 2,719

G1798 West Multiple Resource Use

Management Area GUA 1,392,200

of 86

6.2 List of Designated Remote Tourism Lakes and Opportunity Lakes

Designated Remote Tourism Lakes were initially identified through the District Land Use Guidelines (DLUG) planning exercise in 1983. The modified list (see Table 5) of Designated Remote Tourism Lakes was developed as a result of a review completed in the CLUAH planning process by the Steering Committee, Working Group and Project Team. Designated Tourism Lakes that were no longer used for the purpose of remote tourism or had little potential for tourism use were identified as an Opportunity Lakes (Table 5). Six Opportunity Lakes were reclassified as Designated Remote Tourism Lakes (Table 4) following input received during Phase 4 public consultation.

Table 4 - Designated Remote Tourism Lakes

Designated Remote Tourism Lakes NAME TOWNSHIP Lake Type

Mercer/Hiawatha Outpost Doucett Outpost Abigo Outpost Bayfield Outpost Breckenridge Outpost Nameigos Outpost Chelsea Outpost

1 Ahmabel Lake (Partially in District) 2 Anahareo (Anaharea) Lake3 Apisabigo (Apisaigo) Lake4 Bayfield Lake 5 Breckenridge Lake 6 Bruce Lake7 Buffalo Island Lake 8 Bulldozer Lake McGill Outpost 9

Cameron Lake Derry (PRIVATE TOWNSHIP)

Lodge

10 Cigar Lake Strickland Outpost 11 Craig Lake Simpson Outpost

Outpost 12 Crescent Lake Ermine 13 Daisey (Daisy) Waswa Outpost 14 Dave Lake Saunders Outpost 15 Dayohessarah Lake Odlum, Hambleton Outpost 16 Dibben Lake Moorehouse Outpost

Outpost 17 Easey Meath 18 East Line Lake (Unnamed Lake East of Line) McGill Outpost 19 Eris Lake (btw Boomerang) SW of Caramat Outpost

Ermine Outpost Mosambik & Cudney Lodge Sampson Outpost E. of Pukaskwa N.P Outpost Hiawatha Outpost Mosambik Outpost Waswa Outpost W of Welsh Outpost N of Cotte Outpost Sampson Outpost

20 Ermine Lake 21 Esnagi Lake (Magpie Rv) 22 Flagg Lake23 Foster Lake24 Fraser Lake 25 Fred Lake26 Fulcher Lake27 Garnham Lake 28 Goodchild Lake 29 Gould Lake30 Gourlay Lake Gourlay Outpost

of 86

E of Cotte Outpost Drew Lodge Hambleton Outpost S. of Bomby Outpost S. of Bomby Outpost Herbert/Foot Outpost E. of Pukaskwa N.P Outpost S. of Spooner Outpost

31 Gowan Lake 32 Granite Hill Lake 33 Hambleton Lake 34 Hayward Lake35 Herrick Lake36 Ice Lake 37 Jackfish Lake38 Jembi Lake39 Jim Lake E of Grain Outpost 40

Kabinakagami Lake Mosambik, Lipton, Derry, Lizar, Ermine

Lodge

41 Kabinakagamisis Lake

Lipton, Lacelles, Private Land

Outpost

Tedder Outpost McGowan Outpost W of Davies Outpost Larkin Lodge Lascelles Outpost Lessard Outpost Foch Outpost Odlum, Hambleton Outpost

42 Kaginagakog (Pike)(Tedder) Lake 43 (Lower-) Kawaweagama (Duffy) Lake 44 Kentron Lake 45 Larkin (West Larkin) Lake 46 Lascelles Lake47 Lessard Lake 48 Linbarr Lake 49 Little Dayohessarah Lake50 Little Fakeloo Lake NW of Davies Outpost 51

Little Martinet Lake NE of Grain (on Border - Two lakes)

Outpost

W of Davies Outpost Winget Outpost SW of Grenville Outpost Unorganized/Dower Outpost Roberta Outpost Waswa Outpost E. of Pukaskwa N.P Outpost Chelsea/Cholette Outpost McGill Outpost Carmody Outpost

52 Little Vein Lake 53 Lobo Lake54 Long Alice Lake 55 Loughlan Lake 56 Macutagon Lake 57 Mank Lake58 McCrea Lake59 McCoy Lake 60 McGill Lake61 Medhurst Lake62 Michal Lake W of Davies Outpost

Unsurveyed (Michipicoten Is)

Outpost

E. of Pukaskwa N.P Outpost Mosambik Outpost Nagagami Lodge Nameigos Outpost E of Pukaskwa Outpost E of Grain Outpost Mosambik Outpost Simpson, Carney Lodge Cholette Lodge

63 Michi Lake64 Missing Lake65 Mosambik Lake66 Nagagami Lake 67 Nameigos Lake68 North McCrea Lake 69 North Skipper Lake 70 North (Upper) Wejinabikun Lake 71 Oba Lake72 Obakamiga Lake 73 Otter (Cheesehead) Lake Moorehouse Outpost

of 86

W of Davies Outpost Beaudin Outpost

74 Papaver Lake75 Pelt Lake (Weichel Crk) 76 Phil's Lake Cooper Outpost

Irving, Marjorie (On border of district)

Outpost

McGill, Atikameg Outpost McGowan Outpost E. of Pukaskwa N.P Outpost Cudney Outpost Corboy Outpost Cholette Outpost W of Davies Outpost Rennie/Winget Outpost Bomby Outpost Strickland, Odlum Outpost Eaket Outpost Ermine Outpost Cooper Outpost Irving; Marjorie; Walls Outpost W of Grenville on Border Outpost Glasgow/Challener Lodge Mosambik/Nameigos Outpost

77 Pichogen Lake 78 Pickle Lake79 Pike (Friendly) Lake80 Pinei (Pine) Lake81 Pozzo (Star) Lake82 Roderic Lake83 Shekak Lake 84 Solann Lake 85 South Greenhill Lake86 Spangle Lake87 Strickland Lake88 Tikamaganda Lake 89 Tony (Moose) (North) Lake90 Upper Kawaweagama (Upper Duffy) Lake 91 Upper Pichogen Lake (River) 92 Vein Lake (on border) 93 Wabatongushi (Lochalsh) Lake94 Wejinabikun Lake95 White Owl Lake Mathews, Bayfield Outpost

TOTAL: 95

Table 5 - List of Previously Designated Tourism Lakes (Opportunity Lakes)

Opportunity Lakes NAME TOWNSHIP

S of Grenville E of Grain Quill SW of Caramat W of Atikameg

1 Birston Lake 2 Boyer Lake 3 Budworm Lake 4 Devork Lake 5 Dotted Lake 6 Line Lake McGill

Nameigos (SE of Nameigos Lake - small Lake) SW of Caramat

7 East Nameigos Lake 8 Eros Lake 9 Foot Lake Behmann

NW of Davies NW of Davies W of Downer Pawis / Michano NW of Davies (on Border)

10 Helianthus Lake 11 Kagiano Lake 12 Kalz Lake 13 Kinniwabi Lake 14 Klinestiver Lake15 Little Craig Lake Simpson

of 86

S of Roberta, N of McGill Sampson E of Cotte N of Cotte Beauparlant W of Downer Mosambik & Carney N of Brothers S of Lecours SW of Town of Caramat Unorganized / W of McGill NW of Davies N of Bomby NW of Davies Frances SW of Town of Caramat S of Bomby W of Davies (on Nipigon Border) N of McCoy Pawis Cotte SE of Caramat SW of Caramat 2.5 km NE of Runnals Lake McGill Carmody/Bernst W of Frances

16 Little Garnham Lake 17 Long Lake 18 Lorna Lake 19 Louis Lake 20 McEwen Lake 21 McMahon Lake 22 Merekeme Lake 23 Musher Lake 24 Mussy Lake 25 Mustela Lake 26 Olga Lake 27 Palmquist Lake28 Pan Lake 29 Picarson Lake 30 Pody Lake 31 Robb Lake 32 Rule Lake 33 Sandspit Lake 34 Seeley Lake 35 Shakashi Lake36 Spruce Top Lake 37 Stilwell Lake 38 Tickseed Lake 39 Unnamed (NE or Runnals Lk)(#74) 40 Unnamed (S. of Line Lk) 41 Wabenung Lake42 White Otter Lake 43 Zola Lake Noganash

Total Lakes: 43

of 86

6.3 List of Designated Canoe Routes

The waterways identified in this appendix are suitable for providing a variety of canoeing and kayaking experiences. Certain modifications to forest management activities near these waterways may be necessary to protect their character. Category A routes have undergone less impact from development than Category B routes and therefore will receive a higher level of protection.

6.3.1 CATEGORY A

o Dog River from Obatanga Provincial Park to Lake Superior

o Greenhill River from Amik Lake downstream to the District Boundary

o Pukaskwa River from Soulier Lake to Lake Superior o Oba River from Oba Lake to the District Boundary

o Lower White River from White Lake Provincial Park to Lake Superior

o Kabinakagami River from Anaharea Creek to Kabinakagami Lake

o Bremner River

o Nameigos River in Nameigos Township to the Kabinakagami River

o Lake Superior Coastline from Hattie Cove to Perkwakwia Point and from theMichipicoten River to the Montreal River.

6.3.2 CATEGORY B

o White River (not including the section listed in Category" A) o Depew River o Kwinkwaga River o Michipicoten River o Shikwamkwa River o Dog River from the West End of Hammer Lake to the northern boundary of Obatanga

Provincial Park.

o Magpie River

of 86

6.4 – CLUAH Final Land Use Designation Map

of 86

6.5 Wawa District Tourism Strategy and Amendment

The Wawa District Tourism Strategy will continue to exist as a companion document to the Management Guidelines2 and it will be applied equally throughout Wawa District. Below is a list of sections in the Wawa District Tourism Strategy that no longer apply:

Part of Document Section Title Page in

PDF Page #

displayed on Page

Exceptions

Wawa District Tourism Strategy 4.1.1 Remote Lodge Lakes 19, 20 11, 12

4.1.1 c; 4.1.1 i: paragraph 1 and 3

Wawa District Tourism Strategy 4.1.2 Outpost Camp Lakes 21, 22, 23 13, 14, 15

4.1.2 d; 4.1.2 i: paragraph 1

Wawa District Tourism Strategy 4.2.2 Canoe Routes 26, 27 18, 19 none

Wawa District Tourism Strategy

Appendix 5

Commercial Outpost Camp Lakes

39, 40, 41, 42

31, 32, 33, 34 none


Appendix 6

Additions: Commercial Outpost Camp Lakes Maps

43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52

35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44

none


Appendix 7

Category "A" Canoe Routes 53 45 none


Appendix 8

Category "B" Canoe Routes 54 46 none

Amendment 8 Principles for Timber Management Near Remote Tourism Values

59, 60 3, 4

Page 59 (or 3), Paragraph 5 (the second last point: lodge/outpost specific no-cut);

Page 60 (or 4), Paragraph 6 (the second last point: trails)

Amendment 8 A. Commercial Outpost Camp Lakes 63, 64 7 none

Amendment 8 B. Remote Lodge Lakes 65, 66 8, 9 none

2 Where any inconsistency is identified between the Management Guidelines and the Wawa District Tourism Strategy, the Management Guidelines will prevail.

of 86

7.0 Appendix III – Rationale

Management of certain designated Enhanced Management Areas may require the application of a number of tools to either enhance or restrict certain activities on the land base. The currently existing EMA’s in the Wawa District require prescriptions that work towards either promoting or reducing certain recreational experiences. For example, Recreation EMA’s may require prescriptions that promote or enhance recreational opportunities within the area. Designated Remote Tourism Lakes on the other hand may require prescriptions that reduce or limit access to certain areas to uphold the remote character of an area or protect a designated tourism operation. This section provides some of the most recent literature that supports the most effective tools to either limit or promote activities around designated remote tourism lakes.

7.1 – Rationale for Enhancement Recreational Opportunities

Recent research into the identification of recreational enhance opportunities have focused on the patterns and processes of recreational behaviour. Pattern-based research examines how people value and use the land by inventorying the supply of natural resources and the places of use (Hull, William and Yi, 1992). Mapping high use recreational areas provides a valuable and necessary focus for identifying where recreational demand is concentrated (Hull, William and Yi). Examples of this research have included: The Recreational Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) and public participation Geographic Information Systems (GIS) (Clarke and Stankey, 1978; Brown, 2005). Though pattern-based research accounts for contextual factors, a need also exists to know how changes in the resources may affect these demand patterns. Recreational preference research within nature-based recreation has become more widely used to assess the preferences for certain spatial and temporal variations in the resources.

7.1.1 Spatial Patterns

In developing recreational enhancement opportunities in northern Ontario, we must first begin to understand the dominant recreational activities and their patterns of use. The vast majority of recreational demand in northern Ontario is focused around hunting and fishing pursuits (FEDNOR, 2002; Lesseuer, 2009). A large number of non-consumptive activities, including wildlife viewing, hiking and bird watching, are also prominent in northern Ontario (Hunt and McFarlane, 2003). Overall, the majority of these recreational activities occurring in northern Ontario are concentrated in areas near lakes, accessible by roads (Hunt and Lester, 2009).

of 86

7.1.2 Spatial and Temporal Attribute Preferences

The next step in developing enhancement opportunities on the land base is to understand the spatial attributes that drive these behaviours to particular areas. The majority of this research however has focused on the more popular water-based recreational activities, such as angling. Studies have found certain spatial resource quality attributes such as number of varying fish species, quantity of the fish stock, lake size, and facility development as being significant drivers of recreational angling (Parsons and Kealy, 1992; Pollock, Jones, and Brown, 1994; Englin and Lambert, 1995; Train, 1998; Cook and Yuonk, 1998; Lester et al., 2003; Hunt, 2009). A number of environmental quality (changing levels of pH, calcium, aluminum, the amount of dissolved oxygen etc.) and aesthetic quality (level of noise (dB), affective natural beauty and presence of Industrial activities) indicators have also been determined as being significant drivers of recreational angling (Englin and Lambert, 1995; Train, 1998; Lipton and Hicks, 1999; Mace, Bell and Loomis, 1999; Hunt, Twynam, Haider and Robinson, 2000; Hunt, 2005). However, gaps in the research exist for the spatial attributes that drive some of the more non-consumptive forms of recreational activities (including wildlife viewing, hiking, canoeing etc.).

Recreational use is not a static behaviour. Variations exist within and between seasons. Thus, a number of temporal attributes have been found to be significant drivers of recreational demand.

Understanding these results is an important step to developing recreational enhancement opportunities on the land base. By being able to identify the patterns of recreational behaviour, we may begin to highlight areas on the land with similar highly valued characteristics and work towards zoning those areas as special recreation zones. Furthermore, by being able to understand the spatial characteristics that drive those recreational patterns we may be able to create further opportunities within those zones based on significant spatial attributes that drive these behaviours. For example, improving facility developments, certain fish stocks, and access may greatly enhance recreational experience at a particular destination and in turn increase demand. Identifying significant spatial attributes of recreational behaviour may also help us develop criteria and indicators for future adaptive monitoring programs in these areas.

7.2 – Rationale for Road Access Controls

The creation of the Wawa District Tourism Strategy (MNRF, 1992) led to a large number of road restrictions being created so as to protect a number of tourism values in the area. Issues over particular road access strategies have been at the heart of these concerns (Hunt, Lemelin and Saunders). Access controls have involved the use of signs, road use permits, gates and physical closures (e.g., water crossing removal). Hunt, Lemelin and Saunders identified some of the

of 86

factors surrounding the use of these road access controls that have contributed to this conflict.

7.2.1 Background

First, and foremost, road access conflicts have been a result of issues of goal-interference (Hunt, Lemelin, and Saunders, 2009). Goal interference conflicts arise when the pursuits of certain activities interfere with the outcomes or goals that other individuals seek from their activities (Jacob, & Schreyer, 1980). For example, restricting road use may protect the goal of remoteness for a tourism operation, but interferes with other recreationists wishing to access areas around the operation. Second, these conflicts are also a result of certain social values conflicts (Hunt, Lemelin and Saunders). Social values conflicts occur between users with varying belief or value systems concerning the resources (Vaske, Donnelly, Wittman, & Laidlaw, 1995; Watson, 2001; Schuster et al., 2006). For example, the difference in views regarding the use rights of residents and the value of remoteness that exist between resource-based tourism operators and road based recreationists (Hunt, Lemelin, and Saunders). Finally, Hunt, Lemelin, and Saunders reported that the perceived fairness of decisions surrounding road access controls has also lead to a number of these conflicts. Limited information regarding the values, preferences and views of operators and residents towards road access controls has also been a major contributor to these forms of conflicts.

7.2.2 Preferences

Resource managers establish regulatory controls in order to protect certain values on the land base. In order to avoid conflict, it is not only vital to understand land users preferences for certain controls, but also their associated effectiveness. Recently, Mihell and Hunt (2010) set out to determine the preferences of tourism operators and residents in the Wawa district towards certain road access controls. It was determined that twice as many respondents were dissatisfied than satisfied with current road access controls in the Wawa District (Mihell and Hunt). On average, local residents were more accepting of no access restrictions, natural abandonment, and winter roads than any other road access control. However, if these restrictions were implemented in order to protect ecological rather than economic values, than they were deemed more acceptable. When implementing certain road access controls, local residents preferred signs to physical decommissioning or gates. However, signs restricting all use were much less acceptable than controls that limit use in specific areas or specific seasons (Mihell and Hunt).

7.2.3 Effectiveness

Establishing the perceived and actual effectiveness of these controls is another vital component of establishing road access controls. Mihell and Hunt (2009)

of 86

determined that resource-based tourism operators felt the most effective road access controls were roadbed and/or water crossing removals, while signs were perceived as the most ineffective. Others have supported this assumption within the literature (Henschel, 2003). However, recent research determined an 88.3% compliance rate for Public lands Act signs restricting moose hunting access for 2 weeks on certain road systems in the Wawa District (Hunt and Hosegood, 2008). Similar results (75-97% compliance rates) have been associated with signage in park settings that threaten similar sanctions (Johnson and Swearingen, 1992; Martin, 1992). Mihell and Hunt (2010) also determined that tourism operators and local residents share the belief that winter road access was an effective road access control.

It is vital that the development of these road access systems and their associated controls be planned in a strategic and adaptive manner, considering both the public preferences and effectiveness of each. These results suggest that the use of signage controls are not only the most desirable, but also are highly effective. Consideration should also be made for the adoption of seasonal use controls, such as winter roads or seasonal signage restrictions. Creating strategies that are more dynamic and that adapt to the changing biological and social environments will be more effective and accepted across the land base.

7.3 – Rationale for Harvesting around Designated Remote Tourism Lakes

Industrial activities have been reported to negatively impact the remote character of an area in a number ways, including development of access, ecological degradation and auditory and visual disturbances (Picrad and Sheppard, 2002; Hunt, Boxall, Englin, and Haider, 2005; Hunt and Lester, 2009). These effects may be mitigated through a number of restrictive measures that alter the amount or type of activities occurring in the area. Timber harvesting has been found to be one of the more disruptive Industrial activities to remote-based tourism operations (Picrad and Sheppard, 2002; Hunt, Boxall, Englin, and Haider, 2005). Over the years forest industry operations have gradually moved closer to Designated Remote Tourism Lakes. These operations and the associated road access that they create have been a source of conflict with established tourism operation. The goal of Area of Concern prescriptions around Designated Remote Tourism Lakes is to find a balance between the special needs of both the tourism and forest industry.

Hornepayne3557096 2006

Population 1,209

Male 624 51.7% 1.059

Female 585 48.3% 0.944

change in past 5 years 11.23%

Avg Income: $41,682 1.094

Avg Male Income: $55,141 1.174

Avg Female Income: $26,621 0.896

Distribution

Households 480

Avg Income: $77,759 0.997

rate of Low Income 3.1% 0.265

avg persons/ household: 25

Household Income $0

00's

over 100 41.0% 1.034 80 to 100 11.5% 1.11960 to 80 19.7% 1.521 40 to 60 14.8% 0.971 20 to 40 13.1% 0.887

under 20 0.0% 0.000

Household Size

# of

pers

ons

1 27.8% 1.147 2 29.9% 0.939 3 16.5% 0.995

4-5 23.7% 0.997

6+ 2.1% 0.582

Dwellings 480

Avg Value: $64,345 0.216 Avg Monthly Rent: $595 0.713

Housing Affordability Index: 0.83 0.217

Tenure 1.141 owned 81.1%

rented 18.9% 0.658

band housing 0.000 0.0%

When constructed pre 1960 41.7% 1.387

1960 s 14.6% 1.037 1970's 27.1% 1.5881980 s 42% 0.253

1990 s 8.3% 0.629

2000 s 8.3% 0.629

Community Diversity Migration 1 year: non-movers 83.2% 0.961

movers 16.8% 1.254

from

whe

re other country 4.7% 0.563 other province 4.7% 1.304 wthin province 30.2% 1.063

locally 60.5% 1.012

5 year: non-movers 72.5% 1.236 movers 27.5% 0.665

from

whe

re other country 0.0% 0.000 other province 12% 0.802

within province 31.7% 1.065 locally 65.1% 1.201

Canadian Born 97.1% 1.358

Foreign Born 2.9% 103

When immigrated

pre 1960 33.3% 2.559 1960's 66.7% 5.5921970's 0.0% 0.0001980's 0.0% 0.0001990's 0.0% 0.0002000's 0.0% 0.000

Caribbean 0.0% 0.000Central America 0.0% 0.000

South America 0.0% 0.000Northern Europe 40.0% 3.852Western Europe 0.0% 0.000

Southern Europe 60.0% 4.31$Eastern Europe 0.0% 0.000

Africa 0.0% 0.000Middle East 0.0% 0.000

Eastern Asia 0.0% 0.000 Southeast Asia 0.0% 0.000 Southern Asia 0.0% 0.000

Oceania 0.0% 0.000

Cdn citizen 99.2% 1.072

Aboriginal 11.3% 5.581

Education

Hig

hest

Lev

el

University: 11.2% 0.409 College: 8.4% 0.945 Trade: 8.4% 0.945Secondary: 36.5% 1.222 Primary: 35.4% 1.426

Official Language English: 77.9% 0.907 French: 0.0% 0.000

Both: 22.1% 1.929 Neither 0.0% 0.000

Labour Force 690

Labour Force Male: 52.9% 1.014

Female: 47.1% 0.985

Participation Rate: 72.6% 1.083

Employment Rate: 94.9% 1.014

Wage and Salary: 95.6% 1.082Self-Employed: 4.4% 0.386

Unpaid: 0.0% 0.000

Occupation management 8.7% 0.803

finance 8.7% 0.444 natural 0.0% 0.000 health 7.9% 1.428 social 2.4%: 0.726

culture 2.4% 0.726 sales 25.4% 1.022

trades 34.1% 2.295 prim ary 2.4% 0.884

processing 7.9%; 1.049

indexed to Ontario source: Statistics Canada Census of Population

8.0 Appendix IV – Community Socio-Economic Profiles

of 86

Michipicoten3557076 Census SubDivision Population

Population: 3,668Male: 51.2% 1.047

Female: 48.8% 0.955

change 1996 2001 -13.00%

Avg Income: $28,595 0.870Avg Male Income: $36,340 0.889

Avg Female Income $20,661 0.822

Distribution Trend

Households

Households: 1,485 Avg Income: $53,720 0.804


Income

$000

's

over 100 9.8% 0.541 80 to 100 7.7% 0.714

60 to 80 18.9% 1.204 40 to 60 21.2% 1.12320 to 40 24.2% 1.173

under 20 18.2% 1.146

Size

#of

pers

ons

1 27.0% 1.1492 34.5% 1.095 3 14.9% 0.896

4-5 22.3% 0.9026+ 1.4% 0.364

avg persons/ household: 2.4 0.889

Dwellings

Dwellings: 1,485 Avg Value: $84,767 0.424

Avg Monthly Rent: $527 0.700

Ownership owned 73 .0 % 1.076 rented 27.0% 0.844

band housing 0.0% 0.000

When constructed prior to 1960 1.506

1960's 19.7% 1.223 1970's 17.7% 0.941 1980 s 6.0% 0.342 1990 s 6.7% 0.468

previous 5 yrs 10 0.7% 0.089 previous 10 yrs 100 6.7% 0.468

Community Diversity Foreign Born 6.6% 0.242

Canadian Born 93.4% 1.281 1st generation: 8.1% 0.247

2nd generation: 12.5% 0.626 3rd+ generation: 79.4% 1.676

Aboriginal: 12.2% 7.296

Cdn Citizen: 99.3% 1.075

When immigratedprior to 1991 91.3% 1.378

after 1991 8.7% 0.258

Where immigrated from United Kingdom 12.5% 0.925 Western Europe 45.0% 2.162Eastern Europe 27.5% 2.245Southeast Asia 5.0% 0.242

Central Asia 0.0% 0.000

Africa 0.0% 0.000 Middle East 0.0% 0.000

United States 10.0% 2.700 Caribbean 0.0% 0.000

South America D.0% 0.000

Migration1 year non-movers 82.1% 0.953

movers 17.9% 1.289 moved from where

other country 0.0% 0.000

other province % 0.0 0.000

within province 48.1% 1.292 locally 51.9% 1.188

5 year non-movers 56.0% 0.979 movers 44.0% 1.028

moved from where other country 0.6% 0.043

other province 6.1% 0.923 within province 43.6% 1.200

locally 49.7% 1.157

Education

Hig

hest

Lev

el

University: 14.1% 0.536 College: 24.8% 1.046

Trade: 17.5% 1.721Secondary: 32.4% 1.041

Primary: 11.2% 1.287


Both: 31.1% 2.656 Neither: 0.0% 0.000

Labour Force Labour Force: 2.060

Employed: 90.8 % 0.967Unemployed: 9.2% 1.505


Male: 53.4% 1.011Female 46.6% 0.988

Wage and Salary: 88.7% 1.006 Self-Employed: 10.8% 0.943

Unpaid: 0.5% 1.391


finance 14.5% 0.789natural 5.1% 0.730 health 3.4% 0.718social 8.3% 1.096

culture 0.5% 0.171sales 27.0% 1.178

trades 16.4% 1.164 primary 8.1% 2.949

processing 6.4% 0.776

indexed to Province of Ontario source: Statistics Canada 2001 Census of Population

of 86

White River3557091 Census SubDrvision

Population

Population: 993Male: 53.0% 1.085

Female: 47.0% 0.919

change 1996-2001 -2.92% Avg Income: $38,648 1.176

Avg Male Income: $52,222 1.277 Avg Female Income: $23,060 0.918

Distribution Trend

Households

Households: 370

Avg Income: $78,863 1.180


Income

$000

's

over 100 21.6% 1.198 80 to 100 13.5% 1.246

60 to 80 14.9% 0.949 40 to 60 24.3% 1.287 20 to 40 17.6% 0.850

under 20 8.1% 0.511

Size

# of

pers

ons

1 0.932 21.9% 2 31.5% 1.001 3 1.07417.8

4-5 1.108 27.4%6+ 14% 0.369

avg persons/ household: 27 1.000

Dwellings

Dwellings: 370

Avg Value: $72,857 0.364 Avg Monthly Rent: $579 0.769

Ownership owned 71.6% 1.056

rented 28.4% 0.886


When constructed prior to 1960 31.9% 0.965

1960's 18.1% 1.119 1970'S 26.4% 1.400 1980'S 16.7% 0.946 1990'S 6.9% 0.486

previous 5 yrs 0 0.0% 0.000 previous 10 yrs 25 6.9% 0.486

Community Diversity Foreign Born 6.0% 0.223


1st generation: 7.6% 0.233 2nd generation: 19.0% 0.950

3rd+ generation: 73.4% 1.549

Aboriginal: 18.1% 10.841

Cdn Citizen: 99.0% 1.071

When immigrated prior to 1991 100.0% 1.509

after 1991 0.0% 0.000

Where immigrated from United Kingdom 0.0% 0.000

Western Europe 0.0% 0.000

Eastern Europe 75.0% 6.122

Southeast Asia 0.0% 0.000 Central Asia 0.0% 0.000

Africa 0.0% 0.000 Middle East 0.0% 0.000

United States 25.0% 6.750 Caribbean 0.0% 0.000

South America 0.0% 0.000

Migration 1 year non-movers 94.4% 1.006

movers 5.6% 0.401 moved from where

other country 0.0% 0.000

other province 23.1% 3.612

within province 23.1% 0.619

locally 53.8% 1.233

5 year non-movers 80.3% 1.404

movers 19.7% 0.460

moved from where other country 0.0% 0.000

other province 7.3% 1.101 within province 41.5% 1.143

locally 51.2% 1.193

Education

Hig

hest

Lev

el University: 7.7% 0.295

College: 22.5% 0.952 Trade: 16.9% 1.660

Secondary: 45.8% 1.471

Primary: 7.0% 0.806

Official Language English: 79.7% 0.928

French: 0.0% 0.000 Both: 20.3% 1.736

Neither: 0.0% 0.000

Labour Force Labour Force: 555

Employed: 913% 0.979Unemployed: 8.1% 1.323


Male: 583% 1.109Female: 414% 0.878

Wage and Salary 96.3% 1.092 Self-Employed: 3.7% 0.324

Unpaid: 0.0% 0.000


finance 8.3% 0.451

natural 1.8% 0.260health 0.0% 0.000 social 0.0% 0.000

culture 0.0% 0.000

sales 25.7% 1.123trades 38.5% 2.732

primary 12.8% 4.683


indexed to Province of Ontario source: Statistics Canada 2001 Census of Population

of 86

HornepayneAboriginal Population

2006 3557096 Census Sub Divisions

Population Non- Aboriginal Population 1,073 88.8% 0.9058

Aboriginal Population 136 11.3% 5.5806

Male Female

Registered Non Registered

Aboriginal Origin

Age Distribution

North American 28.6% 0.4374

Metis 10.7% 0.3530 Inuit 0.0% 0.0000

Multiple 60.7% 0.0000 Other 22.5107

Households

Migration within previous 1 year: moved from...

other country other province within province

locally

within previous 5 years: moved from...

other country other province within province

locally

Education highest level

attained

PrimarySecondary

TradeCollege

University

Language AboriginalEnglish only French only

English + French only Other Languages

Has knowledge of Aboriginal language

Aboriginal Language spoken at home

Aboriginal Language as first learned

Income Individual Average In come Male Average Income

Female Average Income

Income Source: Wages

Government Other

Labour Labour Force Male

Female Participation rate

Employed Labour ForceMale

Female Employment rate

Occupation... Management

Finance

Natural Science

Health Social

Culture

Sales Trades

Primary Processing

Industry Sector...Agriculture and resource-based industries

Construction industries Manufacturing industries

Wholesale trade Retail trade

Finance and real estateHealth care and social services

Educational servicesBusiness services

Other services


8.0 Appendix V – Aboriginal Socio-Economic Profiles

3 2006 Census data was used for Aboriginal communities due to issues with the 2011 Census data.

of 86

3

Michipicoten

Aboriginal Demographics1657076

Wawa Forest

Population 440

Male 37.1% 0.766

Female 62.9% 1.219

Registered 59.1% 1.036

North American Indian 58.2% 0.834

Inuit 2.2% 3.010 Metis 35.2% 1.370

Multiple 2.2% 2.449 Other 2.2% 0.774

Age Distribution Population Distribution

Male Female Both S5+ 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 75-84 0.0% 3.6% 2.2% 65-74 12.1% 5.4% 7.9% 55-64 0.0% 7.1% 4.5% 45-54 9.1% 7.1% 7.9% 25-44 45.5% 26.8% 33.7% 20-24 0.0% 5.4% 3.4% 15-19 0.0% 7.1% 4.5% 5-14 21.2% 25.0% 23.6% 0-4 12.1% 12.5% 12.4%

Income Individual Average Income $22,204 0.913

Male Average Income $34,588 1.214

Female Average Income $10,030 0.500

Source: Wages 71.70% 0.916 Government 18.00% 1.059

Other 9.80% 2.085

Language Aboriginal 8.0% 0.591English only 64.8% 0.894 French only 3.4% 14.110

English+French only 23.9% 1.903 Other Languages 0.0% 0.000

Has knowledge of Aboriginal language 8.0% 0.593

Aboriginal Language spoken at home 6.7% 0. 720

Aboriginal Language as first learned 7.9% 0.687

Households 240

Education highest

level attained

Primary 50.0% 1.356 Secondary 8.3% 0.729

PostSecondary 8.3% 0.719 College 29.2% 0.871

University 4.2% 0.627

Migration moved within previous 1 year period: 32.9% 1.594

moved from where: other province 0.0% 0.000


locally 100.0% 1.593

moved within previous 5 year period: 66.2% 1.307

moved from where: other province 0.0% 0.000


locally 56.0% 0.963

Labour Force 170

Male 54.5% 1.073 Female 45.5% 0.924

Employment rate 57.9% 1.051

Participation rate 63.2% 0.978

occupation

Management 9.1% 1.188 Finance 18.2% 1.330

Natural Science 12.1% 3.110 Health 6.1% 1.572 Social 0.0% 0.000

Culture 0.0% 0.000 Sales 30.3% 1.075 Trades 6.1% 0.308

Primary 12.1% 2.865 Processing 6.1% 0.753

indexed to Province of Ontario source: Statistics Canada 2001 Aboriginal Survey

of 86

Pic Mobert North3558060 2006

Population 137

Male 71 51.9% 1.063

Female 66 48.1% 0.940


Avg Income: $0 0.000

Avg Male Income: $0 0.000 Avg Female Income: to 0.000

Distribution Trend

Households 50




Household Income over 100 0.0% 0.000 80 to 100 0.0% 0.00060 to 80 0.0% 0.00040 to 60 0.0% 0.000

$000

's20 to 40 0.0% 0.000

under 20 0.0% 0.000

Household Size

# of

pers

ons

1 0.916 22.2% 2 22.2% 0.698

3 22.2% 1.3400.9354-5 22.2%

6+ 11.1% 3.138

Dwellings 45

Avg Value: $0 0.000 Avg Monthly Rent: $0 0.000


Tenure owned 20.0% 0.282

rented 30.0% 1.041



1960's 0.0% 0.000 1970's 20.0% 1.173 1980's 20.0% 1.217

1990's 60.0% 4.527

2000's 60.0% 4.527

Community Diversity Canadian Born 0.0% 0.000

Foreign Born 0.0% 0.000 Migration 1 year: non-movers 92.6% 1.069

movers 7.4% 0.553

from

whe

re other country 0.0% 0.000 other province 0.0% 0.000 within province 100.0% 3.515

locally 0.0% 0.000

5 year: non-movers 75.0% 1.279 movers 25.0% 0.605

from

whe


locally 100.0% 1.846

When immigrated

pre 1960 0.0% 0.0001960's 0.0% 0.0001970's 0.0% 0.0001980's 0.0% 0.0001990's 0.0% 0.0002000's 0.0% 0.000



Place of Birtf) United States 0.0% 0.000


South America 0.0% 0.000 Northern Europe 0.0% 0.000 Western Europe 0.0% 0.000

Southern Europe 0.0% 0.000 Eastern Europe 0.0% 0.000



Oceania 0.0% 0.000

Education

Hig

hest

Lev


College: 0.0% 0.000 Trade: 0.0% 0.000

Secondary: 0.0% 0.000

Primary: 100.0% 4.030


Both: 0.0% 0.000

Neither: 0.0% 0.000

Labour Force 55

Labour Force: Male: 63.6% 1.219

Female: 36.4% 0.760




Unpaid: 0.0% 0.000


finance 22.2% 1.131 natural 0.0% 0.000 health 0.0% 0.000 social 0.0% 0.000

culture 0.0% 0.000 sales 33.3% 1.341

trades 22.2% 1.494 primary 22.2% 8.249



of 86

Pic Mobert South3558061 2006

Population 104

Male 64 61.9% nee Female 40 38.1% 0.744



Avg Male Income: $0 0.000 Avg Female Income: JO 0.000

Distribution Trend

Households 45




Household Income

$000

's

over 100 0.0% 0.000 80 to 100 0.0% 0.00060 to 80 0.0% 0.00040 to 60 0.0% 0.00020 to 40 0.0% 0.000

under 20 0.0% 0.000

Household Size

# of

pers

ons

1 28.6% 1.177

2 42.9% 1.346

3 14.3% 0.862

4-5 14.3% 0.601

6+ 0.0% 0.000

Dwellings 40


Housing Affordability Index: 0 DO 0.000

Tenure

owned 22.2% 0.313

rented 0.0% 0.000



1960's 0.0% 0.000 1970's 33.3% 1.955 1980's 44.4% 2.704

1990's 22.2% 1.677

2000's 22.2% 1.677

Community Diversity Migration

1 year: non-movers 90.5% 1.045

movers 9.5% 0.711

from

whe

re other country 0.0% 0.000 other province 0.0% 0.000within province 100.0% 3.515

locally 0.0% 0.000

5 year: non-rnovers 81.0% 1.380 movers 19.0% 0.461

from

whe


locally 40.0% 0.738


Foreign Born 0.0% 0.000

When immigrated

pre 1960 0.0% 0.000 1960's 0.0% 0.0001970's 0.0% 0.0001980's 0.0% 0.0001990's 0.0% 0.000 2000's 0.0% 0.000



Place of Birtf)United States 0.0% 0.000


South America 0.0% 0.000Northern Europe 0.0% 0.000Western Europe 0.0% 0.000

Southern Europe 0.0% 0.000Eastern Europe 0.0% 0.000



Oceania 0.0% 0.000

Education

Hig

hest

Lev


College: 11.1% 1.245 Trade: 11.1% 1.245

Secondary: 0.0% 0.000 Primary: 66.7% 2.687


Both: 0.0% 0.000 Neither: 0.0% 0.000

Labour Force 55


Female: 36.4% 0.760




Unpaid: 0.0% 0.000


finance 22.2% 1.131 natural 0.0% 0.000

health 0.0% 0.000 social 0.0% 0.000

culture 0.0% 0.000 sales 22.2% 0.894

trades 33.3% 2.242 primary 0.0% 0.000



of 86

Pic River 5058062 2006

Population 383

Male 184 48.1% 0.985 Female 199 51.9% 1-014


Avg Income: $22,848 0.600

Avg Male Income: $25,290 0.539 Avg Female Income: $20,638 0.695

Distribution Trend

Households 125

Avg Income: $52,814 0.677



Household Income

$000

’s

over 100 18.8% 0.473 80 to 100 12.5% 1.219

60 to 80 18.8% 1.44940 to 60 12.5% 0.82220 to 40 18.8% 1.268

under 20 18.8% 2.610

Household Size

# of

pers

ons

1 16.0% 0.659 2 28.0% 0.879

3 16.0% 0.965

4-5 32.0% 1.346

6+ 8.0% 2.260

Dwellings 120



Tenure owned 28.0% 0.394

rented 16.0% 0.555



1960's 7.7% 0.547 1970's 19.2% 1.128 1980's 26.9% 1.638

1990's 38.5% 2.902

2000's 38.5% 2.902

Community Diversity Migration

1 year: non-movers 93.4% 1.079movers 6.6% 0.491

from

whe

re

other country 0.0% 0.000 other province 0.0% 0.000 within province 50.0% 1.758

locally 50.0% 0.837

5 year: non-movers 83.1% 1.41716.9% movers 0.409

from

whe

re other country 0.0% 0.000other province 0.0% 0.000

within province 63.6% 2.136locally 36.4% 0.671


Foreign Born 0.0% 0.000

When immigrated pre 1960 0.0% 0.000

1960's 0.0% 0.000 1970's 0.0% 0.0001980's 0.0% 0.0001990's 0.0% 0.0002000's 0.0% 0.000



Place of BirthUnited States 0.0% 0.000


South America 0.0% 0.000Northern Europe 0.0% 0.000Western Europe 0.0% 0.000Southern Europe 0.0% 0.000

Eastern Europe 0.0% 0.000 Africa 0.0% 0.000

Middle East 0.0% 0.000Eastern Asia 0.0% 0.000

Southeast Asia 0.0% 0.000 Southern Asia 0.0% 0.000

Oceania 0.0% 0.000

Education

High

est L

evel

University: 11.3% 0.411 College: 14.5% 1.627

Trade: 14.5% 1.627 Secondary: 19.4% 0.648

Primary: 40.3% 1.625

Official Language

English: 100.0% 1.164French: 0.0% 0.000

Both: 0.0% 0.000 Neither 0.0% 0.000

Labour Force 190


Female: 51.4% 1.074




Unpaid: 0.0% 0.000


finance 10.71 0.545 natural 7.1% 0.969 health 0.0% 0.000 social 0.0% 0.000

culture 0.011 0.000 sales 25.01 1.006

trades 25.01 1.681 primary 1431 5.303

processing 7.11 0.944


of 86

of 86

9.0 Appendix VI – Glossary Benchmarked Access: Legal access existing prior to the approval of this guideline i.e. non-motorized access, fly-in access, and road, trail or other access approved by MNRF, through a permit, disposition, other approval, or planning process prior to the approval of this guideline. Forested Appearance: To reflect the appearance of natural processes. Intent is to minimize the negative aesthetic impacts of forestry on remote based tourism values. For example by minimizing the visibility of cleared ground from the Designated Remote Tourism Lake. Breaks in the canopy may be visible i.e. the trunks of standing trees in the background may be seen by the discerning observer but not the cleared ground. Industrial: Includes aggregate extraction, commercial hydro development, commercial power generation development, mineral exploration and development. Main Base Lodge Lake: A main base lodge located on a Designated Remote Tourism Lake. Lakes are listed in Appendix II, Table 5 of this guide. Opportunity Lake: A lake identified under a previous planning process including the Crown Land Use Atlas Harmonization Project, Crown Land Use Policy Atlas, Wawa District Tourism Strategy or District Land Use Guidelines for potential tourism related protection. Lakes demonstrating previous use by the remote tourism industry are reclassified as Designated Remote Tourism Lakes and those remaining have had this designation removed. Lakes previously identified as Opportunity Lakes and have had this designation removed are listed in Appendix II, Table 6 of this guide. Outpost Camp Lake: A lake that has a remote outpost camp. Lakes are listed in Appendix II, Table 5 of this guide. Productive Forest Edge: The edge of a forest area capable of growing commercial trees, as defined by the 2009 Forest Management Planning Manual. Road:

Benchmarked Road: A pre-existing road approved, by MNRF, through a permit, disposition or other approval or planning process prior to the approval of this guideline. New Road (Forestry or Industrial): A road approved, by MNRF, through a permit, disposition or other approval or planning process following the approval of this guideline.

of 86

Road (Forestry): A road as defined in the 2009 Forest Management Planning Manual.

Primary: A road that provides principal access for the forest management unit, and is constructed, maintained and used as part of the main road system on the management unit. Primary roads are normally permanent roads. Branch: A road, other than a Primary road, that branches off an existing or new Primary or Branch road, providing access to, through or between areas of operations on a forest management unit. Operational: A road within an operational road boundary, other than a Primary or Branch road, that provides short-term access for harvest, renewal and tending operations. Operational roads are normally not maintained after they are no longer required for forest management purposes, and are often site prepared and regenerated. Winter Road: Not an all-weather road; is normally defined as a road constructed by stumps bladed down to organic material relying on snow, ice, and frost for strength.

Road (Industrial): A road constructed and/or maintained to provide as a main, short-term or long-term, temporary access for Industrial operation purposes.

Viewshed: The geographical area that is visible from one or more locations on a Designated Remote Tourism Lake. The intent is to maintain a Forested Appearance; normally Industrial activity should not be visible from the lake. As per section 3.3.1, the viewshed extends to the 1 km or 2 km Designated Remote Tourism Lake area unless otherwise agreed upon by the MNRF, Forestry or Industrial company and the tourism establishment through a resource stewardship agreement or other instrument.

of 86

9.0 Appendix VII – CLUAH Wall Map Edits

Item Changed Phase 4 Map Change to Phase 5 Map

1 2 km Area - Main Base Lodge

Buffer did not extend full 2 km from the Northeastern point of Kaninakagami Lake

Corrected buffer to extend full 2 km from the

Northeastern point of Kaninakagami Lake

2 2 km Area - Main Base Lodge

Displayed as red crosshatching with no

background

Displayed as red single hatching with a pink

background; Changed Buffer to Area

3 1 km Area - Outpost Camp Displayed as red

crosshatching with no background

Displayed as red single hatching with a pink

background; Changed Buffer to Area

4 Designated Remote Tourism Lake Designated Remote Lake Designated Remote Tourism

Lake

5 Designated Remote Tourism Lake

Pike (Friendly) Lake, Wejinabikun Lake, Little

Dayohessarah Lake, Cigar Lake, Gowan Lake, and Phil’s

Lake identified as Opportunity Lakes.

Added Pike (Friendly) Lake, Wejinabikun Lake, Little

Dayohessarah Lake, Cigar Lake, Gowan Lake, and Phil’s

Lake.

6 Opportunity Lake Opportunity Lakes missing from map

Shade all Opportunity Lakes in green

7 First Nation Communities Communities labeled in Wawa District difficult to read Corrected

8 East Multiple Resource Management Area

Unable to differentiate between the three General

Use Areas

Increased size of border and changed shade of yellow

background

9 Lake Superior Coastline Unable to differentiate

between the three General Use Areas

Increased size of border and changed shade of yellow

background

10 West Multiple Resource Management Area

Unable to differentiate between the three General

Use Areas Increased size of border

11 Hydro Lines Transmission line in Lastheels

Township displayed incorrectly

Removed transmission line from Lastheels Township

12 Private Land Yellow background Yellow background removed

of 86

Item Changed Phase 4 Map Change to Phase 5 Map

13 Proposed Federal Land Transfer Displayed additional area Additional areas removed

14 Municipal Boundary Hatched Removed hatching

15 National Park, Parks and Protected Areas, Natural Heritage Resource Area

Displayed identically Hatching changed to differentiate each

16 Note District context missing Text added

17 Text boxes and pointers Text boxes and points unclear where indicating

Moved text boxes and pointers to clarify where

indicating

18 Inset Map Identifies private land as G1785

Corrected inset map to display only G1785

19 Added text No text Added text on map changes being available in this table

20 Title and Date Consistent with Phase 4 Updated to be consistent with Phase 5

of 86

9.0 Appendix VII – References Brown, G. (2005). Mapping spatial attributes in survey research for natural

resource management: Methods and applications. Society and Natural Resources, 18, 17-39.

Clark, R., & Stankey, G. (1979). The recreation opportunity spectrum: a

framework for planning, management, and research. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-98. Portland, OR: USDA For. Serv., Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Exper. Stn 32p.

Conway, T. (1981) Archaeology in North-eastern Ontario-Searching for our past.

Ministry of Culture and Recreation publication. Cook, M. F., and J. A. Younk. (1998). A historical examination of creel surveys

from Minnesota’s lakes and streams. Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, Division of Fish and Wildlife, Section of Fisheries Investigational Report 464, St. Paul.

Couchie, B. (2006) Pic River Final Aboriginal Background Information Report and

Socio-Economic Report, 2007-2017 Forest Management Plan for the Big Pic Forest.

Couchie, B. (2007) Aboriginal Background Information Report, Pic River First

Nations – White River Forest Management Plan 2008-2018. Couchie, B. (2007) Aboriginal Background Information Report, Pic Mobert First

Nations – White River Forest Management Plan 2008-2018. Dearden, R. & Rollins, R. (2002). Parks and Protected Areas in Canada –

Planning and management (2nd ed.). Toronto, ON: Oxford University Press Canada.

Englin, J., & Lambert, D. (1995). Measuring angling quality in count data models

of recreational fishing. Environmental and Resource Economics, 6, 389-399.

FEDNOR (2004). Northern Landscapes: Opportunities for nature-based tourism

in northern Ontario, presented at Eco-north (2004) and Éco nord, conference and trade show (2002). Sudbury, ON: FedNor.

Hendee, J. C., & Dawson, C. P. (2002). Wilderness management – stewardship

and protection of resources and values. (3rd ed.). Golden, CO: Fulcrum Publishing.

of 86

Hull, R. B., Stewart W. P. & Li, Y. K. (1992). Experience patterns: Capturing the dynamic nature of a recreation experience. Journal of Leisure Research, 24(3), 240-252.

Hunt, L. M. (2005). Recreational fishing site choice models: Insights and future

opportunities. Human Dimensions of Wildlife, 10:153-172. Hunt, L. M., Boots, B. N., & Boxall, P. C. (2007). Predicting fishing participation

and site choice while accounting for spatial substitution, trip timing and trip context. North American Journal of Fisheries Management, 27, 832-847.

Hunt, L. M., & Hosegood, S. (2008). The effectiveness of signs at restricting

vehicle traffic: A case of seasonal closures on forest access roads. Canadian Journal of Forest Research, 38, 2306-2312.

Hunt, L. M., Lemelin, R. H., & Saunders, K. C. (2009). Managing forest road

access on public lands: A conceptual model of conflict. Society & Natural Resources, 22 (2), 128-142.

Hunt, L. M., & Lester, N. (2009). The Effect of Forestry Roads on Access to

Remote Fishing Lakes in Northern Ontario, Canada. North American Journal of Fisheries Management, 29, 586–597.

Hunt, L. M., & McFarlane, B. (2003). Views about forest management in Ontario:

Highlights from surveys with the Ontario public. Ont. Min. Natur. Resour. Centre for Northern Forest Ecosystem Research, Thunder Bay, ON. CNFER Technical Report TR-010.

Hunt, L. M., Twynam, G. D., Haider, W., & Robinson, D. (2000). Examining the

desirability for recreating in logged settings. Society and Natural Resources, 13, 717-734.

Leschishin, M. (2004). Aboriginal Background Information Report – Michipicoten

First Nation, Algoma Forest Management Plan, 2005-2025. Borealis Forestry and GIS

Lesseuer, P. (2008). Mapping Recreation Values in the Boreal Forest – An

Online Tool. Unpublished M.E.S. thesis, Lakehead University, School of Outdoor Recreation, Parks & Tourism.

Lester, N. P, Marshall, T. R., Armstrong, K., Dunlop, W. I., & Ritchie, B. (2003). A

broad-scale approach to management of Ontario’s recreational fisheries. North American Journal of Fisheries Management, 23, 1312-1328.

of 86

Lipton, D. W. & Hicks, R. (1999). Linking water quality improvements to recreational fishing values: The case of Chesapeake Bay striped bass. In: T. Pitcher (Eds.) Evaluating the Benefits of Recreational Fisheries. Fisheries Centre Research Reports, 7(2), 105-111.

Mace, B. L., Bell, P. A., & Loomis, R. J. (1999). Aesthetic, affective, and cognitive

effects of noise on natural landscape assessment. Society & Natural Resource, 12, 225-242.

Michipicoten First Nation. (2004) Final Aboriginal Background Information

Report, Michipicoten First Nation. Queen’s Printer for Ontario: Ontario, Canada.

Ministry of Health Promotion. (2005). Ontario Trails Strategy. Queen’s Printer for

Ontario: Province of Ontario, Toronto, Canada. Ministry of Northern Development and Mines. June 10, 2004. “News release,

McGuinty Government’s Northern Prosperity Plan Outlines Strategy to Return Hope to and Drive Prosperity in the North”. [Accessed: September 12, 2014]. http://news.ontario.ca/mndmf/en/2004/06/northern-prosperity-plan-1.html

Ministry of Tourism and Recreation. (2002). Ontario Tourism Strategy. Queen’s

Printer for Ontario: Province of Ontario, Toronto, Canada. Northeast Regional Advisory Committee. (2005). Resolving Access Issues: A

Case Study, Final Report. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry. (2006). Crown Land Use

Policy Atlas. [Accessed: September 12, 2014] http://www.ontario.ca/environment-and-energy/Crown-land-use-policy-atlas. Queen’s Printer for Ontario: Ontario, Canada.

Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry. (1983). Wawa District Land

Use Guidelines. Queen’s Printer for Ontario: Ontario, Canada. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry. 1992. Wawa District Tourism

Strategy. Queen’s Printer for Ontario: Ontario, Canada. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry. (1999). Ontario’s Living

Legacy Land Use Strategy. Queen’s Printer for Ontario: Ontario, Canada. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry. (2004a). Forest

Management Planning Manual for Ontario’s Crown Forests. Queen’s Printer for Ontario: Ontario, Canada.

http://news.ontario.ca/mndmf/en/2004/06/northern-prosperity-plan-1.html

http://news.ontario.ca/mndmf/en/2004/06/northern-prosperity-plan-1.html



of 86

Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry. (2004b). Forest Management Plan for the Magpie Forest. Queen’s Printer for Ontario: Ontario, Canada.

Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry. (2005a). Our Sustainable

Future, MNRF Strategic Directions. Queen’s Printer for Ontario: Ontario, Canada.

Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry. (2005b). Ontario Biodiversity

Strategy, Protecting What Sustains Us. Queen’s Printer for Ontario: Ontario, Canada.

Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry. (2006a) Pic Mobert Final

Aboriginal Background Information Report and Socio-economic Report. Queen’s Printer for Ontario: Ontario, Canada.

Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry. (2006b) Pic River Final

Aboriginal Background Information Report and Socio-economic Report. Queen’s Printer for Ontario: Ontario, Canada.

Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry. (October, 2009a). Ontario’s

Woodland Caribou Conservation Plan. Queen’s Printer for Ontario: Ontario, Canada.

Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry. (March 2009b). Procedures

for the Amendment of Area-specific Crown Land Use Policy. Land Use environmental Planning Section.

Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry. April, 2008. Statement of

Shared Objectives and Working Group Direction. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry. (2009) Native Background

Information Report, Magpie FMP. Queen’s Printer for Ontario: Ontario, Canada.

Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry. The Sault Ste. Marie District

Shoreline Management Plan 1991-2001. March 18, 1991. 167p. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry. Horizons 2020. 2015. Parsons, G. R., & Kealy, M. J. (1992). Randomly drawn opportunity sets in a

random utility model of lake recreation. Land Economics, 68(1), 93-106. Pollock, K. H., Jones, C. M., & Brown T. L (1994). Angler survey methods and

their application in fisheries management. Reviews in Fish Biology and Fisheries, 5(3), 378-380.

of 86

Rendell, R. (2005). Hornepayne First Nation Background Summary – Found in

Nagagami Forest Management Plan 2006-2011. R.S.O. 1990, Chapter F.31. Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy

Act. [Accessed: September 12, 2014]. http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/html/statutes/english/elaws_statutes_90f31_e.htm

R.S.O. 2006, Chapter c.12. Provincial Parks and Conservation Reserves Act. [Accessed: September 12, 2014]. http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/html/statutes/english/elaws_statutes_06p12_e.htm

R.S.O. 1990, Chapter P.43. Public Lands Act. [Accessed: September 12, 2014].

http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/html/statutes/english/elaws_statutes_90p43_e.htm

Schuster, R. M., Hammitt, W. E., Moore, D., & Schneider, I. (2006). Coping with

stress resulting from social value conflict: Non-hunters’ response to anticipated social interaction with hunters. Human Dimensions of Wildlife, 11, 1-13.

Train, K. E. (1998). Recreation demand models with taste differences over

people. Land Economics, 74(2), 230-239. Vaske, J., Donnelly, M., Wittmann, K., & Laidlaw, S. (1995). Interpersonal versus

social-values conflict. Leisure Sciences. 17, 205-222. Watson, A. (2001). Goal interference and social value differences: understanding

wilderness conflicts and implications for managing social density. In: Cole et al. (Eds.), Wilderness science in a time of change conference. (Pg 93-98). Missoula, Mt. Proceedings RMRS-P-15-VOL-4.

http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/html/statutes/english/elaws_statutes_90f31_e.htm

http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/html/statutes/english/elaws_statutes_90f31_e.htm





wawa district’s crown land use atlas harmonization … · wawa district’s crown land use atlas...

Documents