return to park index page

Some of you are thinking that Bill 239 is worse than the park designation.  It's not so bad  and we should support it.if we can get a couple of amendments or clarifications.
This first attachment is the first part of a proposal  made to Gary Stewart, in person, in July 2002.  He asked me for three extra copies which he presented to Ouellette,  Hodgson and the Deputy Minister.
The map (a PDF file) refered to in the text will be important in our discussions.  I suggest you print the map so that you can look at it simultaneously with the document below.
The pege is in 4 parts,
section 1 below designation and boundaries and
section 2 ,  the outdoor card proposal,
section 4   an explaination of the term Modified Management Areas, followed by
a short discussion of the above
Ed Note: If the reader should think that the idea Recreation Reserve has come out of the blue then I suggest they go directly to the last line of section 2.

Section 1:

A  Proposal for the Designation, Boundaries and a Stewardship Council for
The Kawartha Highlands Signature Site (KHSS)
Proposed by Gary B. Faulkner, one of many seriously affected
Property Owners Of the Kawartha Highlands (POOKHs)

Below please find a win-win proposal to solve certain KHSS problems: the environment wins, the LSC / MNR wins, property owners win, the municipalities win, and visitors to the KHSS area win.

I.  Background,  The Round Tables and the Local Stakeholders’ Committee:

During the last four and one half years the  Great Lakes St. Lawrence Area Round Table, and the Ontario’s Living Legacy Local Stakeholders’ Committee, discovered that some persons presented information regarding some overuse and / or abuse of some parts of the KHSS.  The problems presented focused on uncontrolled increases in the use of  parts of the area by transients, primarily for the purposes of overnight camping, and related problems such as: inadequate roads, parking facilities, privies, fire pits, supplies of firewood and garbage disposal.  These problems tended to be  "site-specific".  Many parts of the KHSS did not seem to be having any problems whatsoever.

Many of the problems were attributed to the failure of Parks Ontario and / or the Provincial Government to properly manage the existing Kawartha Highlands (non-operational) Provincial Park (KHPP).

There were few, if any, suggestions that local property owners were causing significant problems.  To the contrary, local property owners were usually praised for the excellent stewardship they had provided for the area for the last five or six decades, or longer.

The naïve "one size fits all" solution that has been recommended by the Local Stakeholders’ Committee (LSC) at the end of these investigative processes is to re-designate most of the KHSS to be a Provincial Park, including General Use Crown Land adjacent to private properties.  This recommendation has serious negative impacts on  many KHSS property owners, who have not caused the problems.

Prior to Lands for Life and Ontario’s Living Legacy,  the owners of almost 2000 private waterfront properties, that were enveloped by private and Municipal property and / or General Use Crown Land, were able take full advantage of the Free Use Policy Privileges on nearby Crown Land.

Subject to reasonable environmental constraints, POOKHs were also able to develop trails, roads and utility corridors, to and from their properties, across nearby or adjacent General Use Crown Land.

As a result of the redesignation proposed by the LSC many  POOKHs could lose their rights to access their properties by road or by trail, or to construct utility corridors, altogether.

Many, if not most, of the reasons persons have had for acquiring properties adjacent to Crown Land in the KHSS area are to enjoy Free Use Policy Privileges, and they are suddenly being expropriated.

Careful examination reveals that the Free Use Policy Privileges enjoyed by POOKHs will be greatly compromised by the LSC’s recommendations. Stated differently, scarce recreational resources are being expropriated from KHSS property owners, and other locals, for export to transient visitors to the area.

II. Objectives and Values to Protect:

We propose win-win strategies and a stewardship / management council framework that will:

 a)  facilitate the protection of the environment within the KHSS, or even a larger area,

 b) preserve property rights, especially property access rights, for POOKHs,

 c) preserve Free Use Policy Privileges for POOKHs,

 d) preserve Free Use Policy Privileges for transient visitors to the KHSS area,

 e) provide for optimal mitigation of potential conflicts arising from items c) and d), and

 f) restore the faith of KHSS property owners - the true local stakeholders - in a process
    that heretofore has excluded them, and that currently does not have their support.

III.  Summary of the Problem:

When Crown Land adjacent to private properties is redesignated from General Use to either the Conservation Reserve (CR) or the Provincial Park (PP) designation, as recommended by the KHSS Local Stakeholders’ Committee, then the rights and / or privileges of the owners of the private properties are enormously reduced,  as has been discussed elsewhere:

To preserve the rights and privileges of private property owners, a solution to the problem must be found that precludes private property from being made adjacent to, or contiguous with, Parks or Conservation Reserves. The solution must also provide for appropriate control and protection of KHSS environmental values, and the preservation of the rights and privileges of visitors to Crown Land in the KHSS the area.

IV.  Summary of the Solution:

A solution is provided for within the mandate of the LSC - "boundary adjustments", or "exclusions".   Exclude corridors of General Use Crown Land from portions of the KHSS proposed to be protected by the Park designation, as illustrated in light green on Map #1, so that no private property is adjacent to land designated provincial park (PP) or conservation reserve (CR).

NB: Exclusion of these General Use Corridors does not mean that they will be unprotected; to the contrary, they will be extremely well-protected as described below.

To address legitimate concerns of some persons who fear that the General Use corridors will be abused by excessive exercise of the Free Use Policy Privileges, control and / or protect these corridors with signage as provided for in the Free Use Policy and the Public Lands Act (PLA).  In cases where signage is not adequate, Modified Management Areas (MMAs) should be established, as provided for in the District Land Use Guidelines, and as was suggested by the Great Lakes St. Lawrence Area Round Table.  Management prescriptions for these MMAs can be developed at a very local level to prevent abusive uses and / or to minimize the effects of conflicting uses occurring (e.g. cottaging vs. camping, or cottaging vs. forestry or mining, or cottaging vs. trail use) on the same areas of Crown Land.

The attached Outdoor Card Proposal presents a method that could be used to manage / control the excessive exercise of some Free Use Policy Privileges anywhere within the KHSS, or even outside of the KHSS.  It should be especially useful for managing issues associated with the increasingly intensive use of canoe routes (overnight camping) and, perhaps, the use of mechanized trail systems.

 V. Proposed Solution Details:

1. As Jack van der Meer of Meteek & Co. did, recognize that there are corridors along which very significant cottage development has occurred, most of it decades ago.  These corridors are in the vicinity of Pencil Lake, the Major Lakes Corridor shown on the attached maps, the Long-Loucks Corridor, the Big Cedar-Coon Lakes Corridor and the Mississagua River.  Also, recognize that the "cottaging industry" has become a very important economic factor in the KHSS area.

2. Exclude these corridors from any areas of the KHSS that are to be redesignated PP or CR by the "boundary adjustment mechanism". Also, allow these corridors to retain the General Use designation and the associated Free Use Policy Privileges and Access Rights that property owners, and others, have enjoyed for decades, and that they expect to enjoy for decades to come.

NB:    There is no intent to restrict Free Use Policy privileges for the exclusive benefit of property owners throughout these General Use corridors.  Very clearly, these privileges must also be protected for the general public.  Some spatial separation between different groups of users and mutually respectful rules for behavior may be required in some areas.

NB:   As of June 30th, 2002, the exclusion of these General Use Corridors has been requested by every group, except one, representing property owners in the KHSS Area. The one exception, the Wolf Lake Cottagers’ Association, rescinded its approval of the LSC’s Draft Recommendations of August 2001 at its Annual general meeting on June 30th, 2002.  As of July 6, 2002, it is known that a significant number of cottagers on Wolf Lake now favor the exclusions referred to above.

3. Where necessary, utilize Section 28 of the PLA and / or Section 3.4.4 (a) of the Free Use Policy to provide signage to prevent abusive practices within these General Use corridors.

4. Further, to provide additional control and / or protection, partition these corridors of General Use Crown Land into Modified Management Areas as provided for in the Bancroft and Minden District Land Use Guidelines. Note that this mechanism for protection was suggested by the GLSLA Round Table in 1998.

5. As required, or desirable, create "advisory committees" for the individual MMAs having representatives from property owners in the immediate vicinity of the MMAs, the LSC / MNR, the Municipality and, possibly, other fourth parties.  The owners of properties adjacent to Crown Land  on these committees will no doubt continue to passionately protect the area and the environment, as they have in the past, and they will be reassured by their "inclusion in the process".  Something akin to a neighbourhood watch program might be expected to evolve.

NB: Signage and MMAs as described above should mitigate, or preclude, conflicts that might occur between cottagers and visitors to the area who might be camping or using trails, as examples, close to private property..

6. Recruit property owners from the individual MMA advisory committees to sit on an "Umbrella Council" along with appointees from the municipalities and representatives from the LSC / MNR.  This "Umbrella Council" should become the "Stewardship Council" for the KHSS.  Members of this Council should not be required to be members of any other association such as, for example, a cottagers’ association or the SGKH, although they could be.  Several of the lakes and areas affected by KHSS developments do not even have cottager associations. Gold Lake and Pencil Lake are examples. They too require representation.

7. Use ideas presented in the "Outdoor Card Proposal" ( see section 2) to further control and protect, at low marginal cost, usage and / or abuse of any area of the KHSS, regardless of its designation.

8. The Outdoor Card Proposal is intended for intermediate situations in which usage has reached a threshold where interference with Free Use Policy provisions is required to prevent abuse, but where full-fledged park management infrastructure is not economically feasible.  It could also be useful in many areas outside of the KHSS area where usage is approaching this threshold as, for example, in non-operational provincial parks that are being abused.

9. If any area of the KHSS (e.g. the KHPP) becomes developed with campsites to the extent that the usual provincial park infrastructure, management plans and enforcement make economic sense, then replace the Outdoor Card Model with the normal park management model in that specific area. It is unlikely that this will happen except in the existing KHPP, due to inadequate soil-cover elsewhere in the KHSS.

10. As planned by the MNR in 1983, proceed with the full development of the KHPP to partially satisfy the huge unsatisfied public demand for additional camping facilities in Southern Ontario.  Once again, the KHSS area can not be considered to be the private reserve of local property owners.

11. It seems unlikely that capacity studies carried out in 1982 will be reduced by updated studies, because sewage treatment techniques and other relevant technologies have improved considerably since that time.  The 1983 District Land Use Guidelines provided for the establishment of 212 campsites within the KHPP by the year 2000.

12. As proposed by the Municipality of Galway-Cavendish and Harvey, recognize that an access befitting an "Ontario Signature Site", with an interpretive centre, should be established directly off County Road #507.  Since the majority of visitors to the KHPP are expected to come from the GTA, it is obvious from Map #1 that an access off #507 is the logical way to enter the KHPP.

13. Most of the hunt camps (recreational camps) located in the KHSS are within, or adjacent to, the Anstruther Recreation Reserve or the Burleigh-Harvey Recreation Reserve, RR #1 and RR #2, respectively, shown on Map #1.  It would be reasonable to establish MMAs for these areas, and to create management prescriptions for them, that allow for proper mitigation of conflicts that may arise between hunters / anglers and other users.

 Alternately, we understand that OFAH, the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters, might prefer to have these areas designated as Remote Access Enhanced Management Areas as described in Section 7.3.3 of the Ontario’s Living Legacy Land Use Strategy of July 1999.  This should work well also.

 These two areas, RR #1 and RR #2, could be expanded to include the areas external to the Spooner Boundaries shown in yellow on Map #1.

 Appendix 1: Distribution of Properties Affected by KHSS Developments.

Recent studies by Jack van der Meer of Meteek & Co. show that during the past sixty years significant cottage development has occurred in four or five main areas ( corridors) of the area now known as the Kawartha Highlands Signature Site (KHSS).  Please see Map

                                                                                         No. of                  Adj. to                  Adj. to
     Corridor Lakes:                                                        Properties               Gen. Use             Res. Acc.
            #1 Pencil                                                                        45                           45                    - -

             #2 Catchacoma, Mississagua, Beaver, Gold,
                and connecting waterways, Anstruther,
                    Rathbun, Wolf and Loon Call                               1652                       1652                - -
              (above is the Major Lakes Corridor)

             #3 Long and Loucks                                                     60                              - -                 60
             #4 Big Cedar & Coon                                                   160                         160                 - -
                  Bottle Lake                                                                 4                              - -                   - -
                  Cox and Buzzard Lakes                                            4                              - -                 4
                  Approx. 400 acres to northeast of KHPP                  3                               2                  1
              #5 Mississagua River                                                    50                           50                   - -

                     Total                                                                     1978                    1909                    65

Please note:

1. All of the lakes mentioned above are either within, or contiguous with, the proposed KHSS area; therefore, owners of properties on these lakes are most affected by KHSS events. These figures do not include many private, non-lakefront properties on the periphery of the KHSS.

2. The land designation maps in the MNR’s Bancroft and Minden  District Land Use Guidelines indicate that prior to the Lands for Life initiative:

  • - 4 properties on Bottle Lake were enveloped by the existing Kawartha Highlands Provincial Park,
  • - 65 properties in Burleigh Township (Long, Loucks, Cox and Buzzard Lakes) and I property in   Anstruther Township were   enveloped by restricted access designations, and
  • - 1909 properties were enveloped by General Use Crown Land and/or other private or Municipal   properties.

  • 3. Prior to Lands for Life and Ontario’s Living Legacy, all of the owners of the 1909 private properties enveloped by private and Municipal property and / or General Use Crown Land were able take full advantage of the Free Use Policy Privileges on nearby Crown Land.

    Subject to reasonable environmental constraints, they were also able to develop access to trails, roads and utility corridors, to and from their properties, across nearby or adjacent Crown Land.

     Many of these property owners will be most adversely affected by current LSC proposals, to
    re-designate General Use Crown Land to the Provincial Park designation, if they are implemented!

    There is no reason why these property owners should have expected this development to occur, and no valid reason why it should occur!

    Appendix 2:  Free Use Policy Section 3.4.4 a

    3.4.4 Exceptions to Free Uses

     The exceptions are:
     a)       public lands which are posted or otherwise marked to prevent some or all activities;


    Appendix 3: Public Lands Act, Section 28

    Unauthorized occupation, etc., of posted public lands
     28.  (1)  The Ministry may cause to be erected on any public lands, including a road under the jurisdiction of the Minister, signs prohibiting, controlling or governing,
     (a) the possession, occupation or any use or uses thereof; or
     (b) the parking of vehicles thereon.  R.S.O. 1990, c. P.43, s. 28 (1).
     (2)  Every person who possesses, occupies or uses any public lands on which signs have been erected under clause (1) (a) in contravention of any such sign, or who parks a vehicle on public lands on which signs have been erected under clause (1) (b) in contravention of any such sign, and who has had a reasonable opportunity of seeing any of such signs, is guilty of an offence.  R.S.O. 1990, c. P.43, s. 28 (2); 2000, c. 26, Sched. L, s. 9 (6).

    Here is part two of the suggestions to  Stewart, Ouellette and Hodgson in July 2002.  This proposal was endorsed by the Council for Galway and Cavendish and Harvey.  This proposal and the above were endorsed by the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters.

    Given the current financial situation of the provincial government it seems likely that only a very low cost management system for the KHPP will be possible.  It seems that some degree of management is absolutely required for the KHPP to preserve Bottle, Sucker and the Beaver Lake Road.

    Section 2:
    Ontario Outdoor Cards and the KHSS
    A Proposal for Managing Canoe Routes and Campsites Within the KHSS
    Proposed by Gary B. Faulkner, July 11, 2002

    Below, please find suggestions as to how some problems associated with canoe routes and campsites in the Kawartha Highlands Signature Site (KHSS) might be solved, fairly quickly and at low cost. The intent is to provide a low-cost workable solution making use of readily available tools (existing legislation, enforcement procedures and administrative resources that are in place), without in any way compromising the values of the KHSS.  The solution proposed should require very little in the way of set up costs and / or time.

    I.  Problems to be Solved:

    For most of the KHSS the density of camp-sites and canoe routes is insufficient to economically justify usual park management models.  However, the use of these routes and sites has reached a threshold where some controls must be introduced.  The controls described below are intended to address this intermediate situation.

    At the Cavendish meeting of the KHSS Local Stakeholders’ Committee (LSC) held on September 23rd, 2000, nine presentations and recorded comments were made.  Most comments, including those of Reeve Tom Flynn, focused on the problems cited below.  Since that time similar comments have been made  in other parts of the KHSS.

    Many, if not most, of the problems that have recently arisen in the KHSS are attributable to overnight-camping issues such as:

    These problems are not necessarily, or even usually, the fault of transient visitors.  Many of them arrive with little prior knowledge of the area responding to somewhat misleading advertising.  Lakes that have been affected include: Beaver, Cold, Wolf, Crab, Big Cedar and Coon.

    That we know of, no proposals have been made as to how these problems can be solved quickly and  at low cost.  Hopefully the suggestions below will be useful in this regard.

    It is hoped that these proposals, if implemented, would cause the least possible reduction of FREE USE POLICY  privileges for all parties concerned.  Some reduction is implicit in the suggestions.  Please note that all of the suggestions can be implemented under the provisions of the Public Lands Act and the Free Use Policy, and that no redesignation of General Use Crown Land is necessary or desirable, especially of Crown Land adjacent to private property.

    II.  Firstly, post all acceptable campsites and all areas not suitable for camping, as soon as possible.

    Utilize Section (28) of the Public Lands Act, and Section 3.4.4 a) of the Free Use Policy to clearly post all acceptable campsites, and areas that are not suitable for camping.

    NB: Obviously, any campsites that are going to be used for somewhere between 100 and 150 days during a season, mid-May to Thanksgiving, or later, require suitable sanitation facilities, at least  adequate privies.

    Most campsites also require a safe fire-pit and a readily available supply of firewood.  If firewood is not readily available (i.e. easily scrounged or supplied) some campers will likely cut down trees, which is undesirable.

    If an area does not have a suitable privy, a safe fire-pit and a readily available supply of firewood, it is unsuitable for overnight camping and should be so identified. We suggest, since we are talking about an area with the impressive label "Ontario Signature Site", that picnic tables should also be provided.

    III.  The Ontario Outdoors Card:

    The Ontario Outdoors Card, along with affixed tags, is used to protect, or control, the consumption of, various fish and wildlife Natural Resources.  For example, in various areas limited numbers of tags are issued for, say, bull moose to be taken so that harvests will be sustainable.  The number of tags issued at various times and in various areas can be adjusted to reflect current data regarding the conditions and inventories of the resource being harvested.  Why not use these cards to control and preserve our camping resources?

    We propose that the Ontario Outdoors Card with, say, the KHSS Camping Tag affixed be used:

     - to  control numbers of persons accessing the KHSS for overnight camping purposes,
     - to manage access and parking for transient visitors,
     - to  facilitate proper garbage disposal by transient visitors (overnight campers) to the area, and
     - to  capture data required to plan the future management of the KHSS.

    Ontario Outdoors Cards are affordable and readily available:

    Once a person has an Outdoors Card the MNR has made it easy to renew them: by automated telephone service, over the internet, at 60 Service Ontario Kiosk locations, by mail or at MNR Offices.  At $6.00 for three years, they are affordable.  Persons wishing to go fishing or hunting are already required to have these cards with tags attached to them.  Why not overnight campers in areas where camp-sites are in limited supply?

    Once a person has an Outdoors card the MNR has also made it quite convenient to acquire the various tags, or licences, that are required to be attached to the Outdoors Card for specific purposes.  The Minden and Bancroft District Offices have advised us that there are twenty-five and fifty-seven private businesses in their Districts, respectively, where persons can obtain tags for Outdoors Cards.

    NB:  In short, the administrative apparatus for dispensing these cards and tags is already in place.  Only relatively small set up costs should be required to add another tag.

     IV.  Purposes for the KHSS Camping Tag and Canoe Route Management:

    1) Proper Waste Disposal:

    The KHSS Camping Tag could be recognized as a pass to local landfill sites.  Presently, only tax-paying residents receive passes to our landfill sites.  As a result, even devoted "no-trace campers" have no convenient way to properly dispose of refuse.

    Suppose that a family of four "no-trace campers" from London Ontario spends a week camping in the KHSS, say on Bottle Lake, and that they leave on a Thursday to spend the weekend at a hotel in Peterborough, before returning home to London on the following Monday.  What are their options to dispose of their waste?

     - They cannot take it to the Cavendish landfill site because they do not have a pass.
     - They could try to dispose of it at some local business between Cavendish and Peterborough, which is unfair.
     - They could take it to the hotel in Peterborough.
     - They could save it in their van for a hot weekend in July or August and take it back to London on the Monday.
     - Or, they could dispose of it somewhere along the road between Cavendish and Peterborough.

    Which option is most likely to be exercised?

    Of course, an appropriate portion of the KHSS Camping Tag fee should be paid to the municipalities to compensate them for additional landfill site costs.  If it becomes necessary to increase the number of hours for which landfill site attendants are required, then this cost should be included in the cost of the tag.

    Appropriate maps showing the locations of camp-sites, landfill sites, parking, and other educational literature could be distributed with the KHSS Camp Tags.

     2) Control the number of persons occupying a site:

    Obviously sites that may be used continuously for between 100 and 150 days per season require some sanitary facilities, at least properly designed privies.  These facilities, and other aspects of a campsite, present limitations that must be recognized. These limitations should be recognized on the KHSS Camping Tag by specifying the maximum number of persons that may occupy each particular site at one time.

    The number of KHSS Camping Tags to be issued for any time period cannot exceed the number of sites identified as outlined in Section II above.

    3) Specify check-in and check-out times for each site:

    Some sites are suitable for occupation by the same group for more than one day at a time.  Most of the sites on Bottle and Sucker Lakes would fall into this category.  They are not, usually,  part of a "point-to-point" route; although some of them could be.

    Other sites, because they are on a "point-to-point canoe-route", might not be suitable for occupation by the same group for more than a day.  Each group would have to move on to make way for the group following them.  In either case, campers would have to observe check-in and checkout dates and times, and these would be specified on the KHSS Tag.

    Flexibility regarding the direction in which campers traverse routes could be provided on, say, the Long Lake to Cold Lake route.  Number the sites, then  reserve odd-numbered sites for eastbound traffic and even-numbered sites for westbound traffic.

    4) Parking could also be controlled:

    As well as specifying how many persons might occupy a site, it would also be desirable to specify the maximum number of cars that could be used by a particular party on the routes; and  where (on Crown Land), and for how long, those cars could be parked.  Certain parking areas are logically associated with certain campsites and canoe routes, but there is room for choice, including privately owned parking facilities.

    NB: It is obvious that parking areas require privies, especially if they are near private properties; and they will require proper maintenance, probably daily.

    Some parking spaces are required for property owners who do not have roads to their properties.  They should receive complimentary parking passes for themselves and their guests.

    5) Capture Usage and Planning Data:

    Proper design of the data captured on Tag Applications would be useful for a variety of management purposes.

    6) Day-use activities exempt:

    NB:  There is no reason why day-use activities, such as hiking or fishing, should require KHSS Camping Tags.  If they are exempted, then the negative impacts with regard to diminishing the Free Use Privileges of local cottagers and other day-use visitors will be minimized.

    7) Enforcement:

    There are about 130 campsites in regular use distributed throughout the KHSS as shown on the attached map.  It is suggested that they be patrolled, as required, by Conservation Officers who would be performing other duties in the area such as checking creel contents.

    A Conservation Officer leaving Minden could easily patrol the sites in Cavendish in a day, and return home that day, with the help of an assistant, a square stern canoe and a small motor.  A CO leaving Bancroft in the morning and returning home the same day could, probably, patrol the sites In the Anstruther Recreation Reserve and on Wolf and Crab Lakes, or those on Long and Loucks Lakes.

    Patrolling the sites between Loucks Lake and Cold Lake would require more time.

    8) Scheduling:

    It is likely that software currently being used to confirm reservations in Provincial Parks could easily be modified to solve this relatively small scheduling problem.  Once again, set up costs should be minimal.

    9) Maintenance of Routes, Sites and Parking Areas:

    Privies, fire-pits and wood supplies will require regular attention by MNR Staff.

    Because of the traveling time that will be required if maintenance crews live off site, we suggest that it might be practical to have four or five two-person, properly equipped crews reside on the canoe routes for the season.  Please consider the attached map.  It seems that one crew would be required for the KHPP area, a second for the Anstruther Recreation Reserve Area, and two or three crews for the Burleigh-Harvey Recreation Reserve Area.

    Patrolling the routes and sites, and carrying out routine maintenance would be a fabulous job for a number of students.  If students from a university co-op program were hired, then the shoulder seasons could also be covered.  The presence of these crews on the routes would also tend to discourage abusive activities.

    10) Modified Management Areas:

    Whenever campsites or parking areas are proposed in close proximity to private property, then the provisions of the Bancroft and Minden District Land Use Guidelines to provide for Modified Management Areas should be utilized to mitigate potential conflicts between visitors to the area and nearby property owners.

    These property owners should also be provided with contact numbers for MNR Staff who will be responsible for ensuring that reasonable behavior codes are observed at all campsites and parking areas, on a 24 x 7 basis.

    V.  Summary:

    By taking advantage of existing tools (Outdoors Cards, the system for distributing them, scheduling programs, the PLA and the Free Use Policy provisions for signage) which are working well to protect other scarce natural resources, the costs in time and money to effect the necessary controls is minimized.

    The solution proposed addresses the real causes of most current problems in the KHSS with minimal impact on the FREE USE POLICY benefits of persons not contributing to the problem, for example day-users, most of whom would be local residents.   These persons have traditionally been very protective of the KHSS area.

    This solution is not perfect; however, it offers an improvement over the current situation.  Our goal is BETTER, not necessarily perfect.   It is also a WIN-WIN solution.

    WINNERS: The MNR and  the Provincial Government.  The novel and highly visible action  involving Ontario Outdoor Cards proposed will be seen as a very definite step towards protecting the environment and the KHSS in particular.

    WINNERS:  The Municipalities. Road crews will spend less time picking up litter and the municipalities will be compensated for the impact on landfill sites. Otherwise, the litter picked up by road crews and volunteer residents winds up in the landfill sites with no compensation.

    WINNERS: Local residents who will benefit from less rubbish to pick up and controlled use of parking areas.

    WINNERS: Transient visitors  win since they will, hopefully, find campsites meeting acceptable standards and predictable parking accommodation when they arrive.

    The Downside:

    There is a downside.  We are faced with the fact that the availability of suitable campsites is limited, and therefore unlimited and uncontrolled consumption of this resource cannot continue.  Imposing fees and controls on this consumption impacts the provisions of the Free Use Policy, and this is truly unfortunate.  But there is no alternative.

    VI.  Addendum:

    According to Meteek, only the existing Kawartha Highlands Provincial Park (KHPP) has the soil capacity required to accommodate drive-in campsites in the usual sense of the term.  If this development occurs, then the system described above should likely be replaced by the usual park management model  for the KHPP Area.  However, the system proposed above could still work for the relatively dispersed campsites throughout the remainder (non-KHPP) parts of the KHSS in the Anstruther and Burleigh-Harvey Recreation Reserves.

    In order that visitors to the area not be misled by the term "park"; which implies to most persons - running water, showers and other amenities - it is suggested that non-KHPP areas should not be referred to as "parks".  (ed note: as it apparently now will be) The long-existing "recreation reserve" terminology is preferable, and less likely to be misunderstood by visiting campers.

    Section 4

    Modified management Areas According to the GLSLA Round Table

    Modified Management Areas may be used to protect sensitive areas as an alternative
    to placing them within a Provincial Park or a Conservation Reserve:

    The Great lakes St. Lawrence Planning Area Round Table recognized the potential usefulness of Modified Management Areas in early 1998.

    On page 4 of the Public Comment Workbook [8] regarding preliminary Land Use Scenarios, distributed  March / April of 1998, it states and we quote:

    "Sensitive features and values may be protected in ways other than placing them within a provincial park or conservation reserve. A "modified management area" approach would be used to protect features / values less susceptible to impact from other activities.  Protection would be provided on a case-by-case basis.  Land uses which threaten sensitive
     features /  values would not be permitted."

    A similar explanation was provided in the GLSLA Round Table Tabloid Number Three February 1998, page 9.

    Modified Management Areas are provided for in both the Minden District  (Cavendish and Harvey) and Bancroft District (Burleigh and Anstruther) Land Use Guidelines of 1983.  The MNR District Land Use Guidelines (DLUGs) were implemented, Province-wide, in 1983 and they seem to be extremely well thought out documents. Jack van der  Meer, Author of the Meteek report, participated in this initiative.

    In addition, the Approved Land Use Strategy of July 1999 [28] recognizes the 1983 DLUGs for our purposes.  We quote from page 33 of this document:

    "Wherever the Strategy and the 1983 District Land Use Guidelines address the same topics, the Strategy provides the current direction.  The District Land Use Guidelines will continue to provide some detailed land use and resource-management direction, particularly for the General Use Areas, which have not been dealt with in the Strategy."  (Please see footnote.)

    We believe that a "Win-Win" proposal can be formulated which will provide all affected parties in the current "KHSS Conflict" (there is presently no better term) with an outcome that will satisfy their requirements.

    The proposal is simple: as requested by almost every property owner, and almost every group representing varied KHSS interests; establish adequate corridors of general use crown land, around all of the major lakes in the KHSS that will separate private properties spatially from any parts of the KHSS that are to be designated park or conservation reserve.  These corridors must be adequate to preserve property access rights and Free Use Policy privileges to the fullest extent possible.

    For any portions of these general use corridors that accommodate conflicting uses, and only for those portions, establish Modified Management Areas, as described in the DLUGs, to mitigate the problem, on a very site-specific basis.  Input to this process from the MNR, local property owners and from the municipality is assumed.

      Modified Management Areas  Pages 34 - 36 of Bancroft / Minden Land Use Guidelines


    Modified management areas will normally be provided on Crown Land, and encouraged on private land, on all shorelands. Modified management areas may also be provided or encouraged in other areas such as along roads and designated trails.

    The purpose of modified management areas is to maintain or improve resource values such as:
    * fish habitat;
    * wildlife habitat;
    * scenic areas or other recreation or tourism resources and establishments; and
    * special features such as cultural, historic, biological or earth science sites.

    Modified management areas are areas of land surrounding specific facilities, activity areas, or resource features, wherein certain resource management activities or land uses are either prohibited or constrained to ensure that objectives for adjacent facilities are not impaired.

    Modified management areas will normally be managed by a two-zone concept, particularly along shorelands, where the inner zone is one of minimal disturbance and the outer zone is an area of more general use, and where certain aspects of management are carefully monitored.

    They have the dual advantage of enhancing the quality of recreation and tourism in areas where resource extraction is occurring and of allowing resource extraction to be an accepted use in areas identified primarily for recreation and other uses.

    Modified management areas placed along major transportation and access routes, on recreational lakes and waterways and on some of the major trails, contribute to the maintenance of the recreation landscape.

    Modified management areas ensure unhindered passage on recreational trail systems, a variety of habitat conditions for greater wildlife variety; and protection for fisheries by maintaining shade, and by minimizing siltation and nutrient enrichment of streams and lakes with significant fisheries values. Furbearers are also protected by the retention of cover along shorelines.

    Public opposition in the past has prevented or severely hindered mineral exploration and the management and extraction of natural resources. Modified management areas contribute in a positive way to reducing conflicts between land uses, thereby ensuring continued opportunities for resource management.

    As the name implies, modified management areas are not "no use zones" where all land uses or activities are prohibited.  Instead, the prime purpose or intent of a modified management area is to provide for the diminishing effects of one conflicting land use with another.

    The exact nature of modified management areas and their size will vary related to site conditions, the feature or resource being protected, and the activity from which it is being separated.

    Along all shorelands, a 120 metre (400 foot) modified management area[1] will normally he provided or encouraged. The extent of the two zones along shorelines will vary with local conditions such as topography[2] soils and the nature of resource values being protected.

    Along provincially and municipally maintained roads, and along ministry access roads with existing or potential for significant recreational use, a 120 metre (400 foot) modified management area may he provided or encouraged where appropriated[3].

    Along permanent or designated trails and portages, a 35 metre (115 foot) modified management area may be provided and encouraged where necessary.

    Modified management areas will also he provided or encouraged for areas or sites which clearly contribute to achievement of ministry targets and which may require some measure of protection if targets are to he achieved. Examples include habitat of endangered species and deer wintering areas[4].

    Modified management areas may be provided for special features such as cultural and historical sites, earth and life science resources and other resources of public interest which are not specifically related to program targets" They may also he provided around recreation or tourism resources or establishments.

    It is recognized that there may be many cases along roads, and trails, or adjacent to important resources, where modified management areas are neither necessary nor desirable. There may be other instances where it is necessary to exceed the extent of modified management areas identified above in the establishment of either the inner or outer zone.


    o  Management prescriptions will be developed and will be available for public review. For forest management activities, such prescriptions will be identified in operating plans, annual plans, and conditions stipulated in licences and cutting approvals;

    o  A set of guidelines for road construction will be attached to all work permits related to shoreland areas, with special reference to stream crossings.

    o  Management Prescriptions will be reviewed by all programs and approved by the District Manager. This review will be guided by each program's specific requirements.

    o  Where the two zones are set out, the standards for management normally will be:

    Minimum Disturbance Zone

    Timber extraction and the construction of roads normally will not be permitted. However, in special circumstances, consideration may be given to discrete removal of selected individual trees, or the carrying out of specific management to maintain stand vigour associated with modified management area objectives, such as cover maintenance and recreation aesthetics.

    The accumulation of slash, skid trails and roads and the operation of mechanized equipment will normally be prohibited.

    o The extraction of aggregate within this zone will not be permitted. However, in circumstances of critical supply, a gravel pit may be opened up to within 30 metres (100 feet) of a waterbody and 30 metres (100 feet) of a municipal or provincial roadway for a short time under strict site plan control, including rehabilitation suited to the site;

    o Management efforts in this zone will be directed toward ensuring the mineral exploration activity takes place in accordance with the general intent and purpose of the zone. In this regard, a public information program will be initiated, and special guidelines will be developed for use by the mining industry; and

    o Mine development on the surface, except for certain support functions, will generally not be permitted within 120 metres (400 feet) of waterbodies, or 90 metres (300 feet) or 90 metres (150 feet) of provincial highways. Accordingly, surface rights will not normally be granted in mining leases within such areas.

    General Use Zone

    Within the general use zones, resource management activities will be permitted subject to the use of techniques more sensitive to associated land uses (being buffered) than are standard levels of resource management. Resource extraction activities will be permitted only where management systems can be developed that permit resource extraction, while clearly achieving the objective of resource protection.

     [1]  Measured on the ground from the treed edge adjacent to the shore.
    [2] For instance, the width of the minimum disturbance zone along shorelands should vary with slope as follows:

    Shore Slope in Percent    Width of Minimum Disturbance Zone

      0     15m  (50 feet)
    10    30m (100 feet)
    20    40m (130 feet)
    30    50m (165 feet)
    40    60m (200 feet)

    [3] Setbacks are measured from the edge of the road right-of- way.
    [4] Emphasis for the protection of these areas is also provided in General Resource Areas and Significant Program Areas.
    [5] Emphasis for the protection of these areas is also provided under Areas of Special Interest.

    Hypothetical Scenario to Illustrate a Possible Outcome for the
    Kawartha Highlands Recreation Reserve
    as Proposed by Bill 239

    We are presenting you Property Owners Of the Kawartha Highlands (POOKHs) with some ideas for your consideration.

    Above is:  1) A Proposal for the Designation, Boundaries and a Stewardship Council for the Kawartha Highlands Signature Site, and  2) A Proposal for Managing Canoe Routes Within the KHSS Utilizing Ontario Outdoors Cards. (The card scheme was endorsed by our Council, and both proposals were endorsed by the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters in July 2002)

    Bill 239 does not address any management issues; and therefore, by itself, it falls short of meeting the expectations of persons in close proximity to the existing KHPP, and along the Beaver Lake Road, in particular.  However, I believe that a satisfactory management scheme could be established within the Recreation Reserve land use designation if some worthwhile ideas that have been considered during the past five years are carried forward.

    The ideas relate to the concepts of "Modified Management Areas" (MMAs) and "Co-stewardship Councils".

    If you have considered them and agree that the ideas in 1) and 2) have some merit, then it should only be a small step to relate to the following suggestions.

    a) Read Section 5(3) of Bill 239 and Section 3.  If Section 3 was modified to permit input, not control, from local property owners and the municipality, then "Utilization Zones" could be roughly equivalent to "Modified Management Areas".  Management prescriptions could be developed for the utilization zones that would mitigate potential conflicts between different user groups using the same tract of Crown land - cottagers vs campers, trail users vs cottagers, hunters vs trail users, etc., etc.

    b) As provided for in Section 5(4) these utilization zones are to be controlled on a very site specific basis, utilizing signage.  This is identical to the suggestion in 1) that proposed controlling MMAs using signage as provided for in section 28 of the Public Lands Act and Section 3.4.4a of the Free Use Policy.

    c) Section 4 provides that Recreation Reserves will be controlled by the Public Lands Act, and such lands generally permit the Free Use Policy privileges.

    d) Sections 4(2) and 11 permit fees to be charged for what have been "free" Free Use Privileges; and therefore, would permit the outdoor card proposal I suggested, or the kiosk proposal suggested by the SGKH, to be implemented within Recreation Reserves to control overnight transient camping, and other activities, for the benefit of all.

    I do not have more time to spend on this now, but hope I have provided you with food for thought.

    Gary Faulkner
    Lake Catchacoma
    8:50 pm, Sunday, December 22, 2002
    I gotta get out of here …

    Regards, Merry Christmas and Happy New Year!

    ed; note the original map uses in the first presentation can be viewed .