Regional Land Use Geologist Report: Northwestern, Northeastern and Southern Ontario Regions; Ontario Geological Survey, Open File Report 6207, 48P

ISSN 0838-3677 ISBN 978-1-4249-3584-0

THESE TERMS GOVERN YOUR USE OF THIS PRODUCT

Your use of this electronic information product (“EIP”), and the digital data files contained on it (the “Content”), is governed by the terms set out on this page (“Terms of Use”). By opening the EIP and viewing the Content , you (the “User”) have accepted, and have agreed to be bound by, the Terms of Use.

EIP and Content: This EIP and Content is offered by the Province of Ontario’s Ministry of Northern Development and Mines (MNDM) as a public service, on an “as-is” basis. Recommendations and statements of opinions expressed are those of the author or authors and are not to be construed as statement of government policy. You are solely responsible for your use of the EIP and its Content. You should not rely on the Content for legal advice nor as authoritative in your particular circumstances. Users should verify the accuracy and applicability of any Content before acting on it. MNDM does not guarantee, or make any warranty express or implied, that the Content is current, accurate, complete or reliable or that the EIP is free from viruses or other harmful components. MNDM is not responsible for any damage however caused, which results, directly or indirectly, from your use of the EIP or the Content. MNDM assumes no legal liability or responsibility for the EIP or the Content whatsoever.

Links to Other Web Sites: This EIP or the Content may contain links, to Web sites that are not operated by MNDM. Linked Web sites may not be available in French. MNDM neither endorses nor assumes any responsibility for the safety, accuracy or availability of linked Web sites or the information contained on them. The linked Web sites, their operation and content are the responsibility of the person or entity for which they were created or maintained (the “Owner”). Both your use of a linked Web site, and your right to use or reproduce information or materials from a linked Web site, are subject to the terms of use governing that particular Web site. Any comments or inquiries regarding a linked Web site must be directed to its Owner.

Copyright: Canadian and international intellectual property laws protect the EIP and the Content. Unless otherwise indicated, copyright is held by the Queen’s Printer for Ontario.

It is recommended that reference to the Content be made in the following form:

Debicki, R.L., Hinz, P., Seim, G.Wm. and Steele, K.G. 2007. Report of Activities 2006, Resident Geologist Program, Regional Land Use Geologist Report: Northwestern, Northeastern and Southern Ontario Regions; Ontario Geological Survey, Open File Report 6207, 48p.

Use and Reproduction of Content: The EIP and the Content may be used and reproduced only in accordance with applicable intellectual property laws. Non-commercial use of unsubstantial excerpts of the Content is permitted provided that appropriate credit is given and Crown copyright is acknowledged. Any substantial reproduction of the Content or any commercial use of all or part of the Content is prohibited without the prior written permission of MNDM. Substantial reproduction includes the reproduction of any illustration or figure, such as, but not limited to graphs, charts and maps. Commercial use includes commercial distribution of the Content, the reproduction of multiple copies of the Content for any purpose whether or not commercial, use of the Content in commercial publications, and the creation of value-added products using the Content.

Contact:

FOR FURTHER PLEASE CONTACT: BY TELEPHONE: BY E-MAIL: INFORMATION ON The Reproduction of the MNDM Publication Local: (705) 670-5691 [email protected] EIP or Content Services Toll Free: 1-888-415-9845, ext. 5691 (inside Canada, United States) The Purchase of MNDM MNDM Publication Local: (705) 670-5691 [email protected] Publications Sales Toll Free: 1-888-415-9845, ext. 5691 (inside Canada, United States) Crown Copyright Queen’s Printer Local: (416) 326-2678 [email protected] Toll Free: 1-800-668-9938 (inside Canada, United States)

Ontario Geological Survey Open File Report 6207

Report of Activities, 2006 Resident Geologist Program

Regional Land Use Geologist Report: Northwestern, Northeastern and Southern Ontario Regions

2007

ONTARIO GEOLOGICAL SURVEY

Open File Report 6207

Report of Activities, 2006 Resident Geologist Program

Regional Land Use Geologist Report: Northwestern, Northeastern and Southern Ontario Regions

R.L. Debicki, P. Hinz, G. Wm. Seim and K.G. Steele

2007

Parts of this publication may be quoted if credit is given. It is recommended that reference to this publication be made in the following form: Debicki, R.L., Hinz, P., Seim, G.Wm. and Steele, K.G. 2007. Report of Activities 2006, Resident Geologist Program, Regional Land Use Geologist Report: Northwestern, Northeastern and Southern Ontario Regions; Ontario Geological Survey, Open File Report 6207, 48p.

e Queen’s Printer for Ontario, 2007 e Queen’s Printer for Ontario, 2007. Open File Reports of the Ontario Geological Survey are available for viewing at the Mines Library in Sudbury, at the Mines and Minerals Information Centre in Toronto, and at the regional Mines and Minerals office whose district includes the area covered by the report (see below). Copies can be purchased at Publication Sales and the office whose district includes the area covered by the report. Al- though a particular report may not be in stock at locations other than the Publication Sales office in Sudbury, they can generally be obtained within 3 working days. All telephone, fax, mail and e-mail orders should be directed to the Publica- tion Sales office in Sudbury. Use of VISA or MasterCard ensures the fastest possible service. Cheques or money orders should be made payable to the Minister of Finance. Mines and Minerals Information Centre (MMIC) Tel: (416) 314-3800 Macdonald Block, Room M2-17 900 Bay St. Toronto, Ontario M7A 1C3 Mines Library Tel: (705) 670-5615 933 Ramsey Lake Road, Level A3 Sudbury, Ontario P3E 6B5 Publication Sales Tel: (705) 670-5691(local) 933 Ramsey Lake Rd., Level A3 1-888-415-9845(toll-free) Sudbury, Ontario P3E 6B5 Fax: (705) 670-5770 E-mail: [email protected]

Regional Mines and Minerals Offices: Kenora - Suite 104, 810 Robertson St., Kenora P9N 4J2 Kirkland Lake - 10 Government Rd. E., Kirkland Lake P2N 1A8 Red Lake - Box 324, Ontario Government Building, Red Lake P0V 2M0 Sault Ste. Marie - 70 Foster Dr., Ste. 200, Sault Ste. Marie P6A 6V8 Southern Ontario - P.O. Bag Service 43, Old Troy Rd., Tweed K0K 3J0 Sudbury - Level A3, 933 Ramsey Lake Rd., Sudbury P3E 6B5 Thunder Bay - Suite B002, 435 James St. S., Thunder Bay P7E 6S7 Timmins - Ontario Government Complex, P.O. Bag 3060, Hwy. 101 East, South Porcupine P0N 1H0 Toronto - MMIC, Macdonald Block, Room M2-17, 900 Bay St., Toronto M7A 1C3

This report has not received a technical edit. Discrepancies may occur for which the Ontario Ministry of Northern Devel- opment and Mines does not assume any liability. Source referencesare included in the report and users are urged to verify critical information. Recommendations and statements of opinions expressed are those of the author or authors and are not to be construed as statements of government policy. If you wish to reproduce any of the text, tables or illustrations in this report, please write for permission to the Team Leader, Publication Services, Ministry of Northern Development and Mines, 933 Ramsey Lake Road, Level A3, Sudbury, Ontario P3E 6B5.

Cette publication est disponible en anglais seulement. Parts of this report may be quoted if credit is given. It is recommended that reference be made in the following form:

Debicki, R.L., Hinz, P., Seim, G. Wm. and Steele, K.G. 2007. Report of Activities 2006, Resident Geologist Program, Regional Land Use Geologist Report: Northwestern, Northeastern and Southern Ontario Regions; Ontario Geological Survey, Open File Report 6207, 48p.

iii

Mines and Minerals Division Regional and District Offices

CITY ADDRESS OFFICE(S) TELEPHONE FAX Kenora Suite 104, 810 Robertson St., Kenora P9N 4J2 ○ ■ (807) 468-2819 (807) 468-2930 Red Lake Box 324, Ontario Government Building, ● ■ (807) 727-3272 (807) 727-3553 227 Howey Street, Red Lake P0V 2M0 Temporary Office: 51A Hwy 105 Thunder Bay – North Suite B002, 435 James St. S., ● ■ (807) 475-1331 (807) 475-1112 Thunder Bay P7E 6S7 ▼ (807) 475-1368 (807) 475-1112 ▲ (807) 475-1311 (807) 475-1124 Thunder Bay – South Suite B002, 435 James St. S., ● ■ (807) 475-1331 (807) 475-1112 Thunder Bay P7E 6S7 ▼ (807) 475-1368 (807) 475-1112 ▲ (807) 475-1311 (807) 475-1124 Sault Ste. Marie Suite 200, 70 Foster Dr., ○ ■ (705) 945-6931 (705) 945-6935 Sault Ste. Marie P6A 6V8 Timmins Ontario Government Bldg., P.O. Bag 3060, ● ■ (705) 235-1619 (705) 235-1620 1270 Hwy 101 East, South Porcupine P0N 1H0 ▼ (705) 235-1622 (705) 235-1620 ▲ (705) 235-1600 (705) 235-1610 Kirkland Lake 10 Government Rd. E., P.O. Box 100, ● ■ (705) 568-4516 (705) 568-4515 Kirkland Lake P2N 3M6 ▲ (705) 568-4521 (705) 568-4515 Sudbury Willet Green Miller Centre, Level A3, ○ (705) 670-5735 (705) 670-5681 933 Ramsey Lake Rd., Sudbury P3E 6B5 ▼ (705) 670-5887 (705) 670-5818 Southern Ontario P.O. Bag Service 43, 126 Old Troy Rd., ● ■ (613) 478-3161 (613) 478-2873 (Tweed) Tweed K0K 3J0 Toronto Mines and Minerals Information Centre, Room M2-17, ○ (416) 314-3803 (416) 314-3797 MacDonald Block, 900 Bay St., Toronto M7A 1C3 ▼ (416) 314-3792 (416) 314-3797

Ontario Geological Survey Resident Geologist Program

Regional Land Use Geologists—2006

R.L. Debicki, P. Hinz, G.Wm. Seim and K.G. Steele

2007

CONTENTS

Regional Land Use Geologists—2006

INTRODUCTION...... 1 THE LAND USE GROUP ...... 2 CROWN LAND USE PLANNING ...... 2 Ontario’s Living Legacy ...... 3 Site Regulation ...... 3 Disentanglement...... 4 Exclusions of Time...... 8 Signature Sites...... 9 Algoma Headwaters Signature Site ...... 10 Great Lakes Heritage Coast Signature Site...... 10 Kawartha Highlands Signature Site ...... 10 Killarney Signature Site...... 11 Lake Nipigon Basin Signature Site...... 11 Nagagamisis Central Plateau Complex Signature Site ...... 11 Spanish River Waterway Signature Site ...... 12 St. Raphael Signature Site...... 12 Woodland Caribou Signature Site...... 12 Enhanced Management Areas ...... 12 Ontario Forest Accord...... 13 Room to Grow...... 14 Mineral Resource Assessments...... 15 Metallic Mineral Potential Estimation Tool (MMPET)...... 15 Other Protected Areas ...... 16 Lake Superior National Marine Conservation Area ...... 16 Southern Ontario Parks and Conservation Reserves ...... 17 Forest Management Planning...... 17 The Forest Management Planning Process...... 20 Forest Management Units...... 21 Forest Management Plans...... 21 Northwest Region ...... 22 Northeast Region ...... 24 Southern Region ...... 26 Northern Boreal Initiative ...... 26 Northern Boreal Initiative Projects...... 27 Pikangikum...... 28 Cat Lake and Slate Falls ...... 28 Mishkeegogamang and Eabametoong...... 28 Constance Lake...... 28 Moose Cree...... 29 Other Crown Land Planning Initiatives ...... 30 Crown Land Use Policy Atlas ...... 30 Crown Land Use Policy Atlas Modifications – Sault Ste. Marie District...... 30 Crown Land Use Policy Atlas Modifications – Wawa District ...... 31 Far North Planning Initiative...... 31 Local Citizens’ Committees ...... 31 Renewable Energy Initiatives...... 32 Review of Protected Areas Legislation ...... 32 Review of Species at Risk Act ...... 33 Temagami Integrated Management Plan...... 33

MUNICIPAL PLANNING...... 34 Legislation and Regulations...... 35 Clean Water Act ...... 35 Planning and Conservation Land Statute Law Amendment Act ...... 36 Municipal Planning Initiatives ...... 36 Northwest Brampton ...... 38 Planning-Related Training and Events...... 38 Other Planning-Related Initiatives...... 39 Brownfields Statute Law Amendment Act...... 39 Natural Spaces – Natural Heritage System...... 39 Natural Heritage Reference manual ...... 40 Niagara Escarpment Plan ...... 40 Places to Grow – Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe ...... 40 Planning Systems One-Window Review...... 41 FIRST NATIONS...... 41 Reserve Lands...... 42 Protection of Spiritually and Culturally Sensitive Sites...... 42 Mineral Exploration on Traditional Lands...... 42 OTHER...... 43 Aggregate Resources Act...... 43 All-Terrain Vehicle and Recreational Trails...... 43 Applications for Review ...... 44 Ontario Heritage Act...... 44 CONFERENCES AND WORKSHOPS...... 44 EDUCATIONAL INITIATIVES ...... 46 General Public...... 46 GENERAL DUTIES ...... 47 Resident Geologist Program Southern Ontario Region...... 47

Tables 1. Regulation status of Ontario’s Living Legacy sites province wide ...... 4 2. Regulation status of Ontario’s Living Legacy sites in the 3 planning areas...... 4 3. Summary of sites subject to disentanglement discussions...... 6 4. Signature Sites and land use planning unit contacts...... 9 5. Categories of enhanced management areas ...... 13 6. Forest management units (FMUs) in Ontario (2007–2008) ...... 19 7. Number of forest management units of various size classes in Ontario ...... 21 8. Changes in the number of forest management units since 1995...... 22 9. Forest management units (FMUs) in the northwest Regional Land Use Geologist’s region (2007–2008)...... 23 10. 2008 northwest forest management plans and their sustainable forest licence holders...... 24 11. Forest management units (FMUs) in the northeast Regional Land Use Geologist’s region (2007–2008) ...... 24 12. Interaction with the Forest Management Planning Teams in the northeast region in 2006...... 25 13. 2008 northeast forest management plans and their sustainable forest licence holders ...... 26 14. Forest management units (FMUs) in the southern Regional Land Use Geologist’s region (2007–2008)...... 26 15. Planning documents reviewed during 2006...... 37 16. Official Plan processes in Southern Ontario, 2006...... 37

Figures 1. Forest management units (FMUs) in Ontario, April 1, 2007...... 18

iii

Regional Land Use Geologists—2006

1 2 3 4 R.L. Debicki , P. Hinz , G.Wm. Seim and K.G. Steele

1Land Use Policy and Planning Coordinator, Resident Geologist Program, Ontario Geological Survey

2Regional Land Use Geologist—Northwest, Resident Geologist Program, Ontario Geological Survey

3Regional Land Use Geologist—Northeast, Resident Geologist Program, Ontario Geological Survey

4Regional Land Use Geologist—Southern, Resident Geologist Program, Ontario Geological Survey

INTRODUCTION

The land use planning unit was established within the Resident Geologist Program in 2000 to respond to clients in government, agencies, non-governmental organizations and the mineral sector. It consists of three Regional Land Use Geologists, with one located in each of Thunder Bay, Timmins and Toronto, and a Land Use Policy and Planning Coordinator, located in Sudbury.

The services provided by the Regional Land Use Geologists complement the services provided by the Regional Resident and District Geologists, but relate more to land use planning and access matters. Many of those services require knowledge and expertise that are outside the traditional knowledge and experience of practicing geoscientists. For example, land use planning in Ontario can involve representatives from more than a dozen provincial and federal ministries and agencies, and numerous provincial and federal acts with accompanying regulations, guidelines and policies. Some relate to Crown land, while others relate to private land.

Group members have geoscience and mineral sector expertise, combined with a broad understanding of land use legislation, regulations and issues. All have the qualification of Professional Geoscientist (P.Geo). They work closely with other staff members of the Resident Geologist Program, other representatives of the Ministry of Northern Development and Mines, and staff members from other ministries and agencies to optimize Ontario’s land base for sustainable, safe and environmentally responsible mineral resource development. Their activities include the following:

• providing information to Ministry of Natural Resources personnel about the geology, mineral potential and mining land holdings of areas of interest, and highlighting the possible effects of Crown land use planning initiatives such as the Northern Boreal Initiative on the mineral sector and the province’s mineral interests; • working with Ministry of Natural Resources, the mineral sector, and the forest industry to ensure that information about mineral values and mining lands is available during forest management planning, and that mineral sector representatives are aware of opportunities to participate in, comment on, and benefit from the forest management planning process; • working with Ministry of Natural Resources, members of the public, and various interest groups to implement “disentanglement solutions” for areas where pre-existing mining lands were included in sites recommended for regulation as provincial parks or conservation reserves in the Ontario’s Living Legacy land use strategy; • evaluating and commenting on proposed new policies and legislation to ensure that mineral sector interests are addressed, and working with partner ministries to educate government workers, municipal planners, and other interested parties about the implications of approved changes; • working with Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing, municipal planners, and planning consultants to ensure that municipal planning initiatives and decisions including Official Plan Amendments and Official Plans are consistent with directives in the Provincial Policy Statement regarding mineral resources, mining operations, and possible mining-related hazards; • helping representatives of First Nations understand and participate in the mineral exploration and development

1 REGIONAL LAND USE GEOLOGISTS—2006

process, and incorporate mineral-related values into community-based planning initiatives, while at the same time making the mineral sector aware of First Nation communities’ concerns about activities on their traditional lands along with ways of mitigating or accommodating those concerns; • advocating and coordinating the use of the Provincially Significant Mineral Potential (PSMP) mineral resource assessment methodology in all land use planning initiatives; and • working to make the public at large, along with members of various interest groups, more aware of the interests and importance of the mineral sector and its activities and entitlements in Ontario.

The objective of the group is to effectively represent mineral-related values in the context of competing interests for land use and to optimise the land base available for mineral exploration and development, while helping mineral sector representatives be aware of the implications of legislation and regulations other than the Mining Act on their activities. The competing interests for land use vary from place to place across the province, but all have the potential to restrict the availability of land, access to it, and the activities on it.

Contact information for the Regional Land Use Geologists, along with other representatives of the Resident Geologist Program, is available from http://www.mndm.gov.on.ca/mndm/mines/resgeol/contact_e.asp. Please contact the Land Use Policy and Planning Coordinator or the Regional Land Use Geologist for your area of interest for further information about matters described in this annual report. THE LAND USE GROUP

The land use planning unit is made up of the following 4 staff members:

• the Land Use Policy and Planning Coordinator (located in Sudbury); • the northwest Regional Land Use Geologist (located in Thunder Bay); • the northeast Regional Land Use Geologist (located in Timmins); and • the southern Regional Land Use Geologist (located in Toronto).

The work of each of the Regional Land Use Geologists relates to land use activities and initiatives in their geographic areas, and encompasses the full range of matters outlined in the introduction. The Land Use Policy and Planning Coordinator is responsible for the overall coordination of the group, as well as initiatives that are provincial, rather than regional, in scope.

The areas for which the Regional Land Use Geologists are responsible are shown in the index map on page v.

The land use planning unit went through a period of renewal in 2006. Glenn Seim, formerly District Geologist for the Timmins District, was named acting northeast Regional Land Use Geologist in January, filling a position that had been vacant for more than 16 months due to staffing constraints after the departure of the previous incumbent. Ken Steele, formerly District Geologist for the Southwest District, was appointed as acting southern Regional Land Use Geologist in January after Dave Rowell, the previous incumbent, took a new position in the Ontario Geological Survey. Both were named to their new positions in a permanent capacity in May, following a competition. CROWN LAND USE PLANNING

Although the Ministry of Natural Resources has overall responsibility for land use planning on Crown land through the Public Lands Act, the Ministry of Northern Development and Mines is responsible for managing Crown mining rights. Thus, land use planning initiatives undertaken by the Ministry of Natural Resources may impact on the mandate of the Ministry of Northern Development and Mines and the interests of its clients.

Members of the land use planning unit contribute to a wide range of Crown land use planning initiatives and site- specific work in areas across the province. Clients with whom they are involved while engaged in this work include prospectors, representatives of junior and senior mining companies; concerned citizens; First Nations; small and large municipal governments; commercial and industrial enterprises including the forest industry; and various

2 R.L. Debicki et al. provincial ministries and federal agencies.

Ongoing and current Crown land use planning initiatives with which the land use planning unit was involved in 2006 are described below, along with the contributions made by group members. Ontario’s Living Legacy

The Ontario’s Living Legacy land use strategy was announced in 1999 as the provincial initiative whereby a network of representative life-science and earth-science features would be protected as parks or conservation reserves in central Ontario. At the same time, it was intended to strengthen the economic health of the region.

The land use strategy identified a total of 378 new provincial parks, park additions and conservation reserves, 8 stand-alone forest reserves, 9 Signature Sites and 86 enhanced management areas within the “Area of the Undertaking” as identified under the Crown Forest Sustainability Act. The Area of the Undertaking is roughly coincident with those portions of Ontario south of the 51st parallel that are underlain by Precambrian rocks.

For the purposes of the Ontario’s Living Legacy land use strategy, the Area of the Undertaking was divided into the following 3 planning areas:

• Boreal West; • Boreal East; and • Great Lakes–St. Lawrence.

The Boreal West area is the same as Ministry of Natural Resources’ northwest region. The Boreal East area includes the northern part of Ministry of Natural Resources’ northeast region, including the Wawa, Chapleau, Timmins, Kirkland Lake, Cochrane, and Hearst districts. The Great Lakes–St. Lawrence area includes the southern part of Ministry of Natural Resources’ northeast region, including the North Bay, Sudbury and Sault Ste. Marie districts. It also includes those parts of the Ministry of Natural Resources’ southern region that are underlain by Precambrian rocks of the Canadian Shield.

Of the protected areas, 21 new parks and 75 new conservation reserves are located in the Boreal West area; 31 new parks and 62 new conservation reserves are located in the Boreal East area; and 54 new parks and 135 new conservation reserves are located in the Great Lakes–St. Lawrence area. An additional conservation reserve northeast of Elliot Lake, commemorating 4 Ministry of Natural Resources employees who were killed in a helicopter crash in January 2003, was added to the list of Ontario’s Living Legacy protected areas being regulated in the Great Lakes–St. Lawrence planning area. In addition, 6 conservation reserves identified through the Temagami Comprehensive Land Use Plan of 1996 were regulated with the Ontario’s Living Legacy sites.

SITE REGULATION

In 2006, the staff of the land use planning unit continued to contribute to the regulation processes for new protected areas established through the Ontario’s Living Legacy land use strategy. Considerable work is involved in regulating each site. Survey plans must be prepared; withdrawal orders for the mining rights must be reviewed and adjusted if necessary; public consultation must be carried out; and legislation must be prepared and passed. The regulation process has been ongoing since 2000. In 2006, one bill was passed to regulate 10 new parks, 6 park additions, and 12 new conservation reserves. The province-wide status of the regulation process at the end of 2006 is indicated in Table 1.

Work done included monitoring the proposed final boundaries of sites being prepared for regulation by Ministry of Natural Resources planning staff. Re-withdrawals to accommodate boundary adjustments were facilitated where needed. The progress of the sites through the regulation process was monitored, and relevant information concerning changes in size or other concerns was recorded. In addition, representatives of mineral sector organizations were notified of public consultation periods during which they could provide comments before sites were regulated.

3 REGIONAL LAND USE GEOLOGISTS—2006

Table 1. Regulation status of Ontario’s Living Legacy sites province wide.

Parks Conservation Reserves Current Status Number of Total % of Sites Number of Total % of Sites Sites Number of Regulated/ Sites Number of Regulated/ Regulated Sites to Regulate Regulated Sites to Regulate Number of Sites – End of 2001 15 106 14% 82 272 30% Number of Sites – End of 2002 33 106 31% 132 272 49% Number of Sites – End of 2003 69 106 65% 206 272 76% Number of Sites – End of 2004 72 106 68% 218 272 80% Number of Sites – End of 2005 86 106 81% 249 272 92% Number of Sites – End of 2006 102 106 96% 261 272 96% Total Remaining to be Regulated 4 106 4% 11 272 4%

The current regulation status of the Ontario’s Living Legacy protected areas in the 3 planning areas is shown in Table 2.

Table 2. Regulation status of Ontario’s Living Legacy sites in the 3 planning areas.

Parks Conservation Reserves Number of Total Number of Total Planning Area % of Sites % of Sites Sites Number of Sites Number of Regulated Regulated Regulated Sites Regulated Sites Boreal West 20 21 95% 66 75 88% Boreal East 30 31 97% 62 62 100% Great Lakes–St. Lawrence 52 54 96% 133 135 99% Total Regulated at the End of 2006 102 106 96% 261 272 96%

The regulation of some of the remaining sites has been deferred due to issues raised by First Nations, or the need for additional site-specific discussions with interested parties.

Five sites adjacent to the Severn River Conservation Reserve (C30) were also re-regulated in 2006, in order to correct small-scale errors in boundaries that were contrary to the intent of the site when it was originally regulated. The Ministry of Natural Resources asked Ministry of Northern Development and Mines to withdraw the mining rights for the excluded areas to facilitate the re-regulation. The southern Regional Land Use Geologist reviewed the sites from a mineral potential and mining-related hazards perspective and recommended the withdrawal.

DISENTANGLEMENT

When the Ontario’s Living Legacy land use strategy was announced in 1999, it included many areas where sites selected for designation as parks and conservation reserves overlapped areas of pre-existing mining lands. Such areas of overlap were designated as “forest reserves”. The land use designation provided for ongoing mineral exploration and development and access to support such work, but prohibited all other resource development. The intention was that the sites would be added to the protected areas if and when the mining lands lapsed through normal processes. To facilitate this, withdrawal orders were placed over the areas of mining lands as well as the rest of the proposed protected areas.

When the land use strategy was approved, there were forest reserves associated with an estimated 107 of the new parks and conservation reserves, province wide. Some of these conflicts were resolved when more detailed maps became available. Others were resolved between 1999 and 2002, when areas of mining lands that were designated as forest reserves lapsed. Claim holders stated that the forest reserve designation made it impossible for them to option their properties or raise funds to do the work needed to keep them in good standing.

4 R.L. Debicki et al.

At the same time, environmental groups argued that the forest reserve concept and the Ontario’s Living Legacy land use strategy provision that allowed controlled mineral exploration to continue in areas with provincially significant mineral potential within the new parks and conservation reserves meant that there could be “mining” in protected areas.

The government responded in 2002 by cancelling the provision that would have allowed controlled mineral exploration to continue in the areas with provincially significant mineral potential. It also invited the Ontario Prospectors Association and Partnership for Public Lands to recommend options for “disentangling” the remaining mining lands in forest reserves from the Ontario’s Living Legacy sites.

The two groups made joint recommendations in July 2003 for disentangling approximately half of the 66 sites. The sites for which no recommendations were made tended to be areas of long-standing mining lands with significant mineral values. The groups also asked the government to recommend solutions for their consideration on 20 sites where they could not reach agreement. They did not comment on the 8 stand-alone forest reserves, or 3 other sites added after their discussions began.

By mid 2004, staff of the Ministry of Natural Resources and Ministry of Northern Development and Mines had reviewed the joint recommendations and proposed government solutions for 18 of the 20 “no agreement” sites. They had also proposed solutions for the 8 stand-alone forest reserves and 3 add-on sites that the groups had not considered. The Ontario Prospectors Association and Partnership for Public Lands responded to the government in late 2005.

The government’s proposed solutions were based on the following options and/or combinations thereof:

• retain the “status quo” for some forest reserves (i.e., let claims lapse through normal processes and then regulate the subject lands for protection); • remove part or all of some forest reserves and find adjacent replacement land to ensure no net loss in the size or integrity of the protected area; and/or • remove part or all of some forest reserves and not seek replacement lands.

Following further discussion, the government announced the proposed solutions for disentangling remaining mining lands from the proposed protected areas in May 2005. No changes were proposed for 25 of the 66 sites. No further public process was planned for those sites. Changes were proposed for the remaining 41 sites, and a commitment was made to do further public consultation before the changes are implemented.

The Land Use Policy and Planning Coordinator and the Regional Land Use Geologists worked with staff of Ministry of Natural Resources in 2005 and 2006 in an effort to facilitate the public consultation for the sites for which changes were proposed, in an effort to have the changes made as quickly as possible. This work included reviewing potential candidates for replacement lands where needed; working with other staff of the Resident Geologist Program to prepare mineral resource assessments to assist with the screening of the potential candidates for replacement lands; consulting with First Nations in areas where changes are planned; and providing support to Ministry of Natural Resources for their consultations with sustainable forest licence holders in areas of interest.

By the end of 2006, official decisions were made to remove the forest reserve designations from all or part of the areas of mining lands within 30 of the 41 forest reserves. Most of these sites were in the northeast Regional Land Use Geologist’s area. In addition, decisions were made to deregulate “orphaned” portions of 2 conservation reserves and 1 park that resulted from the disentanglement process. Where the recommended disentanglement strategy is to seek replacement lands for protection, the surface and mining rights of candidate replacement lands were withdrawn from staking to accommodate their possible future designation as protected areas.

The decision on disentanglement was deferred for the Capreol–Hanmer Delta Forest Reserve (F179) and the Vermilion River Delta (Dowling/Fairbanks Forest Reserve) (F208). Both sites are in the Sudbury area.

The Ministry of Natural Resources and the Ministry of Northern Development and Mines are continuing discussions with affected First Nations and sustainable forest license holders with respect to their interests in selecting the

5 REGIONAL LAND USE GEOLOGISTS—2006

replacement lands. To date, proposed replacement lands have been agreed upon for 2 sites; Night Hawk Shoreline Bluffs Conservation Reserve (C1597) and Elspeth Lake White Birch Outwash Conservation Reserve (C1603). Further public consultation, through the Environmental Registry, will be undertaken before the proposed replacement lands are regulated.

The early 2006 withdrawal from prospecting of proposed replacement lands for the former Woman River Complex Conservation Reserve (C1564), which had inadvertently been placed in an area of pre-existing mining-rights only patents, was related to the disentanglement initiative. The proposed replacement lands were selected late in 2005 by a working group that included representation from the Ministry of Northern Development and Mines, the Ministry of Natural Resources, local First Nations, forestry companies and environmental organizations. When the withdrawal orders for the proposed replacement lands came into effect, the forest reserve status of the former Woman River Complex Conservation Reserve was removed. Further public consultation will be undertaken through the Environmental Registry before the proposed replacement lands are regulated.

Sites that were the subject of disentanglement discussions are listed in Table 3 along with their recommended planning solution and the date the solution was posted on the Environmental Registry. Where no date is indicated, the proposed solution has not yet been put forward for public review and comment.

Table 3. Summary of sites subject to disentanglement discussions.

Status at Site Planning Proposed Environmental Site Name December 31, Number Area Solution Registry Posting 2006 C14 Mellon Lake Conservation Reserve Status quo May 5, 2005 Status quo C98 Harrison Lake Forest Conservation Reserve RA – NSRL October 21, 2005 Decision Pending

C138 Great Lakes– Blue Lake End Moraine Conservation Reserve Status quo May 5, 2005 Status quo C159 St. Lawrence: McLaren Forest Conservation Reserve RS – NSRL December 22, 2006 Decision – RFR C178 Conservation MacLennan Esker Forest Conservation Reserve RA – NSRL March 13, 2006 Decision – RFR Reserves Centre Creek Old Growth White Pine C206 RA – SRL n/a Conservation Reserve C215 Gough Outwash Forest Conservation Reserve RS – NSRL December 22, 2006 Decision – RFR P173 Sturgeon River Additions Provincial Park RS – SRL December 22, 2006 Decision – RFR P174 Chiniguchi Waterway Provincial Park Status quo May 5, 2005 Status quo Killarney Lakelands and Headwaters P187 Status quo May 5, 2005 Status quo Provincial Park P192 Spanish River Provincial Park RS – NSRL December 22, 2006 Decision – RFR Great Lakes– P228 St. Lawrence: River aux Sables Provincial Park Status quo May 5, 2005 Status quo P261 Parks Little White River Provincial Park RA – NSRL March 13, 2006 Decision – RFR P273 Algoma Headwaters Provincial Park Status quo May 5, 2005 Status quo P278 Pancake Bay Additions Provincial Park RA – NSRL March 13, 2006 Decision – RFR P282 Batchawana River Provincial Park RA – NSRL March 13, 2006 Decision – RFR P331 Killarney Provincial Park Additions Status quo May 5, 2005 Status quo F172 Daisy Lake Uplands Forest Reserve Status quo May 5, 2005 Status quo F175 Wolf Lake Old Growth Forest Forest Reserve RA – SRL n/a Decision – RFR F179 Capreol/Hanmer Delta Forest Reserve RA – NSRL March 13, 2006 Deferred F181 Great Lakes– Kukagami Lake Forest Reserve Status quo May 5, 2005 Status quo St. Lawrence: F207 Cow Lake Forest Reserve RA – NSRL March 13, 2006 Decision – RFR Forest Reserves Decision – RFR F208 Dowling/Fairbank Forest Reserve RA – NSRL March 13, 2006 Deferred F212 Shakespeare Forest Forest Reserve RA – SRL n/a F216 Nelson Delta East Forest Reserve RA – NSRL March 13, 2006 Decision – RFR

6 R.L. Debicki et al.

Status at Site Planning Proposed Environmental Site Name December 31, Number Area Solution Registry Posting 2006 Kwinkwaga Ground Moraine Uplands C1509 Status quo May 5, 2005 Status quo Conservation Reserve South Michipicoten River – Superior Shoreline C1517 Status quo May 5, 2005 Status quo Conservation Reserve C1519 Lake Superior Highlands Conservation Reserve Special status n/a C1527 Manitou Mountain Conservation Reserve Status quo May 5, 2005 Status quo C15641 Woman River Complex Conservation Reserve RA – NSRL n/a Decision pending Tatachikapika River Plain Conservation Decision – RFR and C1584 RS – SRL December 22, 2006 Reserve DPCA Meteor Lake Outwash Fans Conservation C1587 RA – NSRL March 13, 2006 Decision – RFR Reserve Grassy River Halliday Lake Forests & C1594 RS – NSRL December 22, 2006 Decision – RPFR Lowlands Conservation Reserve Whitefish River Sandy Till Conservation C1596 Status quo May 5, 2005 Status quo Reserve Boreal East: Night Hawk Lake Shoreline Bluffs C1597 Conservation RS – SRL December 22, 2006 Decision – RPFR Conservation Reserve Reserves Mistinikon Lake Uplands Conservation C1600 RS – SRL December 22, 2006 Decision – RPFR Reserve Whitefish and East Whitefish Lakes Sandy Till C1602 RA – SRL December 22, 2006 Decision – RFR Uplands Conservation Reserve Elspeth Lake White Birch Outwash C1603 RA – SRL December 22, 2006 RA – SRL Conservation Reserve Kesagami River Outwash Plain Conservation C1607 Status quo May 5, 2005 Status quo Reserve South Grassy Lake Outwash Conservation C1626 RA – SRL December 22, 2006 RA – SRL Reserve Trollope Lake Burnt Hill Poplar Spruce C1628 RA – NSRL December 22, 2006 Decision – RFR Conservation Reserve C1704 Hilliardton Marsh Conservation Reserve RA – NSRL December 22, 2006 Decision – RFR McGarry Township Forest Conservation C1705 RA – SRL December 22, 2006 Decision – RFR Reserve C1712 Coral Rapids Wetland Conservation Reserve RA – SRL December 22, 2006 Decision – RFR P1501 Craigs Pit Provincial Park Addition RA – SRL n/a P1506 White Lake Provincial Park Addition Status quo May 5, 2005 Status quo P15572 Ivanhoe Provincial Park Addition Status quo May 5, 2005 Status quo P1569 Groundhog River Waterway Provincial Park RS – NSRL n/a MacMurchy Township End Moraine Provincial P1591 RA – NSRL December 22, 2006 Decision – RFR Park Boreal East: Abitibi–De Troyes (Reconfiguration and P1616 Status quo May 5, 2005 Status quo Parks Reclassification) P1621 Esker Lakes Provincial Park Addition Status quo May 5, 2005 Status quo P1622 Lake Abitibi Islands Provincial Park Status quo May 5, 2005 Status quo P1632 Gem Lake Maple Bedrock Provincial Park RA – SRL December 22, 2006 Decision – RFR Grassy River–Mond Lake Lowlands & Ferris P1639 RA – NSRL March 13, 2006 Decision – RFR Lake Uplands Provincial Park P1715 West Montreal River Provincial Park RS – SRL December 22, 2006 Decision – RPFR C2225 Boreal West: Gravel River Conservation Reserve Status quo May 5, 2005 Status quo Conservation Lake Superior Archipelago Conservation C2245 Status quo May 5, 2005 Status quo Reserves Reserve

7 REGIONAL LAND USE GEOLOGISTS—2006

Status at Site Planning Proposed Environmental Site Name December 31, Number Area Solution Registry Posting 2006 C2247 Lake Nipigon Conservation Reserve RS – NSRL March 29, 2006 Decision – RFR C2332 Bruce Lake Conservation Reserve Status quo May 5, 2005 Status quo Boreal West: C2334 Conservation Trout Lake Conservation Reserve RA – NSRL n/a C2340 Reserves Eagle Lake Islands Conservation Reserve Status quo May 5, 2005 Status quo (cont’d) C2354 Hamill Lake Conservation Reserve RS – SRL September 9, 2006 Decision – RFR C2366 Lake of the Woods Conservation Reserve Status quo May 5, 2005 Status quo P2239 Ruby Lake Provincial Park Status quo May 5, 2005 Status quo Boreal West: P2363 Eagle–Dogtooth Provincial Park RS – NSRL March 2, 2006 Decision – RFR Parks P2370 Woodland Caribou Provincial Park Addition RS – SRL September 9, 2006 Decision – RFR Proposed Solution n/a – Not available RA – NSRL – Remove all mining claims and leases and possibly seek replacement lands in the future for protection RA – SRL – Remove all mining claims and leases and seek replacement lands for protection immediately RS – NSRL – Remove some mining claims and leases and possibly seek replacement lands in the future for protection RS – SRL – Remove some mining claims and leases and seek replacement lands for protection immediately Special status – A separate review process will be initiated to resolve the ongoing uncertainty Status quo – No change Decision RFR – Remove Forest Reserve RPFR – Remove part of Forest Reserve DPCA – Deregulate part of Conservation Reserve 1 This site was unavailable for regulation due to previously existing land tenure. The forest reserve designation was dropped, and an alternative site with comparable natural heritage values was sought elsewhere in the district. 2 This site was added to the original list of sites identified for disentanglement.

EXCLUSIONS OF TIME

While the disentanglement discussions were going on, the Ontario Prospectors Association became concerned that claimholders were continuing to lose their claims in forest reserves because of the ongoing uncertainty about the ultimate status of the forest reserves, and because of the amount of time being taken for the disentanglement discussions. In May 2003, the association formally asked the government to exclude any remaining mining lands in forest reserves from the requirements for assessment work until the final configuration of the sites was decided, effectively “freezing” the claims until the disentanglement process was completed.

The Ministry of Natural Resources and Ministry of Northern Development and Mines discussed the proposal to apply the “exclusion of time” provision of the Mining Act with the Ontario Prospectors Association and Partnership for Public Lands. The ministries ultimately agreed that a one-year freeze would be given to all claims within forest reserves that were in good standing as of July 2, 2003. They also agreed that claims that had lapsed since July 2, 2003 would be reinstated where feasible, and the exclusion of time applied to them too. Altogether, this action involved approximately 1100 staked and leased claims.

In a very few cases, claims that were along the margins of the proposed protected areas had lapsed, and the portions of the original claims that fell outside the proposed park or conservation reserve had been restaked. When it was recognized that this was happening, a “special status” designation was applied to other claims in good standing along the margins of the proposed protected areas to preclude them from being restaked should they lapse before the exclusion of time provision was implemented.

The reinstatements and application of the exclusion of time provision did not change the intended outcome for each site. It was simply a way of keeping the situation static until such time as the review could be completed, and the recommendations implemented. It was therefore not considered to be a policy change to the Ontario’s Living Legacy land use strategy or to require public consultation.

8 R.L. Debicki et al.

The initial exclusions of time were granted in late 2004 and early 2005. For each claim, the freeze began on the day that the individual exclusion order was signed. Notices regarding the exclusion of time and decision were sent to all affected claimholders. The Land Use Policy and Planning Coordinator and the Regional Land Use Geologists provided Mining Lands Section with updated information regarding the status of claims in forest reserves in 2006, and worked to help Mining Lands Section ensure that exclusions of time continue to be applied, as needed, in order to fulfil the intent of the disentanglement process.

Where a decision has been made to leave the claims as “status quo” (i.e., keep the forest reserve status), exclusions of time are no longer being applied. When existing exclusions of time expire, it will be up to the claimholders to keep their claims in good standing. Should the claims lapse, the area will be regulated as park or conservation reserve.

Where a decision has been made to remove the forest reserve designation, the withdrawal order of the area in question has been removed, and exclusions of time are no longer being applied. When existing exclusions of time expire, it will again be up to the claimholders to keep their claims in good standing. Should the claims lapse in this situation, however, the area will be available for restaking.

Where no decision has been made with regard to the recommended disentanglement solution for lands designated as forest reserves, new exclusions of time are being applied to the claims in order to keep the claims in good standing, and hence maintain a static situation, until such time as a decision is made.

SIGNATURE SITES

As mentioned previously, the Ontario’s Living Legacy land use strategy identified 9 Signature Sites in addition to the 378 new parks, park additions and conservation reserves. The classes of Crown land in each of the Signature Sites are listed in Table 4, along with the contact within the Resident Geologist Program land use planning unit who is involved with each of the Signature Sites.

Table 4. Signature Sites and land use planning unit contacts.

Signature Site Land use planning unit Contact Name Land Use Designations1 Algoma Headwaters • provincial park Northeast Regional Land Use Geologist • conservation reserve Great Lakes Heritage Coast • general use area Land Use Policy and Planning Coordinator • enhanced management area • provincial park • conservation reserve Kawartha Highlands • provincial park Southern Regional Land Use Geologist Killarney • enhanced management area Southern Regional Land Use Geologist • provincial park Lake Nipigon Basin • enhanced management area Northwest Regional Land Use Geologist • provincial park • conservation reserve Nagagamisis Central Plateau Complex • enhanced management area Northeast Regional Land Use Geologist • provincial park Spanish River Waterway • enhanced management area Southern Regional Land Use Geologist • provincial park St. Raphael • enhanced management area Northwest Regional Land Use Geologist • provincial park Woodland Caribou • enhanced management area Northwest Regional Land Use Geologist • provincial park • conservation reserve 1 The various Signature Sites may contain one or more areas of each of the Crown land use designations cited.

9 REGIONAL LAND USE GEOLOGISTS—2006

The Land Use Policy and Planning Coordinator and Regional Land Use Geologists continued to provide input into the development of management plans and other strategies for some of the Signature Sites in 2006. During such work, they promote the following concepts:

• mineral exploration and development interests need to be considered and balanced with natural heritage values in planning for those portions of Signature Sites that are not provincial parks or conservation reserves; • management plans for new protected areas need to consider other activities and interests on surrounding Crown and private lands; • management directions for mineral exploration and development in any general use areas and enhanced management areas within Signature Sites must reflect provincial legislation and regulations; • decades of mineral exploration activity have not significantly impacted or degraded the natural environment, since areas of high mineral potential that have long exploration histories were chosen for their natural heritage values as new protected areas; and • the mineral sector now has a greater awareness of environmental concerns than in the past, and has voluntarily adopted exploration practices that limit potential environmental impacts.

Algoma Headwaters Signature Site

The Algoma Headwaters Signature Site encompasses 60 000 hectares, and is composed of the following 3 provincial parks and 1 conservation reserve:

• Algoma Headwaters Natural Environment Class Provincial Park (42 736 hectares); • Goulais River Waterway Class Provincial Park (5086 hectares); • Aubinadong–Nushatogaini River Waterway Class Provincial Park (4928 hectares); and • Ranger North Conservation Reserve (7020 hectares).

The Algoma Highlands Signature Site planning team began its work during 2002, when it released its Terms of Reference for public review. A “Background Information” document was released for public review in 2003. It included several alternatives for planning, management and operations of the Signature Site, from which a “preferred” alternative was selected as the basis of the Preliminary Management Strategy. The Preliminary Management Strategy for the site was released for public review and comment in February 2005. As of the end of 2006, Ministry of Natural Resources had made no further announcements about the management strategy for the Signature Site.

Great Lakes Heritage Coast Signature Site

The Great Lakes Heritage Coast Signature Site is the most complex of the Signature Sites. It extends 2900 km from southern end Georgian Bay to the western end of Lake Superior, and encloses areas of general-use Crown land, enhanced management areas, provincial parks, and conservation reserves. In addition, it encompasses areas of private lands—including areas within municipal jurisdictions—plus all or part of 18 Indian Reserves.

Although Ministry of Natural Resources staff are currently working on management plans and statements of conservation interest for the parks, enhanced management areas, and conservation reserves within the Signature Site, these initiatives were not at a stage requiring input from the Land Use Policy and Planning Coordinator in 2006.

Kawartha Highlands Signature Site

Following a period of public review and consultation led by a local stakeholders’ committee in accordance with the directions of the Ontario’s Living Legacy land use strategy, a decision was made to regulate Kawartha Highlands Signature Site as a provincial park. The Kawartha Highlands Signature Site Park Act was passed in June 2003. The act was formally filed with the Registrar of Regulations and came into effect on April 21, 2005.

10 R.L. Debicki et al.

The planning team released an outline of management options for the park for public review and comment in July 2006. The options link to the goal of ensuring that protecting the ecological integrity of the park is recognized as the overriding priority in its management, that the policies governing it will protect its natural and cultural values, maintain its traditional uses, and provide compatible opportunities for recreational activities. A preliminary management plan based on the management options is scheduled for spring 2007 release for public review and comment.

Killarney Signature Site

A draft management plan for Killarney Provincial Park was prepared in 1998. A notice inviting members of the public to review and comment on the draft plan was first published on August 24, 1998. A decision was later made not to proceed with the management plan, since additions along all margins of Killarney Provincial Park were proposed through the Ontario’s Living Legacy land use strategy.

The intent is to incorporate the draft Killarney Provincial Park Management Plan into an expanded project of Killarney Signature Site planning. The Killarney Signature Site planning will include the existing park, park additions and adjacent new parks and enhanced management areas.

Lake Nipigon Basin Signature Site

The Lake Nipigon Basin stretches from Wabakimi Park in the north to Highway 17 and Lake Superior in the south. At 448 000 hectares, Lake Nipigon is one of the largest freshwater lakes in the world. The lake and its surrounding basin have been subject to tourism, recreational and commercial activities for over a century. Five existing parks in the Lake Nipigon Basin Signature Site have supported the tourism and recreational activities. They have been supplemented by 2 additional provincial parks, 1 park addition, 3 conservation reserves, and 6 enhanced management areas to form the Lake Nipigon Basin Signature Site. The northwest Regional Land Use Geologist is the contact within the land use planning unit for this Signature Site.

A proposed change to the boundaries of the Lake Nipigon Conservation Reserve was posted for public review and comment in January 2006, and the decision that the boundary adjustment would proceed was posted in March 2006. The change removed 5 mining claims totalling 438 hectares from forest reserve status and redesignated the area as part of the adjacent South Lake Nipigon enhanced management area. This change was part of the Ontario’s Living Legacy “disentanglement” process.

The Lake Nipigon Basin Signature Site Ecological Land Use and Resource Management Strategy released in 2005 allows for the development of an eco-lodge within the Lake Nipigon–Beardmore enhanced management area along the eastern shore of Lake Nipigon, west of the Town of Beardmore. The area under consideration is underlain by rocks of the Beardmore–Geraldton greenstone belt and is believed to have considerable potential for gold, molybdenum and copper mineralization. In co-operation with the Thunder Bay North District Geologist, the northwest Regional Land Use Geologist worked with the Ministry of Natural Resources in 2006 to evaluate potential sites for an eco-lodge by providing and interpreting timely mineral resource assessments and information about the status of mining lands in areas of interest. After considering a number of sites, the Ministry of Natural Resources selected the site recommended by the staff of the Resident Geologist Program because of its relatively low mineral potential as the location for the new eco-lodge.

Nagagamisis Central Plateau Complex Signature Site

A planning team was established for the Nagagamisis Central Plateau Complex Signature Site in 2002, and the northeast Regional Land Use Geologist was identified as the contact person within Ministry of Northern Development and Mines to act as an advisor to the team. Since then, Open Houses were held in June 2003 to obtain public input, and a plan outlining management issues and options was developed and circulated for review and comment in 2004. The northeast Regional Land Use Geologist commented on sections of the strategy that relate to mineral resources, mineral exploration and development activities. The planning team announced in November 2005 that a draft management plan for the area would be available for public review and comment during winter 2005/2006, but to date the plan has not been made public.

11 REGIONAL LAND USE GEOLOGISTS—2006

During 2006, the northeast Regional Land Use Geologist provided information to the planning team regarding best practices guidelines established for mineral exploration activities in enhanced management areas in other Signature Sites.

Spanish River Waterway Signature Site

The Spanish River Waterway Signature Site consists of the Spanish River Waterway Class Provincial Park (35 386 hectares) and the Biscotasi Lake Natural Environment Class Provincial Park (12 283 hectares), as well as the Sinaminda and Kennedy Lake, the Acheson Lake, and the Swann Lake enhanced management areas. The entire site encompasses almost 100 000 hectares.

The Spanish River Signature Site steering committee released its management options document for review and comment in August 2004. Plans were to release the preliminary management strategy based on those management options for public review in 2005, but to date the preliminary management strategy has not been released.

St. Raphael Signature Site

The St. Raphael Signature Site encompasses more than 153 000 hectares of remote landscape, and is made up of St. Raphael Provincial Park and the Miniss enhanced management area. The St. Raphael Provincial Park is a Waterway Class Provincial Park (90 521 hectares) that surrounds the Miniss enhanced management area (62 705 hectares), a “remote access” enhanced management area.

The planning process for this Signature Site is well underway. The northwest Regional Land Use Geologist is an advisor to the St. Raphael Signature Site planning team. During 2006, work focused on developing the Draft Management Strategy for the Signature Site. Of most interest to mineral sector clients are revisions to the access section of the proposed strategy. They ensure that mineral sector workers will be able to use forest access roads to cross St. Raphael Provincial Park to reach the enhanced management area enclosed by the park. The Regional Land Use Geologist emphasized the necessity of having at least one access road into the enhanced management area available to the mineral sector.

The Draft Management Strategy includes a set of best practices for exploration and development in the enhanced management area of the Signature Site. Due to the contribution of the Regional Land Use Geologist, the guidelines are not “prescriptive” in directing how mineral-related activities should be undertaken in areas of concern.

Woodland Caribou Signature Site

The Woodland Caribou Signature Site consists of Woodland Caribou Provincial Park (450 000 hectares), the recommended Woodland Caribou Provincial Park Additions (29 788 hectares), Eagle–Snowshoe Conservation Reserve (34 548 hectares), Pipestone Bay–McIntosh enhanced management area (21 978 hectares) and a forest reserve (255 hectares).

The northwest Regional Land Use Geologist continued working with the Red Lake Regional Resident Geologist during 2006 to ensure mineral exploration interests were adequately represented during the planning process for the site. The majority of the input related to the identification of small additions to the Signature Site and ensuring these additions had a minimal impact on lands with mineral potential.

As with the St. Raphael Signature Site, input into the Woodland Caribou Signature Site planning process in 2006 included providing additional information regarding mineral exploration in the enhanced management area within the Signature Site.

ENHANCED MANAGEMENT AREAS

The Ontario’s Living Legacy land use strategy identified 86 enhanced management areas across the province. Since several were made up of more than one map unit, there are actually 98 map units with the enhanced management area designation. They were identified due to the presence of special natural heritage values or the need for special

12 R.L. Debicki et al. management. They fall into 5 of the 7 categories of enhanced management areas identified in the land use strategy. The 2 remaining categories were established for future use in land use planning.

The categories, and numbers of sites of each type are listed in Table 5. The parts of large enhanced management areas that are identified by different names in the Crown Land Use Policy Atlas are counted separately in the table.

Although not indicated on claim maps, enhanced management areas are identified in the Ministry of Natural Resources’ Land Use Policy Atlas, available on line at http://crownlanduseatlas.mnr.gov.on.ca/.

Ministry of Natural Resources staff members are currently working on policies for permitted uses within the enhanced management areas established through the Ontario’s Living Legacy land use strategy. Since some of the proposed policies and guidelines may affect mineral exploration and development activities, members of the land use planning unit reviewed and commented on the draft policies as they were developed. In 2006, these reviews took place for sites associated with Signature Sites as well as for stand-alone enhanced management areas.

Table 5. Categories of enhanced management areas.

Number of Number of Number of Map Units: Category– Total Map Units: Map Units: Great Lakes– Number of Enhanced Management Area Boreal West Area Boreal East Area St. Lawrence Area Map Units a – remote access 4 2 33 39 g – Great Lakes coastal areas 1 0 7 8 i – intensive forestry 0 0 0 0 n – natural heritage 0 2 25 27 r – recreation 4 0 15 19 t – resource-based tourism 0 0 0 0 w – fish and wildlife 4 0 1 5 Total of enhanced management areas 13 4 81 98

Ontario Forest Accord

The Ontario Forest Accord, which was released at the same time as the Ontario’s Living Legacy land use strategy, includes provisions for establishing additional protected areas if the amount of wood harvested from within a forest management unit increases. The provision for establishing additional protected areas is known as “Room to Grow”.

The Forest Accord supported the strategic direction provided in the Ontario’s Living Legacy land use strategy, and advanced a number of key commitments including the following:

• support for an increase to the parks and protected areas system beyond the 12% level achieved in the Ontario’s Living Legacy land use strategy, within the approved framework of policies and standards and through jointly acceptable processes; and • the development of a process for sharing permanent increases in wood supply between further expansion of Ontario’s parks and protected areas system and further expansion of the forest industry.

One impetus to increase the parks and protected areas system beyond the 12% level is to complete the network of protected representative ecological values within each Ministry of Natural Resources’ site district and region. Another is to accommodate factors within the approved framework that may come from outside of government. For example, environmental organizations have advocated for additional protected areas, and some forestry companies are currently considering whether to ask for the regulation of additional protected areas in an effort to become “certified” as being “green” producers of wood products. There is pressure for the forestry companies to become certified because a growing number of large customers such as Home Depot insist that their wood products come from “green” sources.

Procedural guidelines outlining the process to be followed if and when a Room to Grow initiative is undertaken

13 REGIONAL LAND USE GEOLOGISTS—2006 were completed in 2004, with input from the northwest and southern Regional Land Use Geologists. Fundamental principles advanced during development of the procedural guidelines and during site-specific discussions of candidates for protection, are that active mining lands should be avoided and the mineral potential should be considered along with all other values present.

In 2003, the Ministry of Natural Resources established Room to Grow Leadership and Implementation teams. The Senior Manager of the Resident Geologist Program is a member of the Leadership Team. The Land Use Policy and Planning Coordinator joined the Implementation Team in 2006.

ROOM TO GROW

The following 3 Room to Grow initiatives have been started in northwestern Ontario since 2001:

• in the forest management units producing fibre processed at the mill of Longlac Wood Industries in Longlac, when the company proposed processing birch fibre, which it had not previously used, for a new oriented strand board production line; • in the Bowater forest management units, where Bowater Incorporated was licenced to install 2 new sawmills in its timber limits in 2001 and 2002; and • in the areas held by Abitibi-Consolidated Company of Canada in the Kenora district, where fibre previously allocated to other companies was reallocated to the Abitibi-Consolidated Company of Canada.

The northwest Regional Land Use Geologist contributed to the Longlac Wood Industries and Bowater initiatives between 2002 and 2004, including providing mineral potential maps of areas of interest to influence the site selection of candidate protected areas. This work resulted in the exclusion of areas of mining lands and areas with significant mineral potential from the list of candidates for protection.

Work on the Longlac Wood Industries initiative culminated in December 2004, with the release of 4 sites for public consideration as new protected areas. They include 1 new conservation reserve, additions to 2 existing conservation reserves (Onaman Lake and Kagianagami Lake) and 1 addition to a provincial park (Sedgman Lake). These sites total approximately 14 700 hectares. They are located in areas of low to moderate mineral potential and do not conflict with any areas of mining lands. Representatives of the Partnership of Public Lands, the Ontario Prospectors Association, the Ontario Waterpower Association, and Longlac Wood Industries also worked with Ministry of Natural Resources to help select these candidates for protection.

Since these sites were put forward for public review, concerns have been expressed regarding the potential effect of the Longlac Wood Industries oriented strand board proposal on the existing wood supply for other mills in the area. As a result, the Minister of Natural Resources requested an independent review before making any decisions on the issuance of the forest resource processing facility licence. The findings of the review were made available to the public in April 2005, and the Ministry of Natural Resources gave the company until March 2006 to submit its final business plan. To date, no decision has been made with regard to the new oriented strand board line. A decision to regulate the new protected areas will be made once the outcome of the proposed oriented strand board facility is made.

In the Bowater situation, 7 sites totalling 26 456 hectares have been identified as candidates for protection, but they have yet to be regulated. In 2006, Ministry of Natural Resources reviewed the candidates that had been previously selected, and proposed 2 alternate sites. The northwest Regional Land Use Geologist reviewed these sites, and provided recommendations regarding the need for further evaluation and consideration of their mineral potential before they are selected as candidates for protection.

The Abitibi-Consolidated Company of Canada Room to Grow initiative was begun in 2006. The Land Use Policy and Planning Coordinator and the northwest Regional Land Use Geologist provided comments regarding initial candidates under consideration, and advised Ministry of Natural Resources that detailed mineral resource assessments should be carried out to determine whether the areas have provincially significant mineral potential. Three sites with significant natural heritage values have been proposed to date, but the northwest Regional Land Use Geologist has advised the Ministry of Natural Resources that 2 of the sites are problematic since one has prospective

14 R.L. Debicki et al. geology and known mineral occurrences, while the other is being actively explored. The third area is not as problematic, as it has little in the way of favourable geology, mineral occurrences, or previous exploration work.

It is anticipated that one or more new Room to Grow initiatives will be started in 2007, as companies work to obtain certification from non-governmental review bodies such as the Forest Stewardship Council. Mineral Resource Assessments

The Ontario’s Living Legacy land use strategy originally contained a provision that allowed “controlled exploration” in those portions of new protected areas where provincially significant mineral potential is present. This was the impetus for an industry-government committee of geoscientists to begin work on developing the Provincially Significant Mineral Potential (PSMP) mineral resource assessment methodology.

The Government ultimately found that reconciling the needs of protected areas and the interests of the exploration community in such areas was proving to be too difficult, and announced in March 2002 that “controlled exploration” would not be allowed within the new protected areas. Work to enhance and refine the methodology continued, however, since it was recognized that it would provide a valuable tool to support future land use planning decisions.

The land use planning unit worked with staff from the regional and district offices of the Resident Geologist Program in 2004 to validate the outcomes of mineral resource assessments in selected areas and identify any additional modifications that might be needed to the methodology. During 2005 and 2006, the Land Use Policy and Planning Coordinator worked with other staff of the Resident Geologist program to review the screening criteria for the various metallic ore deposit models, and to update the “provincial significance factor” in light of current exploration activity, mining activity and market conditions. METALLIC MINERAL POTENTIAL ESTIMATION TOOL (MMPET)

The Provincially Significant Mineral Potential (PSMP) methodology developed for undertaking mineral resource assessments was originally intended for detailed manual reviews at scales of 1:50 000 or greater detail. It was recognized early in the development process, however, that there was a demand for generalized automated reviews at scales of 1:250 000 or less detail. An automated process for completing generalized automated reviews was developed with the assistance of a geographic information system (GIS) consultant. The automated process emulated the process of the manual methodology, but did not query the geoscience data in detail.

In 2005, staff of the Resident Geologist Program worked on an in-depth review of the effectiveness of the automated process and the consistency between manual assessments and automated assessments. This work was led by Glenn Seim, now the northeast Regional Land Use Geologist. It was found that a number of problems with the automated assessments led to inconsistencies between the outcomes of manual and automated assessments. It was further recognized that most of the problems were related to the complexity of the automated process, in that it was attempting to emulate the manual process too closely. The problems were particularly significant in under-explored areas, or areas with limited data, such as the Far North.

As a result, an effort was made to allow the manual and automated processes to be more readily distinguished from each other, and to overcome the problems caused by the complexity of the original automated program. Mr. Seim conceived of an alternative process, and, with input from other staff of the Resident Geologist program including representatives of the land use group, developed a completely new automated methodology.

In support of the automated process, the southern Regional Land Use Geologist upgraded and updated the digital databases in 2005, including upgrading the information stored in the tables that accompany the provincially significant mineral potential industrial mineral maps. New data tables were created to capture more sand and gravel deposit information. In addition, more data was captured in the bedrock-derived aggregate attribute table.

Late in 2005, the Timmins Geomatics Information Centre of the Ministry of Natural Resources was engaged to program the new automated methodology as an ArcMapTM-compatible application. This work, which was directed by the northeast Regional Land Use Geologist, was completed in the late fall of 2006.

15 REGIONAL LAND USE GEOLOGISTS—2006

Critical evaluation of the mineral potential maps produced using the new methodology is ongoing to ensure that they are consistent with expectations.

The new evaluation process and application is called the Metallic Mineral Potential Estimation Tool (MMPET). It queries the 1:250 000 bedrock geology and related data sets against 23 “metallic” mineral deposit models and deposit models for diamonds that are considered applicable to Ontario and the Mineral Deposit Inventory Database to produce an index number between 0 and 100 for 1-square kilometre grid cells covering the province. MMPET produces high-level, regional illustrations of areas where one might expect to find provincially significant mineral potential should detailed mineral resource assessments be completed.

The tool borrows concepts from the manual Provincially Significant Mineral Potential (PSMP) methodology, but the results should not be considered true mineral resource assessments. It should only be considered as a “first pass” tool in land use planning. This is due, in large part, to the coarseness of the data considered by the MMPET application, and the fact that the application performs a limited number of queries on a very few provincial- and/or regional-scale data sets. Information in support of land use planning decisions may require more detailed assessments.

The northeast Regional Land Use Geologist undertook other work in 2006 to support the development and improve the effectiveness of the MMPET tool. He worked with staff of the Precambrian Section of the Ontario Geological Survey to complete a revision of the 1:250 000 Bedrock Geology Map of Ontario, which is a key data set used by the MMPET tool. The revision included updating geological information based upon geological mapping done since 2001, correcting errors in polygon attributes, and rectifying digitizing errors. The staff of the Precambrian Section completed the revision in the late summer and the revised 1:250 000 Bedrock Geology of Ontario was released to the public in the early fall as Miscellaneous Release—Data 126–Revised (MRD 126—Revised).

The MMPET automated process complements another GIS process that was previously developed by the Resident Geologist Program for the rapid, broad-scale evaluation of industrial minerals potential, referred to as the Industrial Minerals Potential Estimation Tool (IMPET).

Both MMPET and IMPET are applied in concert with a review of the existing mining land tenure within the subject area(s) of interest during regional, broad-scale land use planning applications to ensure that all mineral interests are considered in the preliminary evaluation process. Other Protected Areas

During 2006, the Land Use Policy and Planning Coordinator and the Regional Land Use Geologists provided input to Ontario Parks and the Ministry of Natural Resources with regard to several parks and conservation reserves. Such work included reviewing new park management plans and statements of conservation interest (the equivalent of a management plan for conservation reserves). It also included reviewing proposals for boundary adjustments for existing and proposed parks, providing information about mineral exploration and development in areas of interest, and making recommendations for changes to withdrawal orders to accommodate the proposals.

LAKE SUPERIOR NATIONAL MARINE CONSERVATION AREA

The Government of Canada has been working with the Province of Ontario since 1994 to establish a National Marine Conservation Area in the waters of Lake Superior, and signed a Memorandum of Understanding for the development of such a protected area in 1996. The protected area will strictly prohibit extractive resource use such as mining, dredging and aggregate, oil and gas production, and waste dumping within the site. Other activities will generally be permitted, but may be subject to restrictions in some areas depending upon the values being protected.

The Land Use Policy and Planning Coordinator and the northwest Regional Land Use Geologist have worked with other staff of the Resident Geologist Program to confirm that areas of provincially significant mineral potential both in and adjacent to the area of interest have been identified and considered during the planning process, and economic growth and diversification in the area, especially as related to mineral development have been accommodated.

During 2006, the Land Use Policy and Planning Coordinator and the northwest Regional Land Use Geologist reviewed and commented on modified versions of the Agreement in Principle between the two governments. They

16 R.L. Debicki et al. confirmed that areas of approximately 10 000 hectares in Nipigon Bay and approximately 75 hectares in Worthington Bay with provincially significant mineral potential are excluded from the protected area, and also provided revised boundaries for the area of exclusion in Nipigon Bay, based on the most recent information available about the mineral potential of the areas.

SOUTHERN ONTARIO PARKS AND CONSERVATION RESERVES

Early in the year, the Ministry of Natural Resources proposed a possible addition to Killbear Provincial Park. The southern Regional Land Use Geologist researched abandoned mine, mineral deposit, mineral potential and mining lands information on the proposed expansion lands, which are quite small, and provided comments. Subsequently the southern Regional Land Use Geologist recommended a Request for Withdrawal of Mining Rights for these lands. Similarly, an inquiry on the status of lands and concerns regarding the possible addition of lands to Bonnechere Provincial Park was received. Although the mineral potential of these lands is low, the status of the mining rights on some portions of the proposed expansion lands remains in question as of the end of 2006. Until a review confirms that the mining rights are held by the Crown, the Ministry of Northern Development and Mines will not process the Request for Withdrawal of Mining Rights to allow the expansion.

In 2006, the process was initiated to regulate the Clear Creek Provincial Nature Reserve on the north shore of Lake Erie. The Ministry of Natural Resources inquired through the southern Regional Land Use Geologist regarding the need for withdrawal of mining rights within Lake Erie.

There is a long-standing withdrawal of mining rights in Matchedash Township that was originally requested by the Ministry of Natural Resources. The southern Regional Land Use Geologist researched abandoned mine, mineral deposit and mineral potential information and provided comments regarding the area to the Ministry’s Mining Lands Section.

Late in 2006, the Ministry of Natural Resources began to develop the Egan Chutes and Egan Chutes Addition Provincial Park management plan. The southern Regional Land Use Geologist in cooperation with the Land Use Policy and Planning Coordinator and the Southern Ontario Regional Resident Geologist researched the site for its geological and mineral values and submitted comments on behalf of the Ministry of Northern Development and Mines. The southern Regional Land Use Geologist will be actively involved in the work to develop this plan in 2007 in his role as a “plan advisor”. Forest Management Planning

For the purposes of forest management, Ontario’s Crown forest is divided into geographic planning areas known as forest management units. Twenty-year forest management plans are normally prepared for each of these units, and renewed based on a five-year planning cycle. The locations of the forest management units, and the plan renewal year for each of the forest management units, are illustrated in Figure 1.

There will be 47 forest management units in the province as of April 1st, 2007, which is the same number of forest management units as in 2006. The number has dropped from 81 in 1995–1996, predominantly due to the amalgamation of units.

Table 6 lists the names of the forest management units in numerical order according to the management unit number shown in Figure 1. Some management units straddle the boundaries between 2 of the Regional Land Use Geologists’ areas, so are listed later in this document in the reports for both areas. Table 6 also indicates the date that the sustainable forest licence was granted for the forest management unit, thereby providing the date that the current configuration of the forest management unit was established.

For information on a specific forest management unit or plan, please contact the District Manager at the Ministry of Natural Resources District indicated in the list.

Of the 47 forest management units, 43 have sustainable forest licences issued under the Crown Forest Sustainability Act to companies or partnerships. The province, through the Ministry of Natural Resources, continues to have management responsibility for the Cochrane–Moose River and Temagami forest management units, along with the

17 REGIONAL LAND USE GEOLOGISTS—2006

Southern Ontario management unit, which consists largely of private land and is not subject to the Crown Forest Sustainability Act. The remaining forest management unit is the Algonquin Park Forest.

Figure 1. Forest management units (FMUs) in Ontario, April 1, 2007.

Each forest management unit requires a forest management plan to guide all forestry operations within the Crown forest in question over a rolling 20-year cycle that is reviewed every 5 years. This means, for example, that plans spanning the period 2002–2022 will be renewed in 2007 for the period 2007–2027, and plans spanning the years 2003–2023 will be renewed in 2008 for the period 2008–2028.

Forest management plans address all aspects of the forest harvest, including schedules for road construction, maintenance, and abandonment; stream crossings and their abandonment; timber harvesting; and silviculture. They must have regard for all resource values including social (cultural, heritage, and tourism) and ecological (fish, wildlife, and environmental).

The forestry industry must also have regard for, and according to Ministry of Natural Resources policies shall consult with, the holders of mining rights in the forest management unit regarding annual work schedules and potential impacts on exploration activities (e.g., disturbance of survey grids, trenches, drill casings, or claim lines). The Mining Act includes provisions that require individuals causing such disturbances to provide compensation to the claimholder.

18 R.L. Debicki et al.

Table 6. Forest management units (FMUs) in Ontario (2007–2008).

FMU # FMU Name Plan Period Status SFL Effective Date MNR Lead RLUG Region District 12 Iroquois Falls Forest 2005 – 2025 SFL April 1, 1999 Cochrane NE 30 Spruce River Forest 2006 – 2026 SFL April 1, 1999 Thunder Bay NW 40 Smooth Rock Falls Forest 2005 – 2025 SFL April 1, 1995 Cochrane NE 60 White River Forest 2003 – 2023 SFL April 1, 2002 Wawa NE 67 Big Pic Forest 2007 – 2027 SFL April 1, 1996 Wawa NE 120 Trout Lake Forest 2004 – 2024 SFL April 1, 1998 Red Lake NW 130 Wabigoon Forest 2003 – 2023 SFL April 1, 1997 Dryden NW 140 Mazinaw–Lanark Forest 2006 – 2026 SFL April 1, 2002 Bancroft S 150 Nighthawk Forest 2003 – 2023 SFL April 1, 2003 Timmins NE 175 Caribou Forest1 2007 – 2027 SFL April 1, 1998 Sioux Lookout NW 177 Dog River–Matawin Forest 2005 – 2025 SFL April 1, 1998 Thunder Bay NW 178 Black Sturgeon Forest 2006 – 2026 SFL April 1, 2001 Nipigon NW 210 Spanish Forest 2005 – 2025 SFL April 1, 2001 Sudbury NE 220 Bancroft–Minden Forest 2006 – 2026 SFL April 1, 2001 Bancroft S 230 English River Forest 2004 – 2024 SFL April 1, 1998 Dryden NW 260 Lake Nipigon Forest 2006 – 2026 SFL April 1, 2002 Nipigon NW 280 Timiskaming Forest 2006 – 2026 SFL April 1, 1997 Kirkland Lake NE 350 Kenogami Forest 2005 – 2025 SFL April 1, 1997 Nipigon NW 360 French–Severn Forest 2004 – 2024 SFL April 1, 1998 Parry Sound S 370 Black River Forest 2006 – 2026 SFL April 1, 1996 Wawa NE 375 Cochrane–Moose River2 2003 – 2023 CR n/a Cochrane NE 390 Nagagami Forest 2006 – 2026 SFL April 1, 2003 Wawa NE 405 Crossroute Forest 2007 – 2027 SFL April 1, 2002 Fort Frances NW 415 Ogoki Forest 2003 – 2023 SFL April 1, 1996 Nipigon NW 421 Pineland Forest 2006 – 2026 SFL April 1, 1996 Chapleau NE 438 Gordon Cosens Forest 2005 – 2025 SFL April 1, 2001 Hearst NE 444 Armstrong Forest 2005 – 2025 SFL April 1, 1997 Thunder Bay NW 451 Algonquin Park Forest 2005 – 2025 AFA April 1, 1997 Algonquin Park S 490 Whiskey Jack Forest 2004 – 2024 SFL April 1, 1997 Kenora NW 509 Martel Forest 2006 – 2026 SFL April 1, 2002 Chapleau NE 535 Dryden Forest 2006 – 2026 SFL April 1, 1998 Dryden NW 565 Magpie Forest 2004 – 2024 SFL April 1, 1996 Wawa NE 601 Hearst Forest 2007 – 2027 SFL April 1, 2002 Hearst NE 615 Algoma Forest 2005 – 2025 SFL April 1, 1997 Sault Ste. Marie NE 644 Kenora Forest 2006 – 2026 SFL April 1, 2002 Kenora NW 680 Northshore Forest 2005 – 2025 SFL April 1, 1998 Sault Ste. Marie NE 702 Lac Seul Forest 2006 – 2026 SFL April 1, 1998 Sioux Lookout NW 754 Nipissing Forest 2004 – 2024 SFL April 1, 1996 North Bay NE

19 REGIONAL LAND USE GEOLOGISTS—2006

FMU # FMU Name Plan Period Status SFL Effective Date MNR Lead RLUG Region District 780 Ottawa Valley Forest 2006 – 2026 SFL April 1, 1998 Pembroke S 796 Lakehead Forest 2007 – 2027 SFL April 1, 1998 Thunder Bay NW 840 Red Lake Forest 2003 – 2023 SFL April 1, 1999 Red Lake NW 851 Pic River Ojibway Forest 2006 – 2026 SFL April 1, 1998 Nipigon NW 853 Sapawe Forest 2005 – 2025 SFL April 1, 1998 Fort Frances NW 889 Sudbury Forest 2005 – 2025 SFL April 1, 1998 Sudbury NE 898 Temagami 2004 – 2024 CR n/a North Bay NE 930 Romeo Malette Forest3 2007 – 2027 SFL April 1, 2003 Timmins NE 990 Southern Ontario n/a various S The information in this table is current as of January 29, 2007. Forest management units (FMUs) are designated under Section 7 of the Crown Forest Sustainability Act. AFA – Algonquin Forest Authority CR – Crown Managed forest RLUG – Regional Land Use Geologist SFL – Sustainable Forest Licence There are no projected management unit changes for April 1, 2007, 2008, or 2009 1 The plan being prepared for the Caribou Forest for implementation in 2007 is a one-year contingency plan. 2 The plan being prepared for the Cochrane–Moose River Forest for implementation in 2008 is a two-year contingency plan. 3 The plan being prepared for the Romeo Malette Forest for implementation in 2007 is a two-year contingency plan.

THE FOREST MANAGEMENT PLANNING PROCESS

The forest management planning process is a staged process, with numerous opportunities for public review and comment. Notices of each stage of the process of developing the plan for each forest management unit are posted on the Environmental Registry at http://www.ene.gov.on.ca/samples/search/Ebrquery_REG.htm. Notices for individual forest management units can be found on the Environmental Registry using the name of the forest management unit as a “keyword” search.

The following are the stages of plan development:

• Stage one: invitation to participate – approximately 24 months before plan implementation; • Stage two: first public information centre – approximately 16 months before plan implementation; • Stage three: second public information centre – approximately 9 months before plan implementation; • Stage four: public review of the draft plan – approximately 4 months before plan implementation; and • Stage five: public review of the plan approved by Ministry of Natural Resources – approximately 1 month before plan implementation.

The last opportunity for a member of the public to request a “bump-up” under the provisions of the Environmental Bill of Rights (i.e., seek a requirement for an individual environmental assessment of the forest management plan) is the last day of the public review of the plan approved by Ministry of Natural Resources.

Mineral sector representatives can provide input and voice concerns regarding the development of access routes; potential disturbance to mineral exploration assets; and the abandonment of roads and water crossings. It is important that mineral sector representatives take advantage of opportunities to ensure that their interests are clearly conveyed while forest management plans are being developed. At the same time, explorationists can use the plans when planning exploration programs that might gain benefit from using the forest access road network.

20 R.L. Debicki et al.

Options for influencing the content of forest management plans include attending the open houses; submitting formal comments about the options proposed in draft forest management plans; and representing the mineral sector on Local Citizen’s Committees (LCCs) organized by Ministry of Natural Resources district offices. Completed plans for Ministry of Natural Resources regions are available for viewing during normal business hours at the ministry’s regional offices in South Porcupine, Thunder Bay, and Peterborough. Each of the ministry’s district offices also has copies of plans for its area available for viewing. In addition, the northwest Regional Land Use Geologist has worked with the forestry companies, Ministry of Natural Resources, and the Ontario Prospectors Association to have the Annual Work Schedule maps for forest management units in the northwest region posted on the Ontario Prospectors Association website. To date, maps for 6 forest management units have been posted at www.nwopa.net.

FOREST MANAGEMENT UNITS

Forest management units in Ontario (excluding the Southern Ontario Forest) range in approximate size from 210 000 hectares with 122 000 hectares of productive forest (Dryden Forest), to 1 861 000 hectares with 1 564 000 hectares of productive forest (Kenogami Forest). They include productive forest, non-productive forest, non-forested land, and water. Areas classed as “productive forest” include production forest and protection forest. Production forest includes barren areas, scattered forest areas, recent cutovers and forested lands.

The average size of forest management units (excluding the Southern Ontario Forest) as of April 1, 2007 is 725 000 hectares, of which 571 000 hectares is productive forest. Overall, there are approximately 33 365 000 hectares of Crown-managed forest in the province, with 26 253 000 hectares of that being productive. The numbers of forest management units of various size classes within the province are indicated in Table 7.

Parks, conservation reserves and areas of unmanaged Crown forest are not included in the size calculations of the forest management units. In cases where parks and conservation reserves were established through the Ontario’s Living Legacy land use strategy, the newly designated protected areas are being deducted from the total areas of managed forest and productive forest when the plans for the forest management units are updated on their five-year cycle. This means that some areas of productive forest set aside as new parks or conservation reserves have not yet been deducted from the total areas of managed and productive forest in the province. The actual area of productive forest in the province is therefore less than 26 253 000 hectares.

Table 7. Number of forest management units of various size classes in Ontario.

Crown-Managed Productive Forest (Size Class) Number of Management Units 100 001 to 300 000 hectares 9 300 001 to 500 000 hectares 14 500 001 to 700 000 hectares 8 700 001 to 900 000 hectares 10 More than 900 000 hectares 5 Total 461 1 Southern Ontario is not included in this total. It is an atypical management unit, located outside of the area covered by the Crown Forest Sustainability Act, and is primarily private land.

The number of forest management units has been steadily decreasing due to amalgamations since the Crown Forest Sustainability Act was enacted in 1994. Reductions in the number of management units have generally taken place through the amalgamation of 2 or 3 existing management units. The amalgamations are done concurrently with the implementation of a forest management plan for the newly amalgamated management unit. The savings generated by amalgamation result primarily from forest planning and administrative efficiencies. No amalgamations are currently planned between 2007 and 2010. The overall change in the number of forest management units is shown in Table 8. Further rationalization may take place in the future.

FOREST MANAGEMENT PLANS

Planning for 6 five-year plans and 1 contingency plan to be implemented in 2008, and 9 plans to be implemented in

21 REGIONAL LAND USE GEOLOGISTS—2006

2009 is now underway. Planning for an additional 12 forest management plans to be implemented in 2010 will begin in 2007. The new plans are being developed subject to the provisions of the revised forest management planning manual, which was put into effect in 2006. The final columns of Tables 9, 11 and 14 list the current status of the forest management plans in the northwest, northeast and southern Regional Land Use Geologists’ areas, respectively.

Table 8. Changes in the number of forest management units since 1995.

Date Number of Forest Management Units Date Number of Forest Management Units April 1, 1995 81 April 1, 2002 54 April 1, 1996 78 April 1, 2003 50 April 1, 1997 71 April 1, 2004 49 April 1, 1998 69 April 1, 2005 48 April 1, 1999 68 April 1, 2006 47 April 1, 2000 63 April 1, 2007 47 April 1, 2001 56 April 1, 20081 47 1 It is forecast that there will be 47 forest management units in 2008-2009 and 2009-2010, but that further rationalization of the numbers of forest management units will take place after 2009-2010.

The Land Use Policy and Planning Coordinator and the Regional Land Use Geologists worked with other staff of the Resident Geologist Program to provide the Ministry of Natural Resources and forest management planning teams with information about the mineral potential and mining land status of areas where forestry management planning was underway during the year. They also worked to convey information to mineral sector clients about opportunities to contribute to and learn about forest management planning in their areas, such as at forest management planning open houses. In particular, information was provided through handouts and posters at the Prospectors and Developers Association of Canada annual convention, at the symposia sponsored by local prospectors’ associations in northwestern and northeastern Ontario and at the annual Ontario Exploration and Geoscience Seminar sponsored by the Ontario Prospectors Association.

The Crown Forest Sustainability Act requires the Ministry of Natural Resources to notify landowners, including claim holders, of forestry activities such as forest management planning, harvesting, silviculture or spraying that may affect them; however, the ministry does not have the addresses of claimholders on file. During 2006, the Land Use Policy and Planning Coordinator compiled and provided claimholders’ addresses for more than 75 areas to staff in Ministry of Natural Resources districts across the province in accordance with the provisions of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. She also worked with staff of the Resident Geologist Program and other branches of the Ministry of Northern Development and Mines to develop an improved process for identifying claimholders who should be notified and compiling their addresses. The new process uses GIS technology and other specialized computer applications to result in less work for staff of both Ministry of Natural Resources and Ministry of Northern Development and Mines and, at the same time, reduce the possibility of errors.

Northwest Region

As of April 1, 2007, 22 of the 47 forest management units in the province are located in the northwest Regional Land Use Geologist’s region, which is roughly coincident with the Ministry of Natural Resources’ Northwest Region. The forest management units are listed in Table 9 in chronological order according to the date of the next forest management plan review. The Ministry of Natural Resources district that leads the forest management planning process is listed for each forest management unit, along with the current status of the plan.

In 2006, 8 forest management plans were approved and implemented in the Northwest Region. Forest management plans are being finalized for 4 forest management units for approval in early 2007, and work is being done on plans being developed for 4 forest management units for implementation in 2008. In addition, work has begun on 3 plans to be implemented in 2009. The northwest Regional Land Use Geologist monitored the development of the forest management plans implemented in 2006, and was named as “plan advisor” for the plans to be implemented in 2007 and 2008 in the Northwest Region. He provided the planning teams with timely information relating to mineral

22 R.L. Debicki et al. potential, areas of past exploration, areas of current interest, and the locations of mining-related hazards in support of planning decisions that might affect the mineral sector.

Table 9. Forest management units (FMUs) in the northwest Regional Land Use Geologist’s region (2007–2008).

MNR Lead Plan FMU # FMU Name Plan Period Status Plan Review Date District Development 175 Caribou Forest 2008 – 2018 SFL 2008 Sioux Stage 3 415 Ogoki Forest 2008 – 2018 SFL 2008 Nipigon Stage 2 840 Red Lake Forest 2008 – 2018 SFL 2008 Red Lake Stage 2 130 Wabigoon Forest 2008 – 2018 SFL 2008 Dryden Stage 2 230 English River Forest 2004 – 2024 SFL 2009 Dryden ITP 120 Trout Lake Forest 2004 – 2024 SFL 2009 Red Lake ITP 490 Whiskey Jack Forest 2004 – 2024 SFL 2009 Kenora ITP 444 Armstrong Forest 2005 – 2025 SFL 2010 Thunder Bay In effect 177 Dog River–Matawin Forest 2005 – 2025 SFL 2010 Thunder Bay In effect 350 Kenogami Forest 2005 – 2025 SFL 2010 Nipigon In effect 853 Sapawe Forest 2005 – 2025 SFL 2010 Fort Frances In effect 370 Black River Forest 2006 – 2026 SFL 2011 Wawa In effect 178 Black Sturgeon Forest 2006 – 2026 SFL 2011 Nipigon In effect 535 Dryden Forest 2006 – 2026 SFL 2011 Dryden In effect 644 Kenora Forest 2006 – 2026 SFL 2011 Kenora In effect 702 Lac Seul Forest 2006 – 2026 SFL 2011 Sioux Lookout In effect 260 Lake Nipigon Forest 2006 – 2026 SFL 2011 Nipigon In effect 851 Pic River Ojibway Forest 2006 – 2026 SFL 2011 Nipigon In effect 30 Spruce River Forest 2006 – 2026 SFL 2011 Thunder Bay In effect 67 Big Pic Forest 2007 – 2017 SFL 2007 Wawa Stage 4 175 Caribou Forest1 2007 – 2008 SFL 2007 Sioux Lookout Stage 5 405 Crossroute Forest 2007 – 2017 SFL 2007 Fort Frances Stage 5 796 Lakehead Forest 2007 – 2017 SFL 2007 Thunder Bay Stage 4 The information in this table is current as of January 29, 2007. Forest management units are designated under the Crown Forest Sustainability Act, Section 7 SFL – Sustainable Forest Licence ITP – Invitation to participate in the planning process In effect – Plan has been reviewed and adopted Stage 3 – The new plan is at Stage 3 of plan review Stage 4 – The new plan is at Stage 4 of plan review Stage 5 – The new plan is at Stage 5 of plan review 1 The plan being prepared for the Caribou Forest for implementation in 2007 is a one-year contingency plan. New forest management plans are normally implemented in April of the year listed as the “Plan Review Date”. Planning generally starts 24 months prior to the implementation date.

He also gave a presentation about the mining sequence and mineral sector interests to the Trout Lake Forest, Wabigoon Forest and Whiskeyjack Forest planning teams. Additional presentations are planned for early 2007 for the Ogoki and Red Lake Forest planning teams. In addition, he provided socio-economic descriptions of the impact of mineral exploration, development and mining for each of the Caribou, Lakehead, Ogoki, Trout Lake and Whiskeyjack forest management units as support for the development of the management plans for those areas.

The plans being developed for implementation in 2008 are listed, along with the name of the sustainable forest licence holder, in Table 10.

23 REGIONAL LAND USE GEOLOGISTS—2006

As well as contributing to the planning process for forest management plans, the northwest Regional Land Use Geologist gave presentations to staff from Ministry of Natural Resources’ district offices in Atikokan, Fort Frances and Nipigon, highlighting the mineral exploration cycle form grassroots prospecting to advanced exploration, and responded to various requests relating to forest management planning processes and operating procedures.

Table 10. 2008 northwest forest management plans and their sustainable forest licence holders.

Forest Management Plan Sustainable Forest Licence Holder Caribou Forest Bowater Canadian Forest Products Inc. Ogoki Forest Long Lake Forest Products Inc. Red Lake Forest Red Lake Forest Management Co. Ltd. Wabigoon Forest Weyerhaeuser Company Ltd.

The majority of inquiries related to road access issues including the removal of water crossings and road abandonment. The Regional Land Use Geologist facilitated meetings between mineral industry representatives, staff from Ministry of Natural Resources’ district offices, and sustainable forest licence holders in an effort to find options to address the road access issues. Solutions developed to secure access for the minerals industry for the duration of exploration programs included transferring the ownership and liability of the road and water crossings from the sustainable forest licence holder to the exploration company, and identifying alternate access corridors.

The northwest Regional Land Use Geologist spearheaded an initiative to have Annual Work Schedule maps, required as part of the forest management planning process, posted on the Northwest Ontario Prospectors Association website. The Annual Work Schedule maps show the locations where new roads are to be constructed, where harvesting and silviculture activities will occur and, most importantly, where roads and water crossings are to be decommissioned. The intention of this work is to enhance the notification system currently in place as part of the forest management planning process to ensure that prospectors and mineral exploration companies are aware of roads and water crossings that are scheduled for removal. At the time of writing, 6 of the 22 forest management units had maps posted on the website. Readers interested in viewing the website should go to www.nwopa.net.

Northeast Region

As of April 1, 2007, 21 of the 47 sustainable forest licence forest management units in the province are located in the northeast Regional Land Use Geologist’s region. The forest management units are listed in Table 11, in chronological order according to the date of the next forest management plan review. The Ministry of Natural Resources district that leads the forest management planning process is listed for each forest management unit, along with the current status of the plan.

Table 11. Forest management units (FMUs) in the northeast Regional Land Use Geologist’s region (2007–2008).

MNR Lead Plan FMU # FMU Name Plan Period Status Plan Review Date District Development 375 Cochrane–Moose River1 2008 – 2010 CR n/a Cochrane ITP 150 Nighthawk Forest 2008 – 2028 SFL 2008 Timmins ITP 60 White River Forest 2008 – 2028 SFL 2008 Wawa ITP 565 Magpie Forest 2004 – 2024 SFL 2009 Wawa ITP 754 Nipissing Forest 2004 – 2024 SFL 2009 North Bay In effect 898 Temagami 2004 – 2024 CR n/a North Bay In effect 615 Algoma Forest 2005 – 2025 SFL 2010 Sault Ste. Marie In effect 438 Gordon Cosens Forest 2005 – 2025 SFL 2010 Hearst In effect 12 Iroquois Falls Forest 2005 – 2025 SFL 2010 Cochrane In effect 680 Northshore Forest 2005 – 2025 SFL 2010 Sault Ste. Marie In effect 40 Smooth Rock Falls Forest 2005 – 2025 SFL 2010 Cochrane In effect 210 Spanish Forest 2005 – 2025 SFL 2010 Sudbury In effect

24 R.L. Debicki et al.

MNR Lead Plan FMU # FMU Name Plan Period Status Plan Review Date District Development 889 Sudbury Forest 2005 – 2025 SFL 2010 Sudbury In effect 370 Black River Forest 2006 – 2026 SFL 2011 Wawa In effect 390 Nagagami Forest 2006 – 2026 SFL 2011 Wawa In effect 421 Pineland Forest 2006 – 2026 SFL 2011 Chapleau In effect 509 Martel Forest 2006 – 2026 SFL 2011 Chapleau In effect 280 Timiskaming Forest 2006 – 2026 SFL 2011 Kirkland Lake In effect 67 Big Pic Forest 2007 – 2027 SFL 2007 Wawa Stage 4 601 Hearst Forest 2007 – 2017 SFL 2007 Hearst Stage 4 930 Romeo Malette Forest2 2007 – 2009 SFL 2007 Timmins Stage 4 The information in this table is current as of January 29, 2007. Forest management units (FMUs) are designated under Section 7 of the Crown Forest Sustainability Act. SFL – Sustainable Forest Licence; CR – Crown-managed n/a – not applicable ITP – Invitation to participate in the planning process In effect – Plan has been reviewed and adopted Stage 4 – The new plan is at Stage 4 of plan review 1 The plan being prepared for the Cochrane–Moose River Forest for implementation in 2008 is a two-year contingency plan. 2 The plan prepared for the Romeo Malette Forest for implementation in 2007 is a two-year contingency plan. New forest management plans are normally implemented in April of the year listed as the “Plan Review Date”. Planning generally starts 24 months prior to the implementation date. There are no projected management unit changes for April 1, 2008 or April 1, 2009

In 2006, the northeast Regional Land Use Geologist provided mineral-related information to 8 forest management planning teams. Table 12 summarizes the interaction and materials provided. In 2006, a 2-year contingency plan was developed for the Romeo Malette Forest and the planning cycle moved to the 2009 renewal year group.

Table 12. Interaction with the Forest Management Planning Teams in the northeast region in 2006.

Forest Mining Industry Presentation to Forest Management Management Mineral FMU # Unit (FMU) Name Plan Renewal Values Maps Socio-Economic Forest Management Plan Year Description Planning Team 601 Hearst Forest 2007 Yes No request to date Yes 375 Cochrane–Moose River 2008 Yes No request to date Requested, not yet scheduled 150 Nighthawk Forest 2008 Yes Yes Yes 060 White River Forest 2008 No Yes Requested, not yet scheduled 565 Magpie Forest 2009 Yes Yes Yes 754 Nipissing Forest 2009 Yes Yes Requested, not yet scheduled 930 Romeo Malette Forest1 2009 Yes No request to date No Request 898 Temagami 2009 Yes Yes Requested, not yet scheduled 1 A 2-year contingency plan for the Romeo Malette Forest was prepared and approved in 2006. It enabled the Romeo Malette Forest to be added to the 2009 plan renewal year group.

The plans being developed for implementation in 2008 are listed, along with the name of the sustainable forest licence holder, in Table 13.

25 REGIONAL LAND USE GEOLOGISTS—2006

Table 13. 2008 northeast forest management plans and their sustainable forest licence holders.

Forest Management Plan Sustainable Forest Licence Holder Cochrane–Moose River Crown managed Nighthawk Forest Abitibi-Consolidated Company of Canada White River Forest Domtar Inc.

Southern Region

As of April 1 2007, 6 of the 47 forest management units in the province are located in the southern Regional Land Use Geologist’s area. Two of the 6 are atypical. One is the Algonquin Park Forest, managed by the Algonquin Forest Authority, an Ontario Crown Agency charged with the responsibility for sustainable forest management in Algonquin Provincial Park. The other is the Southern Ontario forest management unit. It is outside of the Area of the Undertaking covered by the Crown Forest Sustainability Act, and is primarily made up of private land.

The locations of the forest management units are illustrated in Figure 1. The areas are also listed in Table 14, in chronological order according to the date of the next forest management plan review. The Ministry of Natural Resources district that leads the forest management planning process is listed for each forest management unit, along with the current status of the plan. The last column of Table 14 lists the current status of the forest management plans.

In 2006, the planning process was underway for the French/Severn Forest Management Plan. The Ministry of Natural Resources contacted the southern Ontario Regional Land Use Geologist seeking suggestions for a mineral exploration representative for the Local Citizen’s Committee. In coordination with the Southern Ontario Regional Resident Geologist, the names and contact information of potential representatives were provided. Unfortunately, none of the candidates was willing to participate. As a result, there is currently no exploration/mining representation on the committee. The southern Regional Land Use Geologist has been named a plan advisor, however, and has been providing information related to mineral exploration and mining in support of the planning process in addition to monitoring the development of the plan.

Table 14. Forest management units (FMUs) in the southern Regional Land Use Geologist’s region (2007–2008).

MNR Lead Plan FMU # FMU Name Plan Period Status Plan Review Date District Development 360 French/Severn Forest 2004 – 2024 SFL 2009 Parry Sound ITP 451 Algonquin Park Forest 2005 – 2025 AFA 2010 Algonquin Park In effect 220 Bancroft–Minden Forest 2006 – 2026 SFL 2011 Bancroft In effect 140 Mazinaw–Lanark Forest 2006 – 2026 SFL 2011 Bancroft In effect 780 Ottawa Valley Forest 2006 – 2026 SFL 2011 Pembroke In effect 990 Southern Ontario n/a Various n/a The information in this table is current as of January 29, 2007. Forest management units (FMUs) are designated under Section 7 of the Crown Forest Sustainability Act. SFL – Sustainable Forest Licence; AFA – Algonquin Forest Authority ITP – Invitation to participate in the planning process In effect – Plan has been reviewed and adopted n/a – Not Applicable New forest management plans are normally implemented in April of the year listed as the “Plan Review Date”. Planning generally starts 24 months prior to the implementation date.

Northern Boreal Initiative

The Ministry of Natural Resources established the Northern Boreal Initiative in 2001 to address the interest of several northern First Nation communities and the province in new, sustainable commercial forestry opportunities.

26 R.L. Debicki et al.

These opportunities will expand the area where commercial forestry activities may occur in the province, and can lead to First Nation communities being the holder of new sustainable forest licences. The areas in question are north of the area described as the “Area of the Undertaking” for timber management on Crown lands in Ontario.

The Northern Boreal Initiative aims to provide several northern First Nation communities with the opportunity to take a leading role in the development of new forestry opportunities, including working collaboratively with the Ministry of Natural Resources on planning for those opportunities. It also supports the shared goal of the First Nation communities and the Ministry of Natural Resources of sustainable development of natural resources in northern Ontario, as well as the shared objective of ecosystem sustainability.

Steps involved in the Northern Boreal Initiative include land use planning, information management, environmental assessment, forest management planning and business planning. Ontario’s commitment to the Northern Boreal Initiative is founded in the 1999 Ontario Forest Accord, which provides support for orderly northern development initiatives, and the Building Aboriginal Economies Strategy, which encourages partnership arrangements such as the Northern Boreal Initiative to assist First Nations with economic development.

In conjunction with any new timber harvesting (i.e., increase in fibre capacity that takes place) the “sharing” provisions of the Ontario Forest Accord require a concomitant increase in protected areas. The Ministry of Northern Development and Mines is working to ensure that the mineral potential of candidate protected areas is known and considered as land use planning decisions are made. The Provincially Significant Mineral Potential (PSMP) mineral resource assessment methodology and up-to-date claim maps are being used to screen candidates for protection.

The approach to providing strategic direction for lands and resources in areas that are part of the Northern Boreal Initiative is “Community-based Land Use Planning”. It will consider forestry as one of many interests, allowing communities to address and find a balance among protection, conservation, traditional and livelihood uses, and development. The described approach encompasses the following 3 planning scales:

• community-centred; • landscape-scale; and • provincial context.

Outcomes from the Northern Boreal Initiative will result in an expansion of the portion of Ontario covered by an approved land use strategy. The Northern Boreal Initiative is to become part of a broader land use planning strategy for the Far North that is currently in the preliminary stages of development.

NORTHERN BOREAL INITIATIVE PROJECTS

The Northern Boreal Initiative is aimed at promoting greater self-sufficiency and prosperity for northern First Nations communities by providing resource-based economic development opportunities while affording protection for areas of significant ecological, cultural and spiritual values. Four First Nation communities were actively involved in the Northern Boreal Initiative planning process during 2006, with Pikangikum and its surrounding Whitefeather Forest, located north of Red Lake, completing its work. Three more First Nation communities have also commenced community planning initiatives. Descriptions of the work done to date, and the role of the Land Use Geologists, are listed below.

The 6 remaining First Nation communities within the Northern Boreal Initiative planning area are expected to begin work on land use plans for their traditional lands in the near future. They are Aroland; Deer Lake; North Spirit Lake; Marten Falls; McDowell; and Poplar Hill.

Some funding for communities engaged in community-based land use planning is being provided by the Forestry Futures Trust. The trust was established in 1994 under the Crown Forest Sustainability Act. The Trust has specific purposes defined by the act, including the provision of funding for the following:

• silviculture and renewal where fire has damaged or killed forest resources; • silviculture and renewal where a forest resource licence holder is insolvent;

27 REGIONAL LAND USE GEOLOGISTS—2006

• intensive forest stand management and pest control; and • other purposes as may be specified by the minister.

In 2005, the government of Ontario provided a $2 000 000 grant to the trust to be used for the development of project proposals related to land use planning and forestry for First Nations communities that are working with the Ministry of Natural Resources’ Northern Boreal Initiative. To date, the Forestry Futures Committee has received and funded 5 applications for a total of $876 925. Descriptions of the 5 projects are described in conjunction with the updates for the various communities listed below.

Pikangikum

The Forestry Futures Trust provided $250 000 to the community of Pikangikum in 2005–2006 to support the completion of the Land Use Strategy (LUS) for the Whitefeather Forest Planning Area. This work included holding discussions with interested parties, finalizing the land use strategy, and presenting the land use strategy to the public for comment at the third and final Open House. The land use strategy for the Whitefeather Forest and adjacent areas was approved by the Ministry of Natural Resources, on behalf of the Province of Ontario, in June 2006.

The northwest Regional Land Use Geologist contributed to Pikangikum’s land use planning process, in conjunction with staff of the Resident Geologist Program’s Red Lake office since the initiative began. In 2006, they reviewed and commented on areas of proposed protected areas located along the Berens River during the final stages of the planning process. All of the natural and cultural heritage values identified, including the mineral values, were considered together as the parties determined the best option for protected areas within the new Whitefeather Forest. Resident Geologist Program staff ensured that the impact on areas of high mineral potential was kept to a minimum.

Cat Lake and Slate Falls

Cat Lake First Nation and Slate Falls First Nations are isolated communities located approximately 130 kilometres northwest of Pickle Lake, and approximately 130 kilometres north of Sioux Lookout respectively. They received $208 500 funding from Forestry Futures Trust in 2005 through the Windigo First Nations Council, in support of a joint two-year project to continue the community-based resource documentation that was started in 2000. The communities have begun meeting with the Ministry of Natural Resources as the first stages in undertaking a Northern Boreal Initiative planning initiative. In 2006, the northwest Regional Land Use Geologist provided a set of mineral values maps to Ministry of Natural Resources for use in their discussions with the communities.

Mishkeegogamang and Eabametoong

The communities of Mishkeegogamang (New Osnaburgh), south of Pickle Lake, and Eabametoong (Fort Hope), east of Pickle Lake, began a Northern Boreal Initiative project in 2005. The planning process will be undertaken as a joint effort, but is intended to result in separate land use plans for the traditional lands of each community. The Forest Futures Trust has provided $90 000 over 3 years in support to this initiative. The funding is to support travel and meeting expenses associated with communication between the communities, the Ministry of Natural Resources, the Ministry of Northern Development and Mines, and the Township of Pickle Lake as they work to understand community-based land use planning and establish a planning process for the communities.

In 2006, the northwest Regional Land Use Geologist attended some planning meetings aimed at gathering background information to support the preparation of Terms of Reference for the development of the land use plans. He also provided a set of mineral values maps to representatives of both communities as well as their consultant. Constance Lake

The Constance Lake First Nation, located a few kilometres north of Highway 11 and approximately 35 kilometres northwest of Hearst, began compiling background information regarding ecological and other values present in its traditional area in 2005. The Forest Futures Trust provided $66 000 to the community over 2 years to hire a coordinator to help it with its planning work for the portion of their traditional lands within the Northern Boreal Initiative area. Among other things, the coordinator is to develop a background document outlining previous work

28 R.L. Debicki et al. related to the Northern Boreal Initiative; prepare a work plan that will build on previous work and outline a community-based land use planning process; and explore partnerships with other First Nations. Although this work may have continued in the community through 2006, there was no interaction between the Province of Ontario and the Constance Lake First Nation with regard to developing a Terms of Reference for the development of a community-based land use planning process.

Moose Cree

The community of Moose Cree, south of Moosonee, has also embarked on a process to prepare a community-based land use plan. Preparations to undertake land use planning within the community’s traditional lands actually began in 1996. Since then, the community has completed preliminary inventories of cultural heritage and forest management indicators, along with biological surveys. The inventories are based in part on a detailed traditional occupancy study based on interviews with elders, reviews of historical trapping lines and archival documentation. The occupancy study helped the community to prepare a Traditional Homelands map, which has formed the basis of their interest in community land use planning.

The traditional homelands of the Moose Cree First Nation, as defined on the basis of historical occupancy and use, cover about 5.7 million hectares. For the purpose of preparing a land use strategy under the Northern Boreal Initiative, it is proposed that the traditional homelands area of the Moose Cree First Nation have the following 2 parts:

• a core planning area of 3.3 million hectares that extends north of the Area of Undertaking to James Bay and east to the Province of Quebec, including areas in Ontario north of the limit of the Northern Boreal Initiative; and • a peripheral planning area located south of the Area of Undertaking where Moose Cree First Nation members may identify concerns or interests to be addressed outside of the Northern Boreal Initiative planning process.

The initial interest of the Moose Cree First Nation in planning was to identify opportunities for economic development through commercial forestry. Through the community’s participation in the Northern Boreal Initiative, it has broadened its vision for land use planning based on the goal of re-invigorating its traditional pursuits.

The Forest Futures Trust has provided $219 165 over 4 years to help the community participate in the planning process. In particular, the funding is to support the development of the Terms of Reference for the planning process, and ongoing work with Ministry of Natural Resources, other ministries and stakeholders during land use planning.

Through 2006, a technical planning team consisting of representatives from the Moose Cree First Nation, the Ministry of Natural Resources and the northeast Regional Land Use Geologist met on several occasions to continue work on the Terms of Reference that will guide the development of the land use strategy. When completed, a notice will be posted on the Environmental Registry to provide interest parties the opportunity to comment on the Terms of Reference before it is finalized and endorsed by the Moose Cree First Nation and the Minister of Natural Resources.

A key component of the proposed planning process will be community and stakeholder consultation. This will be accomplished through notification on the Environmental Bill of Rights Registry at key milestones, mail outs, open houses, newspaper notices, community meetings, and website postings. It is the intent that a protocol for mineral development within the community’s traditional territory will be part of the land use plan.

Elements of the planning process that may involve and affect mineral-related interests are:

• a protected areas network will be identified as part of the planning process; • the process will seek to develop a consensus on the balance between areas open to mineral sector activities and areas excluded from such activities in order to achieve the objectives of the community and the province; • sustainable development practices will be developed for the remaining landscape to achieve long-term cultural and ecological sustainability of the core planning area; and • the Moose Cree First Nation will seek to enhance its involvement in managing the core planning area, and to build a strong economy to sustain the Moose Cree people for generations to come.

29 REGIONAL LAND USE GEOLOGISTS—2006

To support the planning process, staff of the Timmins Resident Geologist Program office completed a mineral resource assessment for the core planning area using the Provincially Significant Mineral Potential (PSMP) methodology during the fall and early winter of 2006–2007. Other Crown Land Planning Initiatives

In addition to the activities outlined above, the Land Use Policy and Planning Coordinator and Regional Land Use Geologists were involved in a number of other initiatives linked to Crown land use planning matters and communications initiatives during the year.

The work included responding to various requests for input; providing claimholder addresses to Ministry of Natural Resources in accordance with the provisions of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act and the Environmental Bill of Rights so that claimholders could be notified of forestry and other activities on their claims; and preparing reports, slide sets, briefing materials, etc. for audiences within and outside of government.

The work also included monitoring items of interest related to land use on behalf of the mineral sector, as announced on the Environmental Registry and elsewhere, and advising representatives of local associations when such items were identified. Items of interest included draft regulations and legislation developed by other ministries, and proposals made by private sector interests that might constrain access to, or the availability of, areas of high mineral potential for exploration and development. Where appropriate, these initiatives were reviewed by members of the land use group, and options for avoiding impacts on the mineral sector were supplied to those working on the plans in question.

CROWN LAND USE POLICY ATLAS

The Ministry of Natural Resources has made its Crown Land Use Policy Atlas and associated land use policies available for public viewing on line at http://crownlanduseatlas.mnr.gov.on.ca/. The atlas covers the Area of the Undertaking as identified under the Crown Forest Sustainability Act, an area roughly coincident with those portions of Ontario south of the 51st parallel that are underlain by Precambrian rocks. The Ministry of Natural Resources plans to extend the area covered by the atlas in the future.

Explorationists are strongly advised to consult the Crown Land Use Policy Atlas to determine the land use policies for their areas of interest, since the atlas is the authoritative source of area-specific land use direction under the Public Lands Act for Crown lands in the area it covers. Exploration and/or mineral development plans may be influenced or constrained by some of the policies in the Land Use Policy Atlas. Area-specific policies include controls on existing access routes, restrictions on the development of new access, and prohibitions on new quarries in certain general use areas.

The policies in the atlas were originally laid out in the following:

• Ministry of Natural Resources District Land Use Guidelines of 1983; • area-specific land use plans such as the Madawaska Highlands Land Use Plan (released in 1997); and • the Ontario’s Living Legacy land use strategy.

The Land Use Policy and Planning Coordinator and the Regional Land Use Geologists monitored proposed changes to the Land Use Policy Atlas through postings on the Environmental Registry in 2006, and commented on a number of proposed changes in areas across the province. As a result of this input, several proposed boundary adjustments and proposed new policies were modified or dropped. Key modifications included making it clear that clauses linked to “dispositions” refer to dispositions subject to the Public Lands Act, and not the Mining Act.

Crown Land Use Policy Atlas Modifications – Sault Ste. Marie District

The Ministry of Natural Resources’ Sault Ste. Marie District made its plans for proposed modifications to land use policies and/or boundaries for 12 enhanced management areas in the Sault Ste. Marie and Chapleau districts public

30 R.L. Debicki et al. in late 2006. These proposed changes were circulated to interested parties including the Sault Ste. Marie Prospectors and Developers Association, and made available for general public review and comment with no prior notice or consultation with Ministry of Northern Development and Mines.

The Land Use Policy and Planning Coordinator reviewed the proposed changes and identified a number of modifications with the potential to affect mineral exploration and constrain development of Crown mineral resources in the area of interest. The Ministry of Natural Resources Sault Ste. Marie District office was advised of the Ministry of Northern Development and Mines’ concerns about the proposed changes, and has agreed to make a number of modifications to clarify the policies and ensure that they do not inadvertently affect mineral exploration and development. Staff of the Resident Geologist Program will meet with Ministry of Natural Resources’ staff in Sault Ste. Marie in 2007 to engage in further discussions about the proposed changes.

Crown Land Use Policy Atlas Modifications – Wawa District

The Ministry of Natural Resources’ Wawa District was assembled from portions of several pre-existing districts, each with its own policies for areas of Crown Land. Some of the policies that were established in the District Land Use Guidelines of these former districts in the 1980s, and have since been incorporated into the Crown Land Use Policy Atlas, are not consistent with each other. The Wawa District has therefore initiated a review of the existing land use directions for unregulated provincial Crown lands and waters within the area. The mission is to plan for the quality and diversity of natural heritage values in the area; enhance and preserve its biodiversity; and reduce potential conflicts between recreational and industrial opportunities in the district. Protected areas (i.e., provincial parks, conservation reserves, and Pukaskwa National Park) within the Wawa District are not subject to the review.

The Ministry of Natural Resource identified staff from the Wawa district office to form a Crown Land Use Policy Atlas Harmonization project team. The project team will guide the review and work with a working group consisting of representatives of local First Nations, government and non-government organizations, and stakeholders. The working group is meant to be an open and visible forum of selected representatives from various constituency groups. It meets regularly to discuss strategic-level land use planning for Crown land in Wawa District. The representatives on this committee are expected to act as links between members of the groups that they represent and the Ministry of Natural Resources. At the time of writing, the project team is looking for a mineral sector representative to join the working group.

The project will lead to development of consistent land use policies within the Wawa District, and will result in a new land use management plan for the area. The Crown Land Use Policy Atlas will be amended in response to area- specific land use policy modifications resulting from this land use planning exercise. Public consultation, through the Environmental Bill of Rights registry, will be undertaken before any proposed amendments are implemented.

The northeast Regional Land Use Geologist will contribute to the project as an expert advisor to the project team on mining lands, mineral potential, and policy matters related to the mineral sector. This includes being a guest observer and/or a keynote speaker at some working group monthly meetings.

FAR NORTH PLANNING INITIATIVE

The Ministry of Natural Resources held preliminary discussions in 2006 regarding an interministerial land use planning exercise for the Far North, north of the area currently included in the Northern Boreal Initiative. Work was undertaken on a framework for such a planning initiative for possible implementation in 2007. It is envisioned as a multi-year initiative that will involve extensive consultation with Far North Aboriginal communities and stakeholders to develop a shared vision and land use planning framework for the Far North. The land use planning unit will be very engaged in supporting the exercise, once it begins.

LOCAL CITIZENS’ COMMITTEES

Ministry of Natural Resources districts across the province have “Local Citizens’ Committees” to assist and advise them with regard to Crown land use planning and management. Most committees include representation from various sectoral and private interest groups, including forestry, tourism, and environmental organizations. There is

31 REGIONAL LAND USE GEOLOGISTS—2006 representation from the mineral sector on some committees, but not all.

Staff of the land use planning unit have been working to recruit, train and offer ongoing support to new mineral sector representatives (prospectors, geologists, etc.) for the committees, since mineral sector representatives can act as the voice of the industry during Crown land use planning and management initiatives including forest management plans, Annual Work Schedules, and access controls. They can point out problematic situations as they arise, and contact the appropriate Regional Land Use Geologist when further information and/or support in resolving problems is needed. At the same time, they learn about plans for Crown land use management in their areas of interest, and build networks with Ministry of Natural Resources staff and other workers in their areas.

During 2006, the Land Use Policy and Planning Coordinator and the Regional Land Use Geologists updated the list of all Local Citizens Committees across the province, and committees seeking mineral sector representation were identified. Information about the committees needing mineral sector representatives was shared with local prospecting associations in an effort to have mineral sector representatives identified for each committee. The northwest Regional Land Use Geologist made a presentation to the Dryden Local Citizens’ Committee during the year, outlining the mineral exploration process and mineral sector interests in the forest. A second presentation scheduled for the Terrace Bay Natural Resources Advisory Committee was rescheduled until early 2007, when the original meeting was postponed. The northwest Regional Land Use Geologist also communicated regularly with representatives of the Northwest Ontario Prospectors Association to identify vacancies on northwest committees in hopes of finding individuals to represent the minerals industry.

RENEWABLE ENERGY INITIATIVES

The Ontario government is committed to generating at least 5% of the province’s electricity from renewable sources by 2010. To help reach this goal, it has been promoting new wind power and hydroelectric initiatives, and has released Crown land sites for development to provide 1350 MW more energy from renewable sources by 2007.

As a result of these initiatives, the surface rights only for a number of areas were initially withdrawn in 2004 while applicants assessed the sites’ merits as locations for wind power generation. The Regional Land Use Geologists discussed the withdrawals with Ministry of Natural Resources representatives, in order to be able to respond to queries from mineral sector clients about the purpose and duration of the withdrawals. Since then, all surface rights withdrawals have been removed, and while these areas continue to remain open for staking, surfaces rights notices pertaining to the development or potential development of wind power generation on these sites have been placed on them under Section 28.3 of the Mining Act to alert potential claimholders of these situations.

The northwest Regional Land Use Geologist responded to several inquires from consultants for wind power proponent companies in 2006, as well as prospectors and mineral exploration companies. The inquiries were related to surface rights versus mining rights issues.

REVIEW OF PROTECTED AREAS LEGISLATION

In 2004, the Ministry of Natural Resources initiated a review of the legislation governing protected areas in the province. These items include the Provincial Parks Act, which governs parks; Public Lands Act Regulation 805/94, which governs conservation reserves; and the Wilderness Areas Act, which governs a few small wilderness areas.

The ministry was seeking to update the legislation and strengthen the protection of natural and cultural heritage features. The objectives of the review, which were reflected in the legislative proposals outlined as a basis for the review and support the goal of strengthening protection, included the following:

• recognize that ecological integrity is of primary importance, while recognizing that compatible activities can occur where appropriate; • include policies in the legislation that support sound management of protected areas and promote protection of ecological integrity; and • include measures in the legislation that will enhance transparency and public accountability, such as mandatory reporting on the state of protected areas.

32 R.L. Debicki et al.

After the public review process of 2004 and consultation with First Nations, the Ministry of Natural Resources compiled the comments received, and made changes to the proposed legislation to reflect the comments. One recurrent theme in the comments sent by members of the public was that “mining should not be allowed in parks”. This is with reference to the fact that the current Parks Act allows mineral exploration in a number of parks designated by regulation, subject to the provisions of an Exploratory Licence of Occupation.

A draft of the proposed new act was circulated to the Ontario Parks Board and to partner ministries for review and comment during early 2005. The Land Use Policy and Planning Coordinator worked with representatives of the ministry’s Policy Secretariat to assess the proposed new legislation in the context of the Ministry of Northern Development and Mines’ mandate, and to provide comments to Ministry of Natural Resources about the proposed new legislation.

The new act, known as the Provincial Parks and Conservation Reserves Act, 2005 received First Reading in the Ontario Legislature in October 2005. A number of amendments were made to the act in April 2006 in response to input received after Second Reading. The Land Use Policy and Planning Coordinator provided additional input with regard to the act at this time. The act passed Third Reading and received Royal Assent in June 2006. It is not yet in force, however. It will come into force on a day to be named by proclamation of the Lieutenant Governor. This will not be until Ontario Parks staff have completed new Regulations for Provincial Parks and Conservation Reserves. After the regulations have been completed and the bill is proclaimed, a new Policy Manual for parks and conservation reserves must be completed within 2 years.

REVIEW OF SPECIES AT RISK ACT

In May 2006, Ministry of Natural Resources announced that it had launched a public review of Ontario’s species at risk legislation, including the Endangered Species Act to provide for broader protection and recovery of species at risk and their habitats. This is the first time since the Endangered Species Act was passed in 1971 that Ontario’s species at risk laws have undergone a thorough review.

As a first step, the Ministry of Natural Resources made a discussion paper entitled “Towards Better Protection of Species at Risk in Ontario” available for public review and comment during early summer, 2006. The ministry also held discussions with 18 stakeholder groups and coalitions, and undertook separate Aboriginal consultations. Although some groups were supportive of the proposed changes, others cited significant concerns with at least some of the proposals included in the discussion paper.

As part of the work of developing new options for legislation, the Minister of Natural Resources invited and received a report from an Advisory Panel of experts (the Endangered Species Act Review Advisory Panel) regarding proposed new legislation. The panel’s report, available at http://www.mnr.gov.on.ca/mnr/speciesatrisk/input.html, recommended a framework for species at risk protection and recovery based on the following three pillars:

• stewardship and incentives programs that could provide effective protection and recovery of species at risk and their habitat. These programs would be applied proactively to engage the agricultural community, private landowners, industry and the general public; • legislation to establish an effective legal framework to protect and recover species at risk; and • policies and implementation approaches that would support the legislation to ensure its effectiveness.

The recommendations were made available for public review and comment in December 2006.

The Land Use Policy and Planning Coordinator worked with senior management within the Mines and Minerals Division and staff of the Ministry of Northern Development and Mines’ Policy Secretariat to review the proposed changes and recommended framework, and provide comments to Ministry of Natural Resources. The Ministry of Natural Resources is continuing its review of the legislation.

TEMAGAMI INTEGRATED MANAGEMENT PLAN

In 2004, the Ministry of Natural Resources initiated an “integrated management planning” project for 5 backcountry

33 REGIONAL LAND USE GEOLOGISTS—2006 provincial wilderness and waterway parks, 8 conservation reserves adjacent to the parks, and intervening areas of Crown land in the Temagami area. The planning process will also result in a Crown land recreation plan, developed to address specific management issues related to recreational use of Crown land within the boundary of the Temagami Land Use Planning Area. The land use directions in the approved Temagami Land Use Plan are guiding the planning process.

In 2004, the Ministry of Natural Resources prepared a “Background Document”, which it distributed for public review and comment in 2005. The document summarizes a range of information about the about the area, and is intended to serve as the basis for evaluating management issues and opportunities. The Land Use Policy and Planning Coordinator reviewed the Background Document, and provided comments including recommendations for corrections in the discussion of bedrock geology.

Ministry of Natural Resources staff worked to establish management options for the area to address the following:

• access; • adjacent land uses and activities; • social and economic opportunities; • protection of park values and resources; • rehabilitation and restoration of ecosystems; and • visitor management and customer service.

As part of the work leading to the identification of management options, Ministry of Natural Resources held a series of workshops in 2006. The Land Use Policy and Planning Coordinator worked to ensure that mineral sector representatives were invited to at least one of the workshops, and participated in a workshop herself. When the Management Options document was released for public review and comment in mid 2006, she ensured that prospectors’ associations in northeastern Ontario were aware of the release and the public meetings being held to showcase it, and reviewed the options and provided comments to Ministry of Natural Resources on the behalf of Ministry of Northern Development and Mines.

When the draft Management Plan, based on the Management Options, was released in December 2006, she once again ensured that prospectors’ associations in the area were aware of the release and the public meetings being held in early 2007 to highlight the draft Management Plan. MUNICIPAL PLANNING

Development on private land in Ontario is subject to the provisions of the Planning Act and the Provincial Policy Statement, enacted under Section 3 of the Planning Act, and is managed by the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing. Members of the land use planning unit work closely with planners from Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing, municipal planners, and planning consultants as one of the “partner ministries” that contribute to the municipal planning process. This helps to ensure that planning decisions are consistent with the provisions of the Provincial Policy Statement relating to mineral resources, mining operations and mining-related hazards, and that planning decisions made by the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing are consistent province wide.

Depending upon the location, municipal planning decisions may apply to lands where the surface and mining rights are held jointly as patented lands. They may also apply to lands where the surface rights are patented, while the mining rights are held by the Crown. The mining rights held by the Crown remain open for mineral exploration, claim staking, and development, subject to the provisions of the Mining Act in most situations where only the surface rights are patented.

Also depending upon the location, the types of planning decisions reviewed by the Regional Land Use Geologists vary. Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing has delegated the “approval authority” for one or more planning decisions to individual planning authorities across the province. In some communities, the municipal government may have authority to make planning decisions up to and including Official Plan Amendments, while in others, the municipal government may not even be authorized to approve lot severances (consents). Larger municipalities in

34 R.L. Debicki et al. urban areas tend to have a higher degree of delegated approval authority than other communities.

The Land Use Policy and Planning Coordinator acts as the Ministry of Northern Development and Mines’ representative on the Planning Systems Committee. The committee is an inter-ministerial working group that includes representatives from the ministries of Municipal Affairs and Housing, Northern Development and Mines, Natural Resources, Environment, Culture, Transportation, and Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs, and Conservation Ontario (the network of 36 conservation authorities in Ontario). Its purpose is to develop options for improved service delivery and more effective planning. During 2006, the committee focused on training for government and municipal planners relating to the revised Provincial Policy Statement and proposed changes to the Planning Act, and on developing performance indicators to measure the effectiveness of municipal planning in Ontario.

The southern Regional Land Use Geologist is a member of the Provincial Policy Statement Implementation Committee. It is also an inter-ministerial working group that includes representatives of various partner ministries. The committee’s main objective in 2006 was to review the support documentation drafted to help planners better understand and respond to the changes made to the Provincial Policy Statement in 2005.

The Provincial Policy Statement contains provisions that act as a de facto mineral policy in Ontario. The relevant provisions are intended to address the following:

• protecting minerals, mineral aggregate and petroleum resources for long-term use; • protecting mineral and mineral aggregate mining operations and petroleum resource operations from development and activities that would preclude or hinder their expansion or continued use, or be incompatible for reasons of public health, public safety or environmental impact; and • limiting development and activities that would preclude or hinder the establishment of new operations or access to resources in areas on or adjacent to known mineral deposits, mineral aggregate resources or petroleum resources, or areas of significant mineral and petroleum potential.

As part of this work on documentation regarding the Provincial Policy Statement, the southern Regional Land Use Geologist prepared a draft information sheet on “An Introduction to Minerals and Mining” and research materials for additional information sheets on protection of long-term mineral resource supply, mineral and aggregate resources, and human-made/mine hazards for review by committee members. These documents will be finalized and released in 2007.

Ultimately, the work of both committees helps to ensure that provincial interests are considered during municipal planning; that the Planning Act is implemented efficiently and effectively; and that planners from ministries and municipalities across the province are aware of the information and advice that is available to help them make their planning decisions. Legislation and Regulations

During 2006, changes were made to a number of planning-related acts and regulations. Staff of the land use planning unit contributed to the proposed changes. Two important examples are cited below.

CLEAN WATER ACT

The Walkerton report prepared by Justice O’Connor in response to the tainted municipal water that killed 7 people and made thousands ill in 2000 contained 121 recommendations for change. The government has already responded to many of them, and is currently working on “source protection”, which was identified as a missing element in ensuring that Ontario’s water is safe from source to tap.

In 2004, the Ministry of Environment issued a white paper on source protection, describing the proposed planning components of source protection legislation. It also raised the questions of strengthening the rules surrounding water-taking permits, and requiring permit holders to pay for the water they take. The Ministry of Environment also held meetings across the province in 2004 and 2005 to consult on the White Paper with regional and local source-

35 REGIONAL LAND USE GEOLOGISTS—2006 protection stakeholders and experts, and posted the White Paper on the Environmental Registry with an invitation for interested parties to submit comments on the various proposals it contained.

This work culminated in the proposed Clean Water Act, which received Royal Assent on October 19, 2006. It is intended to ensure that communities can protect their municipal drinking water supplies by developing collaborative, locally driven, science-based protection plans. Communities will involve property owners and community groups in identifying potential risks to local water sources and take action to reduce or eliminate these risks.

PLANNING AND CONSERVATION LAND STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT

The Planning Act provides the legislative framework for land use planning in Ontario. It sets out the land use planning system; identifies the decision-makers; outlines the avenues for dispute resolution; and provides for public input. It establishes the basis for provincial and local planning administration; the preparation of planning policies; zoning, development control and land division; and the public’s right to participate in the planning process, and provides a mechanism for resolving disputes.

In an effort to maintain strong communities, a clean and healthy environment and a strong economy, the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing proposed the Planning and Conservation Land Statute Law Amendment Act in 2005, to do the following:

• provide new planning rules and planning tools to strengthen implementation of provincial policies, support municipal priorities, and facilitate intensification/brownfields redevelopment, sustainable development, and community/design features; • provide for an optional local appeal body that, if established by a municipality, would hear appeals of decisions on minor variances and consents; • provide new rules for information, materials and parties at Ontario Municipal Board hearings; • provide other technical amendments to the Planning Act that would improve administrative planning processes and clarify existing provisions in the Planning Act and related regulations.

The proposed changes were assembled as the Planning and Conservation Land Statute Law Amendment Act, 2006 (Bill 51). It complements and builds upon previous reforms to the framework for municipal planning in Ontario including the Strong Communities Act, 2004, the 2005 revisions to the Provincial Policy Statement, and the Greenbelt Act, 2005. It came into effect on January 1, 2007.

The new act is intended to enable development of more compact, energy efficient and transit-friendly communities that will help ensure Ontario maintains its prosperity and quality of life. By establishing clear requirements for information and consultation at the front end of the planning process, it also provides more opportunity for public involvement into determining how communities grow.

The Land Use Policy and Planning Coordinator represented the Ministry of Northern Development and Mines in discussions relating to the proposed act. She also participated in a workshop involving a number of planning-related interest groups that was held to review the provisions of the proposed legislation. Municipal Planning Initiatives

The year 2006 was a very busy one from a municipal planning perspective. Table 15 provides a summary of the land use group’s contributions to, and review of, planning instruments. The types of planning instruments vary from region to region due to the different levels of authority delegated by the provincial government to municipal planning bodies across Ontario, and the different planning-related constraints in different areas.

The planning instruments reviewed in 2006 are listed by region. The Regional Land Use Geologists for each region were the points of contact for the various initiatives. The Land Use Policy and Planning Coordinator provided scheduling information regarding the planning instruments, where available from Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing, and provided support and advice for the Regional Land Use Geologists with regard to their reviews.

36 R.L. Debicki et al.

In many cases, dealings with a municipality with regard to a process or planning decision involved several contacts. For example, contacts made during the 5-year review of an Official Plan may include consultation, request(s) for data, a review of the draft revision of the Official Plan and a review of the version of the Official Plan approved by the municipal council and submitted to Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing for provincial approval.

Table 15. Planning documents reviewed during 2006.

Region Planning Documents/Instruments Northwest Northeast Southern Draft Official Plans 2 3 10 Final Official Plans 3 5 6 Official Plan Data Requests 0 5 2 Official Plan 5-Year Reviews 3 1 2 Official Plan Amendments 2 3 4 Draft Plans of Subdivision 4 2 0 Consents (Severances) 22 17 0 Niagara Escarpment Plan Amendments n/a n/a 2 Waste Management Reviews 0 0 1 Major Transportation Reviews 1 5 2

In 2006, the northwest Regional Land Use Geologist reviewed and commented on Official Plans for Alberton, Red Lake, Terrace Bay, Marathon, Morley and Oliver–Paipoonge, Official Plan 5-year reviews for Alberton, Ignace and Marathon, and 2 Official Plan Amendments, along with 4 draft plans of subdivision and 22 consents (severance applications). He also worked with staff from the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing and other partner ministries to resolve planning-related issues in several other areas.

The northeast Regional Land Use Geologist reviewed 5 final Official Plans, 2 draft Official Plans, 3 Official Plan Amendments and one 5-year review in 2006. He also provided mineral values information in response to 5 requests for data, reviewed 17 applications for consents (severances), and supplied comments on a draft plan of subdivision. At the request of the City of Timmins, the northeast Regional Land Use Geologist provided minerals-related information to the City’s planning team and, with staff from the Mineral Development and Lands Branch, consulted on how to draft policies respecting the mining-related hazards, areas of known mineral resources and areas with provincially significant mineral potential within the municipal boundaries.

The southern Regional Land Use Geologist reviewed, commented on and/or provided data and expertise with regard to 24 Official Plans and other planning processes during 2006. The municipal planning authorities with Official Plans to which Ministry of Northern Development and Mines contributed are listed in Table 16.

Table 16. Official Plan processes in Southern Ontario, 2006.

Municipal Planning Authorities Township of Alnwick–Haldimand Haldimand County Township of North Glengarry Town of Amherstburg Region of Halton Pine Ridge Municipal Planning Agency City of Brantford City of Hamilton Municipality of Port Hope Village of Burk’s Falls City of Kawartha Lakes United Counties of Prescott–Russell Central Elgin Planning Area Town of Kincardine Town of Saugeen Shores Regional Municipality of Durham Town of Lakeshore Municipality of Southwest Middlesex Township of Front of Yonge Township of McNab–Braeside Wellington County Grey County Norfolk County Municipality of West Elgin

In addition to official plans, the southern Regional Land Use Geologist reviewed and/or contributed to number of other planning documents including Grey County Aggregate Resource Inventory Master Plan, United Counties of

37 REGIONAL LAND USE GEOLOGISTS—2006

Prescott–Russell aggregate study, Northwest Brampton shale resources strategy, Hamilton–Niagara Waste Plan, Highway 69 double lane project, and Detroit River International Crossing Study.

He also provided expertise during an information session on topics that influence land use planning processes in southern Ontario, or will influence them in the future. These topics include karst features, which affect public health and safety and groundwater management; overburden thickness and the impact of new data with regard to this on aggregate resource assessments and accessibility; aggregate resource mapping; and the geochemistry and mineralogy of bedrock and their affect on groundwater quality.

NORTHWEST BRAMPTON

The southern Regional Land Use Geologist has been actively involved in a City of Brampton process to assess the shale resources in northwest Brampton since 2000, first in his role as the District Geologist for Southwest Ontario, and more recently as southern Regional Land Use Geologist. As part of this process, the Region of Peel brought forward an Official Plan Amendment to designate all lands in northwest Brampton as urban, despite the protection of aggregate (shale) resources in both the current Region of Peel and City of Brampton official plans.

On the advice of the Ministry of Natural Resources and the Ministry of Northern Development and Mines, the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing appealed the Official Plan Amendment to the Ontario Municipal Board. Throughout much of 2006, the southern Land Use Geologist was involved in discussions with staff from the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing and the Ministry of Natural Resources regarding the shale resources in the area, and options for settling the dispute with the Region of Peel and the City of Brampton.

The Ontario Municipal Board decision with regard to this appeal was announced in October 2006. It notes that during a prehearing conference, “the Board was provided with Minutes of Settlement between the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, the Region of Peel and the City of Brampton which includes a modified Regional Official Plan Amendment No. 15 (ROPA 15) and a modified City of Brampton Official Plan Amendment No. 93-245 (OPA 93-245).”

In general, the settlement was a compromise that will keep the most significant portion of the shale resource area, which has the thinnest overburden and is away from current urban development, from being designated urban for 25 years, subject to a review in 10 years.

The effective outcome of this is that in 25 years, areas licensed under the Aggregate Resources Act will remain non- urban, and surrounding lands will be designated for uses compatible with extraction. Lands owned by the brick industry, but not licensed for extraction, will be evaluated along with their surrounding areas, and some may continue to be excluded from urban areas. All other lands in northwest Brampton will almost certainly be designated “urban” at that time. As of the end of 2006, Brampton Brick Ltd. has purchased property within the area for future shale reserves at a cost of more than $3.5 million. Planning-Related Training and Events

The Land Use Policy and Planning Coordinator and Regional Land Use Geologists continued working with the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing to contribute to training regarding municipal planning in 2006. The Land Use Policy and Planning Coordinator worked on best-practice guidelines for Ministry of Northern Development and Mines staff to use when working on municipal planning initiatives, and contributed to the development of training materials for staff of partner ministries and municipalities. The Regional Land Use Geologists gave presentations at training sessions at a number of locations across the province.

The Regional Land Use Geologists’ presentations highlight the Ministry’s interests in municipal planning in Ontario, as well as the range of ministry data and resources available to municipal planners to help them comply with the provisions of the Provincial Policy Statement. Before attending training sessions, many planners are not fully aware that the mandate of the ministry’s Mines and Minerals Division extends across the province or of the data available from the Mines and Minerals division in support of municipal planning.

The Ministry’s interests in municipal planning include ensuring that municipal plans give appropriate consideration

38 R.L. Debicki et al. and accommodation to known mineral resources and areas of high mineral potential, and to public health and safety matters associated with natural hazards and mining-related hazards. In support of this, the Regional Land Use Geologists work with the Mine Hazards Technical Specialist to provide information from the Ministry of Northern Development and Mines’ Abandoned Mines Information System database for planners to use in order to protect public health and safety. The more than 5000 sites identified in the database range from exploration trenches through multi-hazard abandoned mine locations to fully rehabilitated decommissioned mines.

In addition, the northwest and southern Regional Land Use Geologists made presentations to municipal planners and members of the public at other venues. The northwest Regional Land Use Geologist made presentations to the Fort Frances and Manitouwadge town councils during 2006, in an effort to make them aware of the mineral exploration process and the benefits of a strong minerals sector in their areas. He also made a separate presentation to the general public and representatives of the business community in Manitouwadge. With staff of the Southern Ontario Regional Resident Geologist office, the southern Regional Land Use Geologist helped prepare an exhibit entitled “Resident Geologist Program – Your Partner in Planning” for the Ontario East Municipal Conference in Kingston, and was at the display booth to discuss the exhibit with delegates. The display used Geology and Mineral Deposit Inventory (MDI) information for Hastings County as examples. Other Planning-Related Initiatives

There were several other planning-related initiatives with regard to municipal planning in Ontario during 2006. Some were led by partner ministries, and related to specific legislation and regulations. Another was led by Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing, and involved all partner ministries in a review of the effectiveness and efficiency of the one-window planning process.

BROWNFIELDS STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT

Brownfields are derelict or under-used industrial and commercial facilities and lands where expansion or redevelopment is complicated by real or perceived environmental contamination. Despite the complexity of developing these properties, they are often located in desirable and strategic locations such as the heart of urban communities, on scenic waterfronts, or in or near downtown areas. They have the advantage of having infrastructure in place, and a variety of potential uses that can contribute to urban intensification, community revitalization, economic development and jobs, and/or new housing. As a result, there has been growing interest in Ontario in finding ways to clean up these sites and put them to new use.

The Brownfields Statue Law Amendment Act, 2001 and companion regulations came into full effect as of October 1, 2004. This legislation removed barriers relating to regulatory liability, financing and planning. The relevance of the act and regulations to mining-related brownfield sites had not been considered, however, in the context of the act.

During 2006, the Land Use Policy and Planning Coordinator worked with staff of Ministry of Northern Development and Mines’ Mineral Development and Mining Lands Branch to identify ways in which brownfields policies and initiatives (including financial incentives) could be applied to sites documented in the Mines and Minerals Division’s Abandoned Mines Information System database, especially in a municipal or urban setting. It was decided that some mining-related brownfields might be suitable for redevelopment, but any development activity must put the safety of people and property at the forefront. It was also noted that planned changes to areas that have been rehabilitated in accordance with the provisions of the Mining Act must first be approved by the Minister of Northern Development and Mines.

NATURAL SPACES – NATURAL HERITAGE SYSTEM

In 2005, the Ministry of Natural Resources announced the Natural Spaces Program. This program is a voluntary partnership program that is intended to help reduce loss of green space in southern Ontario by encouraging landowners to restore and protect natural areas on their properties. The program covers the part of Ontario that is south of a line between Midland, Peterborough and Ottawa. By coordinating and linking together the protection efforts of individual landowners, the Natural Spaces Program aims to establish a connected natural heritage system across this part of Ontario.

39 REGIONAL LAND USE GEOLOGISTS—2006

In 2006, the Ministry of Natural Resources worked to develop and test an approach for identifying landscape-scale natural heritage systems for southern Ontario in support of the Natural Spaces Program. It is the first step in developing science-based, replicable guidelines and tools for municipalities, conservation authorities and other groups interested in conservation, restoration and stewardship of natural heritage to use on a voluntary basis.

The southern Regional Land Use Geologist attended a natural heritage systems workshop early in the year. The purpose of this workshop was to bring an expert advisory group and staff from other ministries together with the Ministry of Natural Resources team to develop the ecological targets for a natural heritage system for southern Ontario. Specifically, the intent was to do the following:

• provide the context for the natural heritage system work; • receive feedback on the proposed approach; • receive input with regard to setting objectives for natural heritage systems; • develop a Provincial Policy Statement-level standard for natural heritage systems; • build a tool and/or methodology for mapping natural heritage systems; and • provide the natural heritage system layer for consideration with other information layers during land use planning processes.

Late in 2006, the Ministry of Natural Resources released a “Natural Heritage Systems Approach Discussion Paper”. The southern Regional Land Use Geologist reviewed the discussion paper and, in cooperation with the Land Use Policy and Planning Coordinator, provided comments from the Ministry of Northern Development and Mines.

NATURAL HERITAGE REFERENCE MANUAL

The Ministry of Natural Resources prepared a Natural Heritage Reference Manual in 1999, under the guidance of a review team and with the assistance of a consultant, as a guide for planners needing information on technical issues related to the application of the sections of the 1995 Provincial Policy Statement relating to Natural Heritage. The Ministry of Natural Resources began a review and revision of the Natural Heritage Reference Manual in 2006 in response to the 2005 changes to the Provincial Policy Statement.

The Land Use Policy and Planning Coordinator represented the Ministry of Northern Development and Mines on the inter-ministerial review team established to contribute to the revised manual in 2006, and reviewed and commented on a draft of the updated document. At more than 250 pages, or nearly double the size of the manual it is intended to replace, all reviewers recommended that the document be modified to make it more “user friendly”. The updated manual is expected to be completed in mid 2007.

NIAGARA ESCARPMENT PLAN

In 2006, the southern Regional Land Use Geologist worked on two issues related to the Niagara Escarpment Plan. He reviewed and provided comments to Niagara Escarpment Commission planners on the proposed Niagara Escarpment Plan Amendment 161 from Georgian Aggregates and Construction Limited dealing with property in Clearview Township, Simcoe County. He also met with Commission staff to provide additional background information and discuss the proposed Niagara Escarpment Plan Amendment 143 dealing with plan designations on the Milton Outlier. Work on both of these proposed amendments will continue in 2007.

PLACES TO GROW – GROWTH PLAN FOR THE GREATER GOLDEN HORSESHOE

The Greater Golden Horseshoe includes the cities of Toronto, Hamilton, Kawartha Lakes, Guelph, Peterborough, Barrie, Orillia, and Brantford; the regional municipalities of Halton, Peel, York, Durham, Waterloo and Niagara; and the counties of Haldimand, Brant, Wellington, Dufferin, Simcoe, Northumberland and Peterborough. It is the fastest-growing urban area in Canada and the third fastest growing in North America. By 2031, almost four million more people and 2 million more jobs are forecasted for this region.

40 R.L. Debicki et al.

The Ministry of Public Infrastructure Renewal has the overall responsibility for fostering and implementing the government’s long-term plan for growth. It has mandated the Ontario Growth Secretariat, a branch within the ministry, to take the lead with regard to such projects. It started a project to help define where growth would occur within the Greater Golden Horseshoe in 2004 with the “Places to Grow: Discussion Paper”. In 2005, it released the “Draft Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe” and the “Proposed Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe”.

In June 2006, the Ministry released its “Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe”. The plan was prepared under the Places to Grow Act, 2005, and is the first such plan developed under the act. It is a framework for implementing the Government of Ontario’s vision for building stronger, prosperous communities by better managing growth in this region to 2031. The plan builds on other key government initiatives including the Greenbelt Plan, Planning Act reform and the Provincial Policy Statement, 2005, and is a comprehensive, 25-year strategy to maximize the benefits of growth and maintain a high quality of life in the region.

The southern Regional Land Use Geologist reviewed the plan with respect to Ministry of Northern Development and Mines’ interests, particularly for implications for mineral and aggregate resources. In addition, he attended a one-day training course “Understanding the Growth Plan Workshop” provided by staff of the Ontario Growth Secretariat for partner ministry planning staff.

PLANNING SYSTEMS ONE-WINDOW REVIEW

As noted earlier, development on private land in Ontario is subject to the provisions of the Planning Act and the Provincial Policy Statement, and is managed by the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing. Where the province is the approval authority for municipal planning decisions, the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing is the lead ministry, and the “One Window” through which partner ministries including the Ministry of Northern Development and Mines contribute to municipal planning.

The One-Window review process was established in its current format when the Planning Act was changed in 1995. Since the process was more than 10 years old, the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing initiated a study to determine whether the review process is working as well as needed, and if not, what changes should be made.

During 2006, the Land Use Policy and Planning Coordinator and the Regional Land Use Geologists contributed to the study in a number of ways including:

• completing questionnaires regarding various aspects of the One-Window review process; • taking part in teleconferences with partner ministers, and with Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing to discuss issues and options for improving the One-Window review process; and • reviewing the final report of the study and commenting on the conclusions and recommendations contained therein.

Although the study found that the One-Window review process has, for the most part, worked well, there are areas needing improvement. It also found that most partner ministries fulfil their obligation to the One-Window review process as well as possible, but in some cases they are unable to provide an ideal level of response due to staffing, workload, and other issues. Plans are to continue the inter-ministerial work during 2007 in an effort to find solutions to the problems identified by the survey. FIRST NATIONS

The Mines and Minerals Division of the Ministry of Northern Development and Mines is working to develop relationships and local contacts with First Nation communities, and to provide them with information about mineral exploration and development. This relationship building will assist mineral sector clients when they notify communities of pending activities on First Nations’ traditional lands.

There are approximately 126 First Nation reserves or communities in the province. Of these, 63 are in the northwest Regional Land Use Geologist’s region, 29 are in the northeast Regional Land Use Geologist’s region, and 34 are in

41 REGIONAL LAND USE GEOLOGISTS—2006 the southern Regional Land Use Geologist’s region. Throughout the year, members of the land use planning unit had various interactions with representatives of these groups. Reserve Lands

Members of the land use planning unit work with the Ontario Secretariat for Aboriginal Affairs (formerly called the Ontario Native Affairs Secretariat) and planning consultants in several ways to help resolve native land claims and implement adjustments to the boundaries of Indian Reserves. They provide negotiating teams with background information on the mineral potential and past mineral exploration and development activity in areas of interest. They also assist with reviews of Crown land being considered by the Province of Ontario for addition to reserves, and private lands being purchased by the First Nation communities and/or the federal government for the same purpose.

In 2006, the Land Use Policy and Planning Coordinator reviewed and commented on 1 application to add lands to a reserve in northeastern Ontario as part of a land claim settlement, and 2 applications to purchase areas of Crown land as additions to reserves. She also provided input in support of land claim negotiations with 1 First Nation in northwestern Ontario.

The northeast Regional Land Use Geologist provided background information to the Ministry of Natural Resources and the Ontario Secretariat for Aboriginal Affairs regarding the mineral potential, mining-related hazards and exploration activity in the areas of the Missanabie First Nation and Michipicoten First Nation land claims, in an effort to help reach land claim settlements for these two First Nations.

The southern Regional Land Use Geologist provided comments to consultants working for the Government of Canada with regard to areas that may be added to the reserves of the Chippewas of the Thames First Nation, the Moravian of the Thames First Nation, the Curve Lake First Nation and the Mississaugas of Scugog Island First Nation through the purchase of private lands. Comments provided focused on past mining activities, mining hazards, and mining rights ownership. Protection of Spiritually and Culturally Sensitive Sites

In 2002, Dr. J.B. Gammon, then Assistant Deputy Minister for the Mines and Minerals Division, offered to withdraw from prospecting, staking, sale or lease, sites generally not larger than 200 m by 200 m to help protect aboriginal culturally significant sites in the Far North of Ontario. In 2005 and 2006, the Ministry received expressions of interest regarding similar consideration for First Nations not located in the Far North of Ontario.

Through 2006, the northeast Regional Land Use Geologist helped staff from the Mineral Development and Lands Branch to review and expand existing policy and procedures to allow for consideration of such requests. The Land Use Policy and Planning Coordinator reviewed 2 applications to withdraw areas of cultural significance in northeastern Ontario, and the northeast Regional Land Use Geologist review one such application during the year. This resulted in the withdrawal of 1 spiritually and/or culturally sensitive site. The existing policy is currently under review within the context of building better relations between government and First Nations, and the development of policies and strategies for land use planning in the Far North. Mineral Exploration on Traditional Lands

First Nation communities in the Near and Far North have become aware that mineral exploration is taking place on their traditional lands as exploration for diamonds and other commodities has been rejuvenated and extended into more remote parts of the province. Community members are concerned that the exploration activities will impact upon their treaty and constitutional rights, and are trying to balance outside interests with personal and community interests; community and economic development; and environmental protection on their traditional lands.

Many First Nation communities propose to achieve this through education and training; communications; building relationships and trust with mining industry representatives; benefits and/or revenue sharing; joint management; and employment opportunities within a framework based on traditional values and culture.

42 R.L. Debicki et al.

At the same time, the mineral sector wants clarity and certainty concerning its rights to explore for and develop new mineral discoveries within these lands.

Although the only statutory requirement in the Mining Act for mineral sector clients to demonstrate fair and good- faith consultation with affected First Nation communities is at the advanced stage of exploration, the Ministry of Northern Development and Mines recommends initial notification of First Nation communities as soon as possible after mining claims are staked. The ministry’s Mineral Development and Lands Branch has prepared a list of consultants who can act as a facilitator or negotiator for companies that would like to have this service during their consultations with First Nations.

Recent litigation regarding the duty for representatives of the mineral sector to consult with local First Nation communities is helping to clarify the roles and responsibilities of both parties. In addition, it has made it clear that the Government of Ontario also has a duty to consult when exploration is taking place on a community’s traditional lands. The Ministry of Northern Development and Mines has announced that it will be seeking input from First Nations and other interested parties during 2007 as it works to develop a process for consulting with First Nation communities.

Should mineral-related activities impact on treaty or aboriginal rights, appropriate compensation must be provided. Such compensation is usually negotiated between the company and the community, and incorporated into an impact benefit agreement. OTHER

The Land Use Policy and Planning Coordinator and Regional Land Use Geologists completed a wide range of other work in 2006 that does not fit into the categories cited above. Such work includes contributing to or preparing internal documents such as briefing notes and resource materials for senior management on issues being addressed by representatives of the land use planning unit and others, reviewing and commenting on proposed legislation and regulations, and dealing with site-specific issues. Aggregate Resources Act

In October 2006, the Ministry of Natural Resources announced a number of changes to the Aggregate Resources Act that were to come into effect on January 1, 2007. They include the designation of new areas in southern, central and northern Ontario under the Aggregate Resources Act. The newly designated areas are available on the Ministry of Natural Resources’ website at: http://www.mnr.gov.on.ca/MNR/csb/news/2006/aggregate_map_designated_lg.gif. Permits or licences must be obtained for all pits and quarries on Crown land anywhere in the province, while licences are only required for pits and quarries on private land in designated areas.

Aggregate extraction operations that were legally established, are recognized as existing operations, and are currently operating in an area that is newly designated under the Aggregate Resources Act are required to meet a more limited set of requirements than new operations that open in future in the area. For example, they will have to have site plans of their operations prepared, but will not have to provide supporting background studies such as a hydrogeology study. All operations on private lands in designated areas will be required to undergo progressive and final rehabilitation to ensure minimal impact on the environment; and more abandoned pit and quarry sites will be eligible for funding under the Management of Abandoned Aggregate Properties program, administered by the Ontario Aggregate Resources Corporation.

In addition to the changes in the area designated under the Aggregate Resources Act, there will be various fee increases to pay for enforcement and compliance. Municipalities will also receive additional revenue generated from aggregate operations. Annual fees for the aggregate industry have not increased since 1990, and the minimum royalty rate for Crown-owned aggregate has not increased in more than 30 years. All-Terrain Vehicle and Recreational Trails

Work on the Ministry of Health Promotion’s Ontario Trails Plan, which began in 2003, continued into 2006. This

43 REGIONAL LAND USE GEOLOGISTS—2006 strategy is a component of an initiative known as ACTIVE2010, intended to get Ontarians fitter and healthier. The intent is for trails to be planned, linked, created and better organized, thereby allowing Ontarians to get moving. Since trails are not well mapped or compiled in a central database, and are intended for a range of uses including walking, hiking, biking, equestrian, and all-terrain vehicle and snowmobile use, the Ministry of Health Promotion needed to determine where existing trails are located, and to understand how trails are currently being used by different groups. Work on this has involved a range of partner ministries; stakeholder organizations; the agricultural, municipal, forestry and mining sectors; conservation associations; and environmental organizations.

The Land Use Policy and Planning Coordinator reviewed and commented on various initiatives linked to the Ontario Trails Plan in 2006, including their terms of reference, from the perspectives of the Ministry of Northern Development and Mines and mineral sector clients. She provided suggestions regarding potential sources of information regarding trails for the mapping project being undertaken by Ministry of Natural Resources, advised the Ontario Prospectors Association about the Ontario Trails Plan, and worked to ensure that the needs of prospectors and developers are considered in a strategy to manage conflicts between non-motorized recreational use of trails and motorized use of trails in support of mineral exploration.

The Ministry of Northern Development and Mines’ goal is to ensure ongoing access to trail systems for mineral sector workers wherever possible and practical in much the same way that ongoing access to recreational trails has been assured for mineral sector workers through the provisions in the Motorized Snow Vehicles Act. Applications for Review

The Environmental Bill of Rights allows interested parties to make an “Application for Review” to the Environmental Commissioner, asking that specific items of legislation, regulations, policies and/or procedures be reviewed to determine whether changes are needed. In 2006, the Land Use Policy and Planning Coordinator reviewed documentation relating to an application based on the applicant’s perception that the province’s draft Guidelines for the Conservation of Woodland Caribou are inadequate, and provided comments to the Ministry’s Policy Secretariat for inclusion in the Ministry’s response. Ontario Heritage Act

During 2006, the Ministry of Culture proposed a number of changes to the Ontario Heritage Act. The changes were intended to ensure the preservation of the province’s cultural heritage features. It includes the following changes:

• the province and municipalities have been given new powers to delay or stop demolition of heritage sites; • the province’s ability to identify and designate sites of provincial heritage significance has been expanded; • clear standards and guidelines for the preservation of provincial heritage properties have been provided; and • protection for heritage conservation districts, marine heritage sites and archaeological resources has been enhanced.

Among the material developed to help support implementation of the revisions to the act, which went into effect on January 1, 2007, was a manual developed in consultation with ministries and agencies affected outlining how to develop standards and guidelines for identifying and protecting heritage property owned or controlled by the Province. The manual was conceived of in the context of urban properties such as provincial courthouses and other heritage buildings, but as drafted, it also applies to provincially owned structures such as buildings on mining lands that have reverted to the Crown. The Land Use Policy and Planning Coordinator reviewed the draft manual, and provided comments on the implications of the revised act and its supporting documents during 2006. CONFERENCES AND WORKSHOPS

During 2006, the Land Use Policy and Planning Coordinator and Regional Land Use Geologists contributed to, and took part in, a number of industry-related conferences and workshops. Events such as these offer opportunities for interactions with clients to discuss points of interest and concern. They also offer the members of the land use group,

44 R.L. Debicki et al. who must be members of the Association of Professional Geoscientists of Ontario, to learn about new research and concepts in geoscience in order to maintain their professional standing.

The members of the land use planning unit contributed to the development of the Resident Geologist Program display at the Prospectors and Developers Association of Canada annual convention, and attended the event to discuss matters of interest with current and potential future clients. They also attended the Ontario Exploration and Geoscience Symposium held in Sudbury in December and discussed matters of interest with clients at the Resident Geologist Program booth.

The Land Use Policy and Planning Coordinator planned the Resident Geologist Program participation in these events, and assisted visitors to the Resident Geologist Program booth. Prior to the events, she worked with the Regional Land Use Geologists and other staff of the Resident Geologist Program to prepare and update handouts relating to land use, and to various mineral commodities being sought and/or produced in Ontario. She also attended the Canadian Aboriginal Minerals Association’s annual conference in Ottawa during 2006.

The theme of the Canadian Aboriginal Minerals Association’s conference was “Two Realities – One Community”. Most presentations were based on a foundation grounded in court decisions from jurisdictions around the world that First Nations have specific rights, even if not everyone agrees what those rights might be, or the legal basis for the rights differs from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. They focused on building partnerships between First Nation communities and developers, including mineral developers, and on seeking ways of expanding the opportunities for First Nations while ensuring that their rights are respected and accommodated. Numerous examples of successful partnerships were highlighted.

A number of speakers emphasized the concept that traditional Aboriginal knowledge should be incorporated into planning initiatives as support for planning decisions that accommodate Aboriginal rights. Notable concepts regarding traditional Aboriginal knowledge include the following:

• it is gender based, so information should be sought from both male and female community members; • it is based on long-term observations, and complements information acquired through “new science”; • it is not a body of facts, but more of an “information tool box” in that the information – and the ways in which it are used – are both essential parts of the whole; and • differences in perception between community members and developers about the ownership of shared traditional Aboriginal knowledge and how it can and should be used may lead to misunderstandings and misinterpretations during consultations.

The conference also addressed the question of impact benefits agreements. It was notable that the benefits being sought by indigenous peoples on a global basis were – in every case – comparable, as were the problems in development and implementing impact benefits agreements. Also notable was the assertion that there is no “one-size fits all” impact benefits agreement. Every situation is unique, and requires a unique agreement to accommodate local circumstances.

The northwest Regional Land Use Geologist attended the annual Northwest Ontario Mines and Minerals Symposium in Thunder Bay and presented a joint talk with the Ministry of Natural Resources Regional Lands Specialist regarding roads, trails and water crossings, and issues and resolutions with regard to access roads in the northwest. He also attended the annual Institute of Lake Superior Geology conference in Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario, in early summer.

The northeast Regional Land Use Geologist attended the annual Northern Ontario Mines and Mineral Symposium in Sioux Lookout and delivered a presentation on the mineral exploration and development activity in northeastern Ontario (north of Highway 11) on behalf of the Resident Geologist Program. In April, he attended the annual Northeast Ontario Mines and Minerals Symposium in Kirkland Lake and prepared and presented a poster detailing the activities of the Land Use Group.

The northeast Regional Land Use Geologist also attended the Boreal Conference in Cochrane, which was sponsored by the Lake Abitibi Model Forest and the Canadian Institute of Forestry. He prepared and presented a poster

45 REGIONAL LAND USE GEOLOGISTS—2006 outlining mineral-related values and how their consideration during the forest management planning process can result in a better forest management plan. In addition, he participated in 2 forest management planning training sessions delivered by the Ministry of Natural Resources. These training sessions provided insight into the forest management planning process and how the staff of the land use planning unit can better interact with the forest management planning teams.

The southern Regional Land Use Geologist also attended the Ontario Stone, Sand and Gravel Association annual meeting in February in Toronto, as well as the Landscape Ontario Congress 2006 tradeshow where he had the opportunity to liaise with stone quarry operators from southern Ontario. EDUCATIONAL INITIATIVES

General Public

During 2006, the members of the land use planning unit engaged in a number of educational activities aimed at members of the general public.

The Land Use Policy and Planning Coordinator and the southern Regional Land Use Geologist continued to be members of the group of volunteer advisors who support the Prospectors and Developers Association of Canada’s Mining Matters initiative. This initiative has produced award-winning educational materials linked to the Ontario educational curriculum for students of grades 4, 7, and 11.

The southern Regional Land Use Geologist also helped Mining Matters staff promote the “Geoscape Toronto” poster and related teacher lesson plans by distributing the poster to interested educators, and worked with Mining Matters staff to hire two shared summer students to help construct, promote and distribute educational materials.

The Land Use Policy and Planning Coordinator and southern Regional Land Use Geologist gave presentations to the meetings of the Sudbury Rock & Lapidary Society and the Kitchener–Waterloo Gem & Mineral Club, respectively. The southern Regional Land Use Geologist also gave two presentations at Geoscience Orientation Program sessions for internationally trained geoscience professionals, sponsored by the Association of Professional Geoscientists of Ontario and the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority. The presentations were “Geology of Ontario, An Overview” and “Ontario’s Minerals Industry, An Overview”. In addition, he gave a presentation at Canadian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy Toronto Branch’s student–industry networking session.

The Land Use Policy and Planning Coordinator also contributed to a TVO Studio 2 television program about Killarney Provincial Park and French River Provincial Park by being filmed on site for vignettes describing the geological history of the areas. She also reviewed and provided suggestions with regard to the draft script relating to Sudbury geology and mining being developed for the new “Cavern” show at the Dynamic Earth tourist attraction in Sudbury. The southern Regional Land Use Geologist also provided technical guidance via an advisory panel with regard to the Ontario Mining Association’s virtual mine tour video.

Under the auspices of Sudbury Geological Discussion Group, the Land Use Policy and Planning Coordinator helped to coordinate classroom presentations on “Minerals in Your Life” for more than 30 grade 4 classrooms in Sudbury and area during Ontario Mining Week. In addition, she helped to organize and present a one-day training session for all Ministry of Northern Development and Mines summer employees in Sudbury, gave a presentation on the inter- relationship between geology and scenery to non-technical employees of the Ministry during a staff day outing, and provided suggestions regarding fund-raising and planning to the organizing committee of the 2008 Canada-wide Science Fair, which will be held in Ottawa.

The southern Regional Land Use Geologist coordinated and staffed a display regarding “Geology, Minerals and Mining of Peterborough County” at the International Plowing Match after the County of Peterborough invited the Ministry of Northern Development and Mines to participate in their regional exhibit. The regional exhibit highlighted the cultural, heritage, natural and economic development components of the area. The display was a co- operative effort between staff of the Ministry’s Mines and Minerals Information Centre and the Southern Ontario Resident Geologist Program office located in Tweed, the Southern Ontario Prospectors Association, and the

46 R.L. Debicki et al.

Prospector and Developers Association of Canada’s Mining Matters. Workers at the display distributed 370 posters, almost exclusively to teachers and students, 500 geological maps, and 3000 rock and mineral samples. After the event, which was attended by an estimated 100 000 people, the southern Regional Land Use Geologist provided additional information regarding the geology, minerals and mining of Peterborough County to the county’s planning director.

He also organized and led the Canadian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy Toronto Branch’s annual field trip. The trip had 30 participants, including representatives from Ontario Mining Association, Prospectors and Developers Association of Canada, Ministry of Natural Resources, Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing, and University of Toronto. The group was a mix of geologist, engineers, planners, students and administrators. Field trips stops were at St. Marys Cement Bowmanville quarry and processing plant, the borehole thermal energy storage system at the University of Ontario Institute of Technology, and rock crusher manufacturers, P.R. Engineering. GENERAL DUTIES

All members of the land use planning unit responded to a public request submitted under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, in which the applicant was seeking information regarding peat deposits and extraction in Ontario. They also responded to client inquiries on diverse subjects including local geology and the respective rights of surface rights and mining rights holders, especially where the rights to one piece of land are held by separate parties.

The Land Use Policy and Planning Coordinator reviewed and ranked a series of technical papers in support of the Barlow Medal, which is awarded by the Mineral Deposits Division of the Canadian Institute of Mining, Metallurgy and Petroleum. She completed a range of management-related duties such as reviewing and commenting on draft reports and presentations; preparing budget reports; leading the hiring process for the new northeast and southern Regional Land Use Geologists and working with the Senior Manager and the northeast and northwest Regional Managers of the Resident Geologist Program on various program objectives during the year. She also hired and supervised a Summer Experience Student during the student’s work placement, and provided overall guidance and supervision for the land use group. Resident Geologist Program Southern Ontario Region

The southern Regional Land Use Geologist also contributed to the activities of the Resident Geologist Program’s Southern Ontario regional office during 2006. The Southern Ontario region includes all lands south of the French River, encompassing approximately 80 mineral producers and over one-third of the Province’s annual mineral production by value, and operating store-front offices in Toronto and Tweed. The program operates with 4 staff, with assistance from the southern Regional Land Use Geologist as time allows.

In 2006, the southern Regional Land Use Geologist’s work with the Resident Geologist Program’s Southern Ontario region included the following:

• providing expert geological consultation and advisory services to promote mineral exploration and economic development; • generating new geoscience data and ideas; • providing public access to geoscience resource materials; • monitoring and reporting on mineral exploration and development activity; and • participating in public education fora.

These activities were undertaken in support of the following outcomes:

• promoting economic development of mineral resources in southwest and south-central Ontario; • liaising with representatives of the minerals industry in Toronto; and • educating interested members of the public about the geology of and mining in Ontario.

47 REGIONAL LAND USE GEOLOGISTS—2006

Some of the southern Regional Land Use Geologist’s activities included providing information, references and recommendations to a group of building stone quarry operators that have joined to fight the trademark registration of “Wiarton stone” and other names by a company that manufactures a concrete product that imitates real stone. He assisted the Municipality of South Bruce Peninsula with a study of the “Economic Impact of the Quarry Sector in the Town of South Bruce Peninsula”. This initiative is supported by a significant component of the quarry owners/operators within the municipality. He also provided quarry operator contacts to the Municipality’s economic development officer and toured her to a number of quarrying and stone processing operations. Consultation on this project will continue in 2007.

Other work relating to the Resident Geologist Program’s Southern Ontario district included visiting seven building stone quarry sites in the Wiarton area, updating references for producers in southwest Ontario for the Ministry of Northern Development and Mines’ “Directory of Ontario Dimensional Stone Producers and Processors”, and taking part in an Ontario Geological Survey southeastern Ontario gap analysis meeting in February in Tweed. This session included a wide range of clients in brainstorming potential geoscience projects for southeastern Ontario.

48 Metric Conversion Table

Conversion from SI to Imperial Conversion from Imperial to SI SI Unit Multiplied by Gives Imperial Unit Multiplied by Gives LENGTH 1 mm 0.039 37 inches 1 inch 25.4 mm 1 cm 0.393 70 inches 1 inch 2.54 cm 1 m 3.280 84 feet 1 foot 0.304 8 m 1 m 0.049 709 chains 1 chain 20.116 8 m 1 km 0.621 371 miles (statute) 1 mile (statute) 1.609 344 km AREA 1cm@ 0.155 0 square inches 1 square inch 6.451 6 cm@ 1m@ 10.763 9 square feet 1 square foot 0.092 903 04 m@ 1km@ 0.386 10 square miles 1 square mile 2.589 988 km@ 1 ha 2.471 054 acres 1 acre 0.404 685 6 ha VOLUME 1cm# 0.061 023 cubic inches 1 cubic inch 16.387 064 cm# 1m# 35.314 7 cubic feet 1 cubic foot 0.028 316 85 m# 1m# 1.307 951 cubic yards 1 cubic yard 0.764 554 86 m# CAPACITY 1 L 1.759 755 pints 1 pint 0.568 261 L 1 L 0.879 877 quarts 1 quart 1.136 522 L 1 L 0.219 969 gallons 1 gallon 4.546 090 L MASS 1 g 0.035 273 962 ounces (avdp) 1 ounce (avdp) 28.349 523 g 1 g 0.032 150 747 ounces (troy) 1 ounce (troy) 31.103 476 8 g 1 kg 2.204 622 6 pounds (avdp) 1 pound (avdp) 0.453 592 37 kg 1 kg 0.001 102 3 tons (short) 1 ton (short) 907.184 74 kg 1 t 1.102 311 3 tons (short) 1 ton (short) 0.907 184 74 t 1 kg 0.000 984 21 tons (long) 1 ton (long) 1016.046 908 8 kg 1 t 0.984 206 5 tons (long) 1 ton (long) 1.016 046 90 t CONCENTRATION 1 g/t 0.029 166 6 ounce (troy)/ 1 ounce (troy)/ 34.285 714 2 g/t ton (short) ton (short) 1 g/t 0.583 333 33 pennyweights/ 1 pennyweight/ 1.714 285 7 g/t ton (short) ton (short) OTHER USEFUL CONVERSION FACTORS Multiplied by 1 ounce (troy) per ton (short) 31.103 477 grams per ton (short) 1 gram per ton (short) 0.032 151 ounces (troy) per ton (short) 1 ounce (troy) per ton (short) 20.0 pennyweights per ton (short) 1 pennyweight per ton (short) 0.05 ounces (troy) per ton (short)

Note: Conversion factors which arein boldtype areexact. Theconversion factorshave been taken fromor havebeen derived from factors given in the Metric Practice Guide for the Canadian Mining and Metallurgical Industries, published by the Mining Association of Canada in co-operation with the Coal Association of Canada.

ISSN 0838--3677 ISBN 978--1--4249--3584--0