The CPC is an advisory committee to the Ministry of Natural Resources, and,
since last year, to the Teme Auiggama Anishnabai, since a memo addendum to
the memorandum of understanding between Ontario and the TAA was signed,
resulting in TAA participation in the CPC process, with a TAA co-chair
and our appointees.
The CPC has released a set of "land use scenarios" for public comment
until July 15.
thanks.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Comments from NativeNet moderator, Gary Trujillo (gst@gnosys.svle.ma.us):
Following is information supplied elsewhere on the APC bulletin-board
system from which the original article was obtained that gives background
details about the situation:
/* Written 11:56 PM Jul 4, 1994 by web:brennain in igc:for.canada */
/* ---------- "TEMAGAMI PLANS NEED COMMENT BY AUG" ---------- */
TEMAGAMI ACTION ALERT ALERT ALERT ALERT ALERT ALERT
Temagami - majestic pines, rugged terrain, wilderness jewel.
Temagami - mine site, mill site, town site. Temagami - home of the
Teme Augama Anishnabai, still without a treaty after more than a
century of struggle, two decades in the courts, and three years at
the negotiating table. Temagami - Ontario's symbol and prime
subject of controversy and land use conflict, over logging, land
development and road construction, and their impacts on the wild
areas, old growth forests and recreational backcountry.
In the 1970's, conflict centred on a proposal to build a major
tourist "attraction" on Maple Mountain; in the '80's the battles
over land use escalated around the Red Squirrel Road, illegally
cleared in 1984 and finally partially built in 1989, after legal
challenges and lengthy blockades. And the '90's - perhaps the
decade of consultation, perhaps the decade of co-operation, or
perhaps the decade of co-optation. Who could say, thus far?
The Comprehensive Planning Council was established by (then) Minister of
Natural Resources Bud Wildman in March, 1993, taking over from its
predecessor the Temagami Advisory Council, with chair Roman Brozowski and
several members staying on from TAC to CPC. The CPC's mandate is to
recommend a "comprehensive land-use and resource management plan for the
Temagami area" by March 31, 1996. In April 1993, an addendum to the
Memorandum of Understanding between Ontario and the Teme Augama Anishnabai
provided for the appointment by the TAA of a co-chair and four members to
CPC, with the stewardship principles articulated in the Agreement-in-
Principle between Ontario and the Teme Augama Anishnabai forming the basis
of the TAA participation in CPC. The Comprehensive Planning Council is
presently seeking comment on a package of planning objectives and land-use
scenarios which it released to the public in May, with July 15 1994 the
deadline for comment.
The Comprehensive Planning Council's package of land-use options and
planning scenarios, which range from status-quo management coupled with a
moderate protection component, to status-quo management coupled with almost
no protection component. The CPC's July 15 deadline for comments means you
have to write or call today! Here's some background, and a highlight of some
of the issues and concerns.
The Comprehensive Planning Council has a mandate to develop plans for "model
management" of the Temagami area. As the successor to a series of government
mandated advisory bodies (Temagami Area Working Group, Temagami Advisory
Council), the CPC is to take a "new approach" to planning various resource
management plans (timber, wildlife, tourism) on a common planning schedule,
with consideration for the cross-impacts of the plans. The goal of the
Temagami Area Comprehensive Planning Program is to plan for the management
of the natural and environmental resources of the area on a sustainable
basis to provide for the present and future needs of society. Planning will
provide full and equal consideration to the long term viability of resource
extractive and recreational uses while ensuring that the environmental
carrying capacity and ecological diversity of area resources are protected.
The Comprehensive Planning Council is to provide advice to the planning
process, act as the focus for public comments and concerns, and will make
"final recommendations on resource management decisions to the Minister of
Natural Resource". A full-time multi-discipline planning team of Ministry of
Natural Resources staff, under the Comprehensive Planning Program (CPP),have
provided the background material, and have developed and presented the
package of planning objectives and land-use scenarios which the CPC are
using as the basis of their public consultation. The next phase of
consultation will begin in November 1994, and a draft comprehensive plan is
scheduled for July 1995. The implementation of the plan would begin on April
1, 1996.
/* Written 12:06 AM Jul 5, 1994 by web:brennain in igc:for.canada */
WHAT ARE THE PLANNING OBJECTIVES CPC PRESENTED IN THEIR
CONSULTATION PACKAGE?
Seventeen planning objectives are presented, including one on general
management strategy, which contains a number of objectives within it. The
other sixteen objectives are for local and traditional users; forest
management; cottaging; access; timber management; fisheries management;
wildlife management; Areas of Natural and Scientific Interest; provincial
parks; crown land recreation; aggregate resources; mineral management;
heritage resources; tourism; viewscapes; and water management.
ARE THERE PROBLEMS WITH THE OBJECTIVES, AS CPC HAS DEVELOPED THEM THUS FAR?
Yes. While the General Management Strategy touches on a number of important
principles, such as sustainability or the recognition of aboriginal and
treaty rights, it fails to identify how those principles actually apply in
the case of the Comprehensive Planning Process. Further, the seventeen
objectives frequently contradict those same principles, such as the Access
objective "to stimulate the use of Ontario's natural resources by
developing, maintaining and controlling access to Crown land and its
resources", and the objectives contradict each other, such as the Access
objective conflicting with the Wildlife objective "to protect, enhance and
rehabilitate wildlife resources". Inherent throughout the objectives is a
"use" orientation, with little regard for the protection component of the
ecosystem approach directed by emerging MNR policies, or for the consevation
approach which the Planning area and its inhabitants deserve.
WHAT ARE THE LAND-USE SCENARIOS CPC PRESENTED IN THEIR CONSULTATION
PACKAGE?
Three scenarios were presented, each with a "land use map" and a scenario
summary. The "land use maps" are divided into four different zones: light
green, representing "unmodified natural environment"; yellow, representing
"naturally appearing environment"; red, representing "generally naturally
appearing environment with areas of modified landscape"; and purple,
representing a "combination of modified natural environments and human
environment. A less euphemistic way to describe the four zones might be to
call them "unmanipulated", "moderately manipulated", "heavily manipulated",
and "very heavily manipulated", or to describe them in terms of "levels of
activity", ie. very low, low, medium and high. The scenario summaries
include "Component Descriptions and Resource Management Prescriptions and
Options", providing very general descriptions of each scenario's approach to
fire management; cultural heritage; crown land recreation; fisheries; timber
management; mineral management; landscape ecology and wildlife; water
management and provincial parks.
ARE THERE PROBLEMS WITH THE SCENARIOS, AS CPC HAS DEVELOPED THEM THUS FAR?
Yes. There are problems in the scenarios themselves, such as the very low
standards of care which the scenarios will provide for the lands and waters
of Temagami, particularly in Scenarios Two and Three. The speculative or
unsubstantiated nature of many of the statements are disconcerting, and
there are also problems in their presentation.
Two aspects of the package make it particularily difficult to assess and
respond to : much of the presentation of the land use scenarios and the
zoning descriptions is heavily loaded with jargon and euphemisms, making it
difficult to even understand what is being said - let alone assess it and
respond! Further, each of the coloured zones are described in four different
ways, with the activities allowed within that zone changing between each of
the three scenarios, and different again in a document included in the
package called "Future Land Use Criteria" and "Managerial Settings".
Generally, the redder the scenario (red representing use), the greener the
red zones are, and the greener the scenario (green representing protection),
the redder the green zones are. (Got it? Good luck.)
Here are some of the problems with the land-use scenarios and their summary
descriptions:
- no background information, ecological research or natural
nventories were presented to support the scenarios
- there is insufficient data to adequately plan for the
future, or assess present options
- biological and natural inventories have not been
completed for the area
- habitat destruction is guaranteed by all three scenarios
presented
- there is no research to support the merits of the proposed
"shifting" wildlife corridors
- further fragmentation of the landscape will result from
any and all of the three scenarios presented
- in two of the three options, fire is still viewed as a
destructive element, rather than as a natural process
- Areas of Natural and Scientific Interest (ANSI's) could be
subjected to resource extraction activities (a description
of the "managerial setting" for ANSI's doesn't even
appear for the "red" zone!)
- timber harvest (forest management) practices are the
status quo approach from the 1980's
- even silvicultural prescriptions to retain old growth
characteristics will not be consistently applied
- there is no commitment to developing pre-harvest
silvicultural prescriptions
- there is no commitment to using alternatives to herbicides
in managing vegetation
- the "forestry" section in the red zone equates
. "harvesting" with land clearing
- mineral exploration and mining, and associated destructive
practices will only be prohibited in the "green" zone
- there is no strategy presented to require higher levels of
care in mineral exploration outside the "green" zone
- there is no requirement for public consultation or comment
on new mineral developments
- there is a rezoning from "yellow" to "red" assumed if
mineral potential is discovered in a "yellow" zone
- all scenarios assume new roads and new road intrusions
into presently roadless areas
- there is no strategy presented to prevent the illegal use
and expansion of roads
- there is no strategy presented to address conflicts
between different trail systems (eg. snowmobile vs. ski)
- new cottage development is assumed in all scenarios, with
no rationale or criteria for the development decisions
- longer fishing seasons are included in all three scenarios
- fish stocking is included in all three scenarios,
including expansion of the number of stocked lakes
- recreational and consumptive uses are given priority in
all three scenarios, and drive the land-use plans
- there is no discussion or even acknowledgement of
ecosystem thresholds for disturbance or fragmentation
- there is no discussion or even acknowledgement of wildlife
thresholds for disturbance or habitat loss
- the options don't reflect the recent Timber Class EA
decision to manage old growth stands as "areas of concern"
- the options don't reflect the recently released
Conservation strategy for Old Growth Forest Ecosystems in
Ontario, and its protection and management objectives
(eg. to not reduce red and white pine below current
levels, to establish specific targets for restoring red
and white pine, to use silvicultural prescriptions to
retain old growth characteristics)
- the options don't reflect the principles of Direction
'90's, MNR's major policy statement, such as the
"precautionary principle", a commitment to research, and an
acknowledgement of the limits to resources
- the options don't reflect the Comprehensive Forest Policy,
as released by the Minister of Natural Resources, and its
directives, such as adaptive ecosystem management, and the
primary importance of forest sustainability
- the options don't satisfy the mandate of the Comprehensive
Planning Council, and the Comprehensive Planning Program,
to do model management for the Temagami area
WHAT HAPPENS NEXT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING PROCESS? WHAT CAN WE DO TO
MAKE IT BETTER?
The Comprehensive Planning Council is looking for comments on their most
recent package (the objectives and land-use scenarios) until July 15, 1994.
Next, they'll be reviewing those comments, and - we trust - making changes
to the objectives and their overall approach, based on what they've heard
from the public, through the workshops, meetings and cards, letters, and
calls. The next period for public involvement is in November 1994. There are
a number of things you can do now (and you have to do them now to have any
effect in this part of the process!)
- request the package of information from the Comprehensive
Planning Council
- request additional information from the Comprehensive Planning
Program (Michael Cartan, MNR, 705 569 3622)
- visit the CPC office to see the maps and background
information, and make your comments while you're there
- write to the CPC, telling them your concerns and making
suggestions for Comprehensive Plan for Temagami
- call the CPC, and speak with Paul King-Fisher (coordinator) or
Roman Brozowski or Robin Koistenan (co-chairs)
- if you call in your comments to the CPC, ask that they be
recorded, and you receive a copy of the record
- write a letter to the Howard Hampton, Minister of Natural
Resources, expressing concern that the CPC is not adequately
incorporating the principles of Direction '90's, the Old
Growth Conservation Strategy, or the Comprehensive Forest
Policy, and copy the letter to the CPC
- write a letter to Chief Gary Potts, or the Teme Augama
Anishnabai, expressing concern that the CPC is not adequately
incorporating the stewardship principles of Sustained Life,
which form the basis of the TAA participation in the CPC
process, and copy the letter to the CPC
- request a meeting of the CPC with people in your community or
local group
- share this package with a friend, a neighbour - everyone you
know who cares about Temagami!
The CPC Process will result in a land-use plan for Temagami Your input is
needed to make it the best plan possible! Call, write, ACT now!
[This package has been prepared by Northwatch to assist you in your work to
protect Temagami. Please write or call the CPC today, and send us a copy at
Box 282, North Bay, P1B 8H2, telephone 705 497- 0303, fax 476-7060]
/* Written 12:08 AM Jul 5, 1994 by web:brennain in igc:for.canada */
WHAT IS THE SITUATION IN TEMAGAMI RIGHT NOW?
The Red Squirrel Road was illegally begun in 1984, and approved
without an environmental hearing in 1988. In 1989, despite intense
opposition by the Teme Augama Anishnabai and the Ontario public,
the road was constructed to the point of near-completion. In May,
1990, the Wendaban Stewardship Authority, a shared management body
with appointees from Ontario and the TAA, was established and
granted jurisdiction over four townships in the heart of the
Temagami wilderness area, three of them transversed by the Red
Squirrel Road. Since the WSA was created, the road has not been
fully completed and has not been used, but it has been the single-
most contentious issue within the Wendaban Stewardship Authority,
with some Ontario appointees insisting on its use, and most other
WSA members opposed.
The Teme Augama Anishnabai are still without a treaty, after four
years of negotiations with Ontario. An "Agreement-in-Principle"
between the Ontario and TAA negotiators, was taken to the Ontario
government and the TAA communities for ratification in late 1993.
Ontario decided, after three years of negotiating with the TAA,
that two votes would be required for the Teme Augama Anishnabai to
ratify the AIP - one for all TAA members and one restricted to
status members of the Temagami Indian Band (this condition was
imposed by Ontario after three years of negotiation, and despite
the arrangement wherein the Temagami Indian Band had appointed one
of the negotiators and had delegated overall negotiations to the
TAA). When the AIP did not receive majority support from Temagami
Indian Band members in a vote just two weeks after the AIP was
released, Ontario immediately went to court, seeking to have the
land caution lifted. The Teme Augama Anishnabai (through the Bear
Island Foundation) had placed the legal caution on the land in the
1970's, effectively freezing development and mining until the
dispute over ownership was resolved. The AIP does outline an
orderly process for the lifting of the caution, as part of the
continued treaty-making process, making Ontario's rush to the
courts a statement of questionable commitment to the AIP or the
treaty making process. Both the court proceedings and the treaty
negotiations appear to be stalled, with no court date set (after a
series of adjournments) and no visible activity around the treaty-
making or ratification of the AIP.
The Elk Lake Community Forest is one of four community forestry
pilot projects around the province. The Community Forestry project,
provincially, was intended to facilitate community development of
pilot projects and to work with the public in developing long-term
forestry policy. The Elk Lake Community Forest is managed by a
multi-stakeholder committee providing advice and review on forest
management plans for the Elk Lake area, including an overlap area
with the Comprehensive Planning Councils planning area.
The Wendaban Stewardship Authority was established by a Memorandum
of Understanding between Ontario and the Teme Augama Anishnabai in
May 1990, with jurisdiction over Acadia, Shelbourne, Canton and
Delhi Townships. The WSA has been working to develop a resource
management plan for the area, and released a draft plan earlier
this year, with public comments sought until March 8. The draft
plan was based on a number of stewardship principles, and mapping
of the four townships into zones for protection,
cultural/heritage/wilderness, holistic timber harvest, and holistic
timber restoration, plus small areas for "development" (cottage),
and mining. The most contentious issue has been use or
rehabilitation of the Red Squirrel Road corridor, with four Ontario
members supporting use of the road, and most other Authority
members opposing (there are six appointees by each of Ontario and
the TAA). The final decision of the Authority on future of the Red
Squirrel Road is not yet known - while the period of public comment
is over, letters to the Authority members on the issue of the Red
Squirrel Road are encouraged (write to the WSA at Box 248,
Temagami, P0H 2H0). The WSA first stage plan is expected later this
summer.
/* Written 12:07 AM Jul 5, 1994 by web:brennain in igc:for.canada */
SUMMARY OF CPC SCENARIOS
Scenario One - the "greenest", provides the most natural approach
overall, with some expansion of the protected areas, mostly by
establishing Conservation Reserves around Lady Evelyn Park and the
shores of Lake Temagami and identified ANSI's (Areas of Natural and
Scientific Interest). The natural role of fire will take
precedence; cultural heritage prescriptions are consistent with the
other two scenarios; maintains existing and potential low-use
recreation areas, and areas with limited or difficult access;
minimum crown land recreation options are consistent with the other
two scenarios, except that Scenario 3 identifies that campsites may
be closed "to rehabilitate or prevent conflicts", and access to
lakes may be restricted to prevent overuse - presumably added to
compensate for the excessive access in Scenario 3; the fisheries
objectives are consistent for all three scenarios, except that
scenario 1 is described as maintaining the status quo in terms of
access; a larger green zone, and moderate yellow zone, and a
smaller red zone, resulting in an overall lower level of timbering,
and a higher degree of habitat retention and ecosystem integrity;
due to increased area under protection, removes land from potential
mineral development, minimizes environmental impacts from mining;
large core protected area will be "primary strategy" for providing
the "components of a functional ecosystem, with a greater reliance
on natural processes, such as fire, and with with corridors from
core area to "other nodes"; the same four water management options
are listed in each of the scenarios.
Scenario Two - presented as the "middle path", the second scenario
lands between the first and third in terms of how the land use maps
display the colour combo's from green to purple. Low intensity
prescribed fires will be considered, with the protection of human
life and property the top priority; cultural heritage
prescriptions are consistent with the other two scenarios;
increases access to "recreation areas", and use of the land base
increases, increasing access; minimum crown land recreation options
are consistent with the other two scenarios, except that Scenario
3 identifies that campsites may be closed "to rehabilitate or
prevent conflicts", and access to lakes may be restricted to
prevent overuse - presumably added to compensate for the excessive
access in Scenario 3; the fisheries objectives are consistent for
all three scenarios, except that scenario 2 is described as
providing a general increase in access, with access restrictions
continuing to apply; a moderate green zone, and larger yellow zone,
and a smaller red zone, resulting in the median level of timbering,
and of habitat retention and ecosystem integrity; allows mineral
exploration, and then re-zoning to "red" zone for mineral
development; emphasis on broad areas to serve as "shifting"
wildlife corridors, and on special management techniques outside of
protected areas to maintain biological and structural diversity;
the same four water management options are listed in each of the
scenarios.
Scenario Three - even the ANSI's have gone yellow! Sensitive
coldwater fisheries are no longer noteworthy; watershed limits no
longer make it on the map; and habitat needs can now be primarily
met by the existing parks. All fires will be immediately
suppressed, with the protection of human life and property the top
priority; cultural heritage prescriptions are consistent with the
other two scenarios; renders most of the planning area
"accessible", with high use generally throughout the area, and low
use limted; minimum crown land recreation options are consistent
with the other two scenarios, except that this scenario identifies
that campsites may be closed "to rehabilitate or prevent
conflicts", and access to lakes may be restricted to prevent
overuse - presumably added to compensate for the excessive access
in Scenario 3; the fisheries objectives are consistent for all
three scenarios, except that scenario 3 is described as providing
a general increase in access, with limited access restrictions; a
small green zone, and small yellow zone, and a large red zone,
resulting in a high level of timbering, and a low degree of habitat
retention and ecosystem integrity; Mining Act is relied on for
mineral exploration and development, will result in maximum
disturbance due to mineral exploration and development; greatest
emphasis on special management techniques outside of protected
areas to maintain biological and structural diversity and on use of
"shifting" wildlife corridors, which will "serve a major function
of providing habitat"; the same four water management options are
listed in each of the scenarios.