Dear Conservation Policy…

Dear Conservation Policy Section:

I am writing with regard to Environmental Registry Posting 019-9306, Expanding Protected Areas in Ontario. I am pleased to see that some of the sites identified in the Ontario’s Living Legacy (OLL) land use strategy are finally being regulated.

At the same time, however, I am concerned that more than a quarter century has passed since the strategy was announced. Important corporate knowledge about the site selection process has likely been lost in the interim.

I am also concerned that neither the current Environmental Registry posting, nor the supplemental document that supports it, mention the fact that some of the OLL sites that have not already been regulated originally had pre-existing mining land tenure. Although the at least some of the land that this posting proposes be added to these sites almost certainly has provincially significant mineral potential, the documents do not mention whether mineral values were considered alongside the natural heritage values when the areas were selected for regulation.

There is also no mention as to whether the Ministry of Energy and Mines was consulted when the current sites were selected. Even the government’s Guide for Crown Land Use Planning indicates that the Ministry must be consulted, and mineral values must be considered when land use planning decisions are made. Surely, at a time when the provincial government is making a point of saying how important minerals are to Ontario’s economic future, its mineral values are worthy of consideration and mention in land use planning initiatives like this.

Although it appears that decisions made by the government after receiving recommendations from sectoral interests charged with negotiating options to help reconfigure sites with unresolved issues have been implemented for some sites included in this posting, they may not have implemented these decisions in others. These decisions were made public on the Environmental Registry in an Information Notice around 2005. Unfortunately, neither this notice, nor posting PB7E4003 cited in the current notice, are currently available through the Environmental Registry. These absences make it impossible for respondents to provide fully informed feedback.

I trust that you will take the site-specific comments, which are included below under consideration.

Site-Specific Comments

I believe that the government’s decision about how to resolve issues regarding candidate protected areas with pre-existing mining land tenure or other conflicts, presented in the Information Notice posted around 2005, was essentially as follows.

1. Remove the Forest Reserve designation from all or part of the site, re-designate the area of the former Forest Reserve as General Use Area or Enhancement Management Area, and do not seek replacement lands.
2. Remove the Forest Reserve designation from all or part of the site, re-designate the area of the former Forest Reserve as General Use Area or Enhancement Management Area, and seek replacement lands of similar size.
3. Do nothing, and wait for the mining land tenure or other forms of tenure to expire, and regulate the site as Park or Conservation Reserve, as appropriate.

I am sorry, but I do not recall exactly which options were intended to apply to which sites.

9. Elspeth Lake White Birch Outwash Conservation Reserve (265 Ha)

There does not appear to be a Statement of Conservation Interest for this site posted on-line, so there is no historic map of the site available. It is therefore impossible for me to provide an informed comment with regard to this site.

However, the supplementary document to this EBR posting states that it was identified under the Ontario’s Living Legacy land use strategy. Since it has not yet been regulated, it is very likely that there was pre-exiting mining land tenure present that would have been the subject of option 1 or 2 cited above.

11. Grassy River Halliday Lake Forests & Lowlands Conservation Reserve Addition (2,980 ha)

The Grassy River Halliday Lake Forests and Lowlands Conservation Reserve Management Statement is dated 2004, which is before the government’s decision about how to resolve issues regarding candidate protected areas was released.

The map in the Conservation Management Statement shows two areas of Forest Reserve at the southwest and southeast boundaries of the site. The area of the addition proposed in this initiative encompasses all of the area of the former Forest Reserve at the southeast boundary of the site as well as a very large area to the south of the former Forest Reserve. This area is much larger than the former Forest Reserve at the southwest boundary of the site.

Although the Supplementary Document to this Environmental Registry posting states that the boundary amendment uses “lands that were identified under OLL” and that were “previously consulted on under ERO posting PB7E4003,” there has been no prior consultation on most of this proposed addition.

Given the size of the proposed addition in comparison to the areas that it is likely intended to replace, and the fact that it is surrounded by active mining land tenure – and therefore likely has areas of provincially significant mineral potential – full and complete information about this proposed addition should be presented to the public for comment through a separate Environmental Registry posting.

17. Night Hawk Lake Shoreline Bluffs Conservation Reserve Addition (625 Ha)

The proposed addition to this site appears to comply with option 2 of the recommendations listed above, assuming that it was the recommended option for this site.

19. South Grassy Lake Conservation Reserve Addition (252 Ha)

The proposed addition to this site appears to comply with option 2 of the recommendations listed above, assuming that it was the recommended option for this site

20. Tatachikapika River Plain Conservation Reserve Addition (629 Ha)

The proposed addition to this site appears to comply with option 2 of the recommendations listed above, assuming that it was the recommended option for this site.
.