1

Nopiming and Manigotagan River Provincial Parks

Report on Public Comments -What We HeardOverviewThis newsletter is the second in the management planning process for Nopiming and Manigotagan River provincial parks. The first was a background document that introduced Manitoba Conservation and Water Stewardship’s park management planning process and presented information about the two provincial parks. It included a summary of the history, natural features and recreational opportunities available in Nopiming and Manigotagan River. This information was made available by mail, online, at district offices, at stakeholder meetings and at public drop-in sessions. A questionnaire gathered information on specific issues, as well as general information on what people thought should be considered in the management plans. This newsletter summarizes the comments received about the management planning process. It includes written submissions and notes recorded at public drop-ins or meetings.

Meeting Dates and LocationsPublic drop-in sessions were held September 30, 2014, in Lac Du Bonnet and October 8, 2014, in Winnipeg. Approximately 300 notifications were sent by letter or email to First Nations, communities, stakeholder groups, recreational organizations and members of the public who had requested to be on the mailing list. The drop-in sessions were advertised through local posters, on manitobaparks.com and newspaper ads. A questionnaire was prepared for each park and the questionnaires along with the background materials were available on manitobaparks.com and could be submitted in-person, electronically, by mail or fax.

Approximately 100 people attended the public drop-in sessions and nearly 300 responses were submitted. At the request of local organizations six presentations were made at meetings to provide information on the management planning process.

Summary of CommentsA wide range of opinions reflecting the views of park users was collected through this first phase of public consultation. These comments along with scientific data, academic resources and current park management policies and principles will be considered when drafting the management plans. Individual plans will be developed for each park.

2

The next seven sections provide a synopsis of comments that were received regarding Nopiming Provincial Park. The synopsis of comments about Manigotagan River Provincial Park follows that.

As part of the questionnaire, people were asked to indicate the activities in which they participated within the parks. Camping, canoeing, fishing, hiking and boating were the five most popular responses in Nopiming Provincial Park.

Nopiming: Park EnvironmentRespondents generally thought that the park and its environment should be protected and that the natural environment in Nopiming was the reason for visiting. Several respondents felt that the park should include more protected areas or even that the entire park should be protected and expanded.

Moose and caribou were identified as important species in Nopiming and respondents suggested that these species deserve and require additional protection.

Concerns were raised over the wildfire suppression in the park and its impact on the forest.

Nopiming: Historic and Traditional Use Areas, Park Interpretation and InformationPeople generally stated that the current interpretive material was good, but that they would like material to be made available on additional topics including mining history, First Nations use, flora and fauna, Leave No Trace and wilderness ethics, canoe routes, moose and caribou. Others felt there was already too much interpretive focus on mining in the park.

Some people would like to see more interpretive programming including live interpretation programs, school programs, additional self-guided trails and additional displays at key locations including Tulabi Falls Campground and park entrance points.

Nopiming: Recreational ActivitiesGenerally respondents would like non-motorized activity encouraged within the park, with restrictions on motorized access to sensitive areas. The creation of a non-motorized area (or areas) was requested multiple times. It was felt that recreational activities should be kept as low impact as possible.

Many comments also dealt with specific activities. The questionnaire also asked specifically for comments regarding ATV/ ORV use, boat caches and backcountry camping.

Front-country camping – Concerns were raised about seasonal camping reducing nightly camping opportunities. Respondents asked for restrictions on generator use and the need for a strategy regarding campground upgrades while maintaining a wilderness feel.

3

Hunting – Comments were mostly centred on concerns regarding public safety and the current status of wildlife populations. A couple of people responded that they would like to see hunting removed from the park.

Fishing – Respondents support managing the fish stocks to ensure that a high quality angling experience remains in the park and expressed concern with perceived increased fishing pressure near developed areas.

Boat Caches – Many respondents noted that boat caches were resulting in unsightly garbage and derelict boats being left on lakes in the park. Some people thought the solution was to remove or phase out boats caches while several others suggested implementing a registration/permit system or a requirement to have boats labeled, similar to an ice fishing shack.

Boating – Most people felt that while they should be able to use boats, restrictions should be implemented regarding boat size, type or location to reduce noise, pollution and shoreline erosion. A significant number of responses indicated that there should be areas in the park where motor boats are prohibited.

Hiking, Biking, Snowshoe and Cross-country Ski Trails – These activities were supported as low-impact, nature-based recreation opportunities that should be expanded in the park.

ORV/ATV Use –The majority of respondents support restrictions on ATV and ORV use within the park and several respondents recommended that they should be banned within the park. Suggestions included allowing some designated or marked trails only; limiting use to winter; setting machine size limits and quiet hour restrictions. Concerns were listed about the current use of ATVs/ORVs resulting in habitat destruction, trail damage, noise, wildlife impacts, and illegal and dangerous driving on roads, highways and in cottage subdivisions.

A few respondents supported an increase in the use of ATVs within the park. These respondents also requested increased infrastructure related to the activity (more designated trails and ATV accessible camping) and felt that many of the activities they enjoyed in Nopiming required quad access (backcountry fishing or camping, berry picking or visiting in cottage subdivisions). Other suggestions included a trail pass for ATV users in the park.

It was also noted in several comments that the rules regarding ATV use are unclear and should be better communicated and enforced.

Backcountry Camping – While most people praised the high quality of the experience and routes, the same respondents also expressed concerns about over-crowding and lack of available sites along water routes (ex: Shoe Lake, Seagrim Lake and Elbow Canoe Route). Many people said they would favour a registration, backcountry permit or quota system to help protect the backcountry experience. Respondents felt that accountability was needed for backcountry users as garbage was a big concern. It was also suggested by several people that instead of an online system, backcountry users could check in at campgrounds or at the

4

south park entrance. Respondents who indicated concerns about a registration or reservation system identified concerns over resolving conflicts if a site they had reserved was occupied upon arrival. Several respondents support the current first come, first serve system.

There were many requests for additional campsites (including sites suitable for groups) along current canoe routes and for additional routes with designated campsites. Requests for more amenities (garden thrones/pit privies, bear boxes, picnic tables, group use sites) were balanced with requests to ensure that sites remained private, appropriate for the wilderness feel of the park and that not too many sites are established on any one lake.

Respondents indicated that if fees are implemented for backcountry camping, funds collected should be directed to maintaining sites or to fund improvements.

Nopiming: Park Facilities

Comments generally favoured quality over quantity of park facilities. It was mentioned that although facilities can enhance visitor experiences, facilities should have a wilderness feel that suits Nopiming and protects the integrity of park experience. There were several comments that suggested fixing or upgrading current facilities is a priority and and limit new developments. Several people suggested also that more staff were needed, rather than additional facilities. There were some requests for upgrades at Tulabi Campground (including modern washrooms and potable water).

Nopiming: Commercial OperationsGenerally people wanted adequate buffers between recreational facilities and commercial resource opportunities. Trapping, commercial hunting and guiding (outfitting operations) are supported in the park. There were a few concerns voiced regarding the harvesting of wild rice and the creation of roads to access rice lakes.

Respondents felt that the ecotourism potential for Nopiming was quite high but that there currently was not a large offering of this kind of service available.

Concern was expressed regarding the impacts of the military camp based at Springer Lake.

A significant number of respondents commented that mining should be removed from the park or, at a minimum, the area in which mining is allowed should be reduced, or restricted to only allow current claims but no new claims to be established. Some respondents thought that the current level of mining activity in the park was okay and that a significant find should be allowed to be developed.

5

Nopiming: Park DevelopmentComments favoured keeping the general level of development within the park low. Several respondents suggested that no additional cottage development take place.

Concerns were voiced over any additional road development as this would lead to an increased pressure on park resources to maintain them. Many respondents stated the importance of maintaining the unspoiled and wilderness feel of Nopiming and that development should be limited to current areas and upgrades to existing developments. People wrote that they valued Nopiming for its solitude and under-developed feel.

The following three sections provide a synopsis of comments that were received regarding Manigotagan River Provincial Park.

As part of the questionnaire, people were asked to indicate the activities in which they participated within Manigotagan River Provincial Park. Camping, canoeing, fishing, hiking and hunting were the five most popular responses.

Manigotagan River: Park EnvironmentGenerally people thought that the park does a good job of protecting the landscape and environment. Many comments referenced the natural setting and high quality wilderness experiences that are readily available along the river. Several respondents suggested that the current corridor was too narrow and that the surrounding landscape should be assessed to see if it could be added to the park. Respondents also suggested that to maintain a quality wilderness experience the two private cabins on Turtle Lake should be removed. Additionally, they suggested that the small Recreation Management Land Use Category should be converted to a Backcountry Land Use Category so that the park has 100 per cent protection. Concern was raised regarding current populations of moose and woodland caribou in the area.

Manigotagan River: Historic and Traditional Use Areas, Park Interpretation and InformationComments referenced the importance of the area to First Nations and that more information about the significance of the river to First Nations peoples should be incorporated into interpretive materials. It was also felt that historic sites should be signed and that the park would benefit from an interpretive map.

Manigotagan River: Recreational ActivitiesRespondents praised the high quality backcountry canoe experience and commented that the Manigotagan River was one of the few accessible wilderness opportunities in southern Manitoba. There were concerns over site crowding and deterioration, including garbage and the existence of non-compatible activities (motor boats). Responses indicated that people want quality campsites but not too many campsites developed, as that would take away from the experience. Several respondents indicated that an entry quota or registration system might help

6

What Happens Next?

The next step in the management planning process is the development of draft management plans for Nopiming and Manigotagan River Provincial Parks. The plans will be prepared by a team of local managers, resource officers and park planners who will consider all the comments received during Phase 1 of the consultation. When the draft plans are complete, a second phase of public review will begin. The public will be informed about the dates and times for this review. After the review of the draft plan, the management plan will be finalized. It is anticipated that the plan will be completed in 2016.

Thank you to those who participated in the drop-in sessions and to those who provided written comments and suggestions. Your feedback is appreciated.

For more information about the management planning process, or to be added to the mailing list please contact:

Nopiming and Manigotagan River Provincial Park Management PlansAttn: Morgan Hallett, Regional Parks Specialist Box 4000, Lac Du Bonnet, MB R0E 1A0Telephone: 204-345-1455Email: morgan.hallett@gov.mb.cawww.manitoba.ca/conservation/parks/consult/public.html

www.manitobaparks.com

Part of:

Generally the preparation of a park management plan is divided into five steps:

Step 1: Public consultation and identification of management issues (Phase 1).

Step 2: Distribution of a report on public comments (What We Heard).

Step 3: Prepare draft management plan.

Step 4: Public consultation and review of a draft management plan (Phase 2).

Step 5: Revise and finalize the management plan.

to address these concerns. It was also suggested that any recreational activities need to be low impact and that self-propelled travel is favoured over motorized.

There was a request for a long distance hiking trail along the river corridor and support for the River Steward Program.