The AFA has proposed two alternative road corridors in this case. Following are some of the details they supply in their Appendix 3 "Alternative Primary Roads Corridors" .. Appendix 3

Alternative corridor number: Alternative 1 Manta Lake Road

This alternative involves constructing approximately 3km of new road to connect the existing road to the south with the Narrowbag Road to the north. Alternative 1 has a lesser environmental impact with respect to water crossings, as all are over relatively small creeks, and is the most efficient route, minimizing overall trucking related environmental impacts.

Alternative 1 would be the most direct route, with the lower construction and haul costs of the two alternatives. No major bridges are required, as all water crossings are over small creeks. This alternative also has the least impact on canoe routes as it only crosses the Manta Lake portage.

The following map is taken from Appendix 3 .. with canoe routes, portages and campsite locations overlaid.



Alternative corridor number: Alternative 2 - Charles Lake Rd Extension

This alternative involves the upgrading of approximately 10.4 km of road from the Bissett Creek Road near Charles Lake to the Little Madawaska River to the west. A major crossing of the Little Madawaska River north of Hogan Lake would require a bridge with a span of at least 16 metres (50'). Approximately 3.6 km of major upgrades and new road construction would be required between the Little Madawaska river and the existing Manta Lake road to the west.

Alternative 2 has greater environmental impacts due to much more significant road construction, longer haul routes and a major water crossing.

Alternative 2 would result in significantly higher construction costs, approximately $250,000 above Alternative 1. Alternative 2 also results in higher hauling costs due to the less direct route. Alternative 2 is also less desirable from a social perspective as the route necessitates the crossing of the canoe route on the Little Madawaska River.

Please post any thoughts you may have in considering one alternative over the other ...

Barry Bridgeford
Executive Committee
Algonquin Backcountry Recreationalists
http://www.ABRweb.ca

Again, as described in the previous two threads on roads options, Alternative 1 results in the shortest road distance used by logging trucks, with less potential to cause ecological damage over the long-term, along with less chance of disturbance to campers.

The validity of this choice will be limited by the amount of information on the map.

I agree with Rick, Route 2 crosses Grizzly creek in what appears to be a floodplain which may entail some very major reconstruction for over a km to support the weight of loaded trucks with the associated culverts and fill that may enhance flooding and erosion. Route 2 Also crosses The Madawaska river at a point where the height and width of a bridge would be fairly substantial, or to reduce the size of the bridge large amounts of cutting and filling would be required to make the grade passable.
Route 1 basically follows the 1500' contour for it's entire length to the intersection of route 2 and to all intents and purposes doesn't cross any signifigant wetlands or erosion prone areas.
My choice would be Route 1

I would vote for 1 as described in the other two posts. I think the AFA might prefer this route as well for costs. I have a question though? Does anyone else wonder if moving forward all three will be built at some point, if not this year maybe next?

Chris

All 3? There are only two options.


Jeff

--

Algonquin Backcountry Recreationalists - Caring for Algonquin's Backcountry - abrweb.ca

My Algonquin Park Map - Accurate, Detailed, Free - Version 2.0!

sorry had the other threads in my head. Guess i meant does anyone else wonder if all of the different roads will be built eventually? I dont mean to sound narrow minded or negative just I cant get over how many roads are already out there and cant fathom why we need more.