Algonquin Backcountry Recreationalists
FMP Stage 3 Information Feedback ... July 24th, 2009 ... ABR News Item
Stage 3 started with the info centre open-houses for public review of the finalized 'Stage 2' information. The open-houses are now completed. The 60 day period for feedback and input, regarding this information continues Stage 3 of the process and will run through to September 14th, 2009.
The official Environmental Registry website's explanation of the process can be accessed here.
The ABR's involvement had been in response to Appendix 3 of the Summary of Long Term Management Direction for the 2010-2020 Forest Management Plan. A copy of the official Stage 3 Roads Supplementary Documentation can be downloaded here.
A copy may be downloaded of the 2010-2020 FMP Summary Map (Phase 1 - Stage 3), showing proposed operations for the two next five year periods, over the entire park.
Update Sep. 4/09: The ABR Submission to the 2010-2020 Algonquin Park Forest Management Plan Stage 3 was officially submitted on August 26th, 2009. The PDF document file can be downloaded here .
Update: Sep. 19/09: Subsequent correspondence from the Superintendent of Algonquin Park gave detailed commentary on the August 26th submission.
Following are key points of the ABR submission document, indicating how the AFA's Stage 3 proposed corridors compare to the ABR's Stage 2 submissions.
Billy Lake Road
Billy Lake Road - Proposed Corridor is Alternative 1 (ABR objected to both Alternatives 1 and 2)
The ABR's suggestion of a "third" alternate connecting to Highway 60 to the south was discounted verbally by AFA staff at the openhouse. It was explained that the existing old roadbed south of Little McCauley Lake was environmentally unacceptable due to it in fact being right along the lake's very south shore and not at a distance, as portrayed on mapping. They also explained that the proposed entrance to Highway 60 wouldn't meet with safety and logistical requirements. These reasons for disqualification were not contained in the Stage 3 documentation.
AFA staff also verbally conveyed that the ABR's request for a prohibition on any summer time haulage (should Alternative 1 or 2 prevail), was unmanageable due to limited storage landing areas, staining of cut hardwood laying down for extended periods and the mills needing a steady supply of wood through the season. Their explanation for not adopting a prohibition on any summer time haulage wasn't contained in the Stage 3 documentation.
The ABR believes that the AFA should detail its reasons for dismissing the summarized public comments and concerns in its subsequent FMP documentation .
Manta Lake Road
Manta Lake Road - Proposed Corridor is Alternative 1 (as supported by the ABR)
Three Mile Lake Road
Three Mile Lake Road - Proposed Corridor is Alternative 3 (as supported by the ABR)
The ABR's request that subsequent branch road planning break secondary road loops at canoe routes/portages was recorded in the Summary of Public Comments. At the open-house, an AFA staff person verbally indicated they would break the secondary loop road between the Three Mile Lake and the Maple Lake primary roads at the point where it bisects Maple Creek. However, this wasn't contained in the Stage 3 documentation.
The ABR's request that the secondary road loop bisecting the Manitou/Three Mile portage be broken at that point was not adopted. At the open-house, an AFA staff person verbally indicated they would retain that secondary road and its crossing of the portage, but that it would only be used to extract wood northward from the area south to Namea Lake. However, this limited use was not contained in the Stage 3 documentation.
The ABR believes that the AFA should detail these two intentions in its subsequent FMP documentation .
Thompson Lake Road
Thompson Lake Road - Proposed Corridor is Alternative 1 (ABR supported Alternative 2)
The Stage 3 documentation recognizes the ABR's concerns regarding Alternative 1's bridged watercrossing between Thompson and Little Thompson Lakes enabling inappropriate access. Alternative 1's environmental analysis describes it as a "significant permanent bridge". During the open-house an AFA staff person indicated they would be using a temporary bridge at that point, which would only be in place during the periods of actual haulage and that between those periods it would be "lifted" in order to curtail inappropriate access.
The ABR believes that the AFA should detail this change from a permanent to a regulary "lifted" temporary bridge in its subsequent FMP documentation .
Update: Sep. 19/09: In the subsequent correspondence from the Superintendent of Algonquin Park, it appears that the verbal communication from AFA staff had been "ambiguous" on the issue of the bridge's permanency. This resulting ambiguity speaks to the need to regard written documentation in matters such as these, no matter how formidable, rather than depending on verbal communication.
news016.htm