| Author |
Message |
emerald
Member
Post Number: 10
Registered: 06-2005
| | Posted on Friday, March 23, 2012 - 5:12 pm: | 
|
MNR is conducting a review of the Temagami Land Use Plan (TLUP) from March 21-May4, 2012. Since setting up the Crown Land Use Policy Atlas (CLUPA), areas that had been designated as Special Management or Integrated Management areas in TLUP were now identified in the Atlas as General Use. The new term "Enhanced Management" will be applied to these areas in the CLUPA to clarify the management options. It is not an easy process to wade through the document to see the changes that relate to corrections of 74 policy reports in CLUPA and the re-designation of 29 general use areas to enhanced management.The changes seem minor. However, the process needs examining. What was scheduled to be a 10 year review of TLUP is now, 'according to current provincial direction' merely an assessment to determine if a review is necesary. A focus group of MNR staff conducted a scoped review. The problem is, there seems to be no mechanism for public input in an ongoing review process.This amendment is posted on the EBR:ontario.ca/ebr (011-5414) If this doesn't work, try TLUPAmendmentForm2011-011_Mar2012.pdf( 194KB) The Temagami LCC is currently studying this information. It appears that the only document that now represents this planning process is the CLUPA and that the TLUP will in future only be accessed through the Atlas.The Planner in charge is Julie Robinson, North Bay 705 475-5546 |
dave
Member
Post Number: 220
Registered: 03-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, March 25, 2012 - 3:40 pm: |
|
"The problem is, there seems to be no mechanism for public input in an ongoing review process."
depending on the stage of the process, public input may not be required |
curly
Member
Post Number: 329
Registered: 03-2006
| | Posted on Sunday, March 25, 2012 - 8:32 pm: |
|
Dave and Emerald,
FOT is working on this. Would be great to have your help. Please contact us through our website. |
les
Member
Post Number: 32
Registered: 12-2007
| | Posted on Monday, April 2, 2012 - 7:26 pm: |
|
Emerald, Curly & Dave,
Nastawgan Trails will be looking at this process and commenting to the MNR.
Up front I'd like to know exactly how the Special and Integrated Management Areas (Zones) were altered to appear as General Use in the Atlas and the name of the person who made this alteration. Someone had to change the wording.
We need to know that none of the Zone Prescriptions have been altered in detail, scope or weight.
We need to know that the Recreation Area Strategy is unchanged in its detail, scope or weight.
We need to know that the TLUP is still the TLUP and that an amended printed version, an actual book that we can own and hold, will be available.
We need to know that, after having lifted all three shells, we won't find that the pea has been stolen. We need to know that the Atlas won't become an abdication of the TLUP.
If I sound suspicious it's because I am! Very!
The Temagami Environmental Movement, in its various forms, should consider a collective lawsuit against the MNR to establish best practices for trail and portage buffers and viewscapes. Our trails should have permanent, stand alone protection which is not party to the FMP process.
Regards,
Les.
PS - Someone should tell the local mayor that Wolf Lake is actually in Temagami and its protection is a Temagami issue. I don't think he has Craig's Map.
|
dave
Member
Post Number: 221
Registered: 03-2005
| | Posted on Monday, April 2, 2012 - 11:29 pm: |
|
first of all, wolf lake falls under sudbury and i don't understand what the big deal is..an important area is still important, regardless of what district it falls under. that's all i'm saying about that, there's another thread about it.
second, you can't file a lawsuit against the MNR when they did nothing wrong. not to mention, with all the cuts that keep coming their way, they're basically broke anyway
|
grncnu
Member
Post Number: 181
Registered: 08-2010
| | Posted on Monday, April 2, 2012 - 11:37 pm: |
|
though i am ignorant of the details of the tlup, clupa, etc. i still agree that suspicion (vigilance) is warranted.
the "opposition" (i mean the highly organized and motivated interests opposed to wilderness preservation) have this down to a fine art. they always have the ear of government, and they share ideas that have served their agenda across many jurisdictions.
the roll-back of existing restrictions on land use will be relentless, as push-back from vested interests always has been. |
chris
Member
Post Number: 117
Registered: 03-2006
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 3, 2012 - 8:10 am: |
|
http://www.ebr.gov.on.ca/ERS-WEB-External/displayn oticecontent.do?noticeId=MTE1MjEy&statusId=MTcyNjU w&language=en
Policy Proposal Notice: EBR Registry Number: 011-5414
Title:
Minor amendment to the Temagami Land Use Plan and associated policy reports of the Crown Land Use Policy Atlas (Amendment # 2011-011) Ministry:
Ministry of Natural Resources
Date Proposal loaded to the Registry:
March 21, 2012
Keyword(s): Land | Land use planning
Comment Period: 44 days: submissions may be made between March 21, 2012 and May 04, 2012.
Description of Policy:
The North Bay District is proposing one minor amendment to the Temagami Land Use Plan (TLUP) and the associated policy reports of the Crown Land Use Policy Atlas (CLUPA). The amendment is being proposed in response to the district proceeding with the scheduled 10-year review of the TLUP. As per the Guide for Crown Land Use Planning (2011), an assessment was completed to determine the need for a full plan review; this resulted in the decision to undertake a scoped review as the plan continues to meet its objectives and intent.
To clarify land use direction, the amendment proposes administrative changes to language in the CLUPA policy reports along with the re-designation of 29 management areas in the CLUPA from General Use Area to Enhanced Management Area. The proposed re-designation will not change the original intent or the permitted uses of the specified management areas; the re-designation is simply a name change. The proposed amendment will:
Ensure the intent of Special Management Areas in the TLUP is accurately captured through re-designations in CLUPA;
Ensure the Management Area Descriptions of the TLUP are correctly represented in CLUPA; and
Add clarity to existing land use direction.
If approved, the amendment would ensure that the intent of the TLUP would be met in the associated policy reports of the CLUPA. In doing so, the land use policies would provide better land use direction to MNR staff, industry, and the public.
Purpose of Policy:
The purpose of this posting is to invite the public, stakeholder groups, and Aboriginal communities to comment on the proposed minor amendment to the TLUP and associated policy reports of the CLUPA.
Other Information:
The following web links provide supporting information:
Temagami Land Use Plan http://publicdocs.mnr.gov.on.ca/View.asp?Document_ ID=15019&Attachment_ID=31619
Crown Land Use Policy Atlas - Amendment # 2011-011 http://crownlanduseatlas.mnr.gov.on.ca/lu_amend_Sr ch_tool.html
Hardcopies of the proposed amendment can also be viewed at the following locations during business hours:
Ministry of Natural Resources – Contact Julie Robinson, District Planner, for an appointment
North Bay District
3301 Trout Lake Road
North Bay, Ontario P1A 4L7
Telephone: 705-475-5546
Temagami Public Library
7 Lakeshore Drive
P.O. Box 220
Temagami, Ontario P0H 2H0
Telephone: 705-569-2945
Temiskaming Shores Public Library (New Liskeard Branch)
50 Whitewood Avenue
New Liskeard, Ontario P0J 1P0
Telephone: 705-647-4215
Public Consultation:
This proposal has been posted for a 44 day public review and comment period starting March 21, 2012. If you have any questions, or would like to submit your comments, please do so by May 04, 2012 to the individual listed under "Contact". Additionally, you may submit your comments on-line.
All comments received prior to May 04, 2012 will be considered as part of the decision-making process by the Ministry of Natural Resources if they are submitted in writing or electronically using the form provided in this notice and reference EBR Registry number 011-5414.
Please Note: All comments and submissions received will become part of the public record. You will not receive a formal response to your comment, however, relevant comments received as part of the public participation process for this proposal will be considered by the decision maker for this proposal.
Other Public Consultation Opportunities:
A local and provincial level stakeholder mail-out and paid advertisement in local newspapers will also invite the public to review and provide input on the proposed amendment. MNR staff will also attend meetings with interested parties in order to explain the proposed amendment and to obtain input.
|
dave
Member
Post Number: 222
Registered: 03-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 3, 2012 - 11:06 am: |
|
there ya go..just a name change, no big deal |
grncnu
Member
Post Number: 182
Registered: 08-2010
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 4, 2012 - 12:43 am: |
|
thanks for the post, chris. Having read it twice, i still don't get a sense of what on earth they are driving at beyond vague generalities. in this sort of context words are chosen carefully, hopefully to clarify a policy but sometimes for just the opposite reason. maybe it's just me but i find the repeated use of the word "minor" worrisome... so at the risk of sounding paranoid i'll stick with "caveat emptor"...
"just because you're paranoid, it don't mean they're not after you..." (nirvana) |
emerald
Member
Post Number: 11
Registered: 06-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 4, 2012 - 3:50 pm: |
|
I think individuals concerned about the environment need not describe themselves as paranoid but do need to be vigilant and ready to act. It is 'worrisome' that vast areas of the TLUP were able to be changed from special status to "General Use" in the Atlas. How did this come about? Also the CPC process that developed the TLUP took great pains to describe the area in terms of "Watersheds", more in keeping with First Nations philosophy and care for the land. Reference to watersheds as descriptors is being erased and a lot of meaningful information with it. |
ed
Moderator
Post Number: 1157
Registered: 03-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 4, 2012 - 4:50 pm: |
|
It appears that the information from TLUP was not entered correctly when the CLUPA was under development. Land use designations such as Enhanced Management Area (EMA) were foreign to CLUPA at the time it was put together. At that time the term EMA only existed for Temagami within the TLUP.
If you go to CLUPA and select an area in Temagami that is under TLUP and you pick an EMA and then select the policy report you will find the area is designated as a General Use Area, but the policy report is written as an EMA.
Clearly someone made a mistake several years ago when CLUPA was developed and now it is being corrected.
I don't see anything here that is covert or surreptitious on MNR's part.
Just a mistake.
The policy reports that I have had reason to look at, in regards to TLUP, refer to various lakes and rivers ( watershed) that the specific EMA covers.
You can check this out by going to CLUPA and selecting an area that you know is an EMA under TLUP and then review the language in the policy report.
CLUPA can be accessed here:
http://crownlanduseatlas.mnr.gov.on.ca/clupa.html
|
les
Member
Post Number: 33
Registered: 12-2007
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 4, 2012 - 7:47 pm: |
|
The advise I've received is that you can take the MNR to court and ask a judge to interpret what their actual responsibility is re protecting trails and portages.
At present, trail buffers exist only within the context of an allocation in a current FMP. There is no permanent stand alone protection. The 30/30 T1 buffer zone is purely arbitrary, not based on any field research re what it actually takes to protect trail values, not a function of the TLUP and, to my knowledge, not a function of the FMP. It appears that someone just made it up and it is woefully inadequate and would not be considered "best practice" (Is the MNR doing something wrong here?). Changing the T1 buffer would not require and amendment to the TLUP or the FMP. The T1 buffer is arbitrary and can therefore be arbitrarily changed and I believe that a judge could order this change.
And then there's the issue of viewscapes and viewpoints. The TLUP clearly states in the zone prescriptions that viewscape management, which would be along the entire length of a trail, is the strategy for protecting trails. The Roosevelt Road (used to access the Ottawa-Temiskaming Highland Trail) has a 1 km viewscape buffer on both sides for its entire length. The trail has only the 30/30?????
The "Forestry" Management Plan is actually a "Logging" Management Plan and the process is set up to position non-logging interests as opponents; the "bad guys". I'm getting a little tired of going to meetings, reviewing logging plans and writing submissions. It's high time for our trails and portages to permanently stand on their own ground.
I don't believe that the change in designation was a "mistake"! A person reads one word and then writes another?? I think we need to know who it was that made the "mistake".
How do you define the Temagami Area? To me it's all the land shown on the Historic Map. To define Temagami by a municipal boundary or a forest district boundary doesn't do it for me. Wolf Lake might be in the Sudbury District but it's a Temagami issue.
Thank you Emerald for getting this discussion going. } |
dave
Member
Post Number: 223
Registered: 03-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, April 5, 2012 - 11:01 am: |
|
les, do you really want to go through the hassle of taking the MNR to court to just interpret a map? just ask any planner or someone along those lines. in addition, logging/forestry isn't the devil people make it out to be..the practice, anyway. the companies..yeah, some are definitely idiots. i don't in any possible way condone clear cutting, which we don't actually have much of here, but we do unfortunately have little to no regulations on shelterwood cutting, allowing the cuts to be practically clear cuts. anyways, the practice of logging, when done responsibly, is actually beneficial to the forest (discussion for another time). as for "getting a little tired of going to meetings" etc, would you prefer it if you were in a country where the public has no say at all?? you should appreciate the fact that you have at least SOME input into the process. people are making too big of a deal out a change is wording if the meaning is staying the same...it's when the meaning changes to something negative that you need to worry |
les
Member
Post Number: 34
Registered: 12-2007
| | Posted on Thursday, April 5, 2012 - 6:40 pm: |
|
Hi Dave,
It is my intention to take the MNR to a judge, not to interpret a map, but to get the no cut buffer zones for trails and portages increased to a minimum 250 metres on both sides and to get distant viewscape management along the entire trail (a 250 metre no cut buffer is not enough for mature forest where the slope drops away from the trail). I also want the no cut buffer to be a permanent stand alone corridor on its own land, separate from the FMP process, not a part of the timber base. I would also ask the court to make these buffers provincial.
Having to continually attend office and field meetings to argue whether the buffer can be increased a little given the local circumstances, as per the RD decision, is a real hassle. The whole process is a real hassle and in the long term really iffy. The current 30/30 could be altered to say 15/15 in a future FMP by a future generation of MNR staff and a nasty right wing government.
I don't view going to court as a hassle. I think it would be an interesting challenge that, in and of itself, would raise awareness in a sleeping public and have great promotional value as a fund raiser. Temagami would, once again, be on the stage of controversy (right where it belongs).
Legal advise says it'll cost about $5000 to file the papers with the court and probably another $25,000 for a knowledgeable lawyer, so let's say $50,000. If all of the local trail/portage/environmental organizations were to form a coalition this financial goal should be achievable.
I'm willing to roll the dice here because the current situation is not based on "science" and certainly does not represent the best practice. I believe that, regardless of any land use plan or forest management plan or other provisions in other documents, the Government of Ontario is, if permitting and promoting the existence of trails and portages, obligated to ensure their proper protection.
Les.
|
irishfield
Member
Post Number: 358
Registered: 11-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, April 5, 2012 - 11:11 pm: |
|
Les, where do you plan to get that money and why on earth does Temagami need to be on the "stage of controversy"? There's enough of that BS with just the local "theater" actors. Maybe Bob, now that he's leading the liebral party, will come up again and the two of you can chain yourself to a tree together. Just don't drive 12" spikes into those trees, to kill mill workers as has been done in the past!
What is the point of these "no cut" buffers for trails. They just give a false view that nothing has happened to the forest. I can tell you from a birds eye view.. there isn't much "tree" left from Matachewan to Temagami ! If you're gonna fight for something, stop the cutting all together. Not just some false view from trail or water. |
ed
Moderator
Post Number: 1159
Registered: 03-2004
| | Posted on Friday, April 6, 2012 - 9:13 am: |
|
" If you're gonna fight for something, stop the cutting all together."
...,and that is not likely going to happen, when so many people living in the north rely on forestry for their livelihood, and when all of us collectively use the wood to build our homes and cottages and sometimes use it to heat our homes and cottages. |
dave
Member
Post Number: 224
Registered: 03-2005
| | Posted on Friday, April 6, 2012 - 3:21 pm: |
|
stopping the cutting is also not healthy for the forest (as weird as that sounds) because it's the only disturbance regime left now that we suppress fires that at one point burned with incredible intensity. the issue shouldn't be STOPPING cutting, but fighting for better management and stronger enforcement of the cuts. as it stands the companies are self-regulated via the MNR and are thus able to be very generous with their cuts. that's the real issue at hand that most people tend to not realize.
also, les, why the hell would you want it to be in controversy?!? it's at relative peace now and i like that..i don't like going to my cottage to fight, i like to go to relax. plus all that crap that happened earlier like irishfield mentioned (spikes in trees) gave the rest of us (environmentalists, cottagers, campers, etc) a bad name that we're still trying to recover from. |
dave
Member
Post Number: 225
Registered: 03-2005
| | Posted on Friday, April 6, 2012 - 3:23 pm: |
|
i should point out that the "self-regulated via the MNR" part means that the MNR imposes restrictions, but due to budget cuts from the government, they can't afford to have someone watching the cuts, so they have to tell the companies to watch themselves. an inspector pops in once in a while at most |
ed
Moderator
Post Number: 1160
Registered: 03-2004
| | Posted on Friday, April 6, 2012 - 8:02 pm: |
|
I am not sure that I see it quite that way Dave.
There are 43 Forest Management Units( FMU’s) in the province.
Only 4 of them are managed directly by the Crown, including Temagami which is managed by the MNR North Bay District .
Most of the others are managed by Sustainable Forest Licensees, ( SFL’s)
The SFL’s write the Forest Management Plan (FMP), but an MNR district forester is responsible for overseeing that the plan conforms to the tenets of the Crown Forest Sustainability Act, (CSFA). It costs about $1M to write a Forest Management Plan for a unit.A great deal of effort goes into the development of each plan.
Most of the the SFL’s in the province are certified by one or another group that reviews their progress towards meeting the objectives of the approved FMP and carries out audits of that progress usually on an annual basis. Audits are also done on the ground, and those citizens who have become involved in the outcomes for that unit, for whatever reasons we have, are invited to attend the field audits. Audit reports are then put onto the SFL websites while
annual reports for the FMU’s progress towards meeting the objectives of the approved plan are available on the MNR forestry website, for interested parties to review.
A generalized overview of the SFManagement concept can be accessed in this Wikipedia article.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sustainable_forest_ma nagement
A list of the various FMU’s in Ontario and their approved plans are available on the MNR forestry website.
http://www.appefmp.mnr.gov.on.ca/eFMP/home.do?lang uage=en
The plans are not the easiest to read as they sometimes are in excess of 1,000 pages in length plus maps etc.
Is this all foolproof ?
No, but, ‘it is the best we have at present and it is much better than what went on in the past’ .
(That is an indirect quote from the Environmental Commissioner of Ontatio (ECO). I believe that he is correct)
Much improvement in forest management practices has been made since the CSFA and the SFCertification processes came into effect.
For an overview of Forestry in Ontario without getting into a lot of the nitty gritty detail go here:
http://www.mnr.gov.on.ca/en/STEL02_168317.html?CSB _ic-name=browseByTopic&CSB_ic-info=forests_Eng
|
dave
Member
Post Number: 226
Registered: 03-2005
| | Posted on Friday, April 6, 2012 - 9:51 pm: |
|
right, they grant licences, but they don't overwatch the cut due to budget cuts. that's how it works..they send someone out once in a while to make sure everything's on the up and up, but that's it. other than that it's essentially self-regulating. i won't mention names, but there are a couple areas in temagami where the company over-stepped their boundaries, but no one noticed because there's a massive lack of enforcement. had there been enforcement, the company would have been fined. without giving names, the areas (2) are easy enough to find on google earth ;). every consultant knows the MNR can't enforce it, so do foresters, etc. hell, i learned about it early in university
i agree that it's better than what we had, but the fact still remains that we need great improvement. personally i think stopping cutting would be just as bad as stopping burning has been |
grncnu
Member
Post Number: 184
Registered: 08-2010
| | Posted on Sunday, April 8, 2012 - 1:11 am: |
|
to me the easy road access to the previously remote areas is just as big an issue as logging. as they used to say in the old days, the country is being "opened up" and it'll never be the same again, at least not until gas hits 5 bucks a litre...
as for logging, ironically it seems like the more developed, cottage-y areas are far better protected than the remote areas.
i don't quite get the "things are better now than ever before" notion in the context of what's been happening in the area over a period of decades.
i would also take issue with the not very scientific assertion that forests not disturbed by fire or logging are in some way unnatural or unhealthy... fire is selective (i.e. following the lie of the land, burning up some communities but not others, etc. etc.) and leaves most of the biomass behind, all very unlike the irresponsible logging practices now being followed in the area!!
i agree with les that the protection of the routes is paramount (this spills over into the other thread re sudbury district). |
dave
Member
Post Number: 227
Registered: 03-2005
| | Posted on Monday, April 9, 2012 - 11:03 am: |
|
ask any forester/biologist/ecologist about it. disturbance is healthy for a forest. example - due to fire suppression the red pine is declining in the wolf lake area while maple is on the rise. also due to fire suppression red oak is essentially non-existent in the area now. with the logging, it's a like walking a tight rope..some practices will be good for one thing but bad for another. when done properly, shelterwood and selective cutting can be beneficial..when done improperly, it has the opposite effect.
i would also 100% disagree with your remark about "cottage-y" areas being far better protected..just look at the massive cut by reuben lake..the potential mining that may be happening near elbow lake, etc. i would argue it's more common due to the ease of access
fire is not at all selective. it burns everything and hops smaller water bodies. there was once a fire that stretched from the sault area to the shores of lake temiskaming. apparently there are records of people having to run from it and jump in lakes to avoid it. why do you think there are no many pine stands in that area? ;)
the road access issue is definitely true though, which is why companies need to take the initiative to destroy the roads on their way out. however, the flip side to that is that the roads can act as corridors for animals. still though, i'd prefer to see them destroyed
|
dave
Member
Post Number: 228
Registered: 03-2005
| | Posted on Monday, April 9, 2012 - 8:22 pm: |
|
for those interested in seeing textbook illegal and improper logging activities, look up Terrace Bay in Google Earth, and move north to Owl Lake, and just scan north to Long Lake and east. can't hide from the eye in the sky |
grncnu
Member
Post Number: 185
Registered: 08-2010
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 10, 2012 - 12:35 am: |
|
i think the correlation of logging with natural disturbances is a very questionable one and is ultimately derived from self-serving industry propaganda sleazing its way into academic semi-respectability.
when i said that fires are "selective" i obviously meant that each fire is propelled hither and thither by the winds, the lie of the land, the dryness of the fuel and many other natural variables. all these factors combine to determine the scope and impact of the disturbance; for example in many instances large mature hardwoods like red oak and sugar maple survive fires that remove the entire understory. also, epic, apocalyptic fires covering half the province must be exceedingly rare events in canada, or we would presumably have no old growth (sorry i should have used the propaganda-word overmature) forests.
the idea that a logged forest is "healthier" (even assuming best practices) than an untouched, un-interfered-with natural forest is somewhat arrogant to say the least.
as for the cottagy areas, as far as i know most of them don'tlook like this:
photo is from gervais road about 5 kms from the sturgeon. |
grncnu
Member
Post Number: 186
Registered: 08-2010
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 10, 2012 - 1:06 am: |
|
oh yeah i forgot to add... on what evidence do you assert that the wolf lake red pine forest remains in existence solely due to the suppression of fires that might have ocurred??
and those same theoretical fires could have been naturally supressed so the notion is absurd in any case.
and why exactly is it a problem if maples are moving into the area as a succession species?? |
|
Temagami general