P53 The "Meteek"
report vs the Kawartha
Highlands Signature site Management PlanBackground information
return to the park index
page
Linked on this web site is the Meteek report. Our copy is a Draft
August 2000 report by Jack van der Meer. It is this report that
Gary Faulkner refers to in a number of his earlier documents and it is
the report that was tabled at Local Stakeholder Committee (Sissy
Tanner) and then disappeared. We have been trying for some time to get
a copy.
We have broken it down into manageable sections in order to reduce
loading time. A linked table of contents is
listed below.
The following are points of note.
1) the report is not complete - - pages 10/11 is missing as is
18/19. The maps have been excluded as noted. We are unsure
of the author of the notes and the mark up.
2) If the reader is familiar with The
Kawartha Highlands Signature Site Management Plan Background Information( thereafter called khssmpbi)
(available
on the Park
web site) Dated Sept 22 2005
signed by
Zone manager Southeastern Zone Ontario Parks (???) they will note
the distinct similarity between the two documents. This report
refers the reader to the Meteek report and quotes Jack van der
Meer in a number of places. (hence our interest in Mr. van der Meer).
The reader will also note that while the newer document expands on the
original, lots of fluff so to speak, there are signifigant
portions that are removed. They are herein highlighted.
3) Most of Planning Area (section 2) p 13-21 of of the khssmpbi
is a reordered
direct quote of chapter 3 of Meteek and is a detail of the history of
the area. In fact it starts as follows:
In 1999, the Ministry of Natural
Resources commissioned a “Kawartha Highlands Background Information
Report” (van der Meer, 2000). This report was prepared for the use of
the Local Stakeholder Committee, presenting information that was
pertinent for developing recommendations for the area. Since the time
of the report preparation, much new information has been gathered and
information in this Background Information document represents the most
current information available. Excerpts from the original report have
been adapted for this report where information remained the same or
required only minor modifications. This section contains adaptations
from the original report.
It then goes on to say
A development plan was prepared in
1967, and construction of the park entry road began in the winter of
1968 through “Winter Works”
funding. A combination of factors, including lack of continuing Winter
Works funding and a reconsideration
of the appropriateness of the development plan to the area,
resulted in the development for the proposed park being discontinued.
We refer the reader to the new road plan using the existing Beaver lake
road entry to the new Park. The two are one and the same. The
underlineing is ours.
4) section 3 p 22 of khssmpbi is fluff and from the charter ??
5) section 8 of khssmpbi is an update?? of section 4 of Meteek. The up
date spends space on other signature sites which is of little value and
is signifigantly outdated. Meteek is a better read.
6) section 4 of khssmpbi is an update of Meteek from
Reconnaissance Life Science Inventory of the Kawartha Highlands
Signature Site” (Jalava et al., 2001). same format. same
conclusions +/- with a lot of fluff and speculation ie" Elk have been re-introduced to the
Bancroft District and may eventually be recorded in the Kawartha
Highlands."and " Rather than
being considered a subspecies of the Gray Wolf (Canis lupus), it has
been proposed that the
eastern Canadian wolf be
designated a separate species (Canis lycaon) (Wilson et al., 2000).
Such a taxonomic distinction, if accepted, has serious conservation
implications." and "Kettle
type bogs, such as the Beaver Lake Bog and Tamarack Lake, harbour the
Amber-winged Spreadwing and the Sphagnum Sprite, both of which are
provincially rare. " The
reader may note that this is the area of the proposed park entrance.
This report provides a wish list rather than an inventory. Such
words as:
"from within 3 Km of the boundary,
species...are expected to occur,
based on records nearby,
not yet officially designatedat risk.
XXX are rare in peterborough
county,
might eventually be found,
might occur in some larger lakes,
may reveal thr presence...,
could easily occur,
including potentially,
habitat commonly associated with
might eventually be found
may reveal the presence of
known from locations surrounding,
could eventually be recorded"
are not compatable with the
title "Life Sciences Inventory"
7) section
Cultural Resources of khssmpbi 5.2 page is
a direct copy of Meteek 5.5 and says
so. They removes one signifigant comment from Meteek in his conclusion
which follows:
This leads one to
the conclusion that this is a significant gap in the information
required for a detailed level of planning that might involve any kind
of development or increase in human activity in the area. If areas of
cultural significance are determined through additional archaeological
investigation, they should be zoned appropriately.
This shortfall was addressed by an 2002, Archaeological Services Inc.
(ASI) assessment of cultural heritage resources within the Kawartha
Highlands that produced a report entitled “Kawartha Highlands Signature
Site Cultural Heritage Assessment/Reconnaissance
(Archeological Services Inc., 2003). and was added to the khssmpbi. 2
pages)
8) section 6 (Recreational resources) of khssmpbi says "There are several well-used canoe routes
in and around the Kawartha Highlands. Campsites which are marked and
outfitted with a privy can be found along these routes and the portages
are generally well marked. " Meteek page 15 provides great
detail on 6 routes over 100 Km. with details. with a comment on
the number of complaints MNR has been receiving concerning garbage,
lack of privy facilities, and overflow.
Exposed bedrock P 67 khssmpbi says
"Rockland occupies most of the
Kawartha Highlands and
provides a rugged landscape
for the many recreational activities undertaken in the area.
Meteek P 27 says: " Bright (1980)
estimate that over 60% of the region i---d consists of exposed(bare
bedrock)" and again
on the same page "Except for these
pockets of till and
organic soils, they are exposed bedrock,and have no capacity to hold
water, so drainage is excessive." and on page 29 "Soils are shallow
to non existant,......
bedrock is often near the surface" and on the same page Re
50's a 60's recreational zones and the
Bottle - Sucker Park Reserve were intented to stop further disposition
of cottage lots on the small undeveloped lakes and to provide for low
intensity recreation, namely canoeing which required little in the way
of facilities. The park reserve, in the area of "deeper soils" was set
aside --- for more intense recreational facilities such as
campgrounds, picnic areas, and swimming beaches - - and
even
there--- material over
bedrock are
shallow" and again
in para
7.2.1 Campgrounds,
Swimming Beaches, and Picnic Areas
The very
nature of the Kawartha Highlands Featured Area is what makes
it interesting as a protected area. Its bedrock controlled topography
and drainage, with very shallow soils, makes it generally unsuitable
for the more intensive-use facilities found in many provincial parks,
such as car campgrounds, 'picnic areas and swimming beaches. Such
development would require a lot of manipulation of the environment,'
such as bringing. in significant quantities of fill for parking lots,
campsites, sewage disposal systems and maintenance areas. Burying of
water and power systems would be impractical inmost of the area. There
are deeper, (but still shallow) soils in the Sherborne land Type around
Bottle and Sucker lakes, that would accommodate some such facilities,
and this was the original intention for this provincial park when it
was first proposed in 1959. A fine sand beach at the north end of
Bottle lake has development potential for traditional swimming and day
use activity, and adequate areas for associated facilities could be
developed.
9) Resource Use khssmpbi page 69 is based on a 2003
Engel
Consulting group study quoted as follows:
page 69 Table 8 Recreational user number
a
Cottagers user group (based on 509 cottages in or adjacent
to the KHSSP). to calculate user days.
The same khssmpbi on
page 18 Table 2 "Cottage Properties by Lake" totals cottages within as
528 and adjacent to the KHSSP as 1455 for a total of 1953. - - an error of some 400 %
They also quote
recreational boaters user days of 253.
Given that on Lake Catchacoma alone there are some 600 ( their
number) cottages, each having a boat and Bottle Dam is A) in the park
and B) a regular visiting point that user day number would be exceeded
in two weeks at the one site entrance.
This study then says on the
same above noted page 69 says "It
should be noted that the Kawartha Highlands Signature Site Park Act
does not alter an individual's right to use his or her own property. The is a remarkably stupid comment
and one that FOCA has been asked to address.
Meteek says page 65 "concern
has been expressed that restrictions on the protected area will have an
impact on the adjacent or contained private property" and
again
" the control of access and
the nature of private activities within the boundaries of the protected
area may soon become an issue."
The above noted errors brings up a question. How did Management
Board allow this foolishness to pass? It had on it two members from
Catchacoma Lake who should have clearly understood this error.
10) SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC
CONTEXT / MARKET ANALYSIS Section 8
khssmpbi says In 2000, the Province
commissioned a three-year study
entitled, “Study of the
Economic and Social Benefits of the Nine Ontario Living Legacy
Signature Sites” (Engel Consulting Group et.al., 2004). This section
provides excerpts directly from “Year Three Component: Kawartha
Highlands Signature Site Case Study”
cottage rentals, parking, significant canoe rentals,
Note the following from p 87 8.5Recreational Use Survey
and Economic Benefit
"The user statistics generated
through this project indicate that by far the greatest economic
benefits and likewise the greatest pressure on the resource will come
from cottagers. The estimated number of cottager days (defined as those
in or adjacent to the site – slightly over 500) is approximately
183,000 user days -----
It compounds the error noted above in item 9.
Much of this report quotes L Sherk and Basciano both members of the now
defunct Greater Peterborough Economic Developement Corporation.
Who
is Lance Sherk and Phil Basciano of the Local Stakeholder
Committee (LSC) and the other players and their
connections. It would then seem that Engle report is not as independant
as should be reasonably hoped for.
P 95 khssmpbi section titled
Kawartha Highlands Signature Site Park Act and Charter
direction:Management Planning to address:
reviews future directions and comments. It Clearly attempts to misslead
. see Charter
P 11
KHSSMPBI page 95
This statement is Act only and does not include
the Charter direction as it claims.
The reader should note the Charter precedes the Act, the Act comes from
the Charter and is responsible to it, as is the Management board
who produced this document.
|
What the Charter says -page 11
|
|
 |
|
|
By now the reader should have a good idea as to the values of this
document when juxtaposed against the Meteek report and the
experience of Jack van der Meer . We may comment further as the need
arises.
Title page
Table of Contents Acknowledgements v
1. Introduction 1
2. Regional Context
3
2.1 Regional Setting 3
2.2 Regional Characteristics 3
2.3 Access/Transportation Routes 4
2.3.1 Access To the General Area .4
2.3.2 Access To and Within the Kawartha Highlands 5
2.4 Population Centres 6
2.5 Land Use 7
2.5.1 Municipal Official Plans 7
2.5.2 Forestry 7
2.5.3 Mining and Aggregates 7
2.5.4 Waste Management Sites 9
3. Planning Area
12
3.1 Land Tenure 12
3.1.1 Patented Land 12
3.1.2 Recreation Camps 13
3.1.3 Outpost Camps 13
3.1.4 Other Permits and Licences 13
3.1.5 Licensed Areas 14
3.1.6 Mining Claims and Leases 14
3.2 Existing Park Development 14
3.2.1 Kawartha Highlands Provincial Park 14
3.2.2 Canoe Routes 15
3.2.3 Water Access 16
3.2.4 Roads 16
4. Social and
Economic Context : 20
5. Natural and
Cultural Resources 22
5.1 Climate 22
5.2 Earth Science Features 25
5.2.1 General Topography 25
5.2.2 Geology 25
5.2.2 Geomorphology, Surficial Geology 27
5.2.3 Soils and Land Type 27
5.2.4 Biophysical Units 29
5.3 Watersheds 3 L
5.4 Life Science Features 31
5.4.1 Vegetation 31
5.4.2 Fauna -- Wildlife 35
5.4.3 Fauna - Fish 39
5.5 Cultural Resources 42
5.5.1 Prehistory/Archaeology 42
5.5.2 History 44
6. Market
Analysis 55
6.1 Demographics and Trends 55
6.2 Trends in Provincial Park Use 58
6.3 Recreation Targets 59
6.4 Eco- and Adventure Tourism 59
6.5 Trails 60
the reader will note this section below will need to be
reoriented we apologize for any inconvenience.
7. Management
Considerations 62
7.1 Field Inventories 62
7.1.1 Known Sensitive or Significant Sites and Areas.. 62
7.1.2 Life Sciences 62
7.1.3 Trails
7.2 Development Potential 62
7.2.1 Campgrounds, Swimming Beaches, and Picnic Areas : 62
7.2.2 Canoe Routes 63
7.2.3 Facilities for Interior Users 63
7.2.4 Walking, Hiking, Backpacking Trails 63
7.2.5 Cycling , 63
7.2.6 Cross-country Skiing and SnOwshoeing 63
7.2.7 Snowmobile Trails 64
7.2.8 Dog Sledding 64
7.2.9 All-Terrain Vehicles 64
7.3 Off-Roading 64
7.4 Hunting 65
7.5 Recreation Camp Issues: Tenure and Access 65
7.6 Recreation Targets 65
7.7 Boundaries 65
7.7.1 Impact of Regulation on Adjacent Land Owners 65
7.7.2 Impact of Adjacent Private Land on the Protected Area 65
7.7.3 Northern Boundary 66
7.7.4 Southern Boundary, Burleigh Township 66
7.7.5 Mississagua River Near Buckhorn 66
8. Summary
67
Glossary : 68
References 69
