P53      The "Meteek" report vs the Kawartha Highlands Signature site Management PlanBackground information
return to the Park index

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 %

table 2
table 8

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
background p 95
rods and trails p 11 charter
limits t road from charter

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
Glossary : 68
References 69