return to park index

Attached is a series of documents that can explain the Anstruther/Beaver road issue, the relevance of Bob Walsh information, and some of the other concerns re roads in parks. It also concerns WSL misinformation. CCA members are reminded that the vote in Oct. was regarding a Buffer zone and not a Park or Bill 239. CCA also unanimously passed a resolution that there be no public camp sites on Catchacoma Lake, - hardly a "Park" endorsemment.

Please note these documents are a direct copy over and some characters may change in translation or display depending on progranm or operating system.

series of emails walsh/whelen
Response to the Bob Walsh email of February 19th, 2003.
County TAC Steering Minutes Feb
County Trans. study Terms of Ref

From: "Gary Faulkner" <>

Subject: GBF to Bob Walsh #2 - Bob Walsh - Jim Whelen exchange
Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 11:56:13 -0500

Good morning,

Please find attached the details of an information exchange that occurred between February 12th and February 27th, between Anstruthee Lake Cottagers(?)Association President Jim Whelen and Anstruther Lake cottagers Bob Walsh  and Nancy Jack.

Some persons may not be aware of the fact that, in addition to Bottle and Sucker Lakes which are in the existing Kawartha Highlands Provincial Park (KHPP), there are fourteen major inhabited lakes in the KHSS area PLUS the inter-connecting waterways in Cavendish and Harvey Townships (Catchacoma Narrows, Cavendish Lake and Ratty's River) PLUS a portion of the Mississagua River.  I believe that there is also a single private property on Cox Lake and possibly three on Buzzard Lake.  These lakes range from Pencil Lake in the northwest of the KHSS area to Big Cedar and Coon Lakes in the southeast.  Events and information affecting any single lake in the system have implications for all of the lakes and property owners in the system.

Since August 2001 I have been exchanging information with persons on most of the larger lakes.  As a consequence I received a copy of Bob Walsh's memo to Jim Whelen dated Feb. 12th about 4:00pm that day.  I was very surprised by this memo which accuses Reeve Tom Flynn of supporting the "Anstruther to Beaver Lake road connection".

I contacted Jim and we agreed that he would be the logical person to reply to Bob Walsh.  I made a few phone calls to various persons, different persons than those Jim contacted, and rapidly arrived at the conclusion that Bob Walsh's letter was somewhat alarmist and not very accurate.

After you have had a chance to review the attached information exchange, I will forward additional comments and information that you may find interesting and / or useful.

Gary Faulkner

Ed note:Bob Walsh is an Anstruther Lake cottager who owns an island property with his wife Nancy Jack.  I have been told, but don't know for sure, that  Nancy's brother Mike also owns a road-access property on Anstruther Lake. It follows that the property access rights and Free Use Policy Privileges of these folks would not be affected as seriously by a "park designation" as they would be for, say, persons owning water-access properties on the north-west mainland of Anstruther Lake where there is currently no road.  The Jacks and Walsh are unreasonably supportive of a "park designation" for the ENTIRE KHSS.
I have also been told that Bob and Nancy practise law in the USA, but you would have to ask them if this is true - I have seen no proof.  Bob, Nancy and Mike were involved in setting up the website for "Supporters of Kawartha Highlands Park"

Subject: Clarification - Beaver, Cavendish, etc, Assn.
Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2003 15:46:38 -0500
To:         Mr. Bob Walsh, Mike Jack and Nancy Jack (Supporters of Kawartha Highlands Park):
From:     Gary B. Faulkner

Mr. Walsh, it seems to me that you folks are being unfair and very impatient in your dealings with Jim Whelen.  You are relying on information obtained from the President of the CCA, Ms. Wendy Lyttle, and the past President of the WLCA, Dana Dvorak, as being accurate.  Some of their information is not accurate, but you are attacking Jim because of it..

Before you requested public apologies and retractions from Jim, you should have verified the accuracy of the information you were relying on.  Now I believe that you should consider preparing retractions and apologies for inaccurate information that you have been distributing for over a year. Some of it concerns me.

In the last paragraph of your memo to Jim sent at about 12:51pm, Wed., Feb. 19th you ask Jim, we quote:

" What is your response to our nearby cottage associations?  Aren't we better off with good relations with these neighbours?  Why do you keep saying they are against a Park when they are so CLEARLY in favour of a Park? Bob (Walsh)"


Perhaps you will agree when you consider the remarks by the President of the Beaver-Cavendish-Bottle-McGinniss Cottage Owners Organization Inc., provided below for your edification, that things regarding Ms. Lyttle are not as clear as you have believed them to be.

Gary Faulkner

Bob Walsh - Jim Whelen Information Exchange re:  i) Road Issue, ii) Wolf Lake Issue and iii)  CCA Issue
With Interventions by Others

Please find below in chronological order:

a) Memo from Bob Walsh to Jim Whelen of Feb. 12th.
b) Jim Whelen's reply to a) dated Feb. 12th.
c) Bob Walsh’s reply to b) dated Feb. 19th.
d) Jim Whelen’s reply to c) dated Feb. 19th.
e) Jim Whelen’s follow-up to d) dated Feb. 24th, see attachments accompanying this chronology.
f) Nancy Jack’s reply to e) dated Feb. 27th.
a) From: <>
To:  Jim Whelen and about 95 other persons, mostly on Anstruther Lake
Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2003 1:43 PM
Subject: Extension of Anst Lake Rd to 507?

Hi Jim.

Hope you're having a nice time out west.  Important subject to ask you about. Are you aware that a major road has been suggested connecting Highway 28 and Highway 507, which most likely would use Anstruther Lake Road?  At the February 5th Peterborough County Council session a transportation study was proposed that would consider such a road.  Apparently, if the road happens it would probably be a Provincial highway!

I understand that this road is supported by your close colleague on SGKH Tom Flynn.  What is your position?  If you support the road would you consider seeking cottagers' views before speaking for ALCA?  I think such a road would be a disaster for our lake and cottagers!!  Assuming most ALCA members do not want such a road, are we wise to be trying to extend the paved portion of Anstruther Lake Rd, or is that likely to make the road through to 507 more likely?

ps  I'm sure you're aware that if the area is made a Park then a road through to 507 could not happen.
b) From: J Whelan []
Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2003 5:03 PM
Subject: Re: Extension of Anstruther Lake Rd to 507?

You're misinformed, if the area becomes a Park they want an entry and exit road straight thru that is why it is rekindled. This was on the table when I was on County Council 5 years ago and was scrapped until the Park designation was brought up.

I will check with Tom and see where it stands, and will advise everyone.


c) From: wrote: Feb. 19th (?)
To Jim (Whelen):

The Hwy 28-507 connector road and the Recreation Reserve Act are very serious issues for ALCA cottagers. As head of ALCA we rely on you to provide accurate information and to answer our questions.

1. Regarding the proposed link between Highways 28 and 57 using Anstruther Lake Road:

This issue is real.  Two weeks ago Peterborough County Council agreed
that consultants would be hired to study this.  A Park in the area would mean no such road link through KHSS.  Your comment that the idea of a link between Hwys 28 and 507 via Anstruther Lake Road arose because of the proposed Park is false. I confirmed with the MNR and Ontario Parks that no such road would be permitted under a Park designation.  I encourage you to confirm this for yourself and for ALCA cottagers.

This road is being promoted by some people in Galway-Cavendish and Harvey Township, including your close colleague on SGKH Tom Flynn. During the last five years while a Park or Conservation Reserve was being considered this road link was never proposed. Please answer the questions. What is your position on this link?  If you support this road will you seek cottagers' views before speaking for ALCA?  Doesn't extending the paved portion of Anstruther Lake Rd make a road through to 507 more likely?

2. Regarding Bill 239, the "Recreation Reserve Act":

Prior to your meeting with MNR you were provided with questions from ALCA cottagers, which you said you would ask MNR.  These questions remain unanswered.  As a reminder, the key questions from ALCA members are:

When the LSC recommended an operating Provincial Park, they provided 30 page draft and final Reports with specifics on boundaries, recreational and commercial activities, and environmentally sensitive areas.  Can we have a similar document for the new "Recreation Reserve" designation?  If we can't get this, shouldn't cottagers hold off supporting Bill 239?

The LSC recommended an "INTERIM Management Plan" as soon as possible, until the Park was up and running.  Are there similar plans under the new "Recreation Reserve" proposal?  If so, when will this take effect?

3. It has been brought to my attention that in dealing with the Park issue you have angered neighboring cottage associations.  They say you are not telling the truth and they've asked you for an apology and retraction. Unlike you, our neighboring cottage associations support a Park.

The President of Catchacoma Cottage Association (CCA) recently wrote to you requesting "a retraction of misinformation that you disseminated to your members."  Catchacoma Lake supports an operating provincial park designation and opposes the Recreation Reserve Act.  She says "You have put forth false information.  CCA request that this letter be circulated to your members with an apology."  She also says that SGKH, which you co-lead, is promoting similar misinformation.  Her letter is attached.

The recently-retired President of  Wolf Lake Cottage Association is also angry at misrepresentations you made about their position.  On Wolf Lake 60% voted in favour of a Park and another 18% voted in favour of a Conservation Reserve.  Let me know if you would like me to send you another copy of the Wolf Lake tally.

What is your response to our nearby cottage associations?  Aren't we better off with good relations with these neighbours?  Why do you keep saying they are against a Park when they are so clearly in favour of a Park?

Bob (Walsh)


d) From:  "J Whelan" <>
To:   <>
Cc:   To about 95 persons mostly on Anstruther lake
Sent:  Wednesday, February 19, 2003 3:54 PM
Subject:  Re: Road link between 28 and 507; and Bill 239(the"Recreation Reserve Act")

Hi Everyone

I advised everyone that I would look into this issue, and get back to you. I will do that, however it appears that the same people just do not have any patience in waiting for the answers. They also seem to have all the answers, when we get the facts we will see who is correct.

What I told you is true, this road was on the table 5-6 years ago.  It was abandoned then, and I heard no more about it (mainly because of cost of environmental assessments) until a member of County Council told me it was coming up again in regards to the Park.

By the way if Ontario Parks wants a road in a Provincial Park, they build a road, but no new roads are permitted to access private property. Take a look at all the roads in Silent Lake Park, they were not there before it became a Park.

I will get back to everyone when I have all the details.

Jim Whelan
President ALCA


e) From:  Jim Whelen
To: ALCA, NORKLA, SGKH, Hon. Jerry Ouellette, Mr. Gary Stewart, MPP, and others.
Subject: A response to concerns expressed by Bob Walsh.
 Minutes of the County of Peterborough TAC/Steering Committee, Feb. 3, 2003.
 T of R for consultants to consider.

Please see the attachments accompanying this chronology.

f) From: []  Actually, This message seems to be from Nancy Jack.
Sent: Thursday, February 27, 2003 8:10 AM
To: Jim Whelen and about 95 other persons: Highway 28-507 link; RRA

Jim, Your email of February 24th seems to boil down to two points:

1.    The consideration of a Highway 28-507 link is at a very preliminary stage.  We agree.  This is precisely what we brought to your attention in Bob's emails of February 2nd and 19th. The County has sent out a request for proposals on a transportation study that would include study of a Hwy 28-507 link.  Regarding the use of Anstruther Lake Rd, Ron Millem (former Warden of Peterborough County and currently Deputy Reeve of Smith-Enismore-Lakefield) said at a recent meeting of the Transportation Committee of County Council that a logical place for an east-west connecting link was Anstruther Lake Rd through to Beaver Lake Rd.

2.   You disagree with Bob's assertion that such a road would not be built if the area were a Provincial Park.  When this government approved the "Land Use Strategy for the KHSS" that initiated the Local Stakeholders Committee, the Land Use Strategy said there would be no NEW roads whether the area was a park, a conservation reserve or a combination of the two. The sections of the Provincial Parks Act that you quoted must be read in this context.  As Bob confirmed with the MNR, in the context of the government-issued "Land Use Strategy for the KHSS" and the subsequent LSC recommendations, a road link would not happen if KHSS were made a park, and your statement that this road link idea has been prompted by the park proposal is silly.  You seem reluctant to actually verify this by talking to Parks Ontario or the MNR.

In your email you attribute statements to us that we have never made and with which we do not agree.  We trust you will correct this before distributing your memo more widely:

1.   We have never stated that anyone was beginning to construct a link from Hwy 28 to 507.  We said "a major road has been suggested connecting
Highway 28 and Highway 507, which most likely would use Anstruther Lake Road", which is true.

2.   We have never stated the Recreation Reserve Act (RRA) will result in the sale of Crown Land.  In fact, we said exactly the opposite, that the RRA "does contain an important protection for cottagers, restrictions against the sale of Crown Land." (see email from Nancy Jack December 20,

3.   We have never said that under the RRA forestry companies would "come in and clear cut".

4.   We have never said that this will be "the biggest hunt camp south of Algonquin Park."  We do have some unanswered questions of whether hunting
will increase as a result of walk-in hunting and increased ATV use, which is permitted by the RRA.  Our concerns about hunting relate primarily to safety and quotas.

It surprises and discourages that, as head of ALCA, you still have not responded to key questions for cottagers.  Without answers to these questions, we do not see how ALCA can be supportive of the RRA.  Our questions are:

Road Proposal

1.   Please confirm that ALCA would oppose any proposal to build a secondary provincial highway or other road using Anstruther Lake Rd to connect the 507 to Hwy 28, unless ALCA cottagers voted in favour.  At a minimum please tell us your position on this proposed link.

2.   In light of the proposal to build a connecting road, is it wise of ALCA to support extending the paved portion of the road from the dump to the end of the road, or does this make the road more vulnerable for use as a future connecting road?

Recreation Reserve Act

1.   When the LSC recommended an operating Provincial Park, they provided 30 page draft and final reports with specifics on boundaries, recreational
and commercial activities, and environmentally sensitive areas.  Can we have a similar document for the new "Recreation Reserve" designation?  If
we can't get this, shouldn't cottagers hold off supporting Bill 239?

2.   The LSC recommended an "Interim Management Plan" as soon as possible, until the Park was up and running.  Are there similar plans under the new RRA?  If so when will this take effect?

3.   Our central concern about the RRA is that, due to the lack of clear restrictions or regulations under that legislation, it has the potential to significantly expand invasive recreational activities and the number of visitors to the area.  The RRA does not have the controls that would be in place if the area were an operating provincial park - eg limits on the numbers of campers, gates, limits on recreational ATV use (ie other than to access private property) and restricted use of motors on the uncottaged backwoods lakes.

Jim, it is unfair for you to lash out at cottagers that disagree with you.

As head of ALCA you represent all ALCA members, and you should be encouraging all of us to express our views and ask our questions.

Nancy Jack and Bob Walsh


Accompanying attachments:

1) Jim Whelen’s response to Bob Walsh’s "road issue questions".

Box 284 Apsley Ontario K0L 1A0  705-656-1339

 Response to the Bob Walsh email of February 19th, 2003.

Re:      Connection of Highway 28 to County Road #507 via the Anstruther Lake and the Beaver Lake Roads

Wow! Bob Walsh makes it appear as if the contractors have been hired, will start paving the Anstruther Lake Road to-morrow and will be finished to #507 before the Spring thaw.

Mike Rutter the CAO Administrator for the County of Peterborough advised me of the following:
The City of Peterborough is in the process of finishing a Transportation study of the roads into Peterborough, the roads in Peterborough and the roads out of Peterborough. This study has spread into the County because of the geography.

The County of Peterborough is initiating a North-South Transportation Study that will start at HWY 115 and will study the connections to the North, to both Apsley and Buckhorn. Many proposals were put on the table in this regard and an Anstruther Lake Road upgrade was one of them. However, because of concerns and as clearly spelled out in point 2 of the minutes of the February 3rd   meeting of the Transportation Steering Committee (copy attached), the "Committee agreed to broaden the terminology in the ToR and give consideration of a "north-west corridor" rather than noting a specific link between Highway 28 and County Road 507." The Anstruther Lake Road is not even mentioned in the Terms of Reference.

The terms of reference for the new study are also attached for your consideration.

Tom Flynn, the Reeve of GCH had concerns and says GCH does not have a road that could be used for the connector to the Anstruther Lake Road, and he sees no reason for the proposal to go forward. Reeve Flynn also advised me to have anyone who says he is in favor of the Anstruther Lake Road proposal to phone him and he will correct that myth!

In his memo to me with the Minutes and Terms of Reference (these are both public documents anyone can get a copy) Mr. Rutter States:

"I assure you that no plans are in place to do anything at this point...and no decisions have been made.  I also assure you that there will be a public consultation process before any decisions are made by County Council.  We are VERY early in this process."

Anstruther Lake Rd is a Township road so the first step in such a process would be to have the County take it over - then to find a route to connect to the West - then there would be a study to discover reasons as to why someone travelling down #28 would go over to Buckhorn and vice versa - and then there would be a public consultation process where we could have input. However, NO ONE HAS YET BEEN HIRED to formulate the proposal and, as stated, the Anstruther Lake Road is not even in the Terms of Reference.

One thing more, this idea would cost millions no matter where they put it, there would have to be massive support and reasoning for it, and even then it would be questionable. See #3 in the Terms of Reference. The County is short of funds for bridges and lists the priorities which must be addressed. (BIG$$)

If the site is designated a Recreation Reserve the local townships and local rate payers would most likely have greater control since roads would be in the control of the two municipalities and the County of Peterborough - not Parks Ontario.  We do not understand why Bob Walsh states that a road would NOT be built to provide access to a park if the park management wanted one.  Section 9.(1) and 16.(1) of the Provincial parks Act are quoted below, and there are other permissive sections.

"Access roads to provincial parks, in municipalities
 9.  (1) The Minister and any municipality, with the approval of the Lieutenant Governor in Council, may enter into agreement for the construction or maintenance of a road or the reconstruction or maintenance of an existing road under the jurisdiction and control of the municipality for the purpose of providing access to a provincial park, and the provincial share of the cost thereof may be paid out of the money appropriated therefor by the Legislature."

"Roads, trails and portages
 16.  (1) The district manager or superintendent in charge of a provincial park may open or close to travel any road or trail in the provincial park that is not under the control of the Ministry of Transportation, or any portage in the provincial park."

Bob you stated that you were told by MNR staff that no such road would be permitted. Who was this person?  Given the sections of the Provincial Parks Act quoted above, who can make this guarantee on behalf of future governments or park administrators? No staff person can guarantee this. Your source of information at MNR must be the same one you have been quoting for some of your other questionable information. As in the past a political, policy or financial decision could be made tomorrow to change events contemplated for a park.  This is precisely what happened in the case of the present Kawartha Highlands Provincial Park in 1968 and 1969 as stated in the Meteek Report:

"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 the reconsideration of the appropriateness of the development plan to the area, resulted in the park development being discontinued."[Meteek report, section 3.2.1, page 14]

Since all roads and non-purchased road allowances become Park property if the KHSS is designated to be a Park, not only could major Park entry roads be constructed from the North, South, East and West, but the very roads that we as cottagers built could become part of the access network of Park roads. Parks Ontario can put in roads where it wants or needs them.

In my humble opinion Bob you have been handed a red herring and you took it hook line and sinker.

There are two very sad things about your emails:

1. The person or persons who gave you the information that you sent to everyone also knew of the information I am now sending to everyone. WHY WOULD THEY DO THAT?

2. Bob and Nancy, you took the information from these persons as facts and accused me of spreading false information. You have been doing this consistently as follows:

a) Crown land around the Lake would all be sold----the Recreational Reserve Act forbids crown land sales.

b) Forestry companies would come in and clear cut---the RRA forbids commercial logging.

c) This will be the biggest hunt camp south of Algonquin—the RRA does not change the status of hunting as recommended by the LSC. The hunting seasons are all spelled out and the MNR controlled hunt camp licenses will be renewed the same as in the LSC’s recommendations of August 2001, page 8, and of November 2001, pages 13 and 36.

d) ATVs will overrun the area—In the new act, if you read it, you will see that it uses the Public Lands Act Section 28, RRA Section 5(3) providing for "Designating Utilization Zones", and RRA Section 5(4) which provides for control by signage. Utilization Zones provide options to establish areas in recreation reserves in which certain activities are restricted or not permitted at all. This can provide as much bvcontrol as the LSC’s recommendations, but without indiscriminately confiscating private property owners’ essential rights of access by ATV.

e) We are trying to bring a unified plan forward to get a co-management committee in place, and you and your cohorts are continually raising negative red herrings. It should be noted that, at the information meeting organized by North Kawartha Township, a senior Park official stated that there are no Parks in Ontario managed by a co-stewardship management committee. With the recreation reserve act we have the opportunity to work with the MNR and to develop a co-stewardship committee.

Bob and Nancy, I stress, it is extremely discouraging to have you continuously emailing what you say is correct information that turns out to be false. I have spent a tremendous amount of time researching this issue and working hard to communicate with, and represent the best interests of, our cottagers regarding the signature site issue, the condos, water quality, by-laws and anything that affects our Lake and Township.

You state at the first of your letter you want correct information from me and then you call my information false in three places. Maybe you had better demand the same from your other information sources!

I did not take the position of President to take unwarranted abuse like this from you or anyone else, but that is not the main issue. The main issue is the number of people that you upset unnecessarily and the tremendous amount of my time and their time that you have caused us to waste. This has certainly been the message that has come through from the many e mails and letters that I have received from fellow cottagers. You owe the people on Anstruther Lake and anyone else who has your emails a public apology.

I would suggest you study the attached documents. The transportation study speaks for itself.   The Meteek Report summary attached, (full report available on SGKH web site ) clearly indicates the KHSS is not a suitable candidate for a Park. Why was the report withheld from the public by the Ontario Living Legacy Local Stakeholders’ Committee?  The Recreation Act clearly recommends utilization zones in order to restrict  activities in areas that need protection .With the supporting legislation, policies and acts already in place combined with the Recreation Act the Kawartha Highlands Signature Site would have site specific protection on a when, where and as required basis.

What you will find, as did the Stakeholder Groups of the Kawartha Highlands, is that not only can the site have the necessary protection it deserves, it doesn't have to be marketed to cover the costs of a Provincial Park super structure management. A local sustainable solution will provide a much greater guarantee of protection in the future. As well the local traditional users will have greater control of their own destiny without the ongoing threat of losing their rights from outside extremists who want to take those rights away.

I will address the rest of Bob Walsh and Nancy Jack emails re: Recreational Reserve Act and other lakes later this week.

Since this will not be mailed until the spring newsletter. If you know any fellow cottagers who have been misled by this current rumor,  please pass on this correct information. Thank you.

Best regards to all

Jim Whelan
President ALCA

Minutes Transportation Study Meeting
Transportation Study Terms of Reference
Meteek Summary (FULL REPORT IS AVAILABLE ON WEB Site: Recreation Reserve Act

Accompanying attachments:
2) Minutes of Peterborough County Transportation Plan Steering Committee Meeting of Feb. 3rd, 2003.

Monday, February 3, 2003
Committee Room, County Court House

Members Present: Eric Batten, Neal Cathcart, Ron Gerow, Mike Leveck, Burritt Mann, Warden Dave Nelson, Doug Pearcy, Elizabeth Tanner

Staff Present: Chris Bradley, Director of Public Works; Lynn Clark, Deputy Clerk

Regrets: Tom Flynn; Bryan Weir, Director of Planning


The Deputy Clerk called the meeting to order at 1:10 p.m. and advised that the first order of business would be to elect a Chairperson.  She outlined the procedure for election of the Chair and opened the floor to nominations.

Moved by: Mr. Pearcy
Seconded by: Mr. Mann

That Warden Nelson be nominated Chair.

The Deputy Clerk called a second and third time for further nominations and upon receiving none, nominations closed.  Warden Nelson assumed the Chair and called for nominations for the position of Vice Chair.

Moved by: Mr. Cathcart
Seconded by: Mr. Gerow

That Mr. Batten be nominated Vice Chair.

The Chair called a second and third time for further nominations and upon receiving none, nominations closed and Mr. Batten was appointed Vice Chair.

1. Adoption of Previous Minutes

The following comments were raised with respect to the minutes of October 1, 2002:

ß Committee asked how County and City staff have shared information on each municipality’s development of their transportation plan.  Committee discussed County Road 19 being designated a "western route" in the City’s study.  Mr. Bradley responded that a transportation study looks at the overall flow of traffic and does not typically give consideration to the "ownership" of the road.  The City’s study looked at road requirements and projected traffic volumes twenty years and more into the future.
ß Mr. Bradley advised of his department’s procedure for traffic count studies.  He clarified that staff carry out traffic counts typically every two or three years on higher volume roads or roads that staff expect are experiencing an influx of traffic.

 Moved by: Mr. Gerow
Seconded by: Mrs. Tanner

That the minutes of October 1, 2002 be adopted as circulated. ? Carried.

2. Presentation of Revised Terms of Reference (dated January 3, 2003)

The Director of Public Works reviewed the revised Terms of Reference for Committee’s information.  Staff requested Committee’s direction on the following items:

ß Committee agreed to remove consideration on a causeway to carry traffic over Pigeon Lake, due to cost considerations to study and construct such a structure.
ß Committee agreed to broaden the terminology in the ToR and give consideration of a "north-west corridor" rather than noting a specific link between Highway 28 and County Road 507.
ß Page 3, Item (d), Specific Issues ? Add:  Highways 115/7 route to northern part of the County, to be referenced as a "north-west bypass route".
ß Page 5, Item (c), first point ? Insert the word "study".  Sentence to read, "Key activities of the overall study are to be presented …"

Moved by: Mr. Batten
Seconded by: Mr. Gerow

That Committee recommend that Council approve the Terms of Reference as amended and attached to the minutes as Appendix "A" and staff be authorized to insert the appropriate dates therein. ? Carried.

3. Presentation of Budget

Mr. Bradley presented a draft budget to carry out a County Transportation Study.  Staff estimate the consultant costs will be in the range of $150,000 to $200,000 to carry out the following components of the study:

1. Network analyses
2. Fiscal Analyses
3. Policy Analyses
4. Specific Issues and Traffic Considerations
5. Data collection
6. Public Information Program
7. Technical and Staff meetings
8. Administrative expenses, travel, photocopies

Moved by: Mr. Cathcart
Seconded by: Mr. Gerow

That Committee recommend that Council approve a budgetary expense of up to $200,000.00 as the above-noted costs associated with the development of a Transportation Study for the County of Peterborough, and that the budgetary allocation be referred to 2003 budget deliberations. ? Carried.
 4. Selection of Consultant ? Process

Mr. Bradley outlined the process staff considered to move forward and select the study consultant, being:

1. The process will be in accordance with the County’s purchasing by-law.
2. Staff will contact directly a selection of firms experienced in developing transportation plans.
3. Newspaper ads to be placed soliciting expressions of interest.
4. Staff to analyze expressions of interest received and present to committee a list of five or six (approximate) firms to submit a formal and detailed proposal for committee’s consideration.
5. Committee to meet and review the formal submissions received and select the appropriate consultant for Council’s concurrence.
6. The Technical Advisory Committee will be established once the consultant is selected.
7. Staff may request the assistance of Tranplan Associates for this process.

Moved by: Mr. Leveck
Seconded by: Mr. Batten

That Committee approve the process for selecting a consultant as outlined by the Director of Public Works. ? Carried.

5. Meeting Schedule

The next meeting to be held at the call of the Chair.

6. Other Business

Committee congratulated Mr. Bradley and Mr. Weir on the development of the Terms of Reference.

7. Finance

Mr. Bradley advised of an invoice received from Bill Copeland of Tranplan who has been assisting staff in the development of the Terms of Reference.  Committee approved the per hour fee charged by Mr. Copeland and recommended that his invoice in the amount of $1,575.58 be processed for payment.

8. Adjournment

Moved by: Mr. Pearcy
Seconded by: Mr. Mann

That the meeting adjourn at 3 p.m. ? Carried.

_______________________________ _______________________________
David Nelson, Chair Lynn Clark, Deputy Clerk

Accompanying attachments:

3) County of Peterborough, Transportation Study  Terms  of  Reference as revised by Steering Committee Feb. 3rd .





The County of Peterborough, having a permanent population of approximately 54,000, is comprised of 8 Townships.  The City of Peterborough does not form part of the County for governance purposes.  Located in central-east Ontario, the southern half of the County is predominantly agriculture and rural lands sporadically dotted with several small urbanizing areas. The northern part is largely used for seasonal/recreational purposes.

The County of Peterborough is seeking a consultant to undertake a Transportation Planning Study.

The study will address operational design, and planning and policy issues in the context of transportation and land-use planning.  It is the intent that part of the Transportation Plan may be implemented by the County Official Plan through amendment.

The selected consultant will report directly to the Technical Advisory Committee/Steering Committee with on-going periodic "deliverable" reports presented to County Council.


At a County Strategic Planning Exercise held in 2002, County Council identified a number of objectives for staff to work towards in 2002.  Among those objectives was to develop a County Plan for Transportation.  Sub-issues for this objective included the possibility of developing a plan with a similar approach used by the City of Peterborough in the development of their plan, and coordinating the plan with the City’s plan, examining the possibility of developing localized secondary transportation plans in areas such as Bridgenorth, Lakefield, Fraserville and Norwood, and investigating the development of a Northern east-west link for the north-western part of the County.

Significant municipal structure changes have occurred throughout the 1990’s in addition to the elimination of municipal funding mechanisms and additions to the County transportation system brought about by Provincial highway downloading and local municipal road transfers.  These factors combined with anticipated growth have initiated the desire to review the transportation network within the County.

This review is intended to reflect these changes and further be expanded to evaluate transportation needs with forecasts and considerations given to financial sustainability, growth impacts and establishing County road standards and policies.


The proposed study will consist of the following general components:
- a comprehensive assessment of the County’s transportation planning needs for a 10 and 20     year plan
- a review of the adequacy of the County’s capital and maintenance expenditures considering short term and long term needs
- the creation of a prioritized improvement program to address existing and future transportation needs including cost estimates and timing
- the determination of policy and standard requirements related to transportation and to land use development issues
- a review of potential funding techniques to ensure financial sustainability to allow the implementation of future transportation needs
- establish connectivity  with the proposed City of Peterborough Transportation Plan
- investigate the possibility of establishing alternate routes around the City of Peterborough to provide greater/more efficient access to the eastern and northern parts of the County

NOTE: A detailed environmental review will not be required.  Environmental Assessments will be undertaken on an individual basis as required for future projects when they are approved.  However, it is the intent that this study be carried out to meet the requirements of the Ontario Class Environmental Assessment for Municipal Road Projects.

Key elements of the study:

a) Network Analysis:

-     Approximately 75% of the County Road network should be viewed as accommodating
      general projected growth that is 1%-2% per year.  The balance of the network, being those
      roads in the general vicinity of the City of Peterborough will require more in-depth study.
- assess the infrastructure needs of the current and future transportation system and develop
      options with costing to address these needs
- assessments shall utilize acceptable engineering practices for system deficiency analysis, road capacity calculations and evaluating new transportation corridors to develop options
- assessments shall consider land use changes; growth related pressures influencing travel patterns; and changing transportation trends such as heavier and larger trucks and modal splits due to walking and cycling
- the study will produce 10 and 20 year time horizons for implementing the recommendations of the Transportation Study complete with priorities and costs
 b) Fiscal Analysis

- develop a financial strategy for achieving the above-noted 10 and 20 year time horizons
- evaluation to include the examination of utilizing funding sources such as the County levy, government grants, development charges and user fees.  The County is currently mid-way through a detailed 11-year capital forecast program for roads and structures.  The consultant may utilize this program as a reference.

*** Due to the important nature of the above study component, the selected consultant team must have sufficient expertise to conduct a detailed financial analysis and must identify who will perform this function.

c) Policy Analysis

The County of Peterborough currently has very few policies relating to its transportation system.  The consultant will be expected to review the following and develop/recommend a set of Transportation Policies:
- County Road design standards and criteria
- County Road access, entrances and standards
- County Road hierarchical classification system
- County Road setback standards and criteria
- County Road right-of-way requirements, regulations and construction standards.

d)  Specific Issues

- the feasibility of providing paved shoulders on specific portions of the County Road network, determining the necessary co-ordination to accommodate cycle and modal systems and determining an appropriate funding formula to accommodate these features
- ensuring rapid access to the Peterborough Regional Health Centre
- investigate the feasibility of developing a link from Hwy. 28 to County Road 507 in the north-central part of the County
- evaluate the impact of Peterborough becoming a Go/VIA link
- investigate the feasibility of developing a link from Hwy. 115/Hwy. 7 to the north-west part of the City of Peterborough.
- determine the feasibility of establishing  a bus service from Lakefield, Norwood, Bridgenorth, Havelock and Millbrook to the City of Peterborough
- review intersection improvement needs related to operations and development impacts at various growth locations (County staff will provide the successful consultant with a list of 10 intersections/locations).

- It is becoming increasingly difficult for the County to fund the maintenance and capital costs related to the 137 bridges and culverts under its jurisdiction.  The structures are categorized as follows:

County Road bridges 50
County Road culverts 12
Township Road bridges 73
Township Road culverts 2

The consultant will be required to complete a feasibility analysis to determine which, if any, of the 75 structures on Township Roads could be closed from a transportation network perspective.

- address transportation and traffic concerns in the following areas:
- Bridgenorth ? issue: Ward Street is a heavily-congested urban arterial route experiencing serious seasonal peak traffic delays.  In recent years, a centre left turn lane has been constructed to temporarily address the problem.  The County also initiated an Environmental Study Report in 1996 (updated in 2001) for a Highway By-pass of Bridgenorth.  The consultant will be required to review the traffic concerns in this area and the By-pass feasibility.
- Chemong Road Corridor ? issue:  Chemong Road, County Road 18 from the City limits to County Road 1 is an existing 4-lane high-capacity arterial road with a posted speed limit ranging from 70 to 80 km/hr.  Development opportunities are currently constrained due to capacity problems related to turning movements.  The consultant will be required to examine the existing conditions and provide a detailed set of recommendations to transform this road to a suburban arterial road to enhance opportunities for additional development.
- Lakefield ? issue: Bridge Street/Queen Street experiences seasonal congestion.  The consultant will be required to examine the existing situation in detail and present options with costs for addressing this problem.
- Norwood ? issue: Considerable truck traffic travels through the main intersection of Norwood thereby causing traffic delays and impacts to the road surface.  The consultant will be required to interact with MTO to investigate design and route alternatives for traffic in the general vicinity of Highway 7 and County Road 40 (include local roads).
- Fraserville ? issue: Fraserville is expected to undergo considerable growth.  The consultant will be required to examine the Township’s Secondary Land Use Plan and provide a detailed set of recommendations for this area.


- M.T.O., County and local municipality historic traffic volume data and roadway characteristics information
- County Roads Inventory Management System
- County Municipal Bridge Appraisal Data Entry System, major update in 2000, minor update in 2002
- demographic data
- County and local Official Plans and related background studies
- current draft plan approved, registered or pending subdivision plans
- County land severance records
- local building permit data
- proposed/draft City of Peterborough Transportation Study
- MTO Transportation Tomorrow Survey information
- 4-year traffic accident statistics
- County Road Entrance By-law
- 11-year Capital forecast program for County Roads and Bridges


The consultant will be required to obtain comments from the public and affected/interested agencies in a pro-active, consultative manner by utilizing such methods as Public Information Centres, open houses or surveys to provide input towards the planning and delivery of future transportation services.  The County’s website may be used for soliciting comments from the public and disseminating public information.  "Invitations to participate" during key stages in the Study may be extended to those bodies that are deemed to have an interest in that particular part of the Study (ie. City of Peterborough, MTO, etc.)


i) Study Area and Forecasts:
The study area is the County of Peterborough.  Data from adjacent Counties and municipalities may need to be reviewed to access cross-boundary linkages and future travel demands.  Road system improvement needs and new construction are to be prioritized for a 10 and 20 year forecast horizon.

ii) Study Direction:
The Steering Committee, comprised of County Councilors will provide overall direction through the Technical Advisory Committee (T.A.C.) and make recommendations on the acceptance of study "deliverables" to County Council.

a) Specific T.A.C. Responsibilities:
- provide available land use, demographic, road characteristic and traffic volume data
- provide available past studies and current mapping of the study area
- liaise with the Steering Committee and recommend interim and final report approvals
-     meet on an on-going basis with study consultant to review study progress and provide
      continued study direction and technical input
  The study consultant will report directly to the T.A.C. and meet with T.A.C. at key stages
  during the study’s progress.  Further, the study consultant will attend Steering Committee
  meetings as required.

b) Specific Consultant Duties:
-      undertake a thorough review of all data requirements, verifying the availability of
                               data and providing sufficient resources to collect data not readily available
-      develop an appropriate public consultation program to inform the community and
       interested agencies and provide an opportunity to participate in the study
-      attend T.A.C., Steering Committee, public information and County Council meetings
       as required
-      co-ordinate and provide all aspects and materials for public consultation activities
       including a compilation of material received from the public
-      organize, record and retain minutes of all meetings related to the study
-      provide suitable "web-ready" documents throughout the study process
-      quality and time management control including providing regular statements of
       budget against actual progress and costs

c) Study Reporting:
-      Key activities of the overall study are to be presented to the TAC/Steering Committee as they are completed.  It is anticipated that once these key activities have been presented, reviewed and approved, these interim reports be incorporated into the Final Study Report.
-      The consultant is to identify all other proposed deliverables.

iii)  Copies of Reports

All draft documents, reports, schedules and information to be discussed at meetings shall be forwarded to the T.A.C. a minimum of 7 days prior to the meeting date.

For Steering Committee meetings, 15 copies shall be forwarded.
The consultant(s) will be required to provide all presentation display material as well as sufficient copies of report and maps to meet the requirements of a full and active public participation process.

At the completion of the project, 40 final copies of the completed study shall be submitted.

In addition, all text documents shall be provided to the County on a compact disk and saved in Microsoft Word format.  Any computerized mapping information shall be added to the County’s current system.

The selected consultant will be required to provide a statement of professional liability insurance in the amount of $5 million to hold harmless the County on any matters arising out of the consultant team’s involvement on the project.  The selected consultant will also be required to prepare and enter into an agreement (Standard Form prescribed by MEA/CEO for professional consulting services) with the County.

NOTE:   All study results, maps, plans and data generated and accumulated through this study will become the property of the County at the conclusion of the study.


i) Study Proposal:

The T.A.C. will review detailed study proposals submitted no later than 2:00 p.m. on March 27, 2003 in response to a Request for Proposal circulated to selected consultants utilizing these Terms of Reference.

This study proposal should not exceed 10 pages plus figures and schedules.  Names of staff and sub-consultants as an appendix will not be considered as part of the page limit.

Fifteen copies of this proposal are required for submission.

The study proposal shall include:

- Proposed/alternate approaches to the Key Elements described in the Terms of Reference, if appropriate, and in preparing the work plan
- Costs and timeframes provided for each of the 4 Key Elements
- an upset limit of total project costs provided in a time allocation matrix which indicates staff time allocated for Key Elements, per diem rates and disbursement costs
- the names of staff and sub-consultants to be utilized in the study, their background and related experiences and their role in this study
- references to similar projects undertaken by the consultant team

ii) Study Proposal Evaluation:

The study proposals will be evaluated on the basis of the following (not necessarily shown in order of importance):

 *Experience and Qualifications of the Project Team
- Project Manager/Engineer and senior designers
- Technical support staff
- Sub-consultants

*Project Implementation
- Approach and methodology
- Schedule of key activities and resources
- Project quality assurance program
*Management Qualifications
- Experience on similar projects
- Availability of key staff
- Stability and reputation of the firm
- Multi-disciplinary/specialty capabilities
- Quality assurance system
- Local office


The study proposals will be reviewed by T.A.C. and the Steering Committee.  If the Committee deems it necessary, consultants should be prepared to attend at the County of Peterborough, 470 Water Street, Peterborough K9H 3M3.

iii) Study Work Plan

Upon acceptance by County Council at its meeting of May 7, 2003, the selected consultant will be notified to commence preparation of a detailed work plan for the study.

The work plan will be prepared in consultation with T.A.C. and will include a detailed task breakdown and study schedule; and a determination of data, information and other requirements.  Any changes in the assignment that the selected consultant feels is legitimately or significantly beyond the original scope of work must be submitted in writing to the T.A.C. immediately to determine the implications of proceeding with the study.

At the completion of the work plan, the T.A.C. will evaluate the plan and recommend to the Steering Committee that the proposed work plan be approved at the upset limit established by the consultant and that the consultant be instructed to complete the study.

Payment to the selected consultant will be based on a fixed fee for the work plan as per the upset limit stated in the study proposal.

Public consultation and detailing of alternative approaches may be required during the development of work plan.

The consultant is required to submit the draft study report to T.A.C. and the Steering Committee within 12 months of study commencement.


Key study stages are as follows:
- circulation of Terms of Reference
- study proposals received by March 27, 2003 by T.A.C. and Steering Committee review begins
- Steering Committee selection recommendation to County Council on May 7, 2003 and subsequent notification to consultant to initiate work plan preparation
- work plan submitted to T.A.C. and Steering Committee for review
- Steering Committee work plan recommendation to County Council
- work plan implementation

Approved by Transportation Plan Steering Committee:  February 3, 2003.
Approved by County Council:  February 5, 2003 (Final)

Mr. Walsh (cont'd.), regarding your emails to Jim Whelen:

A short while ago I sent you comments from Rick Aube. Obviously, he has some views regarding information from Ms. Lyttle. And he is not alone here in Galway-Cavendish and Harvey.

The most convincing information on the issue should be the comments from directly affected property owners.  While Mr. Aube has about 98% of the eligible property owners on the lakes in his association, the CCA comes nowhere close, and very few CCA members are directly affected by the KHSS
boundary issue.

Attached, please find the results of a fairly thorough and objective survey of directly affected property owners.
Gary Faulkner
The Kawartha Highlands Signature Site and the Easterly Shore of Lake Catchacoma

Section A - Overview
1)  Area Description:

There is no area of the Kawartha Highlands Signature Site (KHSS) that has received more attention than the easterly shore of Lake Catchacoma.  In the LSC’s Recommendations of November 2001 this area is referred to (non-specifically) by Reeve Tom Flynn on page 17, three times on page 18 and most of pages 22, 23 and 24 deal with this area.  It is also referred to on pages 31, 32 and  40. There are many errors in the information provided by the LSC regarding this area.  However, before we deal with these issues of inaccuracy, false information and omissions, we wish to present you with a few facts concerning the area which is shown in Map #1 below.

The existing Kawartha Highlands Provincial Park (KHPP) is shown in green and the shaded areas around the perimeters of the lakes are private properties.  The private properties shown were almost all sold by the Crown prior to 1958, and much of the eastern shoreline was sold by 1951 or even much earlier.

Lake Catchacoma, Beaver Lake and Bottle Creek are shown clearly on the map.  The narrow lake between Beaver and Catchacoma Lakes is McGinniss Lake.  The narrow opening between Catchacoma and McGinniss Lakes is referred to as "The Cut" by locals.  Bottle Creek and a portage from the east end of Beaver Lake to the South end of Bottle Lake, which has now become a "rough road", have been the main accesses to the KHPP for decades.  As a consequence, property owners along the north shores of Beaver and McGinniss Lakes, and on the easterly shore of Catchacoma between "The Cut" and Bottle Creek, are very familiar with, and affected by, visitations to the KHPP by transients and the problems associated therewith.
Map #1    Easterly Shore of Lake Catchacoma and the KHSS
Ed note  this link to the map that is contained on this web site as a PDF file.  We suggest that you may wish to print it for viewing as you read the article.
Notice that the extent of private property ownership is quite uniform around the lakes shown.  The effect of making the entire KHSS a provincial park would be to extend the boundaries of the KHPP westward to include the areas shown in yellow.  Prior to Lands for life and Ontario’s Living Legacy initiatives, all of the Crown land shown in yellow was designated general use Crown land.  The effect of re-designating this crown land from the General Use to the Provincial Park designation is to seriously compromise the Free Use Policy Privileges and property access rights or privileges of directly adjacent property owners.  Property owners whose properties, or the accesses to their properties, are not directly adjacent to the yellow area; for example, persons on islands or on the south or west shores of the lakes, are not as directly or negatively affected.  This also applies to persons whose properties are landlocked (surrounded by other private properties and having no access or right-of-way), since they are effectively "buffered" from park activities and their access privileges are not affected.
Cutting Rights:

The forestry industry had its cutting rights extended about May of 1999 to include the eastern half of lot 23 and lot 24 in concession IX.  This area was "excluded" from the proposed KHSS at that time.  Previously the forestry industry held cutting rights to the west of this area.  These lands were left with the General Use designation.  While the writer was aware of this exclusion by about September 1999 it’s interesting to note that five directors of the CCA, whose cottages are very close to the area, did not know about the cutting rights extension until it was brought to their attention by the writer in September 2001.  I mention this because credibility of the CCA is an issue.

2)  Exclusion Requested:

Commencing before April 1998 some property owners adjacent to the yellow area began asking that this area, or a portion of it, be excluded from the KHSS (it was not called the KHSS in 1998) to preserve their rights and privileges.  Many submissions were made between April 1998 and October 2002 to the GLSLA Round Table, to John Snobelen , to Jerry Ouellette, to the LSC and to others requesting an exclusion of, or within, in the area shown in yellow.

Reasonable Request:

Please note that the area in yellow is very close in size to the area north of Big Cedar and Coon Lakes that was recommended to be excluded from the KHSS by the LSC in November 2001.  See the third paragraph down on the top right corner of page 19, as well as the maps on pages 46 and 47.  Also, please note the three exclusions numbered 7, 8 and 9 on the map on page 47 of the LSC’s November 2001 Recommendations.  If these four exclusions were recommended by the LSC, why not the exclusion requested east of Catchacoma?  They were all requested for the same reasons.

3) Affected Property Owners:

Obviously, property owners along the north side of Beaver Lake were to be affected by KHSS developments and LSC recommendations.  However, for quite some time the boundary of the KHPP had been the north side of the road, initially built by them, that runs in an east - west direction just north of their properties.  Also, the LSC recommended that they be given an  exclusion as they had been requesting.

On the other hand, property owners on the north side of McGinniss, and between "The Cut" and Bottle Creek on Catchacoma, were about to have their circumstances radically changed, along with property owners on Catchacoma to the north of Bottle Creek.  They were not pleased.

For our purposes, we consider that the persons most affected by the re-designation of General Use Crown land to be a provincial park are those whose properties, or accesses to their properties, are directly adjacent to the area shown in yellow. Contrary to assertions of the CCA, the majority of these property owners wanted the area in yellow, or much of it, to be excluded from the KHSS ( i.e. to be a buffer)..

The new Recreation Reserve proposal with protective features provided by Section 28 of the Public Lands Act, utilization zones, Section 3.4.5 b) of the Free Use Policy along with other features appears to provide a reasonable alternative to buffer zones. But, please note that we are dealing with information and circumstances that preceded the introduction of the RRA (Bill 239) on December 12th, 2002.  If Bill 239 should not be passed, then our positions regarding exclusions would be resumed.
4)  How many affected owners and properties are there, and do they want a buffer zone?

Research indicates that in close proximity to the yellow area there are: sixty-one private properties owned by fifty-one different owners.  In total these persons pay $112,881. in property taxes of which $32,418. goes towards education.  On Catchacoma we determined that these properties have about 20,334 feet of shoreline and a total area of 145 acres.  We were unable to assemble all of this data for McGinniss Lake.

The owners of these properties, except for a few individuals whose positions were  known, were surveyed regarding their preferences for a "buffer zone" between their private properties and any part of the KHSS that was to be designated as a provincial park.  A number of persons were neutral and a number of properties are not directly affected as indicated in Table #1.

As shown in Table #1 a clear majority of the directly affected property owners close to the yellow area prefer not to be directly adjacent to a provincial park.  This is true whether you weight the numbers by: i) no. of properties, ii) no. of owners, iii) acreage, iv) shoreline, v) total taxes paid, or vi) education taxes paid.

5)  Who represents these property owners?

Property owners near the yellow area are represented on various matters by five main agencies. (It is not clear to me that any agency should be able to usurp owners’ rights with regard to the re-zoning of adjacent properties - owners should have been contacted personally and formally regarding these matters.)  These agencies or associations are:

a) The Council for Galway-Cavendish and Harvey, led by Reeve Tom Flynn.
b) The Cavendish Community Ratepayers’ Association, Inc. - about 375 Members.
c) The  Beaver-Cavendish-Bottle-McGinniss Cottager Owners’ Organization Inc. - about 140 Members.
d) The Stakeholders’ Groups of the Kawartha Highlands - many Members and Associate Members.
e) The Catchacoma Cottagers’ Association - accurate membership information not available - claim 175.

The first four of these agencies have requested the provision of buffer zones between any part of the KHSS to be designated a provincial park and all private properties on many different occasions.  On June 10th, 2001 the President of the CCA voted for the following motion passed by the SGKH:

"Regardless of the final designation of the Kawartha Highland Signature Site, the Stakeholders Group of the Kawartha Highlands firmly believes a ‘General Use Crown Land’ corridor should be established around all lakes with private property within the Signature Site -as established by the MNR ‘Spooner’ map of 1959, which has been recognized as being an appropriate and sound land use planning conclusion, up to and including the recent Lands for Life Round Table deliberations."

The minutes of the meeting show that the President of the CCA, Ms. Wendy Lyttle, seconded the motion.

6)  Conclusion:

The majority of property owners directly affected by the proposed expansion of the KHPP into the yellow area shown on Map #1, and all of the agencies and associations representing them, have requested a buffer zone of General Use Crown land between their private properties and any provincial park designated near northeast Catchacoma.  Very clearly, the majority of property owners in this area do not support a provincial park adjacent to private their properties.
 Section A -
Table #1 - Buffer Zone Preferences of Directly Affected Property Owners - Catchacoma and McGinniss
This is linked to the table which is on this web site as p7