Creation of the Amethyst Highlands Fish and Wildlife Enhanced Management Area

Concerns were raised that the proposed policies were not enough to fully protect the values in the area.

Ministry response:

The goal of the proposed Enhanced Management Area (EMA), is to balance commercial, industrial, recreational and protectionist activities and ideals. The protection zones were chosen because we believe it strikes a balance between protecting the ecological integrity of the fisheries resource and the remote setting while allowing some commercial activities to occur.

Questions were raised about how new scientific information (such as ground water recharge zones) will be incorporated into policy direction.

Ministry response:

Since public consultation on this EMA occurred, the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry (MNRF) obtained new information on the delineation of the ground water recharge zone for Clegge Lake and Nalla Lake.  This information is now incorporated into the final map of the EMA for this amendment. The incorporation of any additional information will require an amendment to the EMA policy. The extent of any changes will require a review to determine the level of amendment (minor or major), and whether such an amendment will be pursed at that time.

Concern was raised as to how the forest will be renewed within the protection zones of the proposed EMA if timber harvest is not allowed to occur.

Ministry response:

The goal of this EMA is to protect the ecological integrity of the area and the sustainability of brook trout. Renewal of the forest within protection zones is a concern as it may disrupt the groundwater recharge areas on which the spawning success of Brook Trout rely. Natural forest succession occurs in other parts of Crown forests and is identified within existing Forest Management Plans as an available forestry management technique.

Concern was raised about how the existing trails in the area will be identified and documented as these trails can be maintained according to the proposed EMA policies.

Ministry response:

It was acknowledged that inventory and mapping of the trails within the proposed EMA boundaries is incomplete, and that imagery of the area does not show all current trails. We asked members of the public who raised this concern to share their trail locations with us, however they remained hesitant to do so as they did not want these trails to be included within MNRF’s publicly available data. We are considering additional field work to document and record the network of trails within the proposed EMA.

Questions were raised why the Ministry chose to pursue a Crown Land Use amendment instead of resolving the issues through the forest management planning process.

Ministry response:

We chose the Crown land use option because forest management planning is a resource management process limited to forestry. It would not protect the brook trout lakes in question from industrial/commercial activities, and road development associated with other forms of land use.

Concern was raised about restrictions to new bait harvesting operations.

Ministry response:

As a result of this concern, the proposed policies for commercial bait harvesting was changed from ‘maybe’ to ‘yes’. Changes to the proposed guidelines from ‘New operations are not permitted’ to ‘New operation can be considered where they are demonstrated to be consistent with the land use intent and specific land use policies (e.g. road restriction) of this EMA in order to be consistent with other EMAs across the province.

Concern was raised about the ability for existing amethyst mines in the area to expand.

Ministry response:

As a result of this concern, guideline text within the policies for Aggregate Extraction Activities was updated to allow authorized operations in existence prior to the creation of this EMA to continue and to expand upon adjacent lands so long as this expansion is not within a groundwater recharge zone.

Concerns were raised about the inability to access the timber within the centre of the proposed EMA from the North, as the restrictions on new road construction resulted in the area being inaccessible.

Ministry response:

As such, to help facilitate harvest of the available wood within this EMA, the proposed land use direction on the western side of Clegge Lake has been changed from a 1000m no roads/trail zone to a 900m no roads/trail zone to allow for a 100m width corridor between Clegge Lake and Mackenzie Lake. This change will allow for the construction of a road heading South off the Escape Lake Road to the centre of the EMA.

Concerns were raised regarding access by Indigenous and Métis Community members

Ministry response:

The exercise of Aboriginal and Treaty rights would still be permitted in the Amethyst Highlands EMA. Access restrictions on newly constructed roads and trails would inhibit motor vehicle travel, however Indigenous individuals would still be able to exercise Aboriginal and Treaty rights in the area under the constraints of the Amethyst Highlands Enhanced Management Area access provisions.