The Thompson Lake Road is existing, but not drivable. Options for accessing FAM area 5 are being investigated. Three alternative road corridors are proposed. Following are some of the details the AFA supplies in their Appendix 3 Alternative Primary Roads Corridors" .. Appendix 3

Alternative corridor number 1: Original Route

This is the original route used in the previous harvest cycle. This would require the rebuilding of approximately 4.1 km of old road outside Algonquin park, from the Daventry Road to the park boundary near Thompson Lake, and another 1 km inside the park, with the remainder of the road inside the park shared with alternative 2.

This alternative would require a new bridge with a span of approximately 10 metres (30') over Pautois Creek just off of Daventry Road at km 8, and a new bridge with span of approximately 14 metres (40') between Thompson and Little Thompson Lakes.

Advantages and disadvantages: Alternative 1 results in the shortest haul distance, which reduces trucking related environmental impacts, but requires more road construction work (and related environmental disturbance) than alternative 2. Alternative 1 requires the construction of two significant permanent bridges, which is the most significant environmental impact of the three alternatives considered.

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



Alternative corridor number 2: Thompson Lake Bypass-North

Alternative 2 would require a new section of road connecting the original route inside the park with the Daventry Road directly to the east. This alternative would avoid the need for the two significant permanent bridges required for Alternative 1. In order to harvest the area to the north of Little Thompson Lake, a portable bridge would be required between Thompson Lake and Little Thompson Lake, or skid trails could be used to cross the park boundary from the north, if work on the adjacent Nipissing Forest permitted access to that area.

Advantages and disadvantages: Compared to Alternative 1, this alternative would have less environmental impact as there are no major permanent bridges required, but would add approximately 4km to the distance to be travelled by log trucks

Alternative corridor number 3: Thompson Lake Bypass-South

Alternative 3 involves the construction of approximately 10 km of new and existing road, linking the Daventry road south of Brain Lake with the operating units to the northwest by following a route entirely within Algonquin Park. In order to harvest the area to the north of Little Thompson Lake, a portable bridge would be required between Thompson Lake and Little Thompson Lake, or skid trails could be used to cross the park boundary from the north, if work on the adjacent Nipissing Forest permitted access to that area.

Advantages and disadvantages: This alternative would require a new bridge with a span of approximately 10 metres (30') over Cauchon Creek, as well as several culverts over smaller creeks. Compared to Alternative 2, the indirect route created by this alternative would require3 km of additional road construction and would add 12 km to the log haul route. The combination of water crossings, road construction and additional trucking required by this alternative contribute to a significantly higher environmental impact than the other two alternatives.

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


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

It seems to me that only alternative 3 has a negative impact on canoe routes since it takes trucks by Brain L. Since we've pledged that we're opposed logging where it doesn't affect canoe routes, I don't know if we have much concern beyond that.



Jeff

--

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

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

Hi, Barry, thanks for making the maps and info available for comment here. I'm not an ABR member and most of my concerns with the FMP are conservation-related, which will be covered in separate letters.

Something needs to be said about roads being built in the park - this an issue where there will be some overlap with the interests of campers and the interests of conservationists.

Roads are known to be ecologically damaging, since they can allow illegal access (poaching and ATV use) after they're built. There may be impacts to wildlife, along with other effects. It's known that wood turtles, a species at risk that should benefit from park protection, may be killed by logging trucks driving back and forth over long periods of time. Reptiles and amphibians may also be affected although their status is less well documented.

Campers will be disturbed by the noise generated by logging trucks, and at first glance, the map might suggest that the further away from campsites the road is, the lesser the effect of noise on campers.

Besides proximity, the amount of distance that the trucks have to drive on the roads may also affect camper disturbance, since the longer the road, the longer the amount of time is that the trucks are being driven, and can be heard by campers in the area.

Bringing these two together, a very general approach to the issues may be that shorter roads are less likely to disturb campers, and shorter roads are less likely to result in ecological damage.

The information on the AFA road options map is only a representation of the reality on the ground, and those individuals that have actually surveyed the area may have a better idea of the actual potential for damage. Still, the map is all we have and all that most of us can use to form an opinion.

With regard to the Thompson Lake road options:

"...Alternative 1 requires the construction of two significant permanent bridges, which is the most significant environmental impact of the three alternatives considered..."

Bridge construction may be an environmental impact, but the chronic and ongoing long-term use of using other, longer roads may well result in more wildlife mortality, year after year. The other alternatives are options that result in longer distances being travelled by trucks, and may well be the more damaging options in the long-term.

IMO, the shortest road, Alternative 1, has the least potential to adversely affect both campers and the area ecology, when both are considered. The validity of choosing this option will be limited by the amount of information available on the map.

I am in favour of Alt#2, mainly because of the fact, that there is no permanent bridges associated with is route. The idea of a portable bridge or even access from the north by skid trails, appears to be the best route. It is hoped with this route, that there would be no need of crossing to the north thru the watercourse between Thompson/Little Thompson Lakes. Although a portable bridge is discussed, it would be nice to see it not utilized, else alt#2 could result same damage as alt#1 with respect to the aforementioned watercourse crossing, permanent or not, the crossing can present potentials for ecological damage.



Mark Rubino
Mark's Algonquin Park Sampler - Blog
Mark's Algonquin Park Sampler

http://www.ABRweb.ca .. Algonquin Backcountry Recreationalists - Caring for Algonquin's Backcountry

Route 3 has all the earmarks of a potential disaster. The majority of it's length appears to follow significant wetlands and has the additional issue of a permanent bridge over Couchon creek.
Route 1 appears to require some cutting and filling for the approaches to the narrows between Thompson and Little Thompson lakes. But may be a good alternative for logging north of Little Thompson only (eliminating the need for a portable bridge at Little Thompson) as this route has already been impacted by the existing road.
Route 2 appears to be well south of Little Thompson and north of the wetlands to the southwest, but may require some cutting and filling of the large hill south of Little Thompson and reconstruction of the spur to the north.
My choice would be Route 2 with the (already existing) use of Route 1 ONLY to access the area north of Little Thompson which would eliminate the need for any bridges (permanent or portable) within the park and contains the use within either already impacted or non-significant areas

Is there any options that dont require new roads to be built, skidder trails etc? I know it may sound funny but no matter how long I look at it, how much reading I do there is a large part of me that just wants to ask. Isnt there enough roads already? I know its a multi purpose park, and essentially that has been a good part of AP and why AP is still around, but then I look at google earth and see the veins that criss cross everywhere as existing logging roads. I sometimes get jealous yes, because those logging roads go to places I will never get to. In one statement there is talk about taking leases back for cottages to lessen the environmental impact but in the next Lets build a road? Or a windfarm? Sorry that is my rant,I look at all the options and like some others see wetlands and small tributaries being effected by all the options. I cant see any not having an impact on the watershed of the area, I dont see many that wont affect recreation, I dont see any that wont affect flora and fauna.

That said Alt 2