| Author |
Message |
chris
Member
Post Number: 118
Registered: 03-2006
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 3, 2012 - 9:01 am: | 
|
FYI, the AWS for the Sudbury FMP is posted for review:
http://www.appefmp.mnr.gov.on.ca/eFMP/viewFmuPlan. do?fmu=889&fid=58991&type=CURRENT&pid=58991&sid=10 888&pn=AWS&ppyf=2010&ppyt=2020&ptyf=2010&ptyt=2015 &aryf=2012&aryt=2013
Note the effective date on the webpage is misleading.
Some interesting stuff in there, especially for road development, upgrades and access controls.
(Message edited by Chris on April 3, 2012) |
chris
Member
Post Number: 119
Registered: 03-2006
| | Posted on Thursday, April 5, 2012 - 8:35 am: |
|
Here is an example of some of the work scheduled to be done within the next two years:
It shows the Turner Road extension, (Twinkle Lake Access) which will ultimately go deep into one of the lagest remaining unroaded areas. Ultimately the Turner Road will cross the Yorston and Pilgrim canoe routes as well. This road also connects to the road which parallels the Obabika River where a number of related upgrades are also scheduled.
This image shows the new access control, probably a difficult location to enforce such a measure... It also shows where it will cross the Twinkle to Ames Creek portage - no recognition or AOC was given.
A number of these roads in the Western Backcountry area have been upgraded over the past several years, an ongoing process it would seem.
The attached link also provides details on the Sturgeon River crossing, access control and related infrastructure and works pursuant to the first two years of this FMP in Sudbury Forest.
(Message edited by Chris on April 5, 2012) |
ed
Moderator
Post Number: 1158
Registered: 03-2004
| | Posted on Friday, April 6, 2012 - 9:00 am: |
|
Perhaps the forest planners were not aware that a portage was there, when the plan was drawn up.
However, they are now aware of its existence and the need for a prescription for this crossing.
The dashed green line on this map running a bit south of the access control point ( stop sign symbol) is an old logging road system that is well used by ATV's accessing Yorston, Linger, and Seagram Lakes and west to Pilgrim Creek and the Sturgeon River.
What is also missing from this map is the ATV trail from the Twinkle parking area that crosses Twinkle Lake at the narrows and connects to the existing road network. This is what has given all of us, canoeists and ATVers relatively easy access to the area.
|
chris
Member
Post Number: 120
Registered: 03-2006
| | Posted on Saturday, April 7, 2012 - 12:04 pm: |
|
Perhaps... although Vermillion Forest Management was less than willing to recognize existing canoe routes that were previously documented in a variety of MNR references, so I'm kind of skeptical. Of course, some of these other routes were not near any allocations or operations and their refusal probably had more to do with spite and the larger issues related to route designation.
Curiously, it seemed to me, MNR Staff were more adversarial than most VFM Staff. One wonders if Mr. Street had gotten his temporary bridge how this dynamic might have changed... what was it he said.. something to the effect of "... the real value in these routes is that they once existed." Meaning, in his opinion, their value only exists within the historical context, not in terms of today’s or future uses.
Perhaps even more curious, is that that VFM appeared to offer Wolf Lake area in exchange for the bridge as trade off. But, how could they do this? Perhaps VFM had some deal to acquire these leases... Interestingly, when the FMP was done and the bridge was out, along comes this proposal to change the designation of the Wolf Lake area.
Coincidence, perhaps... perhaps the adversarial relationships of canoeist, industry and MNR was just baggage that clouded the issues and in the end VFM and the MNR were only willing to do what they absolutely had to do.
I hope as the future of this FMP unfolds, they might be willing to do a bit more, including the sighting of these many new roads and route crossings. But when considering the opinions of so many of the individuals and entities involved, I'm not optimistic.
|
ed
Moderator
Post Number: 1163
Registered: 03-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 10, 2012 - 11:10 am: |
|
I did hear what he said, I would agree with your interpretation and I suspect that is what he thinks and believes. But was he just thinking out loud and if so what would actually happen on the land?
I think that Vermillion said they would recognize existing canoe routes (portages) that they could still find on the landscape. If they couldn’t find a particular portage they would ask MNR or others like ourselves to help locate them. If it could not be found then it must no longer be there and they would then be allowed to cut over it.
Vermillion also told us, it was dying by a thousand cuts, referring to the many canoe routes and portages in the Temagami and Sudbury areas that they have to make provision for in those
FMU’s , so I can understand their frustration and their adversarial approach. They are obligated as a part of their mandate to protect the Values found on the units they operate within.
In the case of the Twinkle to Ames portage, as far as I know, there is no documentation. The portage does not appear to be historical, but has likely been there since the road to Twinkle was put in place. So unless we bring it to their attention, then it is unlikely they would be aware of it.
If the person(s) lining out the road right of way, prior to the bulldozer going through across the portage, found the portage, they are obligated under FIM to report their findings to MNR for a decision.
We have been asking for route protection during Forest Management Planning exercises and I think that is not the place to do it, unless a specific route or Value is threatened. So you may be correct in surmising that protection is denied, perhaps out of spite, because the route is not threatened as a result of the current FMP. Or it could also be denied because we should be asking for protection through another process .i.e. the Class EA process.
It is possible that the dynamics would have been different if Gervais Forest Products had got their bridge request approved. But it didn’t happen this time around, because there were other options available to them to access the wood on the east side of the river instead of violating the integrity of the Park for strictly commercial reasons.( part of the regulations for Protected Areas and Conservation Reserves Act) The second phase of the plan required them to access allocation blocks from roads on the east side. Some of the allocations in the Temagami Plan also require some of these roads on the east side to be developed/ redeveloped.
I don’t believe there is any connection between Vermillion and the Wolf Lake mining leases. Lands have been set aside for completion of the Chiniguchi Waterway Class Park that extends north of Wolf Lake up to Stauffer Lake. It may have appeared to us that they were offering these lands, in exchange for the bridge but Vermillion is not the keeper of those lands, MNR is. Vermillion is required as part of it’s FSC certification to maintain/protect areas of old growth on the units they log. When it was proposed to remove the Forest Reserve status from Wolf Lake to allow mining to proceed, Vermillion agreed not to go in there to log the old growth. It may have looked as if they were being good citizens, but it is a requirement of their FSC certification to maintain areas of old growth..
The proposal to change Wolf Lake came from MNDM who believe they are mandated to protect the interests of their long standing mining tenant. When an area is protected as a Forest Reserve, on the basis that it might become a Park at some point in the future, it was deemed to be difficult to raise money for mining promotion purposes. Because of the mostly negative public input to the EBR proposal, MNR dropped it and we continue to work towards getting Wolf Lake removed from mining and converted to Park status.
You mention road placements across canoe routes.
It is difficult to say where the Turner road will be placed as it crosses the Yorston River near Talking Falls, a place that we as canoeists value. I recall the Falls being located in a valley with maybe a 40-50 + foot drop and maybe about a 150 foot distance between the high spots on either side. I would think that would be a costly bridge and the crossing would more likely be placed further north where it is flatter and where most of the distance could be covered with a gravel/ rock fill causeway leading to a small bridge.
I know that the whole thing with the bridge across the Sturgeon River irked people on both sides of the debate. Some of us were in favor of the bridge being allowed because it would potentially maintain a road free area for parts of Yorston River and Pilgrim Creeks. Gervais Forest Products wanted the bridge to access timber on the east side of the Sturgeon and they and Vermillion developed a reasonable case for doing that. But the Sturgeon River is a protected area with not really much protection, only 200m on the Sudbury side and 300m on the Temagami side, + the width of the river at that point.
Several years ago I was in the Ontario Parks Regional office in Thunder Bay, waiting for someone and I noticed a clock on the wall. It caught my attention because it was not working. Above it was a sign, that said “Parks are Timeless.”
We need to protect them.
As advocates for wilderness and canoe route protection we will not be successful all the time.
Some battles are lost before they ever begin.
In the next 3 years the mining industry will develop the “Ring of Fire”, chromite deposits and probably build a railway track from Nakina to the McFaulds Lake area, to haul out the ore. It will cross the Attawapiskat, Albany, Dorsey, Ogoki, Kapikotongwa, and the Little Current Rivers, to name just a few. The Attawapiskat, Albany, Ogoki, and Little Current are Waterway Parks.
Not likely we can do much about it this time, because there is no other way to get from Nakina to McFaulds in a reasonably economic fashion. All we can do is try to mitigate the effects.
On the positive side, a train running up to that area, that was mandated to carry passengers, bagage and canoes, as well as chromite ore etc. would make a lot of canoe territory accessible to a lot of people.
I am glad that I am not a Caribou. They will be the losers again.
In the case of the Sturgeon River crossing proposal, I think that all of us, on all sides of the debate, need to move on.
|
chris
Member
Post Number: 121
Registered: 03-2006
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 10, 2012 - 6:45 pm: |
|
WOW!
Now that's a post...
I agree with "most" of it too, especially the last part.
Cheers,
Chris
|
|
Temagami general