The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutConservation and Related Land Management Advisory Board Appendices 1989 CR, THB METROPOLITAR TORORTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AU'l'BORITY A PROJECT FOR THE EXTERSION OF THE GLBR MAJOR FOREST ARD WILDLIFE AREA Conservation and Related Land Management Advisory Board Meeting U/89 March 8, 1989 C~.;l -2- PURPOSE OF PROJECT The Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority proposes to purchase 52 2 ha in the Town of Pickering, Regional Municipality of Durham, from Campbell R Osler as an extension of the Glen Major Forest and Wildlife Area The subject lands are located on the Oak Ridges Moraine and are adjacent to the 512 3 ha, Glen Major Forest and Wildlife Area, l26 4 ha of which was previously acquired from the Osler family in 1973 The Greenspace Plan for the Greater Toronto Region - October 1988, prepared by the Authority, identifies the Oak Ridges Moraine as the most important natural resource in the region because it contains the headwaters of most of the streams in the Greater Toronto Region The strategy to manage the Moraine included land acquisition This is a project to acquire land for the purpose of preservation of environmentally sensitive land LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION The land has frontage on the south side of the Pickering-Uxbridge Townline, this portion of which is currently un-opened. The southern boundary of the property is the Canadian Pacific Railway Line The eastern boundary of the property parallels the Town of Pickering Sideline No. 6 The most westerly portion is along Sideline No 8 Both Road Allowances are un-opened The property is typical of lands in the Oak Ridges Moraine, with moderately to steeply rolling hills consisting of light textured sandy soil A large portion is heavily forested consisting of Sugar Maple/Eastern Hemlock and White Cedar/White Birch stands Part of Environmentally Significant Area No 111 is located on the property CR.3 -3- COSTS AND FINANCING The Authority has obtained an option to purchase the property from Mr Campbe 11 R Osler at a price of $4,800.00 per acre (total $619,200) Other associated costs including legal, survey, appraisal and fencing are estimated at $35,800 The total project cost is $655,000 Purchase Price - $619,200 Associated Costs - 35.800 $655,000 It is proposed that funding for the acquisition of this property be from land sale revenue The costs may be partially offset by donations from the Institute of Marine and Terrestrial Ecology or the Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Foundation LAND VALUE The proposed purchase price of $619,200 00 is reflective of current market value of the property A detailed appraisal report of the propez~y has been prepared by BriAn J Wagner A A C I and a copy of the appraisal report accompanies this project. 27 February 1989 JDA/fs Attachaent - -- '.-:-;--\---.~ .. - " ~ 1-J7'~' -, '\ \ "J, , \ ,', , - , '.. ,I I 00 ~ I , If" .. t. ... I (JI . 1" .. "'" \("\..J I do I , .. \ .... " ~ (' j '\~, , " , I . I "' :.) l_' --- \ \, <.0 " -u-n.---IJ,~. r-o . 'It ,." , \ J .... ".. ko. I 2 r ... l..--- ~ I "...... \' " ! ~A) ( , {IJ' II <.0 \ <.0" ... . '- c. ~I" I I AI I \ ,-)0 , ", [' 1 , J -, -, Q ~ , I; I ' f ~ . . '-, I .'.. . I"' .. I } ( " ". iI. II' A" , .1 _..._J. '. . (..- _ ..., .,..,.,.... ~ _...... (! ..... fr.. \ .... 'to . ~ -, ......., ",-",._~..... -",. ,........... '-e;"- --- .... 'e 0 r- , ('-. ' ( ) i ~ \./~' G"'cT N ":." .. M~ J 0 R , - ~.: ~. '"I .. ,.\ ,. \, \ ' Yr' ' LO~) I '-. /' 1'"0--' " J ,\, / !' Ccit11 } I ' \ !'~ ..: '..: I ....: I ,'. if /{ .... ....1 ~ f : .... 1 ) 1 1 '0 \ :; . " .' I I I ,-- ( " , I oJ I ,L . \ ' . -. I I I 1 I, I O~ I I. )' n/ " \w ~ I / 'A" ~~O j . l 1lJ..J '--..... ,fl 1 f I 0. .'1'- 6' ~; ., r I. ' 1.1 , " 1 ~ ",,'_" _ .J , ! -. {'\ \ ~ \ i ~ , ! I .' I j :'" I I I ...,.~ , ,I' 1/ " ' !, !I \ I [/'1 SUBJECT \ ., , , I [/ \ q :1 I J ' / / PROPERTY ~ " . . I I' /,,, \ :./ \ I' .... . "\1 I " : "f , ; I r .\J "I ~ LOl I .... I .!'- J I 1;-..., Co. '" j I \' 'I \.. . CJ / J "'.., ----:"( . I . '. I \' '-. ~ I I \ I I " / 6' . I .' I d, ... I ~ \ " I~. I(,J ('Ii ./1/ "- '. (., \ p~ / t 1__ _ -t ) I " \ --"' -'.:r. \--'-T- ~, <:. ( J II the metropolitan torontoand regIon ! ' I \ L, /). ',,, / / .. conservatIon authOrity , '/ \.} 1.) ,. / ,I, I '. \ ," /): II I D -\, ,f -/ ~ \ ,,' l / AUTHORITY LANDS .~...., \: I I C: I ,_ I' ,~.,," t: ]' ,:.! ~ PROPOSED ACQUISITION , 1 1\/ ,..,. "1/ ~ ,I (J I "". I ---- . ..---,------------ \'\ J " ! ~----- _1\ ----- --.--- r () it) + n '" '" c& r:p the metropolitan toronto and region conservation authonty \ GOOdwOOd , RMT ) ) , .. , /._~ .... 1- , ) ').,. t... I . I G I 0 . , : \.'l )1 .0 u . H . , I .' , 8fO~ \ , I I I I , \) I i i I : I l.. J, I 1 I I . " ... 0 " ... . " 1 _ AUTHORITY l^NOS InCludtnt " C A - Conservation Areos ?\ F 8 W - F'or." 8 Wtl('lde Arto'i 0 .' Waterlront Pork") 0' N R M T Rnource Management Trocts 0 . 0........ , A E K CR, " THE METROPOLITAN TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY CON C E P T P LAN S for Clairevil1e Boyd Petticoat Creek Greenwood Conservation Areas and tbe Greater Toronto Region Trail Systea proposal Authority Meeting '3/89 May 12, 1989 ~r<'7 I N 0 E X Boyd Conservation Area CR 14 Claireville Conservation Area CR. 8 Greenwood Conservation Area CR.27 Petticoat Creek Conservation Area CR 22 Trail System Proposal CR.32 CR,$' SUMMARY OF THE CONCEPT PLAN FOR CLAIREVILLE CONSERVATION AREA April 14, 1989 CR- .~ CONCEPT PLAN FOR CLAIREVILLE CONSERVATION AREA Significance Claireville Conservation Area, due to its strategic location and large areas of tableland, has the potential for multi-faceted recreational attractions. Located within a relatively urban context with excellent transportation links, Claireville Conservation Area offers an excellent opportunity to provide recreational activities that are inter-regional in scale and easily accessible by a large number of watershed residents. Resource Constraints The site is part of the Peel Plain Physiographic Region. This plain is level or undulating and is traversed by the Humber river, which has eroded moderately deep, meandering valleys. Soils have a high clay content and are typically poorly drained. Streambank erosion is prevalent. with the completion of the Claireville Dam, the amount of damage to existing banks has decreased, particularly in the lower part of the site where the stream velocities are controlled. The most significant feature of the area is the Claireville Darn and Reservoir. Mixed deciduous stands occur along the river valley lands and in two woodlots in the northern portion of the site. The majority of the land exists in various stages of old field succession, with some regeneration of tree species. No Environmentally Significant Areas (E.S.A. IS) have been identified on the property. The area has extensive cattail marshes along the east side and at the north end of the reservoir. The marsh is expected to grow as the reservoir continues to accumulate silt from upstream sources. During a wildlife inventory in 1979, 67 bird species were identified. There is a substantial white Tailed Deer population located in tracts north of Steeles Avenue. Other mammals are also present throughout the site. The Claireville Conservation Area is classified as a warm water fisheries area, but no fishing facilities or fish stocking are provided. Current Land Use The present site is already a multi-faceted recreational area, with washrooms, picnic facilities, walkways, trails, a western style equestrian facility and two key intensive use areas. In the southern tip of Claireville, lies the Indian Line Campground (220 campsites) and wild Water Kingdom (formerly Sunshine Beach) Water Park. , 1 L ' - ..... .) EQUESTRIAN CENTRE <t GOLF COURSE INOUSTRIAL RECAEA TION/EDUCATION CENTRE PARKWAyaILT INDIAN UNE CAMPGROUND MSIO!HT1AL LEGEND e EXISTING ACTIVITY o PROPOSED ACTIVITY C laireville Concept Plan CR.lI While snowmobiling is permitted on the northern portion of the site, the sporadic availability of snow precludes most winter activities and the Claireville Conservation Area is primarily used in the summer and fall. Public Use options In accordance with the guidelines outlined in the strateqy for Public Use of Conservation Authority Lands (1987), all proposed facilities are based on appropriate site and complementary land use considerations. Any new facilities would be clustered to minimize space requirements and reduce the impact of public use on natural resources. The recreational opportunities include; 1. Improved Family & Group picnic Areas picnic shelters have become very popular for group and family picnics. The addition of shelters and the support services of hydro and water will improve the quality of service offered. Washroom facilities also require upgrading to modern flush toilet systems. 2. Expanded Walking & Hiking Trails A major trail link through the Humber River valley will be designed and constructed to service the needs of day use visitors as well as future inter-regional trail users. Interpretive elements of the natural and cultural heritage resources will incorporated into the design of trail loops that feed into the main valley trail. 3. A Golf Course The strateqy identified a shortage of public golf courses in the Greater Metropolitan Toronto area. Golf has been identified as one of the few outdoor recreation activities that can be enjoyed throughout adult life. The persistent lack of affordable land in the greater Toronto region for golf will aggravate the situation over the next several years to the point where existing courses will be over-used, expensive to play on, and/or a great distance from the urban golfer. A regulation-sized golf course was examined as a possible use for part of the Claireville Conservation Area. Following a review of the landscape and its resources, it was confirmed that a course could be safely constructed south of Highway #7. - . cR. r~ 4. A Recreation/Education Facility Modern residential facilities, food services and programming around outdoor recreation and education themes are needed to serve families and groups. The facility could be operated year round by private enterprise, or the Conservation Authority, or other public agency. 5. An expanded Equestrian Facility The Conservation Authority currently leases a small area of land and a trail network to a private operator. Western-style trail rides and riding instruction are provided to a growing client group. In discussions with the public and recreation professionals, equestrian facilities were identified as a desirable use for some Conservation Area lands. The current site is slated to be developed as part of the 36 hole golf course. A new equestrian site is proposed north of Highway #7 and a long term lease will be prepared with an equestrian operator in the near future. 6. Expanded Water Park Facility Swimming has always been provided at Claireville Conservation Area along the beach and man made reservoir. Persistent and uncontrollable water quality problems forced the closure of swimming in 1984. Chlorination control and other water quality clean up options were not practical for the site. In order to maintain a unique and high quality water play facility, the Conservation Authority negotiated a long term lease with a private company to provide water and land based activities. The original concept, constructed in 1986, included a series of body slides, tube rides, river ride, children's play area, wave pool, hot tubs and support buildings to accommodate an annual attendance of 200,000+ visitors. Improvements to this plan are proposed by the tenant over the next several years to include: additional body slides, an activity pool, a leisure pool, expansion of the river ride and children's play area, 36 holes of miniature golf, driving range, batting cages, expanded office and food service buildings, bumper boats, water ski show, group picnic area improvements and other outdoor recreation facilities that promote active water and land play uses. , C~, \3 7. Expanded Campground A second campground was identified as a possible alternative land use around the existing Highway #50 entrance. In reviewing camping attendance figures it was determined that minor expansions to the existing campground would meet current demands provided that the campground for Greenwood is installed within the next five year period. Resource Management Where new or improved facilities are proposed, adequate buffering with indigenous tree and shrub species will be planted. Existing forest and marsh areas will be enhanced through natural regeneration, wildlife habitat plantings and larger buffers between natural resource and public use areas. ~R. }~ SUMMARY OF THE CONCEPT PLAN FOR BOYD CONSERVATION AREA April 14, 1989 CR. J S- CONCEPT PLAN FOR BOYD CONSERVATION AREA significance Boyd Conservation Area, due to its strategic location and large areas of tableland and spectacular scenic river valley, has the potential for multi-faceted recreational attractions. Located in a rapidly urbanizing area with excellent transportation links, Boyd Conservation Area offers an excellent opportunity to provide recreational activities that are inter-regional in scale and easily accessible by a significant portion of watershed residents. Resource constraints The site is part of the Bevelled Till Plain region of Southern ontario. This plain is level or undulating and is traversed by the Humber river, which has eroded wide, deep and meandering valleys through the till. Soils range from sandy clays, to gravel outwash, to clay. Stream bank erosion is prevalent with large exposed bluffs in some portions of the site. A number of abandoned gravel pits and archaeological sites are present on both sides of the river valley Mixed deciduous stands occur throughout the river valley and a number of Environmentally Significant Areas can be found in the larger forest tracts. White Tailed Deer, beaver and other mammals have been found throughout the river valley. The Humber River as it passes through the Boyd Conservation Area is classified as suitable for warm water fish species. Current Land Use The present site is already a multi-faceted recreational area, with washrooms, picnic facilities, walkways, trails, a group camping area, a day use conservation education facility (Kortright Centre for Conservation) and a residential conservation education centre (Boyd Field Centre). Swimming was provided by a seasonal check dam, however, water quality problems forced the closure of this facility. In addition to recreation facilities, the Conservation Area contains a tree nursery and operating farm While cross country skiing is permitted on the site, the sporadic availability of snow precludes most winter activities and the Boyd Conservation Area is primarily used in the spring, summer and fall. cR. ,IP Public Use options In accordance with the guidelines outlined in the strateav for Public Use of Conservation Authoritv Lands (1987), all proposed facilities are based on appropriate site and complimentary land use considerations. Any new facilities would be clustered on table land sites to minimize space requirements and reduce land use impacts on the natural resource of the valley. The recreational opportunities include; 1. Conservation Day Camp Private and public agencies have offered general activity day camps on Conservation Area lands for a number of years. Municipalities have offered a wide range of general and specialty use day camps on their park lands. Investigation of the day camp business revealed that no agency offers the type of camp that deals with conservation issues. staff have been running a pilot project at the Kortright Centre for Conservation for two years. This successful effort, combined with information from other sources, indicates that a day camp with a Conservation theme can generate additional attendance of younger school aged children during the lower attendance levels in summer months. 2. Hiking & Biking Trails An inter-regional trail will be constructed through the river valley that will connect with municipal trail links to the south. Additional trail loops will be developed from various sites such at the Boyd Field Centre, Kortright Centre for Conservation and the McMichael Art Gallery. Interpretive trails will also be prepared to educate both students and adults in the wide variety of natural and cultural resources in the Humber River valley. 3. Enhanced Facilities at Kortright Centre For Conservation A number of recreation/education improvements have been suggested for the Kortright Centre. All developments will rely heavily on funding from the Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Foundation and from Provincial government grant programs. The following brief descriptions are provided with the understanding that additional economic and technical feasibility studies will be prepared to verify the public Cv<. )7 use and financial impacts. a) Activity Farm A farm house and barn currently exist near the Kortright Centre for Conservation. These buildings represent the central location of an activity farm for children and families. The types of activities will range from a fully functioning dairy farm demonstration, to children's play area, to a young animals exhibit, to farm life demonstrations. b) Energy Conservation House As part of the energy theme at the Kortright Centre for Conservation, an energy efficient house has been proposed. The house would incorporate the latest technology in all aspects of resource conservation, from nutrient recycling, greenhouses, solar heating, wildlife plantings and energy efficiency. c) Heritage Resource Interpretation A number of historic and pre-historic archaeological sites have been discovered throughout the river valley. In particular, a very large settlement site is being excavated by Authority staff and students as part of the conservation education program. To attract more of the student and adult population to these important heritage resources without exposing the actual sites to damage, an outdoor interpretive display is proposed. The actual details of size, type and programming for such a facility awaits further investigation. d) Kortright Interpretive Centre Upgrade The centre was built in 1979 as a focal point in the visitors enjoyment of nature and their introduction to conservation principles. During the ensuing ten years, considerable change has taken place in the programming of the facility. Those changes have placed a burden on the current facility in terms of staff, display and meeting space. e) Fishery Management Pond(s) A fishing pond or ponds have been identified as a potential use of part of the river valley adjacent to the Kortright Centre for Conservation. The pond would offer a unique recreation/education experience for school groups and families. CR. ,g The management of warm water species such as bass and catfish can be demonstrated as part of an interpretive trail loop in the valley. f) Craft Workshop A craft workshop and wood craft studio is proposed for lands adj acent to the existing saw mill building. The centre would be the focal point for the forestry theme and include facilities for visiting artists, instruction classes, workshops, seminars, exhibits and storage. 4. Recreation/Education Facility The Conservation Authority currently operates, in conjunction with Boards of Education, several conservation education centres for both day and residential use. The building facilities and programming are designed to suit the needs of student groups. While this arrangement has been very successful in serving the needs of youth, the needs of adults for such facilities have not been met. Modern residential facilities, food services and programming around outdoor recreation and education themes are needed to serve adults and families. with proper design, the facility can be used by school groups during the school year and by adults, families and other groups during available weekends and throughout the summer months. 5. Equestrian Facility/Working Farm An active farm is located in the Glassco Park portion of the Boyd Conservation Area. Current building uses include some horse stabling and a purebred cattle barn. Surrounding lands are a mix of farm fields, open pasture and woodlot. Future plans include the moving of the existing tree and shrub nursery at the corner of Rutherford Road and ISlington to the north east portion of the Glassco Park. Other plans remain open to either an operating farm demonstration site for school and the general public groups, or, an equestrian centre could be developed on the site in either the English or Western style. Both uses are possible candidates for private lease arrangements either exclusively or in concert with Conservation Authority programs. CR. I~ 6. Water Play area Swimming in the outdoors has always been a significant part of the larger Conservation Areas around Metropolitan Toronto. In the past, man-made dams along the river provided excellent swimming resources. Today, many streams are unfit for public swimming for at least part of the summer season due to the runoff of contaminants from urban and rural land uses. Boyd Conservation Area was forced to close down public swimming in the river in 1983 due to contamination from upstream sources and from swimmers in the river. Since that time, attendance and revenues have declined while operation costs have increased. To improve the outdoor recreation services and cost- effectiveness of the Area, a combined activity pool/tube ride has been proposed on a site adjacent to the Vaughan Indoor Recreation Complex. An assessment of the natural resources was also carried out confirming that no Environmentally Significant Areas are at, or adjacent to, the proposed site. 7. Adventure Play Area Land based activities are very popular with the public when developed in close proximity to water play areas. Miniature golf, labyrinths and batting cages are three examples of the types of activities that are entertaining for the public. Variations on the creative playground equipment are also very popular with younger families. A form of miniature golf known as Adventure Golf is proposed during the first five year project. The golf course is developed in a pioneer, nature, old mill or other theme with landscaping and relief that includes slopes, waterfalls, simulated rock cliffs, and other features. 8. Par 3 Golf Course or Outdoor Amphitheatre The concept of an outdoor amphitheatre has been suggested by the general public and recreation professionals as a desirable land use. Such a facility could offer a mix of cultural and outdoor education opportunities for children and adults. Should technical investigations reveal problems with the construction of an amphitheatre and support services, a par 3 golf course has been identified as a possible alternate land use. The land area needed to offer 18 holes of par 3 golf can range from 30% to 40% less than CR. ~O that required for a regulation course. The open fields currently on site, combined with the rolling relief would be more than adequate in terms of land area needs. There is a growing demand for affordable golf facilities close to the greater Toronto region market. The establishment of a quality, par 3 course at Boyd Conservation Area would enhance the public's ability to enjoy the sport in a natural setting. Resource Management Where new or improved facilities are proposed, adequate buffering with indigenous tree and shrub species will be planted. Existing forest and marsh areas will be enhanced through natural regeneration, wildlife habitat plantings and larger buffers between natural resource and public use areas. The existing group camping site will be moved to avoid Environmentally Significant Areas. Erosion control will be done as part of a demonstration of alternative resource management practices adjacent to Conservation Education facilities and trails. ESTATI rJ 1eIllNT1A&. , CONSERVATION NURSERY EQUESTRIAN CENTRE RECREATION/EDUCATION CENTRE KORTRIGHT CENTRE FOR CONSERVATION BOYD FIELD CENTRE UTATI USIDENTIA&. PAR THREE GOLF COURSE/AMPHITHEATRE PICNIC AREA PICNIC AREA IITATI MSIlIJfnAL CORE FACIUTIES WATER PLAY AReA ADVENTURE PlAY ARe.~ as. 00t.I COURSI - CClIl1II(RClAL MOfIOIO q5lrlENTIAL DAY CAMP PICNIC AREA LEGEND e EXISTING ACTIVITY o PROPOSED ACTIVITY Boyd Concept Plan C f<. EXb2 SUMMARY OF THE CONCEPT PLAN FOR PETTICOAT CREEK CONSERVATION AREA April 14, 1989 CR, c23 CONCEPT PLAN FOR PETTICOAT CREEK/ FRENCHMAN'S BAY significance The Petticoat Creek/Frenchman's Bay Conservation Area has the potential for a mix of water-based recreational attraction within an urban context. Located in the eastern portion of the watershed, the Petticoat Creek Conservation Area offers scenic vistas of Lake Ontario and the Frenchman's Bay along with a protected river valley and large, open table land areas. Resource Constraints The Conservation Area and Bay lies within the physiographic region of the Iroquois Plain, composed mainly of tableland, with two river valleys, one freshwater bay and three Environmentally Significant Area (E.S.A.) sites. The site is located on well drained till soil deposits that are highly erodable in nature, with ten metre bluffs present along the shoreline that are eroding at a rate of 8 to 10cm per year. Two watercourses pass through or by the site; Petticoat Creek, which cuts the property in a north west to south east direction, and the Rouge River, which forms part of the western boundary of the Conservation Area. The Conservation Area is composed of open grassed fields with valley land forests and the Bay area contains open fields, sandy beach and marshlands. The plant community in the area is of high quality, based on the maturity and uncommon species associations. In total over 169 plant species have been identified within the study site. Wildlife habitat conditions are quite varied with the majority of species found in the valley and shoreline areas. Numerous small mammals and birds make up the resident wildlife, with over 38 bird species in the marsh area alone. Fish species in the study area are limited to warm water and marshland varieties. The majority of aquatic life is found in the Frenchman's Bay area, including numerous fish, insect, and amphibious species. Current Land Use The present Petticoat Creek/Frenchman's Bay site is a picnic and waterbased recreational area, with washrooms, picnic shelters, walkways, a refreshment booth, 0.6 hectare swim lake, and a lakefront beach. The Conservation Area and Bay are primarily used during the summer cp. ~ 1+ and fall periods for family and group picnicking, swimming, and shore based fishing. Public Use Options In accordance with recommendation in the strateqy for Public Use of Conservation Authoritv Lands (1987), all proposed facilities are based upon appropriate site and complementary land use considerations. Any new facilities will be clustered to minimize space requirements and increase the operational efficiency. The recreational opportunities for the Petticoat Creek portion of the Conservation Area include: 1. Improved Family & Group picnic Areas picnic shelters will be expanded to accomodate the growing demand for picnic facilities. Additional washroom, water, hydro and parking facilities will be installed to improve the level of service. 2. Walking/Hiking Trails The trail along the lake shore will be buffered from picnicking uses with vegetation and a bridge will be installed at the mouth of the Petticoat Creek to encourage inter-regional trail use. 3. An Updated Swim Lake/Water Play Facility The existing swimming facilities have been in place since 1975 and offer shallow wading-style swimming along with a change room, food booth and washroom complex. Major repairs to the facility will be required in the near future and this presents an opportunity to establish a wider variety of swimming/water play activities. The proposed improvements include a small set of water- slides, water-play activities (water cannon, spray valves) hot tubs and a lazy river ride. Adventure-play activities would be included in this complex to ensure an overall cost effective operation to Area facilities. 4. Waterfront Area No lake shore facilities are considered possible during the first five year project due to the existing shoreline erosion and the lack of any engineering studies dealing with financial and technical limitations. Nevertheless, the concept of waterfront facilities has merit. Petticoat Creek Conservation Area is the only active recreation facility along the Lake ontario waterfront CR.{).s that is operated by the Conservation Authority. In other municipal waterfront parks, large boat marinas and beach facilities are common. To avoid duplicating these types of facilities, the Conservation Authority proposes a small sheltered harbour area (erosion control groyne) along the lake shore that would house a small watercraft rental facility. Additional features would be identified in follow up feasibility studies. No work on this type of facility is proposed in the first five year project until appropriate engineering studies are completed to verify the utility of erosion control groynes at this location. other facilities and plans for the Frenchman's Bay portion of the Conservation Area await the completion of additional land acquisition around the Bay. Resource Management Marshland revitalization and preservation of the existing valley lands through erosion control measures will be carried out over the next several years. Environmentally significant Areas, as well as erosion and flood vulnerable portions of the site will be excluded from public use and heavily buffered from the public use areas. Lakeshore erosion will be examined in future feasibility studies for the construction of an erosion control groyne. F,.1tC 1I1f1t111 ., 6t1, " PARKING ,0 ~~ ~~ o . ..~ "- ,,~ MUNICIPAL PARK PICNIC AREA MINI GOLF SWIM LAKE FACIUTY LEGEND e EXISTING ACTIVITY o PROPOSED ACTIVITY FACIUTIES Petticoat Creek Concept Plan CR. ;).7 SUMMARY OF THE CONCEPT PLAN FOR GREENWOOD CONSERVATION AREA April 14, 1989 c r<. ~ 8 GREENWOOD CONSERVATION AREA significance Greenwood Conservation Area has the potential for a multi-faceted recreation attraction in an area that is rapidly urbanizing. The Conservation Area contains a large, scenic river valley rich in natural resources and open table lands capable of providing a wide range of outdoor recreation facilities. Resource Constraints The Greenwood Conservation Area lies in parts of the physiographic regions of the Iroquois Plain and the South Slopes. The site is composed of tableland on either side of the steep Duffin Creek river valley with its two Environmentally Significant Area (E.S.A.) sites. Soils are identified as outwash sands and gravels that are highly pervious, low in fertility and high in erosion suceptibility. The Greenwood Conservation Area is located on the east tributary of the Duffin Creek Watershed. With strong groundwater supply and low rate of land use change, the Duffin Creek represents the largest, cleanest stream in the watershed. Groundwater in this area is highly susceptible to contamination due to the porous nature of the sand and gravel materials that override the water table. Many of aquifers are capable of yielding large quantities of water, with some well reports recording yields of 90 gallons per minute. Greenwood Conservation Area forests are special in that they lie within a transition zone between the Deciduous Forest Region and the Huron-ontario section of the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence Forest Region. There are two Environmentally Significant Areas; one large forest that covers a large portion of the steep western valley wall, and one small area of floodplain in the center of the property. The range of habitat conditions within Greenwood sustain a variety of wildlife species. Woodland, upland and wetland areas, with their variety of vegetative cover, have proven attractive for over 55 species of birds, numerous small mammals and white tailed deer Aquatic wildlife in this area are limited to the Duffin and Brougham Creeks. Because of the extensive forest cover along the creek, the water temperature is below the ideal for many warm water fish species. Ten species of fish were found at Greenwood, of which three were sport fish varieties. GDDODDDDDDQ) 0-0 0 0 0 01/ . . ~ AIANDONED lANOfILLSITI ROUP CAMPING 1U'A&. MSlD!NT1AL FAMILY CAMPGROUND PICNIC AREA CORE FACILITIES PICNIC AREA PLAY FIELD CORE FACILITIES, WATER PLAY AREA, FISHING LAKE MINIATURE GOlF, & ADVENTURE ~ PLAY AREA ... "' LEGEND t~ ..... ~ ~' ...,..... e EXISTING ACTIVITY ,.. . ,; ~ o PROPOSED ACTIVITY ~ PICNIC AREA Greenwood Concept Plan CR90 Current Land Use Greenwood Conservation Area is a picnic- and nature trail-based site, with group and day camp areas and temporary refreshment facilities. A by-pass pond adjacent to the Creek was used for swimming until turbidity problems from swimming forced the closure of the pond. The Conservation Area is primarily used during the summer and fall periods. Limited use occurs in the spring at the opening of trout season and in the winter with some tobogganing and sledding. Public Use options In accordance with the recommendations outlined in the strateqv for the Public Use of Conservation Authoritv Lands, all proposed facilities are based on appropriate site and complimentary land use considerations. Any new facilities would be clustered on existing table lands to minimize space requirements and reduce the impact of public use on natural resources. The recreational opportunities include; 1. Walking and Hiking Trails unimproved hiking trials exist along the eastern river bank at Greenwood and their condition is deteriorating due to the heavy spring fisherman traffic and the sandy nature of the soils. An inter-regional trail link is proposed for the valley that will avoid the Environmentally Significant Area west of the stream. Trail loops from the day use areas to the east of the valley will also be constructed. 2. Improved Family & Group picnic Areas picnic shelters will continue to be constructed at Greenwood Conservation Area in clusters of two and three shelters. Each cluster will be supported by hydro and water service and a small washroom building. The public continues to demand high qual i ty picnic facilities and Greenwood Conservation Area is prepared to meet that demand in the eastern portion of the watershed. 3. Conservation Day Camp The day camp will be modelled along the lines of the Boyd Conservation Day Camp. Because of the long standing relationship with existing tenants and their day camp operation, it may be more appropriate to develop a conservation theme as part of an existing camp program. CR. 51 4 . Water Play Area swimming has been offered at Greenwood in the form of a by-pass pond next to the river. siltation and bacterial problems have forced the closing of the facility. An artificial pool was recommended to bring back safe, outdoor swimming in the Conservation Area. The use of a modified swim lake (activity pool) has been proposed. Such a facility would include a large, shallow pool area, modest water slides and water play activities. 5. A Family Campground Camping facilities are limited in the eastern half of the watershed. What few facilities exist are frequently located in poorly accessible valleys or on private lands. Greenwood offers a highly accessible site (access from Highway 401 on Westney or Brock Roads), on public lands and in a natural setting. The original concept identified a large campground of between 300 and 400 campsites. Based on public concerns on the potential impact of such a large land use, a campground of 100 to 175 campsites is proposed in the eastern portion of the Conservation Area. Resource Management Environmentally Significant Areas, as well as erosion and flood vulnerable portions of the conservation area will not be made available for public use. In addition, significant buffers will be established between public use areas and natural resources. Slope stabilization and other erosion control measures will be implemented for those portions of stream bank where public safety is a concern. CR. 3;;2. GREATER TORONTO REGION TRAIL SYSTEM PROPOSAL April 14, 1989 CR. 3.3 GREATER TORONTO , REGION TRAIL SYSTEM CONCEPT The development of an inter-regional trail system was strongly endorsed by a wide range of public groups and agencies as the most important improvement that could be made to the river valley systems in the watershed. Walking continues to be the most popular activity on public lands for all age groups. The availability of so many scenic river valleys in Metropolitan Toronto and surrounding Regions, combined with the large, public valley land holdings make the provision of quality trails an essential component of any pUblic land management program. The ownership by the Conservation Authority of much of this public land combined with the presence of so many environmentally significant areas in the valleys requires that the Conservation Authority provide strong planning and coordination of the inter-regional trail concept. The attached map illustrates the four major trail elements of: 1. Valley Trails - through the major river valleys, 2. Oak Ridges Moraine Trail - across the northern portion of the watershed in the Oak Ridges Moraine, 3. Waterfront Trail - across the entire Lake Ontario shoreline, and, 4. Greenbelt Trail - through the open space corridor slated for transportation (Highway 407) and communication (Natural Gas and Hydro) uses. Trails, when carefully designed and maintained, can provide; a quiet place in the urban landscape for reflection and relaxation; an educational experience through the use of interpretive signage for biological as well as heritage resources; a focal point for family outings at picnics, campgrounds and other outdoor social events; and, a safe corridor for pedestrians and cyclists to travel through the Metropolitan Toronto and surrounding Regions to work, for exercise or for fun. At present there are many players in the provision of trails. Municipalities, trail and special interest groups and the Conservation Authority all have valuable contributions to make towards a coordinated, inter-regional trail network. Many of the key elements for a successful program of trail management and use are already in place: - Many community interest groups have expressed interest in helping with the development of a trail through their :-;":P .".Io;;;~..;_ - ~~,.-- ~.--"'-~U-'JFT~~~-O:'- --~ \ I '-----\ -' --.- ~~. ~\~ ~1 . --- . ---'~ ~~. IKf:P1 J._ ~ ---".----1.-.J .\ ~ \ I __, I.... I .. r- ~ _ ..t"'~/ . ..... . ., I U ---~-y-- --;.J' -' ~'r- I""" ~ ~ ...., ........"::.::--- - ~ . .-r \0 ~ . ( - ~ . ,------'-. . --- ...... ~ -' -- -~ =r- - I -r _ .-- ~---..r- / --~ /r---' ~.l,~?f' l-'-~'-"~ - -" ~ - - -- · ... '. L 1.-='- · -'. -' ~ -'----- --. \ ~h:--!----~ ~;;.. '. ~:/ . ... I--- ___'" 0 .....1-0 '- K~ ---- -=' ,."..,. I-I . ,--!--- r -::::: -=- ---- :>---1';n. \...'\' .. l-- _;- ~ · ~I" 1 l' . . -- -"- ..... -- . . IN' - - \ -.I~ J., c-. ---t:.zi: '-"_ ~ l 1 I II, __ _, -. ~ .... r I ) --' g . " 1'" ~ Irt--~ - ~ \ I ~ - ~ 1\ \ ~ , "" . I-:::--Ho-f-;~!M -, I I ,--- ,l.,-.., l!:- ~' ,I .... ~ , .. r "':'..----"1 ~ ~] 1 " I _--'" .JI r----, ...\ .\' '1--- ~ L__ ---- 1.--,1'~ ,,'.' 1----'- - .:. ..::: ' j)~ ,.L I. \.L . - - I ~ :..-- l-- 1:\ . '\ i-'" ...- 1 .,.,... , A.', ~ 1.. L..l 1'-" . . #,".:::- j..- !- LJ - ~It.. ." . - . . . . t.>-- I, 'F.. --- ~ ", ...."....., _ XI,.,\ ~ "I " '.' \ - , '- . ~ ~ .. .. r .. ~ ~-I ~ ~ ,'\ ~ ~ . ~: ~ ~Q-f - ~~ . : \ tl-- _ ~ rr.:itw ...J il &..1m l\ k\ . ~ "', " _t:: . ;'.. ":.' WI<'''- , I. 'I&. J ".' I ~.. ,.. ,.. I---L,..;: \ """ '.~ f. I l. ...... ' ....::. ,. J _ ~ .- L ,C_ I!I ff'1 . : ,If' M ...1 -i . - :\.. l~ ~ -- I "-l - ~ . ~ , t-- r'..... - An ~ ~ ~ -- \~"= . ~ _ c__ __ ..... . liI1 III ~ -- .,.. ~ i:I" -'--_- .< .. ";L.I, ~ 1_ ill -- GREENSPACE PLAN tf. I _l.J...rn i ,... 4"" ,- 1: ~ l'_ .- _ \ 0 _ . "~ - -:: .....",.... _ :/.~' l' ~ .".. _4__ 0 f'l , .. (.. _..) r \. '., · · , _ VALLEY TRAIL .,I .C__ " "'- -- '..... _ WATERFRONT TRAIL , :X\V " i <_M.~::~'~I . I 1 l"~'".''''''~''' .. OAK RIDGES TRAIL \ 1'.. ......~ I CI 1 I a 1'''_'' ... PARKWAY BELT TRAIL LINK ~ , (._.....1...... nl I I I'-..JP"'" ..........P...... .1' , ~ .ftOJ..,..-t......,",.. .......,.. "I I,..................h , , .. , ' >. ~ : ,'\ / '\\. V - '''' 1._)____ \ \ X) "" X the metropolitan toronto and region conservation authority a.3~ community or resource area, - The Provincial Government has already accumulated a number of trail design alternatives for the Greenbelt corridor and current design programs for Highway 407 provide an opportunity for integration of past plans, - Metropolitan Toronto has established a number of walking/cycling trails on Conservation Authority lands, - Several local municipalities have begun a program of trail design and construction through plans of subdivision and park land dedications, - The Conservation Authority continues to provide the opportunity for trails to be developed on waterfront lands, - A number of public and private agencies have expressed interest in designating parts of the Oak Ridges Moraine for natural resource protection and limited trail use. The extent of trails proposed (over 900 kIn) and the cost of trail construction (over $90 million) require a considerable and coordinated effort on the part of all interested groups and agencies. Phase One of the Trail System development will include the coordination of municipal and private agency plans for design, construction, maintenance and programming of trails in the watershed. The Concept Plan that will be generated by this effort will provide the necessary framework for all parties to implement integrated trail elements on their own time frame. Efforts will be made to concentrate the work of the Authority on the Valley Trails for the Humber and Rouge Rivers and the Oak Ridges Moraine. Other agencies and public groups will be encouraged to support the Valley, Oak Ridges, Waterfront and Greenbelt trail developments. Subsequent phases of the project would see additional trail networks developed in valley and other open space corridors as funding is made available to the participants in the program. Throughout all phases of the project, land acquisition, easements and other forms of ownership that would permit public trail use will be pursued by appropriate groups or agencies. For example, the Conservation Authority will continue to acquire valley lands as part of their hazard land acquisition program. The objective over the next twenty years will be to complete public access trails for hiking and cycling in all major river valleys, the Oak Ridges Moraine and the Waterfront with connecting links provided along the Greenbelt corridor. CR.3h A FIVE YEAR BUDGET PROJECTION FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF CONSERVATION AREA DEVELOPMENT (1990 TO 1994) Authority Meeting #3/89 May 12, 1989 April 14, 1989 ~R. 37 PURPOSE OF THE PROJECTION The purpose of this report is two fold: 1. to outline the outdoor recreation/education facilities and programs in Authority Concept Plans for Claireville, Boyd, Greenwood and Petticoat Creek Conservation Areas and the Greater Toronto Region Trail System, and, 2. to outline for the funding partners of the Conservation Authority the general financial implications of the . proposal over the next five year period (1990 to 1994). The Concept Plans have been prepared as part of the follow up to The strateqy for Public Use of Conservation Authoritv Lands (1987) and the costs estimates for various projects have been derived from past consultant study and Authority research. The attached Concept Plan maps and supporting text outline the general location, type and size of facilities. More detailed feasibility studies, including environmental and economic analysis, will be provided as part of the final approval process for each Major Development (e.g. camp ground, adventure play and water play facilities) in the year previous to the facilities construction. General Development will be identified for all Conservation Areas on a year by year basis. There may be additional facilities and improvements that arise over the next five years that are not identified in the Five Year Projection. These improvements may be incorporated as part of the Five Year Projection provided that they are subjected to appropriate technical and economic feasibility studies. A multi-year budget is presented showing the current and proposed funding partners along with the proposed timing of feasibility studies and development. The municipal levy for each year of the 5 year project is estimated and includes a factor for inflation. The cost to each of the Authority's member municipalities will be calculated when the phase in period for the funding formula has been approved. The member municipalities and the Province of ontario are requested to include the budget projection figures in this report in their multi-year forecasts. CR.3'3 INTRODUCTION The Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority has the responsibility for management of renewable natural resources in the watershed. Section 21 (m) (R.S.O. 1980 ) of the Conservation Authorities Act provides the Authority with the power: "to use lands owned or controlled by the authority for park or other recreational purposes, and to erect, or permit to be erected, buildings, booths and facilities for such purposes and to make charges for admission thereto and the use thereof" This mandate for public use of Conservation Authority lands has been further supported in the Mission Statement for the Conservation Authority (1987) : "The Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority is a provincial/municipal partnership established in 1957, under the Conservation Authorities Act, to manage the renewable natural resources of the region's watersheds. The Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority, with one-third of Ontario's population within its area of jurisdiction, acts in the community's interest through advocating and implementing watershed management programs that * maintain and improve the quality of the regions lands and waters; * contribute to public safety from flooding and erosion; * provide for the acquisition of conservation and hazard lands; and * enhance the quality and variety of life in the community by using its lands for inter-regional outdoor recreation, heritage preservation, and conservation education." Metro Region Conservation shall seek to fulfil its mission and serve the needs of its constituency in accordance with the highest standards of ethics and integrity." The Conservation Authority has acquired over 12,000 hectares of floodplain and other natural hazard and resource lands. Approximately 70% of the land has been retained in its natural state for flood or erosion control, wildlife and vegetation 2 - ....,.......u.. ,J. /Ill I i , I --, I " \ --...~. J I ' 1 - ~CJ I \0 .. ... '0 \ \ &... - f!_. I I I , ..' . , \.. - \ _. /' I ..- . , I 'frO' . ,- j " .;. \ - I , i i ,\0,\ _ ,I.' I I '\ ' ',1 ....\~1 1 I ' ',J -.. I - - I_- I I ! / ... I , , , I A n / , LEGEND ~:'-~~/~I~4'. ," o Key RBCl1I8tion IntBrpnltetion AnlI , to /"' \' I / ......... .- o General Conservation/Resoun:e " / Management Area ./ "- "- ---':0 0-- \ . , . ;00- ~, , _I-I I-I__....r===~ . ...... ..,. ~ . . , ~~ a,!d..reglon con..rv~.. . ._ .:' --- - - - - -_..- - -.-- CR. 39 management purposes. The remaining 30% has been made available to the public for outdoor recreation and conservation education purposes. The protection and enhancement of our natural river valleys continues to be a prime concern in a watershed with 2.8 million residents. For many, Conservation Authority lands represent the only large, public open spaces that people can go to for quiet enj oyment in the urban setting. Publ ic use is permitted on Conservation Authority lands, however, it must be carefully planned to prevent the destruction of the natural resources. There are 8 Conservation Areas in the watershed. All of the Areas are set in a river valley or other natural resource environment. Each provides areas of natural habitat, floodplain and scenic vistas. All Conservation Areas have open spaces for walking, hiking, picnicking and quiet enjoyment. Where there is sufficient land set apart from hazardous or sensitive environments, a select few Conservation Areas provide limited facilities for more intensive, outdoor recreation activities such as camping and swimming. Over the next five years, the Conservation Authority proposes to develop a balanced program of open space use. The program permits the public use of conservation trails and quality outdoor recreation and conservation education facilities without adversely affecting the watersheds' valuable natural resources. BACKGROUND The management of recreation and other open space uses has been a prominent component of Conservation Authorities for many years. The four original watershed Authorities, the Etobicoke-Mimico, the Humber, the Don and the Rouge-Duffin-Highland-Petticoat (R.D.H.P.) noted the need for recreation areas and provided plans for the necessary land acquisition. During the 1950's and 1960's, the Conservation Authority developed a unique mix of Conservation Areas and Forest and Wildlife Management Areas. within the Metropolitan Toronto region, the Conservation Authority was the major provider of outdoor recreation open spaces. A relationship developed among the Authority, the Municipalities, and the Province of Ontario to fund the development of such things as outdoor swimming, hiking trails, picnicking and camping areas. From the 1970's through to the 1980's, Conservation Areas did not change appreciably in the level or quality of facilities offered while the communities around them were experiencing significant 3 CRlrD change in recreation interests. In that time, municipalities developed extensive recreation programs for local needs but few inter-regional scale recreation facilities and programs existed outside of Conservation Areas. By the late 1980' s, the Conservation Authority was faced with higher operating costs and low attendance at most Conservation Areas. To meet this challenge, the Authority undertook an extensive review of its role in the delivery and management of open space. It concluded in its strateav for Public Use of Conservation Authoritv Lands that the Authority, with its large and varied land base, was in the position of being able to serve the inter-regional outdoor recreation needs of its watershed residents through the provision of facilities, programs and services on lands it has acquired for resource management purposes. Other recommendations of the strateqv included: - protection of environmentally significant areas through carefully planned development and use of the land; - provision of opportunities for linking Conservation Areas with the adjacent lands through the development of a river valley trail system; - increasing public awareness of users for the need of sound resource management practices; - provision for the ongoing monitoring and assessment of the environmental impact of recreation use and, where necessary minimize or eliminate negative impacts; - operation and maintenance of the Conservation Areas and their facilities in a cost effective manner. - improving the appeal of Conservation Areas through the development of a range of environmental enhancements; - giving priority to the establishment of cost effective facilities for a sound financial base from which the provision of basic access onto Authority lands can be offered at little or no cost to the user; - identification of those activities/facilities that are suitable for development, management and/or operation by others, and negotiate appropriate agreements; Investigation of recreation facilities across North America provided the necessary background material to identify complementary types of outdoor recreation activities. From these investigations and from the information gathered from other groups 4 CR. 4-1 and the general public, the Conservation Authority confirmed the need for imaginative, inter-regional outdoor recreation facilities at Claireville, Boyd, Greenwood and Petticoat Creek Conservation Areas. The selected sites possess the necessary mix of large size, adequate buffer lands between public and environmental uses and/or easy access to a significant portion of the surrounding communities. The strateav for Public Use of Conservation Areas was adopted by the Conservation Authority in December 1987. Following its adoption, consultants prepared an analysis of the strateay to determine the economic impact of the approach and specific development proj ects. That analysis verified the Authority's projections of a gradual decline in attendance and an increase in operation costs if no changes were made to Conservation Areas Also, it confirmed that the proposed facilities would improve attendance and cost effectiveness. Concurrent with the economic analysis of the strateav, a two year public participation program was conducted. During this public review, draft Concept Plans were prepared for Claireville, Boyd, Greenwood, and Petticoat Creek Conservation Areas. These plans were presented to public and special interest groups and their comments and ideas were incorporated into the plans wherever possible. Several important points were identified in that public review. The public showed strong support for: - acquisition of more natural resource lands - trails (hiking, cycling, equestrian) - conservation education - picnicking - natural water swimming. General support for the following activities was expressed: - family camping (short stay/rustic setting) - group camping (Boy Scouts, Girl Guides, etc.) - artificial swimming with small water play areas - mini golf, chip and putt golf, par 3 golf - equestrian activities - fishing - canoeing/small sail boats - outdoor amphitheatre. The final group of activities represents those for which the public showed limited support. There were indications from many that if the negative impacts of these facilities could be controlled (noise, traffic congestion, over use of Area, visual impact), support would increase for: 5 CR.4~ - regulation golf course - full service campground (hydro & water hookups) - resort/rustic lodge - major water theme park. The net result of public input includes the following: - a reduction in the scale of the proposed facilities for Petticoat Creek water play activities, - removal of tourist and family camping from Petticoat Creek Conservation Area, - moving of group camping away from the Environmentally Significant Area (E.S.A.) in Boyd Conservation Area, - elimination of tourist and family camping from Boyd Conservation Area, - addition of either a par 3 golf or outdoor amphi-theatre at Boyd Conservation Area, - moving the valley trail system in Greenwood away from the Environmentally Significant Area, - downsizing of the Greenwood Conservation Area campground to no more than 200 campsites. - elimination of golf from Greenwood Conservation Area, - addition of a recreation/education centre at Claireville Conservation Area. In addition to the above, the public interest in environmental and resource management issues fostered the development of: - a separate concept plan for the Greater Toronto and Region Trail System, - expanded environmental enhancement in Conservation Areas to include the buffering between recreation uses with indigenous tree and shrub species and the planting of more vegetation for wildlife and resource management. The public expressed substantial support for land acquisition of natural areas. Acquisition is proposed as a significant part of other land and water management projects. As additional lands are purchased, a careful assessment will be made as to the capability of new lands for public use. Where public use is considered safe, some of these new lands will become part of the proposed inter- regional trail network. Conservation Education facilities were strongly supported and have been identified as part of recreation/education centres for Claireville and Boyd Conservation Areas. These centres will provide a range of education activities aimed at both children and adults. 6 CR,~3 Picnicking in municipal parks and other public lands continues to be very popular with the public. Facilities at all Conservation Areas will be improved under the General Facilities category of funding with the addition of washrooms, adequate shelters and support services for family and group picnics. While the public expressed strong support for natural water swimming, there are few natural water bodies in river valleys or the headwater lakes that can withstand public use. Past experience has shown that weak water supply (stream flow) during summer months combined with large numbers of public swimmers, creates severe water quality problems. As a result, no additional natural swimming areas are proposed for the river valleys or headwaters. . 7 cr<. 4-L+ MAJOR FACILITIES Greater Toronto Region Trail System The development of an inter-regional trail system was strongly endorsed by a wide range of public groups and agencies as the most important improvement that could be made to the river valley systems in the watershed. Walking continues to be the most popular activity on public lands for all age groups. The attached map illustrates the four major trail elements of: 1. Valley Trails - through the major river valleys, 2. Oak Ridges Moraine Trail - across the northern portion of the watershed in the Oak Ridges Moraine, 3. Waterfront Trail - across the entire Lake ontario shoreline, and, 4. Greenbelt Trail - through the open space corridor slated for transportation (Highway 407) and communication (Natural Gas and Hydro) uses. The intention is to provide adequate support funding in the five year projection for the Conservation Authority to proceed with the implementation of those trail elements that pass through Conservation Area property. Claireville Conservation Area Located in Peel Region at the junction of the south west corner of York Region and the north west corner of Metropolitan Toronto, Claireville Conservation Area contains approximately 2100 acres (848 ha) with a flood control dam and reservoir, a 220 site campground, a water park, a day use education facility, a western style equestrian operation and picnic areas. Outdoor recreation and education uses occupy about 32% of the land with the remainder in floodplain (15%), forests (29%) and open fields (24%). Proposed outdoor recreation facilities include a golf course, expansion of the existing campground, an expanded equestrian facility and either a recreation/education centre or a second campground (see attached Concept Plan map). 8 ~ f<. ~ 5 Water Park Swimming has always been provided at Claireville Conservation Area along the beach and man-made reservoir. Persistent and uncontrollable water quality problems forced the closure of swimming in 1984. Chlorination control and other water quality clean-up options were not practical for the site. In order to maintain a high quality water play facility, the Conservation Authority negotiated a long term lease with a private company to provide water- and land-based activities. The original concept, constructed in 1986, included a series of body slides, tube rides, river ride, children's play area, wave pool, hot tubs and support buildings to accommodate an annual attendance of 200,000+ visitors. Improvements to this plan are proposed by the tenant over the next several years to include: additional body slides, an activity pool, a leisure pool, expansion of the river ride and children's play area, miniature golf, driving range, batting cages, expanded office and food service buildings, bumper boats, water ski show, group picnic area improvements and other outdoor recreation facilities that promote active water and land play uses. Golf Course The strateqv identified a shortage of public golf courses in the Greater Toronto area. Golf has been identified as one of the few outdoor recreational activities that can be enjoyed throughout adult life. The persistent lack of affordable land in the greater Toronto region for golf will aggravate the situation over the next several years to the point where existing courses will be over- used, expensive to play on, and/or a great distance from the urban golfer. A regulation golf course was examined as a possible use for part of the Claireville Conservation Area. Following a review of the landscape and its resources, it was confirmed that a course could be constructed. Approval has been received for such development from the Ministry of Natural Resources and candidate tenants are preparing proposals at the present time. Recreation/Education Centre The proposed centre is not anticipated to start until after 1994 and has therefore not been included in the five year projection. Nevertheless, it is important to understand the full range of outdoor recreation services planned for the site. For a descriptions of the concept, please refer to the Boyd Conservation Area outline. 9 CR. 4-0 Equestrian Facilities The Conservation Authority currently leases a small area of land and a trail network to a private operator. Western-style trail rides and riding instruction are provided to a growing client group. In discussions with the public and recreation professionals, equestrian facilities were identified as a desirable use for some Conservation Area lands. The current site is slated to be developed as part of the golf course. A new equestrian site is proposed north of Highway #7 and a long term lease will be prepared with an equestrian operator in the near future. Boyd Conservation Area The Boyd Conservation Area which includes the Kortright Centre for Conservation and Glassco Park, is located 3 kID north of the community of Woodbridge. The Area is noted for large tracts of forest lands set in a deep and rugged river valley. A number of Environmentally Significant Areas (E.S.A. IS) have been identified in the south east, central east and north west portions of the property. Several large tracts of open field and rented farmland still exist throughout the site. The Area consists of 2042 acres (826 ha) with a day use park area, picnic grounds, washrooms, snack bar, day use (Kortright Centre for Conservation) and residential use (Boyd Field Centre) education facilities, a nursery and farmland. All outdoor recreation and education uses occupy about 27% of the land with the remainder in floodplain (11%), forests (32%) and open fields (30%) . Proposed outdoor recreation facilities include the re-establishment of outdoor swimming, a recreation/education centre, a conservation day camp, an activity farm, an equestrian centre and/or operating farm, a heritage resource interpretive area, upgraded resource interpretive centre and a par 3 golf course or outdoor amphitheatre. Water Play Area Swimming in the outdoors has always been a significant part of the larger Conservation Areas around Metropolitan Toronto. In the past, man-made dams along the river prov ided excellent swimming resources. Today, many streams are unfit for public swimming for at least part of the summer season due to the runoff of contaminants from urban and rural land uses. 10 CR.J+7 Boyd Conservation Area was forced to close down public swimming in the river in 1983 due to contamination from upstream sources and from swimmers in the river. since that time, attendance and revenues have declined while operation costs have increased. To improve the outdoor recreation services and cost effectiveness of the Area, a combined activity pool/tube ride has been proposed on a site adjacent to the Vaughan Indoor Recreation Complex. An assessment of the natural resources was also carried out confirming that no Environmentally Significant Areas are at, or adjacent to, the proposed site. Adventure Play Area Land based activities are very popular with the public when developed in close proximity to water play areas. Miniature golf, labyrinths and batting cages are three examples of the types of activities that are entertaining for the public. Variations on the creative playground equipment are also very popular with younger families. A form of miniature golf known as Adventure Golf is proposed for installation during the first five years. This type of course has a theme, for example, pioneer, nature, old mill, with significant landscaping and relief (slopes, waterfalls, simulated rock cliffs, etc. ) . Recreation/Education Centre The Conservation Authority currently operates, in conjunction with Boards of Education, several conservation education centres for both day and residential use. The building facilities and programming are des igned to suit the needs of student groups. While this arrangement has been very successful in serving the needs of youth, the needs of adults for such facilities have not been met. Modern residential facilities, food services and programming around outdoor recreation and education themes are needed to serve adults and families. with proper design, the facility can be used by school groups during the school year and by adults, families and other groups during available weekends and throughout the summer months. Equestrian/Farm Centre An active farm is located in the Glassco Park portion of the Boyd Conservation Area. Current building uses include some horse stabling and a purebred cattle barn. Surrounding lands are a mix of farm fields, open pasture and woodlot. 11 CR. 4-9' Future plans include the moving of the existing tree and shrub nursery at the corner of Rutherford Road and Islington to the north east portion of the Glassco Park. Other plans remain open to either an operating farm demonstration site for school and the general public groups, or, an equestrian centre could be developed on the site in either the English or Western style. Both uses are possible candidates for private lease arrangements either exclusively or in concert with Conservation Authority programs. Plans for either use are not expected to be completed in the first five year period and are therefore not identified in the five year projection. conservation Day Camp Private and public agencies have offered general activity day camps on Conservation Area lands for a number of years. Municipalities have offered a wide range of general and specialty use day camps on their park lands. Investigation of these day camp operations revealed that no agency offers the type of camp that deals comprehensively with conservation issues. staff have been running a pilot project at the Kortright Centre for Conservation for two years. This successful effort, combined with information from other sources, indicates that a day camp with a Conservation theme can successfully meet the education and recreation needs of younger school aged children during the lower attendance levels of summer months. outdoor Amphitheatre or Par 3 Golf Course The concept of an outdoor amphitheatre has been suggested by the general public and recreation professionals as a desirable land use. Such a facility could offer a mix of cultural and outdoor education opportunities for children and adults. A public or private agency is best suited to preparing such a facility and investigations are in progress. Should technical investigations reveal problems wi th the construction of an amphitheatre and support services, a par 3 golf course has been identified as a possible alternate land use. The land area needed to offer 18 holes of par 3 golf can range from 30% to 40% less than that required for a regulation course. The open fields currently on site, combined with the rolling relief would be more than adequate in terms of land area needs. There is a demand for affordable golf facilities close to the greater Toronto region market. The establishment of a quality, par 3 course at Boyd Conservation Area would enhance the pUblic's ability to enjoy the sport in a natural setting. 12 CR. Ifq Kortright Centre For Conservation A number of recreation/education improvements have been suggested for the Kortright Centre. All developments would rely on support from the Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Foundation and from Provincial government grant programs. The following brief descriptions are provided with the understanding that additional economic and technical feasibility studies will be prepared to verify the public use and financial impacts. 1- Activity Farm A farm house and barn currently exist near the Kortright Centre for Conservation. These buildings represent the central location of an activity farm for children and families. The types of activities will range from a fully functioning dairy farm demonstration, to children's play area, to a young animals exhibit, to farm life demonstrations. 2. Energy Conservation House As part of the energy theme at the Kortright Centre for Conservation, an energy efficient house has been proposed. The house would incorporate the latest technology in all aspects of resource conservation, from nutrient recycling, greenhouses, solar heating, wildlife plantings and energy efficiency. 3. Heritage Resource Interpretation A number of historic and pre-historic archaeological sites have been discovered throughout the river valley. In particular, a very large settlement site is being excavated by Authority staff and students as part of the conservation education program. An outdoor interpretive display is proposed that will expose more of the student and adult population to important heritage resources without damaging the archaeology sites. The actual details of size, type and programming for such a facility awaits further investigation. 4. Kortright Interpretive Centre Upgrade The centre was built in 1979 as a focal point to give visitors the opportunity to experience nature and conservation principles. During the ensuing ten years, 13 ~R.5C considerable change has taken place in the programming of the facility. Those changes have placed a burden on the current facility in terms of staff, display and meeting space. 5. Fishery Management Pond(s) A fishing pond or ponds have been identified as a potential use of part of the river valley adjacent to the Kortright Centre for Conservation. The pond would offer a special recreation/education experience for school groups and families. The management of warm water species such as bass and catfish can be demonstrated as part of an interpretive trail loop in the valley. 6. Craft Workshop A craft workshop and woodcraft studio is proposed for lands adjacent to the existing sawmill building. The centre would be the focal point for the forestry theme and include facilities for visiting artists, instruction classes, seminars, meetings, exhibits and storage. 7. Interpretive Trail Loops The Kortright Centre for Conservation is designed around five themes: water, land, fish & wildlife, forest and energy. Each theme has, or will have, an interpretive trail component. The trails will be used as a combined recreation/education experience to demonstrate the inter-relationship between resources and their use by man. Most of the trails will be connected to the main river valley trail that is to pass through the Boyd Conservation Area as part of the Greater Toronto and Region Trail System. Greenwood Conservation Area Greenwood Conservation Area is located along the northern boundary of the Town of Ajax, south of the hamlet of Greenwood. The Area consists of 721 acres ( 292 ha) with a group camping area, day use park area and picnic grounds. All outdoor recreation uses occupy about 24% of the land with the remainder in table land forests (25%) and floodplain or steep slopes (5l%). The Area is dominated by a large, deep river valley. The Duffin . 14 CR. 51 Creek passes through the property and a large Environmentally Significant Area (E.S.A.) is situated west of the Creek on steep valley slopes. Scenic vistas exist at the top of the valley walls on both sides of the Creek. Existing and proposed improvements to the Area are contained on table land in the south eastern and north western portions of the site. Proposed outdoor recreation facilities include the re-establishment of outdoor swimming, a Conservation day camp, a family campground and an adventure play area. Water Play Area Swimming has been offered at Greenwood in the form of a by-pass pond next to the river. Siltation and bacterial problems have forced the closing of the facility. An artificial pool was recommended to bring back safe, outdoor swimming in the Conservation Area. The use of a modified swim lake (activity pool) has been proposed. Such a facility would include a large, shallow pool area, small water slides and water play activities. Adventure Play Area The style and variety of adventure play features will be similar to those proposed for Boyd Conservation Area. Due to higher priority activities, the Adventure Play Area for Greenwood Conservation Area will not be completed in the first five year period. Conservation Day Camp The day camp will be modelled along the lines of the Boyd Conservation Day Camp. Because of the long standing relationship with existing tenants and their day camp operation, it may be more appropriate to develop a conservation theme as part of an existing camp program. Family Camp Ground camping facilities are limited in the eastern half of the watershed. What few facilities exist are generally located in poorly accessible valleys or on private lands. Greenwood offers a highly accessible site (access from Highway 401 on Westney or Brock Roads) , on public lands and in a natural setting. The original concept identified a large campground of between 300 and 400 campsites. Based on public concerns on the potential impact of such an activity, a campground of 100 to 175 campsites is proposed in the eastern portion of the Conservation Area. 15 CR.~ Petticoat Creek Conservation Area Petticoat Creek Conservation Area is located east of the Rouge Ri ver mouth along the shoreline of Lake Ontario in the Town of Pickering. The Area consists of l85 acres (75 ha) with a swim lake area, day use park area, municipal ball fields and picnic grounds. All outdoor recreation uses occupy about 54% of the land with the remainder in table land forest (6%) and floodplain or other natural hazard lands (40%) . The Petticoat Creek passes through the property and contains an Environmentally Significant Area (E.S.A.) on the steep river valley walls. The property also fronts on the lake shore with a 10 to 12 metre high bluff. The bluff offers scenic potential for hikes and picnickers, but bank erosion restricts public use of the shoreline area. Proposed outdoor recreation facilities include improvements to the swim lake, an adventure play area and a waterfront area. Swim Lake Improvements The existing swimming facilities have been in place since 1975 and offer shallow, wading-style swimming along with a change room, food booth and washroom complex. Major repairs to the facility will be required in the near future and this presents an opportunity to establish a wider variety of swimming/water play experiences. The proposed improvements include a small set of water slides, water play activities (water cannon, spray valves, etc. ) hot tubs and lazy river ride. Adventure play activities would be grouped with this complex to ensure an overall cost-effective operation for Area facilities. The quality and variety of facilities proposed for Petticoat Creek will be similar in scale to that offered at Boyd Conservation Area. Adventure Play Area The style and variety of adventure play features will be similar to those proposed for Boyd and Greenwood Conservation Areas. Waterfront Area No lake shore facilities are considered possible during the first five year period due to the existing shoreline erosion and the lack of any engineering studies dealing with financial and technical limitations. Nevertheless, the concept of waterfront facilities has merit. 16 . CR.53 . Petticoat Creek Conservation Area is one of the few active recreation facilities along the Lake Ontario waterfront that is operated by the Conservation Authority. Other waterfront parks are typically municipally operated and provide a range of recreation opportunities including, walking, jogging, boating, swimming, cycling and nature appreciation. In terms of boating, many municipal and private marinas focus on the medium- to larger-sized boats. To avoid duplicating these types of facilities, the Conservation Authority proposes a small sheltered harbour area (erosion control groyne) along the lake shore that would house a small watercraft rental facility. Additional features would be identified in follow up feasibility studies. Appropriate engineering studies will be completed to verify the utility of erosion control groynes at this location. Tommy T11ompson Park Tommy Thompson Park was identified in the strateqv as one of the five Conservation Areas where significant improvement in the landscape was required and desirable. The degree and type of improvements for Tommy Thompson Park differs from that found in other Conservation Areas. The Park is located on the shoreline of Lake Ontario just east of the Toronto Islands. The site is completely constructed of landfill from recent urban development. The landfill has developed a mix of vegetation and wildlife that has transformed a significant portion of the land into an Environmentally Significant Area (E.S.A.). The plan and the ensuing environmental assessment are part of a separate planning and development process. Upon receipt of the approvals from the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto, the Ministry of Natural Resources and the Ministry of Environment, a separate request for approval of funding will be submitted for Tommy Thompson Park under the Five Year Lake Ontario Waterfront Development project. l7 CR. $,+ GENERAL FACIUTIES In any Conservation Area, a number of general or minor improvements are required in a given year. These improvements to Conservation Areas contribute significantly to the enjoyment of facilities and programs by the public. In many cases, trail signage, buffer plantings and minor improvements help reduce both the long term maintenance costs of facilities and environmental damage costs by controlling public uses. The following general categories will be used for this type of development. Interpretive Trails From past presentations of the strateqv and Concept Plans, the need for improved trails was clearly identified by a wide range of public users, government agencies and special interest groups. While the inter-regional trail needs are addressed elsewhere, there still exists a need to improve the extent and quality of local use trails in all Conservation Areas. Many Conservation Area trails continue to be classed as "earthen" trails. Unfortunately, earthen trails in near urban Conservation Areas are prone to serious degradation through soil compaction. Trail construction and maintenance standards are required for all Conservation Areas. The necessary planning and technical documents will be prepared as part of the Conservation Authority's contribution to a larger inter-regional trail management program. picnic Areas picnic facilities have been available at many Conservation Areas for many years. continued improvement is required in the quality of shelter offered and in the support facilities such as washrooms, water and hydro services. Campground Improvements Existing campgrounds at Claireville and Albion Hills Conservation Areas require additional improvements to meet the modern camping needs of visitors. Camp site additions, creative playgrounds, visitor parking lots and laundromat services are all examples of such improvements. 18 . Cf<.55 Environmental Enhancements All Conservation Areas require upgrading of entrances, from signage, to landscape stock, to entrance gates and buildings. In addition, many areas require improvements to vegetative and man- made buffer areas between outdoor recreation uses. Design and construction guidelines for environmental enhancements will be prepared for each Conservation Area. 19 CR.5b PROJECTED FINANCING Introduction provision for resource protection and subsequent open space use requires adequate financial support. In an agency where the primary mandate is the management of renewable natural resources, it is no longer acceptable to withdraw increasing amounts of public funds to cover operating deficits from inter-regional recreation activities. The objective is to bring revenues from programs and facilities in Conservation Areas more in line with operating costs. The lead funding partners continue to be the Ministry of Natural Resources and member municipalities. other sources of public agency funding will be actively pursued and include: - the Ministry of Tourism and Recreation have the mandate to support key elements, including the swimming facilities proposed at Boyd and Greenwood Conservation Areas, - the Ministry of culture and Communications has been identified as a possible participant in heritage resource interpretation at the Kortright Centre For Conservation, - the Ministry of Agriculture and Food will be consulted and requested for financial support on key aspects of the farm management/education plans for the Boyd Conservation Area, and, - the School Boards of Metropolitan Toronto and Regions have the potential to fund the construction, operating and administrative costs of a recreation/education centre at the Boyd Conservation Area. Revenues from private leases are important to the success of the strateqv for Public Use of conservation Authoritv Lands. In the few areas where private leases will be considered, the revenue from such sources cover, in order of priority: 1. all direct costs of servicing the leases, 2. a portion to reserves for facility replacement, 3. the remainder to Conservation Area development projects. The Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Foundation will be requested to take an active part in financing conservation education and public resource interpretation elements of the strateqy. In particular, the funding of projects will include, but 20 CR.57 not be limited to, the Black Creek Pioneer Village, the Kortright Centre for Conservation and the Cold Creek Conservation Area. The Greater Toronto Region Trail System because of its size (900 to 1,000 kID of trail) and cost ($90 million to construct), will be the subject of a separate project to the Foundation and other public and private funding sources. Overall, the broadening of the financial support base, combined with the careful establishment of public facilities and private lease agreements, is essential to the Conservation Authority achieving its objective of providing outdoor recreation/education facilities that are inter-regional in scale, of high quality, and, cost effective. FIVe Year Capital Budget The total anticipated cost of the developments as proposed over the next five years is $52 million. Table 1 outlines the total cost of each development. In terms of publicly funded facilities, the following priority developments are planned: 1- Boyd Water Play Facility and Support Services 2. Kortright Water & Land Theme Activities 3. Greater Toronto Region Trail System Improvements 4. Greenwood Water Play Facility 5. Kortright Facility Improvements Other facilities and projects proposed for private or other agency development will be implemented as resource and economic information are made available. 21 C-R. 58 The projected sources of funding for all types of development are as follows (Note: Totals do not add due to rounding): Source Total Funds Required Ministry of Natural Resource $3,180,000 Municipal Levy $3,180,000 . Revenues $2,240,000 Foundation $2,600,000 Boards of Education $4,320,000 Ministry of Tourism and Recreation $590,000 Ministry of Culture and Communication $208,000 Ministry of Agriculture and Food $120,000 Private & other Sources $35.570.000 Total $52,010,000 Over the next five years, the following financial commitment is required from the member municipalities of Mono, Adjala, Metropolitan Toronto, Peel, York and Durham: Dollar Value by Year 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 440,000 484,000 532,400 732,050 966,306 The cost to each of the Authority's member municipalities will be calculated when the phase in period for the funding formula has been approved. 22 c (<. ~CJm-h--- mum ____m__ _h__n -. - _hn____n_ ~~m~~mn_m___h__nmh_ _ _ ) I ' I --- -- --------------- ---------- -- J (( FIVE YEAR SUKIWlY or MDING )) TOTAL EXPEHDITURE I I (( Inflated at 11\ per year fro. 1989 )) II (( _u____u_____ ) _____h__nnn___oo__u_ ____________ ____uu____ ____n_ _______n_________n____ --- )) __ n______h_h __ __ ___ _ I) (( ) HllHICIPAL HINISTRY OF LEASE FOUNDATION GOVERHHENT PRIVATE OR )) BY PROJECT )) BY AREA I) (I PROJECTS ) LEVY HAT RESOURCES REVEHUKS AGENCY OTHER FUNDS )) )) II (( n------__u___)_nn_n_un___u___u_n_uh__________uu___oo______________n__un_____u___n_n_h) )nhnn__n_n)) oo_____hnn I) (( ) )) )) I) ( I GENERAL ) )) )) II ( ( DEVELOP KENT ) )) )) $1,161,m )) (( ) )) )) I) (( picnic ) $51,11I $51,11I $91,111 $' $' $' ) I $191,11I ) I )1 (( - slIi_Inq ) $211,111 $211, II' $21,111 $' $' $I )) $44',111 II )) ( (- caapinq ) $31,11I $3',1" $81,1" $' $1 $1 )) $141,111 I) )1 ( (- env enhance ) $11,11' $11, II' $11,1" $' $' $' )) $211,11I )) )) ((- fishlnq ) $3',1" $3',11I $121, I" $' $I $I )) $181,8" )) )) ( (___n_uu_____) uuoo--u_______u_u_uuu____uu__uu__un__u___uuu_uu_uu_u_u_____000000_)) uuu_nu__u)) 0000____00____ )) (( ) )) )) )) ((BOYD C A. I )1 )) $11,411,111 )) (I ) )) )) )) ((- road ) $11','" $111, ." $1 $' $' $I )) $341,11I )) )) ((- slIl_lnq ) $531,11I $53',1" $821,'" $' $511, ... $11',11I I) $3,151,111 )1 )) ((- play ) $11, ... $1',11I $1 $I $' $' ) I $14','" I) )) ( (- recreat Ion ) $I $' $' $' $4,32','" $' )) $4,32',111 II I) (( educatlon I )) )) II ( (- qol f ) $I $1 $' $' $' $3,461,11' I) $3,46','" )) )) (( ) )) )) )) ( (____0000___0000) --00-------00--00------00---0000----- --00 ----00------ ____n__ _____ --00-------00- __________) )-0000-------- __ I ) noon ____ - I) (( I )) )) )1 ( (KORTRIGHT ) )) I) $2,121,8" I) ( (CENTRE ) )) )) I) (( ) )) )) )) ( (- land theae ) $I $' $I $53',11I $12',11I $' )) $65','" )1 )) ((- herltaqe ) $I $' $' $211,'" $21', "' $' )) $42','" )) I) ( (- vater theae ) $' $I $I $lS',II' $' $I )) $181,'" )) I) ((- vlldllfe I $3','" $3','" $I $161, ." $' $I )) $22','" )) I) ((- facUlty ) $' $' $' $65','" $I $I )) $65', '"~ )) )) (( ) II I) I) ( (________00_____)__________________________________________________________________________________________)) ___________00__) ) _______________) ) (( ) )) I) I) ( (pmICOAT ) I) )) $6,62','" I) ((CUll C.A. ) )) )) II (( ) I) )) I) ( (- svl_lnq ) $' $' $I $I $I $5,181,'" )) $5,181,11I )) )) (( - partlll9 ) $I $' $' $I $I '271,'" )) $21','" )) )) ( (- play area ) $I $I $' $I $I $13', III )) $13', "' )) )) (( - picnic ) $' $' $I $' $I $44','" I) $441, III II I) (( ) )) )) )) ( (---------------)------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------))---------------) I ---------------) I (( ) )) )) II ( (CLAI RBVI LLI ) )) I) $14,121,11I II ((C A. ) )) )) )1 (( ) )) I) )) ((- vater ) $I $' $' $' $' $6, n',1II )) $6, n,,'" )) )) ( (- qolf ) $I $I $I $I $I $1,511,'" )) $1,511,'" )1 )) ( (- eques tr Ian ) $' $I $' $' $' $1,161,11' )) $1,16',11' )) )1 ((- rec led ) $I $I $I $I $' $9,33','" )) $9, H', "' )) I) (( ) )) )) J) ( (_______________)________________________00___00______________________________________---------------------) ) ----___________) ) ________00_ ----I I (( ) )) )) )) ((GRlKIIiOOD C.A. ) )) )) $4,951,1" )) (( I )) )) I) ( (- vater ) $1.'7','" $1, n., "' $461,'" $I $9','" $' ) I $2,691,'" )) )) (( - ca.plnq ) $84','" $841, ." $511, .11 $I $' $' ) I $2,261,'" )) )) ((- play ) $' $I $I $I $I $' )) $' )) II (( ) )) )) I) ( (00___ 00________) ______n_____________________________________________ _n_ _n____u_______________________) 1_________00 _ __)) ___________0000) ) ( (GREATER I I) )) )) ( (TOR REGIOI I )) )) $1,'3',11I )) ( (TltAI LS ) )) )) )) (I ) )) )) )) (( - Plannlnq ) $3','" $31,11I $I $19',1" $I $' )) $25',11I )) )) (( - Deve10paent ) $5', ... $51, ... $' $68', .11 $' $' )) $181,1" )) I) II ) )1 )) )) (I -____00__00____) _____________________00___________ --00 _______________________________00________________00)) ---------------) )___00__00___ n_) I ( (-------________) 00-------------------00-----------------00------0000-------------00----00--0000 ___________) ) _00________0000) ) ------ -00- - - ---I) (( ) )) )) )) I( TOTALS ) $3,111,'" $3.111,'" $2, H','" $2,611,11' $5,24',111 $35,571,11I )) $52,'11,11' )) '52,11','" I) II I )) )) )) I I ____________00_) -------------------------00---------------------00-----------------_00__________________00) 1----00---------)) ------- _n _n --11 (I --------------- 1-------------------------------------------------------------------------00--------------- 11------------00-) )_________n____ I ) CR.~ 'l'IlE METROPOLITAN 'l'OROR'l'O AND REGIOR CORSERVATIOR AU'l'BORI'fY Letter dated Septe.ber 7, 1989 fro. the WILD WATER KIRGDOM outlining PROPOSED 1990 DBVBLOPMBRT aDd PROPOSAL FOR ADDITIONAL ASSOCIATED FACILITIES Conservation and Related Land Management Advisory Board Meeting '4/89 September 20, 1989 Park Address: R.R,jf8. (7855 Finch Ave. W,) BRA MP TON. Ontario L6T 3Y7 Tel (416) 794-0565 CR~' Head Office: 4 Wellington Street East, 4th Floor TORONTO Ontario M5E 1C5 Tel (416) 369-0774 Fax: (416) 369-0998 September 7, 1989 The Hetropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority, 5 Shoreham Drive, DOWNSVIEW, Ontario H3N IS4 ATTENTION: Hr. Tom Barber Director. ProQram Services Dear Sirs: RE: Wild Water Kingdom Ltd. Lease from The Hetropolitan Toronto and Region - Conservation Authoritv (the "Authoritv") As per our advice to you prior to our acquisition of Wild Water Kingdom and throughout the course of our ownership, it has been our intent to develop Wild Water Kingdom into a first class attraction properly utilizing the resources of the area and providing an exciting and entertaining facility. As you may be aware, since our acquisition in Harch of 1989, we have expended approximately 2 . 5 milli on dollars because of the extensive renovation and upgrade work on the existing facilities, and the addition of the following attractions and items: l. Emerald Greens Mini-Golf Courses, consisting of two upscale 18 hole courses, namely The Enchanted Fortress and Shipwreck Falls, each course based on a different theme and constructed so as to be far superior to any other mini-golf course in Canada; 2. A large batting cage complex (9 batting cages); 3. Four new food concessions, including the new Royal Terrace Patio; - CR~~ 2 4. A new indoor arcade and games room; 5. A new 2000 square foot administration building; 6. A new children's water play area with slides and wading pools; 7. A children's dry play area including slides climbing equipment and other similar attractions; 8. The refurbishing of most of the existing complexes, in order to present the appearance generally found in a first class theme park. At this time we would like to proceed with plans for further expansion of our attractions. with the Authority's approval, we would like to begin construction this fall of a number of new and exciting additions including: 1. A large Activity Pool, Adventure Island, incorporating features such as cl i mbers, pulley swings, Hydromania water slides, shotgun slides, etc. This pool will be targeted towards young adult visitors, with an emphasis on individual activities and thrills; 2. A 600 foot extension to the present 1200 foot long lazy river ride; 3. A large Passive Pool, The Blue Lagoon, containing a grotto, waterfalls and a surrounding sun-tanning patio area; 4. Expansion of the children's water play area; 5. An additional regulation size baseball diamond; 6. Utilization of the Reservoir to include a number of activities such as bumper boats, remote control boats, pedal boats; and 7. A licensed sit-down restaurant facility. Our estimated costs for providing the foregoing are approximately 2 million dollars. In addition, we intend to add additional landscaping to augment both new and existing attractions. In the future, we would also like to provide a number of additional new - - CR.b3 . 3 attractions, including: 1 Fishing (trout) ponds; 2. An animal petting zoo; 3. A water ski show; 4. Two additional 18 hole mini-golf courses; 5 Additional batting cages; 6 Baseball pitching machines; 7 A golf driving range; 8. Additional picnic shelters; 9 Improved parking facilities; 10. A variety of amusement games and rides, particularly for the younger age groups; and 11. New water slides and other water attractions, as they become available. As the lands upon which Wild Water Kingdom operates are leased, and unlike other theme parks, we cannot ever benefit from any appreciation in land value, all of our investment decisions must be based on a view to profit solely from ongoing operations. We be lieve we have honoured all of our commitments to the Authority, have created a theme park which has exceeded that which you probably expected of us, have utilized your lands in a manner that reflects well on the Authority and provides exceptional entertainment to its patrons. However, we can only continue to add further attractions, and further expand and enhance the existing attractions if such enhancement and expansion makes economic sense. In order to enhance the park's popularity and future success, it is essential that we must increase the attendance at the park by firstly increasing the capacity of its water attractions and secondly adding other revenue generating attractions. As we previously advised, due to the current method of determining the base rent and percentage rent, we do not receive sufficient benefit or incentive to justify increasing our capital expenditures. cR.bt 4 While the repeated further infusion of capital throughout the term of the Lease will undoubtedly generate substantial increases in gross revenue and thus the total rent payable to the Authority, the major benefit would, flow to the Authority. Under such circumstances we would receive insufficient incentive and recognition for the increased costs and risks associated with such increased capital outlay. Our position which we have stated on many previous occasions is that a lower percentage rent factor calculated on the s ignif icantly higher revenue from the additional attractions would result in a significantly larger total rent payable to the Authority than a higher percentage rent factor calculated on a much lower gross revenue that would be the case if no further capi tal was invested. Our projections and analysis indicate that this opinion is a valid one Further we believe that an independent consulting firm retained by the Authority has also corroborated these projections, provided the additional capital infusion occurs. We are therefore writing at this time to formally request that our lease with you be amended such that for every 1 million dollars worth of capital expenditures we invest in Wild Water Kingdom, the percentage rent payable by us will be decreased by n. Such reduction would, of course, only apply to the future increases already built into the Lease, and in no event would the percentage rent ever be less than 8\, regardless of the eventual amount of funds invested. The onus and incentive, therefore, is on us to infuse the capital first, and as such, any change in the percentage used in calculating additional rent only applies if and when our additional investment occurs. Under no circumstances would the Authority ever be placed in a worse position than currently exists under the present Lease. Secondly, in view of the substantial amounts expended by us to date to br ing Wild Water Kingdom up to its present appearance, including the attractions we have added since acquisition, we believe that we have now essentially placed Wild Water Kingdom in the position it should have been in when it first opened. We therefore request that we be put in such a viable position by rolling the Lease back so that it still has its initial 21 year term, and that the rent payable be consistent therewith. In other words, essentially we are requesting an amendment to the terms of the Lease, as if it had commenced in 1989, and not in 1986. Thirdly, to the extent we are adding attractions and improvements on licensed as opposed to leased lands, the portion of such licensed lands be added to and form part of the leased lands. By virtue of the Authority's, consenting to the foregoing amendments, we - c R.~S 5 be lieve all parties will thus be afforded fair treatment for their efforts and investments, in that your rental revenue will rise, but we will also receive the necessary incentive and benefits to justify the additional infusion of capital. We will thus be in a position that encourages us to spend the necessary capital to continue the growth of Wild Water Kingdom and to provide a proper utilization of the Authority;s lands in a manner that reflects well on the Authority and provides first class entertainment and facilities to patrons of the park We respectfully request that these matters be brought to the attention of the Members of the Board of the Authority at their next meeting. We look forward to a favourable response to these amendments which we sincerely believe could only result in a "win-win" situation for both parties We trust that you agree with us that our expenditures to date have been ample evidence of our commitment to making Wild Water Kingdom into a fist class quality attraction in Ontario. Yours very truly, WILD WATER KINGDOM LTD p:!D~r~9 President . - . - - - ~ C,R . ~ ~ THB METROPOLITAN TORQRTO AND REGIOR CORSBRVATION AUTHORITY CORRBSPORDBRCB pertaining to RARGB ROISB COLD CREBK CORSBRVATIOR AREA Conservation and Related Land Management Advisory Board Meeting 44/89 September 20, 1989 c (l.. ~7 TOWNSHIP OF KING ~ ,~ ; 3rl -"': ...;;. R R 2 =... ~ ~J3 ...2- KING CITY ONTARIO LOG 1 KO (\ '~- '0 July 10, 1989 The Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority 5 Shoreham Drive Downsview, Ontario M3N IS4 Gentlemen RE: Rifle and Trap Shooting Ranges at Cold Creek Conservation Area Council received and reviewed your letter dated June 16, 1989 regarding Authority Resolution #79 as ~t pertains to the noise problem at the rifle and trap shooting ranges. Council directed that a letter be sent requesting that the noise problem at the ranges be dealt with ~n a more expedient manner. A copy of the extract of the Council Minutes of July 4, ~ los-e) 1989 is enclosed for your information. ell Yours truly ~~ Evelyn Jurgens RECEIVED Assistant Clerk EJ/lv \989 JUL 13 encl. M.T .R.C.A. ?~J .fP ~ Th 2,1"~ .Vnl....J[J~C vr "ll'f~ DATE: JULY 5TH, 1989 CR.b8' TO: ~. H. Duncan Murray Snider Fiona Cowles Kevin Young Jim Stunden Don Young Brian Grubbe AN EXTRACT OF THE COUNCIL MINUTES OF THE COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON July 4th, 1989 ( 7) Adoption of Reports (b) Committee of the Whole Report of June 26th,1989 The Council of the Township of King met in Committees on Monday, June 26th, 1989 at 7: 3/3 p.m. All members of Council were present with the exception of Councillor P. Meinzer. Mayor M. Britnell chaired the Committee of the Whole part of the meeting. C.O.W. '89-133 THE METROPOLITAN TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY RE: RIFLE AND TRAP SHOOTING RANGES AT COLD CREEK CONSERVATION AREA Committee received and reviewed the letter dated June 16th, 1989 from the Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority. In their letter they advised that the staff report summarizing the Cold Creek Conservation Area Shooting Range Post Mitigation Noise Study was received and that Resolution #79 was passed authorizing their staff to report back to the Advisory Board after the end of January, 1990. ,- The Committee recommends that the letter dated June 16th, 1989 from ~he Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conserva~ion Authority be received and that the Authority be advised that the Council of the Township of King requests that the noise problem at the rife and trap shooting ranges be dealt with in a more expedient manner. C. H. DUNCAN CLERK CR.b1 Longacres Farm I R R '3, fI(t~fr; ~..,- -_" S\~"I)mberg, Ont ~Ii: -,' \1 , , LGu iTa ~~a ..J. ~ I I I ~ July -i, 1989 JUL 10 .Jd TOWN Of CALEDOl'j ClflI(S our. '1r E Kolb, FlU to. , Chairman, Conservation & Related Land ~gement Advisory Board, The ~etropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority Dear '1r Kolb, I am ~Titing with respect to the on-going problem of shooting noise generated on the trap and rifle ranges of the Cold Creek Conservation Area. I am particularly concerned with the fact that the Advisory Group appears to have been told that the last series of sound tests conducted bj Barman Swallow Associates concluded that the accoustically treated rifle positions and the relocated trap range now meet the ~inistry of Environment guidelines for noise limitations In their report dated February 23, 1989 the consultants state ", In general. under little or no wind influence levels of 50 dBAl or less were measured at the critical reception locations. This meets the Ministry of Environment Guidelines.... " The two elements of their statement are contradictory l'nless the noise levels are at or below 50 dBAl at all times, at all measurement locations and under all wind and weather conditions they DO ~OT meet the '1inistry guidelines. Publicatinn \'PC-132 - "Guidelines for Noise Control in Rural Areas" - is unequivocal and reads as follows "In a rural area. within 30m of a dwelling or a camping area, in any hour, the Logari thrnic '1ean Impulse Sound Level, as determined in accordance with Publication NPC-103 - Procedures section 3, for sound from a stationary source, should not exceed the higher of ( i) the ninetieth percentile sound level of natural sound plus 15 dB, or (ii) 50 dEAl." This does not provide for any assumption that wind or other weather factors can be conveniently ignored nor does it allow any assumption that the guidelines are met provided the sound levels are below 50 dBAl in some instances but not others. CR.?O As the consultants report in their General Conclusions (para 8 '3 1) "Levels from both ranges are tvpically less than 50 dBAI at the critical residence locations, ho~ever, le\els greater than 50 dBAI arise under specific t.,'ind conditions " In addition their report shot-os that, of the 17 measurements made in ~ach case, 29% of the trap range readings and 12% of the d fle range t'eadings exceeded the 50 dBAI limit (I..ith one of 60 dBAI - twice as loud as 50 dBAI) I would also like to point out that the '1inistr: guidelines stipulate as follows - ~'PC'-132 - "Guidelines for \'oise Control in Rural Areas" "Proponents of new or expanding projects ha....ing a potential noise impact in rural areas should obtain prior approval for the project in accordance ~ith section 8 of the Environmental Protection Act " ~'PC-133 - "Guidelines on Information Required for the Assessment of Planned Stationary Sources of Sound" "The guidelines apply to new sources of sound as t,;ell as e>..-pansion, alteration or conversion of e:-..isting sources." Section 8 of the Environmental Protection Act reads " ( 1) No person shall, (a) construct, alter, extend or replace any plant, structure, equipment, apparatus, mechanism or thing that may emit or discharge or from which may be emitted or discharged a contaminant into any part of the natural environment other than water.... .unless he has first obtained a certificate of approval issued by the Director for the methods or de\ices or both to be employed to control or prevent the emission or discharge of any contaminant into any part of the natural environment other than water Note The Act states ""contaminant" means any solid, liquid, gas, odour, heat, sound. " . Cnless the M.T R C.A complied with the above procedures then not only do the present ranges not meet the guidelines but the Authority presumably will have contravened the Environmental Protection Act in proceeding with the various changes without prior approval from the Ministry of the Environment. I would also point out that on the basis of an initial test carried out (on one (lay only) to assess the suitability of the valley location for the trap range, the consultants recommended " 5.2 6 In order to substantiate these results. further measurements are required in the natural valley location under a variety of wind conditions for the intended trap range line of fire." I wrote to Mr. J Agnew on July 15, 1988 requesting that this recommendation be followed before ~ny steps were taken to relocate the trap range CR.7/ Despite the consultants recommendation and my lettpr, \tr -\g!1et.. I-TO t ~ to me on July 29,1988 that the Authoritj ~as proceeding with the relocation of the trap range With reference to the consultant's recommendation he noted "They are careful to point out to us that thesp. prp<tictions are basPd. on no t..'ind conditions and he t'ealize that under Imfa\ourable conditions an\ gi\en location ma\ e::-.:perience higher -,;o\.md 1.,\ pls " T find it disturbing that a public body such as the Conservation Authority would hire specialists in the field of noise to carry out a very limited test on a single day, be subsequently advised that further tests should be carried out, receive a written request from me to follow the cor~ultants recommendation but then decide that the Authority knows better and is going to go ahead with the project at a n~ported cost of some $300,000. This, despite recognizing the probe.bi li ty that solad levels might well exceed the 50 dBAI guideline I 0an nnl) conclude that it ~as the intention of the Authority to proceed with the trap range relocation regardless of the complaints from thp. rpsidents surrounding the Cold Creek area and regardless of any recornmendat ion from their consultant This, in my opinion, indicates a surprising attitude and a disregard for the Authority's neighbours that I would not have expected in a public body which, by its own chart.er, purports among other things that it tI . ACTS I~ THE C~~~IT\"S INTEREST through advocating and implementing watershed management programs that enhance the QL'ALITY and \-ariety of li fe in the communi ty. . tI . . I find it impossible to e~uate the persistent and highly objectionable noise from Cold Creek's ranges with enhancing the quality of life in thp community The t~o are incompatible As a final point, I would emphasize that this is specifically a noise problem and not a question of shooting per see I understand that this acti\ity started in Cold Creek in the parly 1960's and some might sL~gest that anyone moving into the \icinity since then should not complain as the activity pre-dated their arrival In the case of ~- family, we acquired our existing property in the fall of 1966 - not too long after shooting activity was initiated. '!ore important 1 jo'- , we did not take up perm&.nent residence immediately but buil t a small barn in order to spend week-ends and as much other time as possible here The objective ~as to assure ourselves, through all seasons, that there ~ould be nothing in the en\ironment that ~ould be objectionable or injurious to our health (partly because of allergy problems). Although we heard gunfire on occasion emanating from the conservation area, it t..'as infrequent and not sustained and ~.;e therefore concluded that living adjacent to an established consPI'vation property would be equable This led to our decision to establish our present permanent residence in 1971. ~nat we now ha\e is a vastly different situation with great I) increased shuoting facilities, vigorously promoted during the past se\ eral years, producing nuise at a level and t..'i th a frequenq; that could ne\er ha\e been fOL'eseen ~O years earlier Even 10 years ago it . t..'as nOl-.'herp near as bad e\'en though S0me residents I,pre complaining at ,-C~. ?:<. that time. t ..., As the consultant's t-.ork makes it c lpar that the Cold Irepk l'anges do not meet the applicable governrnt:'nt guidelines - and from l!lj-- study of the data also makes it clear that it is not possible to make them confom - I feel most strongl.l that it is incumbent on the Authority to eliminate the problem by closing the ranges and seeking some mOl'e suitable acti\ities at Cold Creek that I-.'ould be in hal~ony t..ith the em-ironment and compatible I-.'ith the rural setting I t.:ould also like to recommend that the AuthoritJ consult "Lth Ilthel appropriate agencies to detennine if there is a location, SUI h as the Camp Borden area for example, where the ranges could presumablJ be established without facing the problem that now e:o..ists at. Cold Creek - a problpm t..hich can only become worse as residential housing continues La e~~nd in the region surrounding ~etropolitan Toronto. Yours sincerply, - -' ~ B. The tenn dBAl means decibels, accoustic, impulse The decibel scale is a logarithmic one which means that for every increment of 10 dB the noise level is doubled Thus, a 50 dB reading is twice as loud as 40 dB, 60 dB is tl-iice as loud as 50 dB but four times as loud as 40 dB and 70 dB is twice as loud as 60 dB, four times as loud as 50 dB and eight times as loud as 40 dB. OR.73 "- THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWN OF CALEDON Box 1000, Caledon East, Ontario LON 1 EO Telephone 416-584-2273 FAX . 857-7217 Georgetown, Erin ar T ottenham exchangE use Zenith 86130 July 12, 1989 D J Caple P Eng Longacres Farm R.R #3 Schomberg, Ontario LOG ITO Dear Mr Caple This will acknowledge receipt of your letter dated July 4, regarding the trap and rifle ranges at the Cold Creek Conservation Area I note the comments and concerns raised in your letter and will bring a copy to the next Conservation & Related Land Management Advisory Board meeting for the information of all members. Thank you for taking the time to write to me with your concerns Yours truly, /~~~~ Emil V Kolb Mayor TOWN OF CALEDON EVK:mw cc: James D. Agnew, MTRCA R !-= f" 'J:" I V '= D CR. 74- -v~ ~. Longacres Farm, JUL 6 1989 R.R.#3, Schomberg, Ontario LOG 1TO M. T.R.C.A. July -l, 1989 Barman Swallow Associates. Suite 401, 1 Greensboro Drive, Rexdale, Ontario M9W 1e8 Attn. Mr. J. Swallow Dear Mr Swallow I am writing with respect to the "Cold Creek Conservation Area Shooting Range Post Mitigation Noise Study" dated. February 23, 1989 prepared. by your company for the Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority. After reading the report when I received. it on February 2-l, 1989 I assumed. that the M.T.R.C.A. would recognise that the test results showed. that the noise levels from both ranges did not in all cases conform to the guideline limit of 50 dEAL. However, the Authority has chosen to rest on your statement that the guidelines are met and is using this to justify continued. operation of the ranges. Under the circumstances I find it necessary to take issue with your company with respect to the conclusions you have presented to the M T R C A., specifically as follows 1- In the Summary you state "In general, tmder little or no wind influence levels of 50 dEAL or less were m~asured. at the critical reception locations. This meets the Ministry of Environment Guidelines of 50 dEAL for a new range which is 20 dB more restrictive than the guidelines for an old range." 2. In section 8.0 Conclusions, under heading 8.1 Trap Range, you state "Sound levels for the relocated. trap range are in compliance with the MOE requirements for a new range. The requirement is 20 dB more restrictive for a new range than for an existing range." 3. Also in section 8.0, under heading 8.2 Rifle Range, you state "As with the trap range, the rifle range also meets the MaE requirements for a new shooting facility." 4. Under heading 8.3 General Conclusions you state Levels from both ranges are typically less than 50 dEAL at the critical residence locations, however, levels greater than 50 dEAr arise under specific wind conditions. Levels at the property line are typically less than 60 dBAI, with occasional exceedances over 60 c,~. 75' dBAI lU1der specific wind conditions These levels are in compliance with the limits defined by mE in NPC-I05 " 5 In my opinion as a professional engineer I consider that these conclusions are lU1warranted, incorrect and not reflective of the test results In addition, it is also my opinion that you have drawn on ~~-105 as the only relevant guideline without apparently considering the requirements of NPC-132 and NPC-133 6 \'PC-132 'Guidelines for Noise Control in Rural Areas" states "In a rural area, within 30m of a dwelling or camping area, in any hour, the Logarithmic Mean Impulse SOlU1d Level, as determined in accordance with Publication NPC-I03 - Procedures section 3, for sound from a stationary source, should not exceed the higher of (i) the ninetieth percentile sound level of natural sound plus 15 dB, or (ii) 50 dBAI." ,.. NPC'-133 "Guidelines on Infonnation Required for the Assessment of I ~ Planned Stationary Sources of Sound" states - "The guidelines apply to new sources of sound as well as expansion, alteration or conversion of existing sources." NPC-133 also specifies the limit as in NPC-132. 8 Based on the above items I believe the following points are valid (a) The specified sound limits are not qualified in any way as to weather conditions. They do not provide for an assumption that wind or other weather factors need not be taken into consideration or that if under given weather conditions the 50 dEAl limit is exceeded this can still be construed as meeting the guidelines. . (b) The specified sound limits do not provide for an assumption that they are met if the limits are exceeded in some cases but not others. (c) Based on the test results, 29% of the trap range measurements exceeded the 50 dBAl limit as did 12% fof the rifle range figures The guidelines do not provide for an assumption that this meets the prescribed limit because the remaining readings are at or below 50 dEAl. (d) The guidelines do not provide for an assumption that measurements taken at different locations may be averaged and considered acceptable if the average is at or below the 50 dBAl limi t . (e) You note in your report that the guidelines call for noise levels to be taken within 30m of a dwelling. You do not COlTUllent on the fact that it also specifies "or a camping Cf< . ? ~ area , and that the relocated. trap range is adjacent to Cold ~ Creek's campsite. This is obviously in violation of the guidelines. (f) Using NPC-105 to define the noise limits of 50 dBAl for a new range and 70 dBAl for a range in use before January 1980 is not acceptable Because the Cold Creek facility is in a rural area the requirements of NPC-132 must apply and this stipulates 50 dSAl only as the limit without any quali.fication as to when the facility was put in place ~lilst I can understand the M T R C.A wishing to place a fa\ourable - 10 them - interpretation on the Ministry guidelines, I am surprised. that a professional engineering organisation would presume to make the assumptions you appear to have done in order to categorically conclude that the ~inistry guidelines have been met lnder the circumstances I feel a correction to your report should be issued. restating the conclusions to make it clear that the guidelines are not met. I shall look forward to your early response Yours sincerely, -_.:. D .,y. Caple P.Eng. cc Mr. J. Agnew / CR. 77 Longacres Farm, R.R.#3, Schomberg, Ontario. LOG 1 TO I August 11, 1989 : , "- Hr. John ~innis. Vice-cha.innan, The Metropolitan Toronto & Region Conservation Authority. Dear Mr. ~innis, I am enclosing for your information a copy of a letter addressed to the Mayor of the Township of King on the subject of the Cold Creek shooting noise problem with particular reference to the Township Council's earlier resolution on the subject and the response from the Authority. Yours sincerely, 't, ~,/"<- ~ D. J. Caple Longacres Farm. CR.7S R.R.#3, Schomberg, Ontario. LOG 1TO August 8, 1989 The Township of King. King City, Ontario. LOG 1KO Attn. Mayor Margaret Britnell Dear Mayor Bri tne 11 , On May 17, 1989 Mr. C. H. Duncan forwarded to Mr. W. A. McLean, General Manager of the Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority, a certified copy of Resolution Number R71-89 passed by the Council of the Township of King at its May 13, 1989 meeting. Mr ~Lean responded by letter dated Jtme 16, 1989 tmder cover of which he provided copies of Authority resolution #79 and a staff report. In effect this ignores the King Township resolution by presenting an Authority resolution that was dated May 12, 1989 under which the Authority had already decided to continue the Cold Creek shooting range operations into January 1990. Mr. McLean says "I trust this is satisfactory". In my opinion this response cannot be considered satisfactory and I believe the matter should be pursued further with the Authority for the following reasons 1. The response by the M.T.R.C.A. effectively ignores the Council's resolution. The Authority gives no indication that it recognises the Township's position or that such position will now or later be given any consideration. In other words, the Authority has made its own internal decision and is not about to consider anything else. In view of the fact that the Authority has spent a considerable amotmt of taxpayers' money in order to build a new trap range and provide some sotmd attenuation on the rifle range, it seems high-handed to say the least that a resolution from a Township Co\.D1Cil representing a large n\.unber of such taxpayers should be dealt with in this manner. 2. The copies of intenl8.l documentation provided with Mr. McLean's response includes excerpts from the Bannan Swallow Associates report for the tests carried out after the relocation of the trap range and accoustic treatment of the rifle range. Paragraph 6 of the Stmmary page of the Bannan Swallow report states "In general, under little or no wind influence levels of 50 dBAI or less were measured at the critical reception locations. This meets the Ministry of Environment Guidelines of 50 dBAI for a new range.... " CR 7~ The actual test results show quite clearly that in a significant number of the tests the 50 dBAI level was exceeded for both the trap range and the rifle range and the facilities therefore DO NOT meet the Ministry guidelines. The guidelines are tmequivoca.l and do not provide for an assumption that wind or other environmental concH tions can be conveniently ignored or that they are met if some but not all of the results meet the 50 dEAl limit. If such an assumption were permissible the guidelines would be meaningless. It is evident, therefore, that the Authority's decision to continue operating the ranges was based on an incorrect conclusion in the consultants' report and should be reviewed accordingly. In this regard, I wrote directly to Mr. John Swallow on July 4, 1989 arguing that the conclusions in the Barman Swallow report were unjustified and not supported by the test data. As of this date I have not received a reply from Mr. Swallow. In the final analysis, I do not believe a government sponsored organisation such as the M.T.R.C.A. should operate a facility that does not comply with government regulations without being challenged. It is still my firm conviction that unless and tmtil the Authority can demonstrate that the ranges can operate within the 50 dBAI guideline UNDER ANY AND ALL CONDITIONS they should be closed. Yours sincerely, D. J. Caple cc Hon. Charles Beer, Minister of Ccmmmi ty and Social Services CR.,go 23 August 1989 Mr. D.J. Caple Longacres Farm R.R. #3 Schomberg, Onto LOG lTO Dear Mr. Caple: Your letter to Mr. John McGinnis dated August ll, 1989 was referred to me. We appreciated receiving a copy of your letter to Mayor Margaret Britnell concerning the Cold Creek Ranges. On motion by Mayor Britnell, at the Authority's July 28th meeting, correspondence from the Township of King with respect to the Cold Creek Ranges was placed on the agenda of the upcoming meeting of the Conservation and Related Land Management Advisory Board to be held September 20th, 1989. Yours very truly, W. A. McLean General Manager WAM:L C((. ~ I TOWNSHIP Of KING ... ~ ~3 3... 30C 2S3 ::1 R R 2 Cl.O" 333 2Jll KING CITY ONTARIO LOG 1 KO ~ po.,C~'V-~ l' \;.. -... pi " '.,. t. . '- r toW!i ~ ...1 J- 198' August 21st, 1989 , I, '- 1 Metropolitan Toronto and Reg ion ~JI .~ ~~ {"\ ~ Conservation Authority , . I ~..; .... "".J1 . 5 Shoreham Drive NORTH YORK, Ontario M3N lS4 ... Dear Sirs: RE: Cold Creek Conservation Area Rifle and Trap Shooting Rang e Please find enclosed a copy of a letter dated July 25th, 1989 from Charles Beer, M.P.P., to the Minister of Natural Resources. The letter is requesting that the Ministry review the situation at the Cold Creek Conservation Area and to make some helpful changes. The Council of the Township of King would like this letter to be included on the agenda fo r the next meeting of the Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority. Yours truly ~~ Evelyn Jurgens Assistant Clerk EJ/cS En c 1 . c.c Mr. Dave Caple . Legislative Building lti Unit 38 Cf( B'~ - Queen sPark 220 Industrial Parkway South Toronto, Ontario M7A 1A2 Aurora. Ontario L4G 3V6 1416) 965.6472 (41617271985 889-8622 "G:lII" OntariO - LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Jut 2 8 1989 CHARLES BEER, M P P I f/"JfL-/' York North July 25, 1989 Hon. Vince Kerrio, M.P.P. Minister of Natural Resources 6th Floor, Whitney Block Toronto, Ontario Dear Vince: As you know, for some time now, the King Township neighbours of Cold Creek Conservation Area have been lobbying to have changes made to the Rifle Range that is housed there. Noise levels have now reached a stage where there seems to be only two alternatives to resolving this problem: enclosing the ranges or shutting them down totally. One of the strongest arguments against closing the range is the fact that a number of police forces use this range to maintain their skills. But as you will notice from the attached newspaper clipping, the O.P.P. now have their own range, which is enclosed, sound proof and "the most up to date in Ontario". Since the Pine Ridge site is not very far from the existing Cold Creek site and knowing that there is a tremendous spirit of cooperation among our police forces, I can see that it would not take much at all to develop a progrdm whereby all the forces could make use of this new firing range which "will be able to handle every type of arsenal the OPP has". I was also very interested to note that this new range will be sound proof enough so that other inhabitants of the same building will not hear any of the noise emanating from the range. I'm sure you will agree that this is a far superior set of circumstances than the ones currently facing the Cold Creek neighbours. Considering this new development I feel strongly that I must renew my call for action at Cold Creek. I believe the neighbours have suffered quite long enough and now .../2 CR. 9'3 - 2 - that one of the ranges strongest arguments against change has been eliminated I hope that your Ministry will take another serious look at this situation. I would appreciate it if you could reveiw this matter and see if we could not make some helpful changes. Yours sincerely, C?~ Charles Beer, M.P.P. York North Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of Education /as cc: Mayor Margaret Britnell, King Township Mr. Dave Caple Encl. I CR..g''f I I i I New centre houses opp 1 · firing range , . 8Y USA QUEEN SIan Wit. Aurea '.1aaDer PIDe Rldae ceaIre tar Ibe ~tIIl1 blDdiClppOd loIdauk IIid bel ~ 4ecided II weD OIl ill way II) bec~~I' miDi QaeeD '. Put. 10 IDIlM b.....,...1 '-4.01- 'Ibo au Ilidpo 0._ a Ik:e. BOW CIl~IDIttd..OIt StreCC. da1 Police detlrhl'l)ClII moved iDIo IO'~ paytDa nat DCW huiltti", CIl Yaqe Snet JUlIe ]'be prk:e.. for 1ao(IIP~ lad it "'krriDa 0Vf:rJ IDJDuII of 11.. . . 011 &be lrODl12 ICRII of... p~, c:adial1O ~ of Oovemaaa' jamped 10 .. S7 .mIOD 60m &be Scnica pojoc:l arfalMI .... 01 becweaD S4 IDeS IS . IDIIIqCr OPe MId-. docb. rnHan,. ~b IIId. A ..... ... II pan of ban: I I . ftrtDa....CIl..lDwcrllMl ; '~"lDUWI wbich wiD boule .. 01... hOG3Ie, ......... Idded .i 100 JmpkJML : ....lOlIIecca ~ae-.._ Aurora II a1Io &be DeW OPP diaic:c: 1M .... nit .., y.. saiect , lleldquutor. for tbo "01 mlt' 1InOd_1D....bllCl8_~.1 ~ traa CIledoD.. leaWl'- Ibaa arfcIaaD1 rtk1p11OlS lad poor' laD so pr.t (>Mit IIIIl Dowuview lEt' I IDii Ilnnftioo.u. -.0 ~ III k -- Wbilby. .. ~1IId. . ~ Tb. MIDiaUJ of ReveDu,'.: . -II'. 1M ..... dialrict bead- re,loDl1 U...IIDODt offi~. 1.' ..... - <>>P ......, 1Ir..1Ud 1t~1M lOaacM IDPiDe Ridae from: ; Slaff~. .....U Clute. .bo NeWlDllbtNoY.l,~lni"'veat. : .. .. ..... __ ar I , 11a11d1i11Ile .... _ . ..., I ficcr Kim Ban:bat IIid. · , J .... .. ne 66 ~ will.... die: 1 ~~~~~~..at...... ftIDOYIIed PIDe IJdp ceDIIe willa ...' , CIeDIiiI....... al6ce at......., · I =~........ 01 Nalunl ~ .... *iWl'.. I . . .~... .w..'.... fll'1natIon ceDft 01 .. ....., 01 ~..'I',.. '_~.'" .... TrIDIpanadcm _ oftIcea far 1M : ". ..,.. at '". ~.me. miDiIIrJ. -B&~ ~ , no COIl far &be .... PIDe JUdp projecl ... .. .. ID betweeD 112 M'-Jrn./r;.. ct; ":'5;;;. .- IIId $13 IIInHo-\ ~ IIid. ". ! oriPII pice W beea.. S9 mil- I ~~ .,.,1e, I IiaD ill 1987. CR. 9' ~ 28 August 1989 Ms. Evelyn Jurgens Assistant Clerk Township of King R.R. #2 King City, Onto LOG lKO Dear Ms. Jurgens: Re: Cold Creek Conservation Area Rifle and Trap Shooting Range This will acknowledge receipt of your letter dated August 2lst, 1989. Please be advised that the Authority, at its meeting held Ju}y 28th, 1989, referred the matter to the Conservation and Relaced Land Management Advisory Board. The next meeting of this advisory board is scheduled for Wednesday, September 20th, 1989 and you can be assured that your letter will be included in our staff report. Yours very truly, W. A. McLean General Manager /L. cc: Mr. D. Caple TOWNSHIP C f<. ~b Of KING ~ 6 333 ,3: R R 2 800:63 ::.' OJ, \ 333 :31< KING CITY ONTARIO LOG 1 KO -"..-'- september 5th, 1989 :e. C.. .. ~ \; t: t... ~ .,. ~ wI~ Metro Toronto & Region ' ~ .,~e~ Conservation Authority '~~ ~ . 5 Shoreham Drive ~ \~ C.~. North York, ontario M3N lS4 tJ\.\..\oa Dear Sirs: RE: Cold Creek Conservation Area Rifle and Trap Shooting Rang e please find enclosed a copy of a letter from Mr. D. J. Caple dated August 8th, 19 89. The letter was received and reviewed by the Council of the Township of King at its regular meeting on Aug ust l4th, 1989. please be advised that the Council of the Township of King supports Mr. Caple's concerns regarding the Cold Creek Conservation Area Rifle and Trap Shooting Range. Yours truly C. H. Duncan, A.M.C.T. Clerk CHD/ cs c.c. Mr. D. J. Caple -- General Manager/Secretary-Treasurer, MT_~ C}<./67 RECEI'/EO C\E P .. 1389 , M.T.R.C.A. 89-03759-MIN SEP 5 1. The Honourable Charles Beer Minister of Community and Social Services 6th Floor Hepburn Block Toronto, ontario M7A lE9 Dear Charles: Thank you for your letter of July 25, 1989 regarding the existence of the rifle range at the Cold Creek Conservation Area which was sent to my predecessor Mr. vincent G. Kerrio. It is certainly of interest to note that the Ontario Provincial Police has established an ultra-modern firing range at its Oak Ridges detachment. Creation of such a facility will undoubtedly reduce the demand which that particular group has had for alternative facilities. The Cold Creek rifle range remains, however, the only large public facility of its type in the entire Metro Toronto area. Although some reduction in use by law enforcement agencies may be experienced because of the development of a range at Oak Ridges, there are a host of other user groups who depend solely on the continued existence of the Cold Creek range and who lack the substantial financial resources to develop their own facitlities like those of the Oak Ridges O.P.P. The future of the rifle range at the Cold Creek Conservation Area is not a matter over which the Provincial Government has any direct control. Conservation Authorities are legislated to be autonomous corporate bodies which are fully responsible for the operation and maintenance of their own lands. . . .2 C t<. 1$<S Page 2 The Honourable Charles Beer The continuance of the range at Cold Creek is, therefore, a matter which must ultimately be resolved by the six member municipalities of the Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority who have control and responsibility for such facilities. Yours truly, ORIGINAL SIGNED BY MINISTER Lyn McLeod Minister bcc: qeneral Man~~~LS~~~ta~Treasurer, MTRCA/ Cf< . f61 Longacres Farm, R.R.#3, Schomberg, Ontario. LOG 1 TO September 8, 1989 The Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority,1it 5 Shor~ham Drive~ ECEIVE DownsvIew, OntarIo. D M3N IS4 SEP 12 1989 ~Attention Mr. J. D. Agnew, Director, -/ 1='00 Field Operations Division. .M.T.R.C.A: Dear Mr. Agnew, This will acknowledge receipt of your letter dated 1989.09.01 with respect to the further shooting noise tests to be carried out by Barman Swallow Associates in the next few weeks. My only comment regarding the proposed test program is to request the addi tion of a measuring location at the btmgalow on our south ooundary as discussed with you on the telephone this morning by Gordon Fogg. However, I would also like to express my concern over the first paragraph of the "Overview and Background" contained in the Tenus of Reference. There are two implications with which I would take issue. The first is the unqualified reference to the ranges having been in operation for over twenty years. Surely it should be pointed out that the activity started on a very small scale with subsequent expansion and aggressive promotion in the past few years leading to the present situation. Your statement gives the impression that the ranges have been at their present size and activity level for over twenty years, which would be quite incorrect. The second point is the reference to two residents complaining in September 1985. Whilst it is true that two residents made formal complaints at that time, previous complaints by other residents made to the Area superintendents had been ignored. It is also relevant that other residents have complained since September 1985 and 38 households submitted petitions in 1987. Your statement gives the impression that only two residents have complained. C.R.~o If your overview is to be contained in the next Bannan Swallow Associates report or is otherwise to become part of the material provided to those who will be making decisions on the question of the shooting noise, then I must ask that the above points be taken into accO\.mt. Yours sincerely, ~- Do' J. Caple 1 c;R.~t THE METROPOLITAN TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY METROPOLITAN TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AREAS 1990 FEE SCHEDULE Approved at AUTHORITY MEETING #8/89 December 8, 1989 . CR~ METROPOLITAN TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AREAS PROPOSED 1990 FEE SCHEDULE IN THIS SCHEDULE "Season" refers to Program Operation periods as detailed in various program schedules and promotional literature. "Car" means a vehicle designed to carry up to 10 passengers and includes a motorcycle or van. "Bus" means a vehicle de~igned to carry more than 10 passengers and includes tour or mini buses. "Group" refers to a minimum of 20 persons who are attending facilities. programs or events. If less than 20 persons attend a minimum charge equal to that for 20 persons will apply. The following fees shall be paid to the Authority for permits issued by the Authority and for the occupation and use of the lands and works. vehicles, boats, recreational facilit~es and services of the Authority. , Proposed 1988 1989 1990 1. For car parking in the Boyd. Claireville. Greenwood. Heart Lake and Petticoat Creek Conservation Areas. (i) weekends and holidays. per day... 4.50 4.50 5.00 (See Discounts 2.3. 4 and 5 for off-season rates) (ii) weekday. excluding holidays. pe r day.......................... 2.75 2.75 3.00 2. (a) For car parking in the Albion Hills and Bruce's Mill Conservation Areas during the summer season. (i) weekends and holidays. per day... 4.50 4.50 5.50 (See Discounts 2.3.4 and 5 for off-season rates) (ii) weekdays. excluding holidays, per day.......................... 2.75 2.75 3.25 (b) For admission to the Albion Hills and Bruce's Mill C.A.'s. during the winter season. for activities. other than cross-country skiing and at Bruce's Mill during the Maple Syrup Program. (i) for each person over fifteen years of age, per day................. -- -- 2.00 (ii) for each person five to fifteen years of age. per day............ -- -- LOa ( iii) for each person under five years of age accompanying their family.. -- -- Free 3. For an annual car parking permit for all Conservation Areas. excluding use of groomed cross country ski trails. ( i) for persons under 65 years of age. per year......................... 45.00 45.00 50.00 ( iU for persons 65 years of age and over, per year................... 25.00 25.00 28.00 includes access for occupants of one car to Kortright Centre for Conservation. UNDERLINE - Change/additional wording [BRACKETS) - Delete wording August 29. 1989 - OR.q 3 - 2 - Proposed 1988 1989 1990 4. For admission to all Conservation Areas, except Black Creek Pioneer Village and Kortright Centre for , Conservation. for passengers on a bus. $1.00 per person. per day to a maximum of......................... 30.00 30.00 40.00 5. (a) At the Glen Haffy Forest and Wildlife Area. for car parking. (i) weekends and holidays. per day. 4.50 4.50 5.00 (See Discounts 2. 3. 4 and 5 for off-season rates) (ii) weekdays. excluding holidays. per day........................ 2.75 2.75 3.00 (b) For fishing in the public ponds. (i) tor each person over fifteen years of age. per day......... Free Free 1.00 (ii ) for each person fifteen years of age or under............... Free Free Free (c) For a permit at Glen Haffy Extension. for the use of each fishing pond. including ~ parking and including the use of boats. per day............ ( i) weekends and holidays.......... 175.00 175.00 200.00 (ii) weekdays. excluding holidays... 105.00 105.00 120.00 (d) For the use of the cabin. when used in conjunction with a permit issued under clause (c), per day................... 75.00 75.00 75.00 6. For the use of the Heart Lake Recreation )$350 for Building, the Cold Creek Trap Building. )up to the Albion Bills Chalet. the Bruce's )4 hours Hill Beach Centre or Ski Chalet. with a ) including minimum fee of $50.00. plus parking fees )parking. or admission fees. per hour............... 25.00 25.00) building. )rent and 7. For the use of the Cold Creek Conservation )late Field Centre meeting room with a minimum ) permit rental fee of $70.00, including the use of )$100 ea. kitchen facilities, plus admission fees. additional per hour................................... 35.00 35.00) hour 8. For the rental of a row boat including life jackets and oars. in a Conservation Area. except Glen Haffy Extension. including Provincial Retail Sales Tax. (a) per hour.....3.70 + 0.30 PST........ 4.00 4.00 4.00 (b) per 1/2 day (4 hours)..13.98 + 1.12 PST. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15.00 15.00 15.00 9. For a permit authorizing a special event after sunset and up to midnight. not including parking or admission. in any Conservation Area, except Black Creek..... 50.00 50.00 50.00 UNDERLINE - Change/additional wording (BRACKETS) - Delete wording August 29. 1989 - CR q~ - 3 - Proposed 1988 1989 1990 10. Il) For a permit to occupy a specially designated group overnight campsite. including parking. for up to seven nights, la) for a group of no more than twenty persons. per night........ 25.00 25.00 25 00 Ibl for each person in addition to the twenty persons for whom a fee is paid under clause (a). per night. .75 .75 ~ 121 For a permit to occupy a group day campsite, including parking. per person. pe r da y. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .75 .75 1.00 11. For a permit to occupy an individual unserviced campsite (al at Albion Hills Conservation Area, per night..................... 10.00 10.00 11.00 Ib) at the Indian Line Tourist Campground per night........................... 11 .00 12.00 12.00 (c) at Albion Hill Conservation Area, per season.................... 450.00 450.00 650.00 12. For a permit to occupy an individual campsite serviced with hydro and water hookups at the Indian Line Tourist Campground. (a) per night........................... 14.00 15.00 15.00 ( b) per season.......................... 1300.00 1400.00 1500.00 13. For a group picnic permit. except at the Black Creek Pioneer Village and the Kortriqht Centre for Conservation. not including car or bus parking. la) for a group of not more than 100 persons. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20.00 20.00 25.00 (b) for each fifty persons or fewer persons in addition to the 100 persons for whom a fee is paid under clause (a).... .. . .. . . .. .. . . . .. 10.00 10.00 10.00 Icl for the use of a shelter. when available. in addition to any other fee. paid under this item. per day.. 40.00 40.00 50.00 (d) for a fire in a ground fire pit designated for that purpose. i~ addition to any other fee paid under this item. per day................. 15.00 15.00 25.00 Ie) use of a portable barbeque unit or corn pot. when available. including Provincfal Sales Tax in addition to any other fee paid under this item. per day..37.04 + 2.96 PST......... 40.00 40.00 40.00 14. For use of the Petticoat Creek swimming area. lal Ii) per person. weekdays excluding holidays. per day............... .75 .75 1.00 Iii) per person. weekends and holidays per day .. ...... ................ 1.00 1.00 1.25 Ibl for a book of ten tickets........... 6.50 7.00 9 00 UNDERLINE - Change/additional wording [BRACKET] - Delete wording August 29. 1989 , " ~(<,5" - 4 - Proposed 1988 1989 1990 15. For commercial photography or filming in . any Conservation Area, except for Black Creek Pioneer Village. for the use of grounds and environs including supervision. (a) During normal Area operating hours. minimum per hour.................... -- 50.00 50 00 (b) Outside normal Area operating hours minimum per hour.................... -- 75.00 75.00 (A) for the use of the grounds and environs. excluding staff and equipment, minimum per hour..... 50.00) Deleted (B) for participation by staff of the Authority (i) during the usual working hours of the staff member. per person. per hour...... 30.00) Replaced (H) after the usual working hours of the staff member. per person per hour........... 50.00) (C) for use of Authority vehicles or tractors. including Authority staff with to with operate such vehicles or tractors. (i) during the usual working hours of the staff member, per vehicle. per hour..... 50.00) above (H) after the usual working hours of the staff member. per vehicle. per hour......... 75.00) 16. For admission to Cold Creek Conservation Area per person. per day (i) for individuals over fifteen years of age.............................. 1.50 1. 75 2.00 (H) for individuals from five to fifteen years of age........................ .50 .75 1.00 (iH) for individuals under five years of age accompanying their family....... --- ---- Free 17. For the use of rifle range at the Cold Creek Conservation Area. (a) for a daily permit. including Area admission. per person. maximum 2 hours............................. 6.00 7.00 8.00 (b) for a group permit. not including weekends or holidays. per season. plus Range fees..................... 75.00 75.00 75.00 (c) for a special group event permit. plus Range fees..................... 30.00 30.00 30.00 UNDERLINE - Change/additional wording [BRACKET) - Delete wording August 29. 1989 , Cf( q' - 5 - Proposed 1988 1898 1990 18. For the use of archery range at the Cold Creek Conservation Area. (al for a daily permit, per person. including Area admission............ 3.00 3.00 4.00 (bl for a group permit. not including weekends or holidays. per season. plus Range fees..................... 70.00 70.00 70.00 (cl for a special event permit. plus Range fees.......................... 25.00 25.00 25 00 19. For a special event permit for the use of the manual or an electric trap range at the Cold Creek Conservation Area, per event, plus Range fees... .............. 100.00 100.00 100.00 20. For use of the Shotgun Pattern Board at Cold Creek Conservation ~rea, including Area admission. per person. per hour.... 3.00 3.00 4.00 21. For the use of an electric trap at the Cold Creek Conservation Area, including Area admission. (al per round of 25 birds (including PST) 3.93 + 0.32 PST................ 4.25 4.75 4.75 (b) a group permit. per season. plus Range fees.......................... 165.00 175.00 175.00 -22. For the use of a manual trap at the Cold Creek Conservation Area for use by up to five persons. (al on weekends and holidays [in the summer season) maximum of one hour. and on weekdays. other than holidays. no maximum. including Area admission... 9.00 10.00 10.00 (bl on weekdays, other than holidays. no maximum. in the summer season and on any day during the winter season. included including Area admission............ 9.00 10.00 in (a) 23. For dog trials at the Cold Creek Conservation Area. (al for a group permit. per season...... 70.00 75.00 75.00 (bl for a special event permit.......... 25.00 30.00 30.00 24. For the rental of cross-country ski equipment. when available. consisting of skis. boots and poles. (al for individuals over fifteen years of age. plus Provincial Retail Sales Tax. per day. (i) up to and including 1 00 p.m.... 10.00 10.00 10 00 (iil after 1 00 p.m.................. 6.50 6.50 6.50 (bl for individuals fifteen years of age or under. plus Provincial Retail Sales Tax. per day. (i) up to and including 1 00 p.m.... 7.50 7.50 7.50 (iil after 1 00 p.m............... . . 5.50 5 50 5.50 UNDERLINE - change/additional wording [BRACKET) - Delete wording August 29. 1989 . ,- CR .97 - 6 - Proposed 1988 1989 lliQ. 25 For each individual in a group, Wl.th a reservation, for cross-country skil.ng l.nstruction, including the use of cross- country ski equipment and skl. trails, per day . . ....... . . . . . . . . 7 50 7 50 7 50 26 For the use of cross-country ski tral.ls at Albion Hills, Bruce's Mill and Palgrave including car parking. and Kortright Centre for Conservation, including entrance fee, for an indl.vl.dual equl.pped with cross-country ski equipment, per day, (a) for each person over fifteen years of age ... . . . . ... . . .. . 4.50 5.00 5 00 (b) for each person fifteen years of age or under... ..... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 (c) for a family consl.sting of one or two adults and thel.r children who are fl.fteen years of age or under 10 00 12 00 12 00 27 For a season pass for the use of cross- country ski trails at Albion Hills, Bruce's Mill Conservation Areas and Palgrave Forest and Wildlife Area, includl.ng car parking, and at Kortright Centre for Conservatl.on, l.ncludl.ng entrance fee, (a) for each person over fifteen years of age.... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 00 30 00 30 00 (b) for each person fifteen years of age and under . . . . . . ...... . . . 6.00 6.00 6 00 28. For group cross-country skiing instruction, other than a group with a reservation, not including trail fees, for a 1 hour lesson, per person . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..... . 6 50 6 50 6 50 29. For l.ndividual 1 hour lessons for cross- country skiing. when available. per person. ............... ... . . . 12.00 12 00 12 00 30. For each individual in a qroup, with a reservation, for orienteerinq instruction, including equipment and activity kit, per dav.................................. --- --- 6.50 UNDERLINE - Change/additional wording [BRACKET] - Delete wording December 7, 1989 , CR.q9 - 7 - , Proposed 1988 1989 1990 31.(1) For entrance to the Black Creek Pioneer village from the day the buildings open in March to the day the buildings close in January. per day. (a) for each person over fifteen years of age who is not a student......... . . 4.50 5.00 5.50 (b) for each person from five to fifteen years of age [or under] or each student with a student card................. 2.25 2.50 2.50 (c) for each person who is sixty-five years of age or over............. . . . . . . . . 2.25 3.00 3.50 (d) for each person under five years of age accompanying their family..~........ Free Free Free (e) for each person under five years of age in an organized group including supervisors. per person............. 1.25 1.50 1. 75 ( 2) For an annual citizenship for entrance to the Black Creek Pioneer Village. (a) for a family consisting of one or two adults and their children who are fifteen years of age or under or who are students with a student card. . . 35.00 40.00 40.00 (b) for an individual................... 20.00 25.00 25.00 (c) for each person who is 65 years of age or over......................... 15.00 20.00 20.00 per couple.......................... 25.00 30.00 30.00 ( 3) For entrance to the Black Creek Pioneer Village from the day after the buildings close in January to the day before the buildings open in March. per day. (a) for each person over fifteen years of age.............................. 1.00 1.00 1.00 (b) for each person five to fifteen years of age [or under]............ ...... .50 .50 .50 32. For a horse-drawn sleigh ride at the Black Creek Pioneer Village. (a) for each person on an individual basis. during open hours. per ride......... .75 .75 .75 (b) for a reserved group during open hours, per hour................... . . . . . . . 60.00 70.00 80.00 (c) for a reserved group. from 7 15 p.m. to 8 15 P . m. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110.00 125.00 150.00 UNDERLINE - Change/additional wording [BRACKET] - Delete wording August 29. 1989 \ C ~'9<1 - 8 - Proposed 1988 1989 1990 33. For the rental of buildings and equipment at Black Creek Pioneer Village, (a) for the use of anyone location for a wedding, including rehearsal........ 200.00 250.00 250.00 (b) for the use of a horse and vehicle for a wedding........................... 125.00 150.00 150.00 (c) security costs during the use of the Deleted. Included Half-Way House Dining Room. the in FooQ Services Canada West Room or a Village Facility Charge. Building. . ... . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . .. . . . . . 110.00 (d) for the use of all facilities. including necessary staff. per hour. commencing not later than 1/2 hour after normal closing time. (i) up to 500 persons. minimum 1 hour................... ..1000.00/hr 1000.00/hr 1000.00/hr (ii) 501 persons up to 1.000. minimum 1.5 hours...........2000.00/hr 2000.00/hr 2000.00/hr (iii) over 1.000 persons. minimum 2 hours....................2000.00/hr 2000.00/hr 2000.00/hr 34. For the purposes of commercial photography or filming in that part of the Black Creek Conservation Area known as Black Creek Pioneer Village. (a) for the use of the grounds and environs. (i) from 8 30 a.m. until midnight, including supervision. pe r hour....................... 60.00 75.00 75.00 (ii) from midnight until 8 30 a.m.. including supervision. per hour 125.00 150.00 150.00 (b) for the use of the interior of the buildings. (i) from 8:30 a.m. until midnight. per hour. including supervision 90.00 100.00 100 00 (ii) from midnight until 8:30 a.m.. per hour. including supervision 125.00 150.00 150.00 35. For school visitations at Black Creek Pioneer Village. (a) for conducted tours. Monday to Sept. Sept. Sept. Friday, per student. per tour....... 3.00 3.25 ~ (b) for the Christma8 tour. per student Nov. Nov. Nov. pe r tour............................ 4.00 4.20 ~ (c) (i) for the Many Hands Program. per Sept. Sept. Sept. student. per tour............... 4.75 5.50 ~ (ii) for the Tour and Touch Program. Sept. Sept. Sept. per student. per tour.......... 4.00 4.75 ~ (d) for the Dickson Hill School Program. per student, per day minimum qroup Jan. Jan. Jan. size 20.............................. 2.75 3.00 ~ UNDERLINE - Change/additional wording (BRACKET] - Delete wording August 29. 1989 \ CR. 100 - 9 - Proposed 1988 1989 1990 36. For entrance to the Kortr~ght Centre for Conservation, (a) (i) for each person over fifteen years of age who is not a student. weekdays except holidays and special program periods. per day.................. 2.75 3.00 3.25 (H) for each person over fifteen years of age who is not a student. weekends. holidays and special program periods. per day.......... 3.00 3.25 3.50 (b) for each person fifteen years of age or under. or each student with a student card. pe r day........................ 1.25 1.50 1. 75 (c) for each person fifteen years of age or under or student who is part of a group of twenty persons or more. per Sept. Sept. Sept. person. per half day of program..... 2.00 2.25 ...b2Q (d) for an annual membership. expiring 12 months from date of issue. including access for occupants of 1 car to Conservation Areas. ( i) for a family consisting of one or two adults and their children who are fifteen years of age or under and who are students with a student card. per annum........... 45.00 47.00 49.00 (H) for an individual. per annum....... 30.00 33.00 35.00 (Hi) for each person who is 65 years of age or over........................ 25.00 27.00 30.00 per couple......................... 35.00 37.00 40.00 (e) for special programs for students..... 2.75 2.90 3.10 (f) for each person who is sixty-five years of age or over................... 1.50 1.50 1. 75 (g) (i) for each person under five years of age accompanying their family...... Free Free Free ( HI for each person under five years of age in an organized group including supervisors. per person............ 1.25 1 25 1. 50 37. For a group. with a reservation. for the Maple Syrup Proqram at Bruce's Mill Conservation Area. per person............. 1.50 1. 75 2.00 UNDERLINE - Change/additional wording [BRACKET] - Delete wording August 29, 1989 c-R 101 - 10 - Proposed 1988 1989 1990 38. For the use of Cold Creek Conservation Field Centre. (a) for a day program for students. per person, per day................. 7.50 7.75 8.25 (b) for overnight camping for a minimum of ten persons to a maximum of thirty persons. including tents. tarps and washroom access. per person per night. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.25 3.25 3.50 (c) for the rental of a winter sleeping bag, per night....... .............. 2.00 2.25 2.50 (d) range program for students of grade 7 level or higher, per person, per day. 8.00 8.00 8 00 39. For the Albion Hills Conservation Area Farm Program. (a) for a Farm Tour lasting approximately two hours. for intermediate. senior or college level students. with a minimum charge of $60.00 per tour and a maximum group size of forty persons. per person. per tour....... 2.75 3.00 3.00 39. (b) for a Farm Tour lasting approximately two hours. for primary or junior students with a minimum charge of $35.00 per tour and a maximum group size of forty persons. per person. per tour............................ 1.50 1.50 1. 75 UNDERLINE - Change/additional wording [BRACKET) - Delete wording August 29, 1989 - C R 102. - 11 - DISCOONTS The following discounts will apply to the above Fee Schedule (1) At Black Creek Pioneer Village and Kortright Centre for Conservation. adult. senior. youth and tour groups (20 persons minimum) (except school programs) 20% off the regular admission price. At Black Creek Pioneer Village and Kortright Centre for Conservation add ~ per person for a guided tour (Ratio 1 Guide/20). ( 2) At Boyd, Claireville. Greenwood and Heart Lake Conservation Areas, during winter activities (mid-December to mid-March). weekend parking charges of $3.00 per car to apply. (3) At Albion Hills, Boyd. Claireville. Greenwood and Petticoat Creek Conservation Areas. from the opening of trout season to Friday preceding Victoria Day weekend. weekend car parking $3.00 per car. (4) At all Conservation Areas. except Cold Creek. from the Tuesday after Labour Day to Thanksgiving Day. weekend parking $3.00 per car. (5 ) At all Conservation Areas. except Cold Creek and Bruce's Mill during Maple Syrup Program from the end of winter activities to the opening of trout season and the Tuesday following Thanksgiving Day to commencement of winter activities. parking fees will not be collected. (6) Social. welfare and other benevolent groups. designated special promotions at Black Creek Pioneer Village and Kortright Centre for Conservation. half price on regular admission charges and at Conservation Areas, half price on daily parking pass. (Advance approval of Director/Program Manager. Field Operations or Administrator. Black Creek Pioneer Village required.) (7) At Albion Hills and Bruce's Mill Conservation Areas for use of the cross-country ski tra~ls by an organized group with a minimum group size of twenty (20) persons. adults - $4.00 per person. children - $1.00 per person. (8 ) As a special promotion. each person 65 years of age or over admitted free on designated days. Group tours excepted unless savings passed on to visitors. UNDERLINE - Change/additional wording (BRACKET) - Delete wording August 29. 1989 - CR. 103 TBB METROPOLITAN TORORTO AND REGION CONSBRVATION AUTHORITY CONSBRVATION AREA DBVBLOPMERT PROJBCT PLARRING AND DBVBLOPMERT PROJBCTS FOR 1990 Conservation and Related Land Management Advisory Board Meeting 15/89 November 10, 1989 1 "- PLANNING AND DEVBLOPDIf'l' PROJECTS FOR 1990 C i. '04- l. STANDARDS FOR INTBR-REGIONAL SCALI TRAILS The development af trails through the major river valleys, the waterfront and the Oak Ridges Moraine has been identified as the single most important recreation activity of interest to watershed residents. Adequate standards do not exist for design, construction and nature interpretation on trails. The Conservation Authority needs such standards if environmentally safe trails are to be built in the future. In addition, negotiations with watershed municipalities on trail standards will ensure that trail networks between municipalities and the Conservation Authority offer the community the same high level of public and environmental safety. The estimated cost of the study is $45,000. 2. BOYD WATBR PLAY COHPLBZ Swimming was removed from the Boyd Conservation Area in the early 1980' s for health and safety reasons. The re-establishment of outdoor swimming away from the river will provide a safe and quality outdoor swimming experience for the general public. The project involves the construction of a replacement swimming facility including a new entrance road, water, hydro and sanitary services, water complex and support buildings. Total cost of the projects is estimated at $3,600,000 based on 1989 dollar values. The estimated 1990 expenditure is $1,800,000. 3. HBART LAD SWIHIIIlfG STUDY Swimming facility improvements are urgently required at Heart Lake. The unique flow characteristics of the lake; the rapid drop off in the lake bottom, and the ongoing turbidity problem prevent a simple solution to the problem. Staff time and consultant time will be required to identity technically feasible options, select an alternative and provide a budget estimate. An estimate ot $15,000 has been provided for the study. 4. ItORTRIGII'J' CO_ClIPI' l'Lalf The draft plan for the Kortright Centre for Conservation was developed in 1985. Funding for the implementation was not available and few of the proposed feature improvements have been implemented. The recent interest of the Conservation Foundation in supporting major improvements to the Centre have encouraged a re-examination of the original draft concept plan. . . .2/ - ~.IOS' Page 2 Recent trends in the provision of indoor and outdoor displays will be incorporated into the revised plan. The Plan will be used to support fund raising campaigns by the Foundation. The cost estimate for the study is $45,000. 5. CLAIREVILLB BHTRANCB IMPROVBXBHTS The new entrance to Claireville Conservation Area off Highway #50 was partially completed in 1987. Funding constraints prevented the completion of adequate landscaping improvements. Tree and shrub planting along with a new entrance sign and minor road improvements will make up the project. A budget of $20,000 has been identified. 6. GREENWOOD LAHDSCAPIIIG IMPROVEXBHTS The purpose of the landscape and minor grading work is to improve the existing entrance area and an existing bypass pond in the river valley. Both improvements are part of a program ot upgrading the calibre and utility of facilities at Greenwood Conservation Area. A budget of $20,000 has been identified. PINANCIAL SUMMARY costs: l. Trail Standards Study $45,000 2. Boyd Water Play Complex $1,800,000 3. Heart Lake Swimminq Study $l5,000 4. Kortriqht Concept Plan $45,000 5. Claireville Entrance $20,000 6. Greenwood Landscape $20,000 ------- Total $1,945,000 COST APPORTIO~ Levy Apportionment is as follows: Provinc. of Ontario sot $440,000 Municipal Levy 50t $440,000 -------- Total $880,000 Other revenue sources will provide: $1:,065,000 ==_____a_ Grand Total Sl.945.000 . . .3/ I , eR./Ob Page 3 , , Municipal contributions are divided as follows: MuniciDalitv Amount in 1990 Adjala $30 Durham $lO,ll9 Metropolitan Toronto $298,72l Mono $27 Peel $5l,033 York $64,232 -------- Total $424,162 Levy subsidy as per ag~eement $15,838 -------- -------- Grand Total $440.000 ADMIN./90Sum Oct. 3l , 1989 CR. 107 THE METROPOLITAN TORORTO AND REGIOR CORSBRVATIOR AUTHORITY BBBRBIBR RESOURCB IlAllAGBMBR'l' TRACT BQUBSTRIAN PARK PROPOSAL 'l'BCBBICAL, DBSIGR ARD FIRARCIAL REVIEW DftAILBD PROPOSAL REQUIRBJIBIft'S Conservation and Related Land Management Advisory Board Meeting '5/89 November 10, 1989 CLAIREVILLE EOOESTRIAN PARK PROPOSA~ CR. IO~ TECHNICAL. DESIGN. AND PINANCIA~ REVIEW DETAILED PROPOSAL REOOIREMENTS PurDose The purpose of the review is to clearly identify the feasibility and quality of the facility design, including the environmental and financial implications of a Horse Park development at the Ebenezer Tract in the Claireville Conservation Area. Detailed ProDosal Reauirements l. Identify the organization(s) actively participating in the development and management of proposed facilities including: - the experience that each participant brings to the organization, - the reporting relationships within the organization (organization chart and responsibilities), and, - financial capabilities' commitments from each participant. 2. The right of the public to enter with unrestricted use of portions of the property must clearly be identified as part of the proposal (e.g. trails, table land and valley access). 3. Based on the preliminary proposal submitted to the Conservation and Related Land Management Advisory Board meeting .4/89 on September 20, 1989, identify the key facilities and activities required for the development of an inter-regional scale park for equestrian use. Such uses to include, but not be limited to, an arena, riding trails, stabling and the necessary support facilities. 4. Review the site characteristics, specifically the constraints and/or opportunities resulting from topography, vegetation, soils, utilities, the availability of ground/river/municipal water, existing and proposed uses, access and exposure. ...2/ 1 , CR.1Dq CLAIREVILLE EQUESTRIAN PARK PROPOSAL TECHNICAL, DESIGN, AND FINANCIAL REVIEW DETAILED PROPOSAL REQUIREMENTS Page 2 . 5. Prepare a Conceptual layout of all facilities and activity areas with the following issues identified: a) Prepare trail and other transportation routing plans identifyinq how each fits within the landscapes capabilities for public use, b) Identify how the buildings, activity areas, playing fields and trails complement the physical settinq of fields, forests and river valleys, c) Indicate the tarqet market in horse users in each facility and identify the number of complementary horse park users that can be accommodated ( in terms of shared facilities and/or program activities), d) Identify the deqree of public use and exposure to each facility, activity or program venue in the park (e.q. traininq opportunities, frequency of audience exposure to each type of event, public use opportunities) and identify the location of existinq equestrian facilities (Claireville Ranch). e) Prepare a traffic analysis report for the proposal identifyinq the impact of the facility and programs on surroundinq community roads. 6. All proposed improvements to the property will be sensitive to the environment and be required to conform to all policies, requlations and quidelines of the Authority. 7. Identify all sources of funding for development including government grants, corporate sponsorships, private investment and public sUbscriptions. Indicate any links between horse park board appointments and donors. 8. Estimate development and operation costs alonq with revenue potential for all facilities and activities as part of a 20 year pro forma for the Horse Park. Include the estimated qross revenue and the percentage of qross revenue to be paid to the Conservation Authority on an annual basis. J , CR. , '0 THE METROPOLITAN TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY OAK RIDGES MORAINE WORKING GROUP REPORT OF MEETINGS 11 and 12 Conservation and Related Land Management Advisory Board Meeting i5/89 November 10, 1989 \ , CR. "J RBPOR'l' OP MBB'l'IRG 11/89 OP 'l'BB OAK RIDGES MORAIRB WORKING GROUP July 27, 1989 Meeting 11/89 of the Oak Ridges Moraine Working Group was held in the Humber Room at the Authority Head Office, 5 Shoreham Drive, Downsview. The Chairman called the meeting to order at 4 00 p.m. PRBSBR'l' Chairman William Granger Authority members Margaret Britnell Don Jackson Al Ruggero Citizen representatives George Bourchier Richard Carleton Authority staff Alyson Deans David Dyce Ena Mellor ABSBIft' Citizen representatives Brian Buckles Jim Cameron The Chairman opened the meeting that by stating that this is an advisory group which will report its findings and recommendations to the Conservation and Related Land Management Advisory Board. Two main questions Where are we going? What are we going to advise? Staff outlined MTRCA present involvement in the planning process, land acquisition and stewardship POLICIBS IT WAS AGREED THAT all adjoining conservation authorities should be kept advised of our initiatives and that we should enlist their co-operation in policies relating to those parts of the Moraine in their jurisdictions. 'l'RBB-CUftIRG PROGRAII IT WAS REQUESTED THAT staff provide copies of Section 40 of the Planning Act for the next meeting. This relates to tree-cutting program and should be included in all Official Plans. SIMILARI'fY 'l'O RIAGARA BSCARPIIBIft' IT WAS REQUESTED THAT staff prepare a report on the Niagara Escarpment Plan and how it has affected land values and land use policy, so that this Group may have some background material on hand when discussing the Moraine. OIft'AllIO BBBI'l'AGB POOIIDA'l'IOR Re land acquisitions. The Authority is studying this now. Possibly we can look at land-owner agreements. The Ontario Heritage Foundation could be invited to a future meeting of this Group. GRAVEL PI'l'S Staff will provide a copy of MNR policy on aggregates. Mrs. Britnell requested copies of the 1986 Watershed Plan and the 1982 E.S.A. Study and copy of staff correspondence to the Township of King regarding the Rural Area Policy Review. The 4:00 p.m. meeting was agreed to by all present. The next meeting will be held in September. The meeting adjourned at 5.35 p.m. CA.)I~ REPORT OP MEETING 12/89 OP THE OAK RIDGES MORAINE WOIUtING GROUP October 5, 1989 Meeting '2/89 of the Oak Ridges Moraine working Group was held in the Humber Room at the Authority Head Office, 5 Shoreham Drive, Downsview, on Thursday, October 5, 1989. The Chairman called the meeting to order at 4 00 p.m. PRESENT Chairman William Granger Authority members Margaret Britnell Al Ruggero Citizen representatives Brian Buckles Jim Cameron Richard Carleton Dorothy Izzard Authority staff Alyson Deans Ena Mellor ABSEIIft' Authority member Don Jackson REPO~ OP MBBTIRG '1/89 Moved by: Al Ruggero Seconded by Richard Carleton THAT Report of Meeting '1/89 be approved. CARRIED Discussion ensued on the following items provided by staff to members of the working Group: . Managed Forest Tax Rebate Program Guidelines . Conservation Land Tax R~duction Program Guidelines . provincial Policy Statement Mineral Aggregate Resources . Section 40 - The Planning Act . The Trees Act . Recent comments regarding the Niagara Escarpment Area . Correspondence on the Ministry of the Environment's .Public Meeting and Request for Comments on Environmental Planning and Approvals for Development in the Ganaraska Watershed.. Mrs. Dorothy Izzard read press release from formation of new group, S.T.O.R.M., Save The Oak Ridges Moraine, copy attached. Mrs. Alyson Deans gave an update on the status of matters of interest to the Group, as follows: . Greenspace - in the Authority's 1990 Preliminary Estimates, specific monies have been identified as relating to the Greenspace strategy. . Rouge River Management Strategy, in draft form, is being circulated to municipalities. . Duffin Watershed Study is provided for in the 1990 Budget. . The Authority now has a draft Diagnostic Study of The Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Foundation fund raising capabilities. I , " CR." '3 - 2 - IT WAS AGREBD THAT the following items will be made available for the next meeting of the Group 1. Information on the Puslinch Hearing - gravel extraction affecting the water supply. Richard Carleton will obtain. 2. Margaret Britnell will provide information regarding the effect of a golf course on local water supply. 3. Staff will provide (a) Copy of new Trees Act from Ministry of Natural Resources (b) ANSI mapping from Ministry of Natural Resources. (c) Information on who at MOE was responsible for the public meeting on the Ganaraska Watershed, and is it being followed up by MOE. (d) Plan Review - sample of the Authority's comments on development plans in the Moraine under our present criteria. (e) Draft criteria for the future review of development proposals in the Moraine. 4. All members will bring ideas for private land stewardship. IT WAS AGREBD Ian DesLauriers will be invited to the next meeting of the Working Group to the speak on the Regional Trail System. IT WAS AGREBD reports of meeting 11 and 12 of the Oak Ridges Moraine Working Group will be sent to the Conservation and Related Land Management Advisory Board for information. RBXT J1BBTIHG - 'l'IItJRSDAY, HOVEMBBR 23, 1989 AT 4100 P .11. em 1989.10.06 . , , CR · II 4- PRESS RELEASE Invited representatives o-f citizen action groups and of specific areas frOTl across 5OJ.th-central Ontar i 0 met on October 3 to disCU5s a COlTYTlOn conce~-n: - the urgent need -for p~-otective legislation to preserve the Oak Ridges t1clt"aine. The meeting unanimously decIded to proceed with the fOt-mation of a coalition of goups along the Moraine and in the valleys of its watershed. This organization wi 11 be k f'"O;Jn as STORM (Save The Oak Ridges I"braine). An interim organising cc:mni ttee wi 11 fonn.J.late the structure o-f this umbrella group prior to the next meeting. The initiative for this meet i ng came -fron the Oak Ridges I"braine Ccmni ttee of the Concerned Ci ti zens of King Township and was met by strong support -fron a 11 those groups or persons contacted. Submitted by Dorothy Izzard RR2 King City LCG 1 KO 833 5816 GR . liS THE METROPOLITAN TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY COLD CREEK CONSERVATION AREA SHOOTING RANGES Conservation and Related Land Management Advisory Board Meeting 116/89 February 16, 1990 1 CR lib Introduction At Authority meeting #3/89, Resolutions #79 and #80 d~rected staff to report back to the Conservation Land Management Adv~sory Board, after the end of January 1990 regarding operation of the Cold Creek shoot~ng ranges and to include ~n that report the "number of people benef~ting, extent of compla~nts and projected increase in costs to maintain the operat~on at the Cold Creek Conservat~on Area" The staff was also asked to investigate alternative sites for the ranges The following report ~ncludes this ~nformation and provides an analys~s of alternatives for the future of range operat~ons at the Area Backqround The Cold Creek Conservation Area was or~g~nally established as part of the Metro Conservation Authority's system of regional recreational fac~lit~es, based on its mandate "to use lands owned or controlled by the Authority for park or other recreation purposes lias set out in sect~on 21 (m) of The Conservation Author~t~es Act The M~ssion Statement of the Metropol~tan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority states that the Author~ty " acts ~n the community's interest through advocating and implementing watershed management programs that enhance the quality and var~ety of l~fe ~n the commun~ty by using its lands for inter-reg~onal outdoor recreation " It ~s ~n the fulfilment of th~s part of its m~ss~on that the Authority has cont~nued to operate Cold Creek Conservation Area Early Development The property known as the Cold Creek Conservation Area was purchased ~n several parcels, by the Authority, start~ng in the early 1950's Development plans for the Area were prepared ~n response to a need for outdoor fac~lities ~dent~fied by the Toronto Anglers and Hunters Assoc~ation The orig~nal Cold Creek Plan of Development approved by the Authority in 1961 included (ll the preservat~on of the Cold Creek Bog as a wilderness area that ~s to rema~n essentially untouched; (2 ) provis~on for archery, r~fle and shotgun ranges in appropriate and safe locations; (3) provision for a pond suitable for dog training and competition; (4 ) provision for suitable plantings to provide wildlife hab~tat and serve as demonstrat~on and retriever areas; (5 ) provision for Hunter Safety Training; (6 ) provision of picnic areas In 1962, the Authority approved the development of a day use Conservation Field Centre to make ava~lable the facil~t~es of the Coid Creek Area to school ch~ldren Area Development The Cold Creek operation has continued to follow the original plan of development with fac~lity changes and program improvements as needs were ident~fied The r~fle and trap ranges have been the most popular facilities at Cold Creek In response to res~dents' requests, operational changes have been made from time to time ~n an effort to make operations more compatible w~th ne~ghbourhood expectat~ons In the mid-70's, the start of Sunday shooting was moved to 11 00 a m from the previous 10 00 a m start and centre fire rifle use was el~m~nated on Sundays In 1984, range operating hours on weekends were adjusted to conclude all shoot~ng activ~ties at 5 00 p m from the previous 8 00 and 9 00 p m closing times dur~ng the summer As well, during the redes~gn of the rifle range in 1985, -. CR. )\1 2 baffhng and lnsulation were incorporated to assist in nOlse reduction In 1986 a restriction was placed on shell shot and load size to assist in reducing nOlse levels on the trap range, and ln 1987 the trap range was closed on Sundays In 1988, the Cold Creek trap range was relocated within the Area to take advantage of natural bermlng augmented by regrading and the constructlon of a wooden sound barrier to reduce sound levels Consultants have indicated to the Authorlty that further nOlse reduction can be achleved through plantings and additional buffering Attendance and Users Use and attendance patterns at Cold Creek Conservation Area have historically been unlque amongst Authority faclllties Cold Creek draws from a wider geographlc area than other Conservation Areas ThlS is an indication of Cold Creek's continuing role as an interregional recreation facility and is determlned somewhat by the absence of other public shooting facilities in Southern Ontario The only option available to shooters in the region is membership in a prlvate club The earliest year for which attendance figures for Cold Creek are avallable is 1962 Attendance flgures rise through the 1970's but decline from 1978 through 1981 Slnce that time attendance has come back up to historical levels wlth a further decline in the past three years due to periodic range closures and reduced operatlng hours Attendance flgures for the Area are shown in Appendix A Current Operation At present, Cold Creek provldes the following public facilitles - Rif Ie range - 100 yards with 26 positions - Pattern board - Trap range - 2 manual and 2 electric traps - "Turkey Shoot" facility - Archery range - Sled dog trails - Facility for retrlever trials - Field Centre and Vlsitor Centre - Boardwalk through the Black Spruce Bog These facil ities provide access for public participants and are used to provlde a variety of public programs including Hunter Education Programs, Hunter Workshops, Dog Club events and special programs for schools and youth groups Peak use at Cold Creek occurs between July and November The use of ranges has been concentrated on Saturdays, particularly since Sunday shooting has been curtalled Current users of the Cold Creek Range, number between 4000 and 4500 persons per year, with 21,269 user-days being recorded in 1988 User-days in 1989 were 13,864, wlth the reduction due to closing of the rifle range during the peak period, and a reduced operatlng schedule Visitors come primarlly from Metropolltan Toronto and Peel Region with over 90% of visitors attending the Area to use the ranges Visitor origins by munlcipallty are as follows Municlpality Percent Metro Toronto 59 9 Peel Region 19 8 York Region 12 6 Other Ontario 4 ] Other 2 8 Durham Region 0 8 Visitor surveys conducted durlng 1989 indicate that approximately 60% of range users at Cold Creek do not use any other range facilities such as prlvate gun clubs Of the users at Cold Creek CR Iltt 3 only 27 2% are gun club members Current users express a high degree of satisfact10n w1th the facilit1es and programs offered In 1988 revenues from range operations and spec1al programs assoc1ated with Hunter Education were $161,960 The total operating budget for Cold Creek Conservat1on Area ln the same year was $283,873 Much of th1S cost was associated with basic maintenance of grounds and roads and such fixed costs as taxes, utilities and general superv1sion not directly 11nked to range operat1ons Cold Creek Revenues dropped in 1989 to $153,756 due to the operat1ng restrict10ns noted above Operating costs for the area 1n 1989 were $340,327 Analys1s of operational alternatives below w1II show that normal range operations produce a net revenue which 1S used to offset general operat1ng costs Curtailed use of ranges over the last few years has reduced this net revenue Slnce the early 1980's the Cold Creek staff has embarked upon a coordinated effort to enhance Area promotion and spec1al events These 1nit1atives have involved lia1son with various shooting sport and dog related groups and development of special events 1n conjunct1on w1th these groups In add1tion a series of workshops related to various types of hunt1ng have been run drawing part1cipants from a w1de geograph1c area, and Cold Creek has participated annually in the Canadian Nat10nal Sportsmen's Show These efforts, along with improved service to visitors, have no doubt, been responsible for the resurgence of visitat10n to the Area This has allowed Cold Creek to operate more eff1ciently, reduc1ng munic1pal levy in the process Cold Creek is also the site of a day use conservation f1eld centre which annually hosts some 4000 students for a variety of conservation education programs These programs make use of the un1que features of the Cold Creek Area including its black spruce bog The Issue In September, 1985 neighbours of the Cold Creek Conservat1on Area expressed concern regarding the noise generated by the shoot1ng ranges operating at the location The Authority has had representations from three residents living on the 11th Concession, the 10th Concession and just east of Highway 27 in Nobleton In 1987 the Authority received a pet1tion request1ng the clos1ng of the ranges signed by 37 local families representing 142 people The resldents have now 1ndicated there are a total of 75 residences representing an estimated total of 262 residents "seriously affected by the shoot1ng n01se" 1 As a result of the initial complaints, the Authority asked the Ministry of the Environment (MaE) to carry out a noise measurement survey with this survey being completed in April, 1986 The MaE survey indicated that" the present use of both shotgun and rifle ranges does not result 1n n01se levels in excess of our n01se impact cr1teria "" Despite this, the Authority felt that the concerns of residents should be addressed Consequently, at Author1ty Meeting #2/87, staff was author1zed to engage the services of a consultant" to provide advice and assistance in the design of baffling devices Wh1Ch would be effect1ve in reducing the noise levels emanating from the Cold Creek Conservation Area shooting ranges " Slnce' that time the firm of Barman Swallow Associates has carried out four noise surveys and has provided recommendat1ons and des1gns for n01se abatement measures The recommendations of the consultant 'Correspondence - D J Caple to J D Agnew, December 11th, 1989 "Correspondence - C A Krajewski to J D Agnew, May 9,1986 CR "9 4 have been 1mplemented and the effect1veness of these measures tested Modificat10ns to the range facil1t1es at Cold Creek since the initial study have 1ncluded the following - Construct10n of a noise attenuation chamber at the rifle range; - Berming of the rifle range and construction of noise barriers; - Relocation of the trap range and regrading of the new location to provide for natural sound barr1ers; - Construct10n of wooden sound barriers at the trap range The consultants have recommended some further measures 1ncluding the planting of trees and shrubs, the extens10n of the wooden barrier and the 1nstallat10n of sound absorbent mater1al on the barrier Both the "post m1t1gation" study carried out in 1988, and the "busy day" study completed in the Fall of 1989, conclude that the Author1ty 1S in compl1ance w1th guideline NPC 105 provided in the M1nistry of the Environment Model Mun1cipal Noise Control Bylaw A copy of the most recent Barman Swallow report is attached as Appendix B It should be noted that representatives of the Cold Creek neighbours have disputed and continue to dispute this conclusion based on their interpretation of the model bylaw and the requ1rements of The Environmental Protection Act The residents feel 1n particular, that the stipulations of guidelines NPC 132 and 133 apply, and supersede any other requirements of the model bylaw They 1nterpret the Authority's test data as being in contravention of these st1pulations Ministry of the Environment comments support the conclus10ns of the Authority's consultant Aside from periodic closing of facil1ties to accommodate the construction of noise abatement measures, the primary 1mpact of the Authority's response to the neighbours' complaints on the range users has resulted from the closing of the trap range on Sundays This measure was implemented by the Author1ty in May of 1987 " 1n order to provide a completely quiet day for the neighbourhood " The Sunday clos1ng of the trap range led to numerous complaints by users, 1n person, in writ1ng and by telephone In the per10d 1mmediately following the closing 130 wr1tten compla1nts were received As noted above, the ranges at Cold Creek are the only publ ic facilit1es of their type in the Southern Ontario area The pr1mary concern of the users is that closing of these facil ities w1l1 effectively eliminate recreational shoot1ng due to the limited capac1ty of club fac1lities and the types of alternative fac1lities available. A listing of other range fac1lities in Southern Ontario 1S contained in Appendix C Alternatives This section of the report represents an analys1s of the financial 1mpact of var10US range use options in 1990 for the Cold Creek Conservation Area Init1al study looked at alternate locat10ns for the ranges; continued operation under modified conditions; enclosing of one or both ranges; and closing of all shooting facil ities . Alternate Locations Staff exam1ned the possibility of mov1ng range operations to other Author1ty properties based on the follow1ng criteria and considerat10ns - Current and projected development surrounding the property; - Size of the property and slte distance from existing dwellings; CI< I~D 5 - The eXlstence of natural berming or other noise barriers; - Ease of access and serviclng Spec if ic sltes examlned were Glen Ma j 0 r , Claireville, and Nashville Based on the crlterla used, none of these sites was deemed any more sUltable for shooting range use than Cold Creek Range Enclosure From time to time enclosure of the ranges, ln partlcular the rlfle range has been dlscussed While this offers a vlable means of ellminating noise problems, the costs involved are likely to be substantlal It is suggested that thls alternative would only be pursued further if outside sources of funding were available It will not be dlscussed further in this report Modified Operations and Closure With the elimlnation of the previous two options the remalning optlons are to pursue full operations at Cold Creek, operate on some type of limlted basls, or to close the ranges completely These alternatives have been examined as to cost impllcations and external consequences for the varlOUS stakeholders involved Three options have been examined wlth the assumption in each case that the full time staff complement would be retained For the analysis, revenue and expenditure figures from the 1990 Preliminary Estimates as approved by the Authorlty, October 27, 1989, were used In addltlon to the financial analysis, user groups, hours of total shooting and estlmated total number of shots for various user groups and programs has been ldentlfled for 1990 A list of non-range operatlons has also been ldentifled These programs are not included ln the cost analysis as they would not be affected by range closures and represent the minimum level of service and programming that would be offered at Cold Creek It is assumed that for any level of range operation lt will be necessary for the Authority to undertake the additional nOlse mitigatlon measures recommended by the consultant's report and solve current problems wlth ventilatlon on the rifle range The plantings, lnstallation of absorptive material, and extenslon of sound barriers recommended are estimated to cost $41,000 A prelimlnary estlmate for the required ventllation system lS ln the nelghbourhood of $40,000 This cost is not included in the analysls below OPTION A - TOTAL RANGE CLOSURE Wlth total closure of range operations the recreation lead hand position ldentified for 1990 would not be required The following staff positions would also be eliminated 1 Seasonal Labourer 1 Seasonal Sales Clerk 1 Seasonal Range Officer 2 Part-time Hunter Education Instructors 4 Part-time Sales Clerks/Food Booth Attendants 2 Part-tlme Range Timekeepers 3 Part-time Trap Operations 7 Part-time Rifle Range Offlcers 3 Part-time Trap Range Officers With total closure, only the present four (4) full tlme complement positions and one (1) part-time bow instructor posltlon would be required to handle the daily operatlons, maintenance and the following non-range related programs - group camplng - archery - husky dog races - ammunition reloading workshop ~R I ~ I 6 - bow hunters workshop - retriever dog workshop - Sportsman Show The following programs, wh1ch 1nclude either r1fle or trap range act1v1ty, would be elim1nated - pub11c rifle and trap range shooting - Bear workshop - Deer workshop - Moose workshop - Waterfowl workshop - Shoot1ng Sk111s program - retriever dog trails - Hunter Education program - Turkey Shoots - Po11ce agency groups The follow1ng user groups would be directly affected by total range closure - boy scouts, ventures, girl guides Board of Education, school groups - Black Spruce Sportsmen's Association - Retriever Clubs - Members of Toronto Sportsmen's Associat10n, Ontario Hand Gun Association, Civil Servants, Hand Gun Associat10n, Peel Game and Fish Assoc1ation - Metro Toronto Police Emergency Task Force - Animal Control off1cers from Caledon, North York and Brampton - MNR through joint ventures and workshops at Cold Creek - minimum of 240 participants per year trained in Hunter Education and Safety Program - general public The following groups would be ind1rectly affected through loss of revenue - local merchants and gun shops - Author1ty suppliers The following summarizes areas of cost savings and revenue loss associated with total range closure COST SAVINGS REVENUE LOSS ACTIVITY AMOUNT ACTIVITY AMOUNT Basic. $7,648 Retail Sales $75,882 Retail $91,130 Hunter Education $12,500 Rifle $27,782 Range Fees $115,000 Trap $41.904 Workshops $21,000 Bear Workshop $2,881 Deer Workshop $2,506 Moose Workshop $2,381 Reload1ng Workshop. $296 Bow Workshop. $296 Waterfowl Workshop $621 Hunter Education $10,128 Shoot1ng Sk1l1s $592 Retr1ever Trails $296 Sportsmen Show. ~96 TOTALS $188.757 $224.382 .Recreational lead hand wages were 1ncluded 1n these activities With total range closure, a net loss of $35,625 in revenue translates to an increase in net expenditures for 1990 CR.I~~ 7 OPTION B - RANGE CLOSURE WITH EXCEPTION OF SPECIAL PROGRAMS With th1s opt10n, the recreat10n lead hand pos1tion is 1ncluded 1n conjunction with the existing four complement pos1tions The seasonal and part-t1me pos1t10ns as 1dentif1ed in Option A, would stlll be el1minated The follow1ng programs, in addit10n to those non-range related programs 1dentif1ed 1n Opt10n A, would be added 1n Option B - Bear workshop - Deer workshop - Moose workshop - Waterfowl workshop - Shooting Skill s program for boy scouts, g1rl gU1des and school groups - retr1ever dog trials - Hunter Education program - Turkey Shoots The general public would st111 be effected by th1s program as well as a number of the clubs and associations previously listed in Option A The follow1ng summarizes the cost savings and revenue loss assoc1ated w1th Opt1on B COST SAVINGS EEVE~UE LOSS ACTIVITY ~t10UNT ~CT_!VITY AMOUNT Basic $100 Retail Sales $73-;-680 Retall $91,130 Range Fees li15 , ~_00 Rifle $24,822 Trap $38,944 TOTALS $154,996 $188.689 W1th Option B, range closure for general pub11c use, a net loss of $33,684 1n revenue translates to an increase in net expenditures for 1990 The summary of programs (Appendix D) indicates there would be 86 days of range activ1ty in 1990 for Opt1on B prov1ding skill development and education for approximately 3,250 people The number of shots 1nvolved in these programs 1S shown in the exhibit The neighbours surrounding Cold Creek have indicated a willingness to accept the type of use included in Option B along w1th 22 calibre rifle shooting on an agreed upon schedule 3 OPTION C - FULL OPERATION OF RANGES WITH EXCEPTION OF SUNDAYS With this option all full t1me, seasonal and part-time positions would be required All programs, spec1al events, workshops and general publ1c range use would be in operation (except on Sundays) and all user groups would be addressed The following summarizes the cost savings and revenue loss associated with Opt10n C COST SAVINGS - Nil REVENUE L..QSS - $40,000 3Correspondence - D J caple to J D Agnew, January 31,1990 cR lc23 8 Option C, full operation with the exceptl.on of Sunday shootl.ng, ident if ies a net revenue loss of S40,000 whl.ch translates to an l.ncrease in net expenditures for 1990 COST ANALYSIS SUMMARY OF RANGE OPERATIONS OPTION REVENUE EXPENDITURE DIFFERENCE 1990 BUDGET 1990 REVISED LOSS SAVINGS NET EXPEND NET EXPEND A 224,382 188,757 35,625 189,073 224,698 B 188,680 154,996 33,684 189,073 222,757 C 40,000 0 40,000 189,073 229,073 The 1990 maintenance and operating budget for Cold Creek from the Preliminary Budget Estimates is S414,455 of whl.ch $225,382 was projected as revenue The projected 1990 net expenditure is S189,fil73, which represents 84% of the costs for full time staff, taxes, l.nsurance. utilities, equipment and general maintenance and are consl.dered fixed costs The remal.ning 16% is covered through revenue The analysl.s l.ndicates that full operation of the ranges provides the maXl.mum surplus revenue to offset basic operatl.ng costs As range operations are curtal.led the municipal levy requl.red to maintain the Cold Creek property increases l.n absolute terms and as a proportion of the total budget ANALYSIS Contl.nued full operatl.on of the ranges will provide the most acceptable optl.on for range users The varl.OUS reports of the Authorl.ty's consultant along with the opl.nion of MOE indicate that the Authorl.ty is within the guidelines of the Model Noise Bylaw in contl.nul.ng to operate the ranges Reductl.on of operating hours to eliminate Sunday shooting will limit accessibility for some partl.cl.pants who work or are otherwise committed on Saturdays There are alternatl.ve sites available for users l.n the form of private shootl.ng clubs however the users have indicated that these are not acceptable due to cost, driving dl.stance or availability of range capacl.ty Continued operation will lead however, to continued concern on the part of the ne~ghbours Closure of the ranges will please the local residents but will upset users of the facility Numerous users, both l.ndividuals and members of groups have expressed their concerns in this regard and l.t l.S hkely the protest will l.ntensify There has also been a concern expressed by the shooting community that closure of the ranges w1.l1 l.ncrease the l.ncidence of illegal and unsupervised shooting elsewhere Closure of the ranges wl.ll also eliminate most of the educatl.onal programs at Cold Creek leavl.ng a gap in the Ministry of Natural Resources' efforts to improve the knowledge and safety of hunters l.n the Province Option B will alleviate the Ml.nistry's concerns but st1.ll leaves individual range users with no place to legally pursue their hobby This alternative has the advantage that days of shooting and the number of shots per day are readl.ly predl.ctable Acceptance of thl.s option would however be contingent upon the nel.ghbours to CR I~'-t 9 compromise and be willing to accept at least some operation of the I range In summary none of the options available w1l1 please all part1es involved The Authority's decis10n in this matter must therefore keep in mind the r1ghts and respons1bll i ties of all parties involved balanc1ng the1r var10US interests The recommendation of staff is cogn1zant of this and 1S based on a we1gh1ng of the relative strengths of the various stakeholder claims I CR.I;)S- APPENDIX A c(< )~lo ~pendix A - Cold Creek Conservation Area Attendance Year Cars ~ttendance 1962 1,072 5,121 1963 2,435 11,634 1964 1, 948 9,309 1965 2,203 10,524 1966 2,828 13,513 1967 4,717 22,535 1968 6,187 29,561 1969 8,738 41,746 1970 9,225 44,075 1971 9,934 47,464 1972 9.332 44,584 1973 8,675 41,449 1974 10,719 51,213 1975 11,150 53,272 1976 11,345 54,205 1977 11,776 56,261 1978 9,825 46,943 1979 7,840 37,456 1980 6,675 31, 893 1981 6,851 32,734 1982 8,446 40,344 1983 8,928 43,707 1984 11,635 55,589 1985 11, 301 54,027 1986 11,523 54,761 1987 n a 33,144 1988 n a 21, 269 1989 n a 13,864 Figures up to 1986 are based on actual car counts multlplied by a standard estlmate of visltors per vehicle obtained through visitor surveys This figure was 4 6 visltors per vehlcle up to 1973 and 4 3 visitors per vehicle thereafter Starting in 1987, figures represent actual range uses CR \ ~ 7 APPENDIX B CR. ,~~ BARMAN SWALLOW ASSOCIATES 2 COLD CREEK - 1989 FALL NOISE STUDY SUMMARY The folloWIng report summarizes shootIng nOise measurements obtaIned dunng September and October of 1989 The measurements have been performed dUring regular range use as outlined In the terms of reference. In addition, meteorological conditions were mOnitored dUring range actiVity In general, the results of the February 23, 1989 survey ("Cold Creek ConservatiOn Area ShootIng Range Post-Mitigation NOise Study" Barman Swallow Associates) have been substantiated, improvements of up to 26 dB have been observed for shootIng nOise. AdditiOnal background InformatiOn on shootIng nOise at Cold Creek Conservation Area IS contaIned In references 1 to 5 A much larger sample of measurements would be reqUired In order to obtaIn a statistically representative study which covers a broad range of conditiOns. Due to the limited number of days mOnitored In thiS study as well as the WInd conditiOns present dunng the measurement seSSiOns, the study represents a worst case scenario of sound levels emanatIng from the Cold Creek ranges dunng the bUSiest part of the year ) ThiS study IS therefore not representative of the annual 'broad picture' conditions at the Cold Creek shootIng ranges. For an overall representatiOn of shootIng nOIse under a vanety of WInd conditiOns at the vanous pOInts of receptiOn, see reference 5 Under little or no WInd Influence, levels of approXimately 50 dBAI were measured at the cntIcal pOInts of reception. This sound level IS 20 dB below, (i.e. subjectively 1/4 as loud) the 70 dBAl sound level limit endorsed by the Ministry of EnVironment (M.O.E.) for licensed shootIng range faCility which has eXIsted pnor to 1980. Ranges bUilt after 1980 must meet a limit of 50 dBAI. ThiS level, 50 dBAl, was chosen as the deSign goal for the range nOise mitigation work. As noteq In previous studies, sound levels are dependent upon Wind conditions, whereby levels can Increase for downWind receptors and simllarly decrease for receptors located upWInd In companson to a nO-Wind situatIon. The descnptor used In thiS study is the LLM, loganthmic mean impulse sound level. Typical nO-Wind sound levels were below 50 dB AI, however these values were raised when the receptor location was downWind and reduced when upWind. Based on WInd rose diagrams supplied by the Atmosphenc EnVironment Service for Pearson International Airport; the frequency of occurance of east wlI'1d is abo~t 25%. Hence, sound levels- at locations west of the range are Increased about 25% of the time. Under west Winds which occur about 60% of the time, these sound levels are reduced to below 50 dBAI. Further, . the wind Induced background nOise level at times exceeded the impulse sound level due to shootIng nOise. cR. 1;)~ BARMAN SWALLOW ASSOCIATES 3 COLD CREEK - 1989 FALL NOISE STUDY For receptors located east of the Cold Creek Range, for regular range use this quantity vaned from not audible to about 55 dBAI under typical west-wmd conditions. SimIlarly, the LLM vaned from not audible to audible but not measureable under east-wmd conditIOns. , For morutored pomts of reception near residential locations west of the Cold Creek property, the loganthmlc mean Impulse levels under regular range use vaned from audible but not measureable to apprmamately 58 dBAI for wmds generally from the east direction - and from audible but not measureable to 47 dBAI for wmds typically from the west. The 'turkey shoot' competition was ongomg dunng September 23, October 14 and 28. TIus particular shootmg took place between the nfle range parkmg lot area and the wooded bush region on the west side of the conservation area. It IS understood that the hne of fire was directly towards the west, hence, higher measurements were obtamed at the cntlcal pomt of reception. The sound levels obtamed from the turkey shoot competition are not representative of the nOise levels observed dunng regular range use and have been documented separately m thiS study NOise measurements were also taken by Mr Caple, who resides Immediately west of the trap range. A commentary on thiS data IS given m AppendIX B. In summary, the Cold Creek Conservation Area Shootmg Range meets the M.O.E. cntenon outlmed m NPC 105 of the Model Muruclpal- NOise Control Bylaw, reference 1 for a shooting range which was m operation before 1980. Under typical meteorological conditions, the range generally meets the very stnngent M.O.E. cntena for a new range (i.e. 50 dBAI for ranges bUilt after 1980) Occasional decreases and mcreases of sound levels from the no-wmd condition are observed under specific wmds. , C R J 3D BARMAN SWALLOW ASSOCIATES 4 COLD CREEK - 1989 FALL NOISE STUDY TABLE OF CONTENTS 10 INTRODUCTION NOISE SOURCE DESCRIPTION AND CRITERIA . 2.0 30 INSTRUMENTATION . 40 DATA LOCATIONS 50 MEASUREMENT PROCEDURE 60 MEASUREMENT RESULTS 70 DISCUSSION OF RESULTS 8.0 CONCLUSIONS 90 RECOMMENDATIONS 100 REFERENCES . LIST OF APPENDICES APPENDIX A - TERMS OF REFERENCE APPENDIX B - SOUND LEVEL MEASUREMENTS/DATA FROM MR. CAPLE APPENDIX C - WEATIIER DATA . . '- cR. J31 BARMAN SWALLOW ASSOCIATES 5 COLD CREEK - 1989 FALL NOISE STUDY 1.0 INTRODUCTION Barman Swallow Associates has been retamed by the MetropolItan Toronto and RegIOn Conservation Authority (MTRCA) m order to conduct a sound level survey at the Cold Creek Shootmg Ranges under typical range use shootmg activity dUring the busiest time of the year (September-October) The purpose of this study IS to assess nOIse levels from the Cold Creek Conservation Area trap and nfle ranges dUring actual range operation and use by patrons.. Further, the purpose of this study also entails assessmg the frequency of audible shots dUring this typical busy operatmg penod. A site plan showmg the grounds and the nelghbounng residences IS shown m Figure 1. The general locatIOn of the shootmg ranges as well as the Ime of fire and location of the nearest receptors IS shown m Figure 2. AdditIOnal background mformatlOn on the ranges IS contamed m References 2 to 5 In particular, reference 5 outlmes the nOIse level predictions based on controlled testing which was performed In December 1988 and January 1989 for the range configuratIOn which eXIsts today The results of that study show that shooting nOise levels from the range are In compliance with the Mimstry GUIdelines. Reference 5 also hsted a senes of recommendatIOns which were mtended to reduce shooting nOIse levels even further below levels acceptable to M.O.E. In particular, vegetatIOn, shrubs and sound absorptive material applications were recommended. However, these latter nOIse control measures have not yet been Installed. A speCial 'turkey shoot' competition was ongomg dunng September 23, October 14 and October 28 from 11'00 a.m. to 4'00 p.m. on each day. The location of this shootmg activity 'IS shown m Figure 2. Care was taken to separate the days of 'turkey shoot' data from regular range data. 2.0 NOISE SOURCE DESCRIPTION AND CRITERIA 2.1 No~se Source Descrilltion Shooting noise, although perceived as one Impulse event, consists of two separate sound phenomena. The pnmary event IS the blast whIch IS generally perceIved as a directional pOint source.- . - - The secondary source or event IS the balllstac shock wave which IS treated as a coherent hne source radiating a corucal shock wave. Due to ItS coherence, the propagation IS dIrectional and hmlted'to a very speCific geometnc area. Additional mformatlon on shootmg nOIse as well as the Cold Creek faclhtles IS mcluded in References 2 to 5 CR. 13;( BARMAN SWALLOW ASSOCIATES 6 COLD CREEK - 1989 FALL NOISE STUDY 2 1.1 Trap Range The trap range locatIon IS IdentIfied 10 both Figures 1 and 2. The local terram 10 the vlclmty of the shooters IS Illustrated 10 Figures 3 and 4 The shootmg areas are protected by a 10 meter berm and 3 meter fence situated behmd the shooters as well as a 10 meter berm situated In front of 3 of the 4 shooting statIOns. The vegetation In the VIClruty of the trap range IS sparse however, It IS understood that additIonal shrubs and dense vegetatIon will be planted. The trap range IS compnsed of 4 clay pIgeon shooting stations (2 manual and 2 electnc) The typIcal fire-arm used In the trap range IS a 12 gauge shotgun with a maxtmum permlssable number 7 1/2 shot SIze uSing 2 3/4" shells with a 3 dram eqUivalent powder load. The lIne of fire In the trap range covers a north to northeast shooting OrIentation as Illustrated In Figure 3 The fire-arm IS generally onented at a 35 to 40 degree vertical angle for all shooting. This IS a generally repeatable pattern SInce the clay pigeon trajectory follows a consistent and predictable path (i.e. wlthm certam bounds) -I- However, occasslonal straYIng from this on entation of the fire-arm may occur 2 1.2 Rifle Range The nfle range location IS also shown 10 Figures 1 and 2. ThIS faCIlIty IS compnsed of 26 shooting statIOns with target distances of 25, 50 and 100 yards from the shootIng posItion. The nfle range faCIlIty IS protected by a 10 meter berm and wall combination at both the south and west end of the range. The 3 meter wall situated along the west Side was completed In December of 1988. A berm varyIng from 4 to 7 meters IS located along the east Side of the faCIlIty In addition, wood and rIcochet baffles are present at 10, 25 and 100 yard hnes. Further, the nfle range enclosure has been modified for nOIse control purposes. The interIor walls of the enclosure have been treated with absorptive matenal such as glass fibre with the chamber extending about 3 meters In front of the shooters. This IS Illustrated In Figure 5. In general, the worst case fire-arm wIth respect to generated nOIse levels In the nfle range IS the .300 Winchester magnum: Other fire-arms more commonly used Include the 30-08, .270 winchester, and the .22 calibre nfle. There IS no lImItation on shots size for shootmg range use at the nfle range. 2.2 Atmospheric Effects on Noise Sound propogating outdoors can slgmficantly be altered by ground effect,. winds and temperature inVerSIon. Sound from a stationary pomt source In general spreads sphencally and attenuates at a rate of 6 dB per doubling of distance. However, ItS propagatIon can be slgmficantly altered by ground effect as well as wmd and temperature mverslon. , \ C,R .133 BARMAN SWALLOW ASSOCIATES 7 COLD CREEK - 1989 FALL NOISE STUDY Ground effect provides additional attenuation to the general 6 dB per doubling of distance from the pOint source. When a source IS near the ground, factors such as ground surface type, distance from the source as well as the frequency content of the source change the distrIbutIOn of sound levels. SpeCIfically, ground effect pertams to the Interference between direct sound and sound reflected from the ground based on ground sound absorptIon and source to receIver geometncal conditIons. At large distances where the reflectIon of sound from the ground IS at grazmg mCIdence (i.e. shallow angle) where the reflected wave IS Inverted and at the receIver locatIon, It may partly cancel the dIrect wave. For large distances, thIS mecharusm can prOVide up to 25 dB of extra attenuatIon. 11us effect IS very common In rural settmgs over flat open ground but not over water, hard surfaces, or a valley between the source and receiver Weather also sIgruficantly alters sound levels for up-Wind and down-wind receptors. Sound rays travellmg down-wmd or up-wmd are bent downwards or upwards respectIvely follOWing roughly CIrcular arcs. Down-wmd sound whIch would otherwise pass overhead IS bent down to the ground and becomes audible. In a temperature inVerSIOn, sound rays simIlarly travel from source to receiver along Circular arcs that are concave downwards. In general, barrIer attenuation IS reduced SignIficantly, partIcularly at large distances In the down-wind direction or 10 the presence of a temperature inversIOn. For the same reason, a receptor located up-wmd WIll perceive reduced sound levels by approxImately the same margin. The weather Influences can been seen to destroy ground effect and barrIer performance. Consequently, sound levels can vary from day to day as well as hour to hour due to weather Influence alone such as sudden wmd gusts and changing Winds as well as temperature inverSIons. 2.3 Criteria. Provincial Guidelines Impulse nOise cntena are described 10 NPC 103 and NPC 105 of the OntarIQ MinIstry of the EnVIronment document, 'Model MUnICIpal Noise Control Bylaw','RefereQce 1. It states that ImpulSIve sound from statIonary sources shall be described by the logarithmIc mean Impulse sound level (lLM) and that the appl1cable sound level limIt IS generally the 1 hour LEQ, eqUivalent sound level caused by eXlstmg road traffic and mdustry for that pomt of reception at that same time. However, for speCIfic Impulse sound sources such as the discharge of fire-arms on the premIses of a I1censed gun club, (the sound level at the pomt of reception IS expressed by the LLM), the appl1cable sound level limIt for a statIonary Impulse source is 70 dBAI If the source was 10 operatIOn before January of 1980. OtherwIse, the limJt IS 50 dBAI. 11us I1mlt appl1es to a licensed gun club which I~ located In eIther a rural or urban environment. In thIS partIcular Instance, the sound level lImit IS 70 dBAI. However, a sound level deSign goal of 50 dBAI was used In recommending measures for nOIse reductIon for both trap and rIfle ranges. Cr<.IB4- BARMAN SWALLOW ASSOCIATES 8 COLD CREEK - 1989 FALL NOISE STUDY 30 INSTRUMENTATION A B&K 2209 Impulse sound level meter (SLM), type 1 with 1/2" microphone as well as a 2230 SLM (also type 1 Impulse meter) With 1/2" microphone were used for all of the testIng. An Impulse sound level measurement uses the Impulse meter response charactenstlc (as set by International Standard lEC 179). TIus response charactenstlc has been chosen because It corresponds well to the subjective ImpreSSIOn of loudness of a short duration sound, an Impulse "sound" and IS usually used with the A welghtlOg which modifies the readIng accordlOg to the subjective ImpreSSIOn of loudness with the pitch of the sound. The sound level meters 10 thiS case were all set to Impulse and A weighted and mounted on a tnpod such that the microphone was situated at an apprmamate height of 1.2 meters above the ground. Each umt was calibrated with a B&K 4420 or 4413 piston type calibrator before and after each senes of tests. The conditions of each measurement set as well as the measurements obtalOed by Mr Caple are Included 10 AppendIX B of thiS report. Each sound level meter was fitted with a WIndscreen and measurements were performed In accordance with the Mimstry GUidelInes outlIned In NPC 103 40 DATA LOCATIONS 41 Entrance to Cold Creek Conservation Area This site IS Identified 10 Figures 1 and 2. The Cold Creek entrance IS approximately 600 meters northwest of the new trap range and about 1100 meters northwest of the nfle range. The entrance location has been a major data collection locatIOn for the past 3 studies. 4.2 CaDle Driveway ThiS measurement location has been used 10 the prevIous studies. The measurements were 'taken approXimately 200 meters east of the Caple home and thiS location IS situated about 500 meters west of the nearest trap range station and 1000 meters northwest of the nfle range. Anticipated level within 30 m of the Caple residence are expected to be about 5 to) 6 dB lower. - .' 4.3 Husky Farms (11th Concession. 15th Sideroad) This locatIOn IS situated approXimately 700 meters west of the nfle range and apprmamately aOO meters southwest of the trap range as Illustrated 10 Figures 1 and 2. The 10c~tlOn IS directly down fire from the nfle range and behInd the new trap range. ~ CR.13S BARMAN SWALLOW ASSOCIATES 9 COLD CREEK - 1989 FALL NOISE STIJDY 44 O'Neill Residence The measurements at this locatIOn were performed approXImately 5 to 7 meters from the west surface of the dwelling. This location IS about 1400 meters east of the trap range and 1300 meters northeast of the nfle range as indicated In Figures 1 and 2. This site has also been used as a data collection pOint for prevIous studies. 4.5 Zaeennan Residence The Zagerman residence IS located In the valley about 700 meters west of the 10th concession. The residence IS approXImately 1300 meters southeast of the trap range and 900 meters southeast of the nfle range. This site has been a data collection location for each of the prevIous studies. 46 Fogg Residence This location IS situated about 500 meters east of Highway #27, approximately 3500 east of the new trap range site and approximately 3700 meters northeast of the nfle range. The momtonng locatIOn was set up at the rear of the Fogg home, approXImately 20 meters west of the rear facade. From this locatIOn, Highway #27 was visible and road traffic nOIse from the same dominated background sound levels. This locatIOn has been used for the second time and first appeared In the Winter 1988-1989 study 47 Data Locations Outlined in Mr. Caple's Letter The data locations as well as the measurements outlined In Mr Caple's letter dated September 27 and October 18, 1989 are attached as part of AppendIX B. This letter entailed measurements on the west side of the Cold Creek property at 3 locations ranging from the north- side to the south side of Mr Caple's property. As can be seen, the tests were performed under easterly wind conditions and are In correlation with the measurements obtained by Barman Swallow As~oclates under slmdar wind conditions. / However, based on the information prOVided by Mr Caple in hiS letters, It IS not apparent that the sound level meter was fitted with a windscreen nor that the measurements were performed with a sole sound level meter operator situated within arms length of the sound level ,meter. In addition, no information was provided regarding sound level meter mounting and the proximity to reflective surfaces. Some of the measurements were also taken dunng the 'turkey shoot' competlon which IS not representative of regular range use. Further, measurements were also taken east of Cold Creek but under high wind speeds; whereby winds were gusting from the northwest at speeds of 40 to 45 km/hr In general, It IS very difficult to obtain reliable .sound level measurements when Winds exceed 15 to 20 km/hr Cf<. '3" BARMAN SWALLOW ASSOCIATES 10 COLD CREEK - 1989 FALL NOISE STUDY 5.0 MEASUREMENT PROCEDURE The testing was performed under normal shooting range conditions with many variables and unknowns under consideration such as fire-arm type, shooting station posItion and angle of fire-arm onentatlon as well as weather and other atmosphenc effects. Measurements were taken at 6 receptor locations surrounding the Cold Creek property In addition, the frequency of occurence of audible shots was also documented. In total, each day of measurement entailed sets of 20 minute measurement segments at each location as outhned In the terms of reference. The total number of shots was counted and measured accordingly for each morutonng segment at each location. In addition, average Wind and background sound level data was obtained for each set of measurements. -, From the information obtained, the logarithmic mean Impulse sound level was calculated from 20 Impulse events. When calculating the LLM, higher sound levels are weighted greater than lower levels. Hourly weather data was obtained from Pearson InternatIOnal Airport and IS presented In AppendIX C. 60 RESULTS Separate "turkey" shoot and regular range use measurements and frequency occurrence data, as well as respective environmental conditions are presented In AppendiX B for the locations outhned. AppendiX B further containS an overall summary of the LLM (logarithmiC mean Impulse level) measurements obtained. This Includes 3 Saturday measurement and 3 weekday measurements ranging from September 13 to October 28, 1989 Some measurements were also obtained on October 14, 1989 before testing was halted due to a storm. In many cases, the indiVidual impulse events were audible, but not measureable. As indicated In Reference 7, Impulse sound levels such as nOise due to shotguns are generally audible at levels that are 7 to 8 dB below the background nOise level. For Instance, for a continuous background nOIse level of 50 dBA, Impulse levels of about 42 to 43 dBAl and - above would generally be audible. The number of audible shots generally ranged from 0 to 14 shots per minute for the various locations for the test penod In questIOn. , Further, In some cases variables such as road traffic, aIrcraft overfhghts, CrIckets, as well as Wind Induced nOIse made it difficult to hear and measure shots ta~ng place. Hence, indiVidual measurements were not possible In these speCific Instances. CR.137 BARMAN SWALLOW ASSOCIATES 11 COLD CREEK - 1989 FALL NOISE STUDY Some Wind was present dUrIng all testing, so that the calculated logarIthmic mean Impulse levels were higher If the IbcatlOn was down wind and lower when upwind. These data and wind conditIOns are summarIzed In the table below for resldentlallocabons, for nOIse from the trap and rIfle ranges. SOUND LEVELS (dBAI) . SEPT. & OCT., 1989 DATA UPWIND DOWNWIND LOCATION MINIMUM* MAXIMUM ** Caple ABNM 58 Husky ABNM 54 Zagerman NA 54 O'Nelll ABNM 55 Fogg NA 41 NA = Not Audible ABNM = Audible but not measureable . = Mirumum measured data .. = MaxImum measured data It can be seen that when upwind, at three locattons the range nOIse was audible but not measureable and not audible at two others. When the measurement location was down Wind, the sound levels were greater, exceeding the 50 dBAl deSign value. Based on Wind direction data, thIS wIll occur approXImately 25% of the time for locations west of the ranges. .., -' For the Caple location, the maximum logarithmic mean impulse measured level due. to trap and flfle ranges was 58 dBAl, while the maxImum measured before mlttgatton measurements (1987) was 65 dBAI. The reduction by 7 dB In the worst case appears to be typical though there is not enough data with which to calculate a representattve average. At the O'N'ellllocatiori, the maxImum measured level was 55.4, which IS a 25 dB reductton from the previously measured maximum of 80 dBAI. TYPical reductton of maximum levels was about 20 dB. Slmtlarly, the mlrumum levels measured have been greatly reduced, from 57 dBAl to audible but not measureable. CR. 13<6 BARMAN SWALLOW ASSOCIATES 12 COLD CREEK - 1989 FALL NOISE STUDY At the Zagerman location, levels have also been reduced. The maximum measured value was reduced to 54 dBAl comparing to a prior value of 64 dBAl. Minimum measured values have been reduced from 40 dBAl to not audible. The Husky Farms location was not measured prior to the mitigation work. Sound levels (LLM) ranged from audible but not measureable when upwind to 54 dBAl when downwind. This location appears to be typical of locations west of the site, where the shooting nOIse IS only audible and measureable, that IS exceeds the ambient level, when downwind. It would be expected that a temperature inversIOn condition would produce the same result. No earlier measurements were made at the Fogg residence. Shooting nOIse IS only occasionally audible, even when downwind at this location which IS east of the site. Of the seven occasions when this site was vIsited, data could only be measured once, at 41 dBAl. On this occaSIOn, the measured level did not exceed the ambient sound level. The overall range and average of LLM sound level measurements obtained at each receptor for each momtorlng segment are summarized In Table 2a for regular range use and Table 2b for the "turkey shoot" competitIOn dates. ThIS table reports the range of measureable shots as well as the frequency of occurrence of non-measureable shots. It should be noted that Wind speed and direction were not reported for each Impulse event for reasons of practicality However, It IS possible that sudden shifts In Winds or sudden gusts can cause indiVidual levels to rise over tYPical measurements reported dUring the same mOnitoring period. For this reason, both the linear average and LLM are reported for each set of measurements obtained. Further, It IS apparent that temperature inversIOns were present on speCific occasions since vOIces from the shooting areas were audible. The presence of a temperature inversIOn would account for the ability of vOices to carry over distances exceeding 600 meters. In summary, it can be seen that sound levels above the 50 dBAI deSign target sound level are occasslOnaUy observed under specific Wind conditions. However, under general west and northwesterly Winds which occur greater than 60% of the time In this geographical area, the levels tend to meet the 50 dBAI target. 7.0 DISCUSSION OF RESULTS Compansons of the results -obtained in this study versus those ,obtained In other studies are shown In Tables 3 to 8 for each respective momtorlng location. Only the data obtained under regular range use has been used for thiS comparison. As can be seen, slgruficant Improvements are eVident for all measurement locations. Overall, the number of audible shots measured In thiS study has decreased by about 25% to 30% with respect to a similar study performed- In 1987 It should again be stated that these latest measurements were obtained under the bUSiest con<i:ltlOns of the year at Cold Creek and approximately 50% of the measurements reported were obtained under easterly Wind conditIOns. This IS not a characteristic example of Wind conditions, since according to the Wind rose diagrams, easterly Winds generally occur 25% of the time as summanzed In Table 1. (:,12.131 BARMAN SWALLOW ASSOCIATES 13 COLD CREEK - 1989 FALL NOISE STIJDY Under westerly wind consIderations, the shooting range shows a signIficant Improvement In measurements In comparison to the data obtained In 1987, particularly, wIth regards to receptors located east of Cold Creek. Some additional attenuation over the eXIsting nOIse levels can be realtzed by planting the previously recommended dense vegetation and shrubs as well as applYing sound absorptIve materIals. These measures would further reduce any nOIse Impact from shooting. As a further note, It should be stated that NPC-105 IS the only apphcable gUldehne for shooting nOIse due to the specific nOIse source In questIon. NPC-132 IS not an apphcable gUldeltne since dUring the daytime operation of shooting nOise, the background nOise environment In the area surrounding Cold Creek IS comprIsed of man-made nOIse such as vehicular traffic, air traffic, distant train traffic, occasslonal farming mach1Oery, occasional construction related activIties and therefore IS not necessarIly rural from an acoustic viewpoint dUrIng desIgnated daytime hours. , 8.0 CONCLUSIONS 1 Sound levels for shooting actIvity from the Cold Creek ranges generally meet the 50 dBAl target sound level. As indicated In preVIOUS studies, wind can both Increase and decrease sound levels from the target of 50 dBAl. This was generally observed at locatIons west of the range under easterly wind conditions. Levels obtained from this mOnItorIng session under regular range use are typically less than 50 dBAI or audible but not measureable under winds from the westerly dIrectIon at the cntlcal pOints of reception. 2. The range IS 10 comphance With the 70 dBAl sound level hmIt for a hcensed shooting facIltty which was In operatIOn before 1980 (i.e. NPC-105 as defined by . M.O.E.) 3 These measurements were obtained dunng the busiest time of the year and under easterly w10d conditions over 50% of the tIme dunng the testing penod which IS not representative of wind conditions year round. A much broader sample of test days would be required 10 order to determine statistically representativ~ shooting noise data over a broad time frame under various seasons of the year and vanous w10d conditIons. It IS felt that a representatIve study of Cold Greek shooting nOIse under a vanety of w10d conditions IS contained In reference 5. , cR. JJjo BARMAN SWALLOW ASSOCIATES 14 COLD CREEK - 1989 FALL NOISE STUDY The regular range use results In thIS study are not consIdered to be representative of shootIng nOIse at Cold Creek as observed on a 'year round' basIs. The results In this study represent a worst case picture of Impulse nOIse levels due to shootIng at the Cold Creek ranges SInce testIng was performed dunng the busiest time of the year Further, on four of the test date occaSions, the WInd was from the easterly direction which only occurs about 25% of the time. 4 The worst case nOIse levels measured In thiS study are substantially (up to 25 dB) lower than the SimIlar worst case numbers reported In 1987 pnor to nOIse mitigatIOn. Under worst case conditions, the folloWIng Improvements were observed over the 1987 study Caple Location - 7.3 dB Improvement O'NeIll ReSidence - 25 dB Improvement Zagerman ReSidence - 10 dB Improvement 5 Levels at the Cold Creek entrance under regular range use vaned from audIble but not measureabl~ to 65 dBAI averaged 52.7 dBAI when measured down-wInd under easterly WInds. In general, thiS corresponds to the sound level measurement data obtaIned dunng controlled test of apprmamately 1 year ago. 6 Sound levels at the Caple dnveway location averaged 51 dBAI under regular range use and vaned from audible but not measureable to 58 dBAI. These levels are SimIlar to those obtained dunng the measurements performed earher on In the year as outhned In reference 5 Further, the sound levels are 7 dB lower than measurements obtained 2 years ago under eaSterly wind conditIons, where the worst case levels In 1987 at thiS location were as high as 65.3 dBAI (versus -58 dBAI measured In thiS study) Based on the data obtained In thiS study as well as reference 5, thiS reduction IS due to lower nOIse levels from the nfle range. The measurements obtained by Mr. Caple as documented In hiS letters contaIned In Appendix B reference sllTular numbers for measurements at thiS locatIon obtaIned under easterly wind conditions. 7 Levels at the Husky farm momtonng locatIOn averaged 47 6 dBAI under regular range use vaned from not audible to approXimately 54 dBAI when thiS reception location was located down-wInd. However, the overall average for the momtonng penod was 49.3 dBAI. These levels agaIn are Similar to those obtaIned dunng the controlled test seSSIon, yet are slgmficantly less than Similar levels obtaIned pnor to the mitIgatIon measures. GR . ) 4- J BARMAN SWALLOW ASSOCIATES 15 COLD CREEK - 1989 FALL NOISE STUDY 8. Levels at the O'Netll residence averaged 45 4 dBAl under regular range use and vaned from not audible to apprmumately 55 dBAl down-wind. These measurements are In accordance with those obtained approXImately 1 year ago TIllS represents about a 25 dB Improvement over worst case levels obtained In 1987 study Levels from the old trap range were as high as 80.4 dBAl at this 'location. 9 Levels at the Zagerman residence averaged 45 6 dBAl under regular range use and vaned from not audible to approXImately 54 dBAl down-wind. These levels are also similar to those documented in the winter study of a year ago, yet levels are generally an Improvement over those obtained In the 1987 study 10 Levels at the Fogg residence vaned from not audible to approximately 41 dBAl directly down-wind. These measurements are In accordance with the data obtained dunng the winter study of approXImately 1 year ago. II. It can further be concluded that the controlled study measurement data In reference 5 corresponds with the measurements obtained under regular range use In thiS study for all receptor locations. 12. Further sound level reductIOn of up to 5 dB may be realized by planting dense vegetation In the VICInity of the shooting ranges and also by applYing absorptive matenal to both the source and receiver sides of the vanous barners surrounding the specific shooting areas. 90 RECOMMENDATIONS The following recotnmendatlons onglnally appeared In the post mitigation study which IS listed as reference 5. 9.1 Trao Range 9.1.1 .It IS recommended to plant dense vegetation and shrubs in and around the wooden area- Just west of trap range and as close as possible to the shooters and the trap range barrier. 9 1.2 It IS recommended to extend the 3 meter wooden barner towards the northwest and then towards the east, since a clear line of sight IS evident from the edge of the barner to the residences west of the 11th concession. The barner shall break the line of sight to thiS residential area. In addition, It IS also recommended to investigate the planting of additional vegetation In sparse areas located between the new trap range and the 11th concessIOn. CR. Jy.~ BARMAN SWALLOW ASSOCIATES 16 COLD CREEK - 1989 FALL NOISE STUDY 9 1.3 It IS recommended that all berms shall be sodded and/or covered with dense vegetation or eqUivalent. TIlls measure will maxImize the excess attenuation due to ground effect. Accordmg to Reference 8, thiS measure shall result m an approvement of approXimately 2 to 3 dB. . 9.1.4 It IS further recommended to place absorptive matenal on all wooden barners. TIus nOise control measure effectively mcreases the msertion loss of the bamer and maxImizes bamer performance. Based on the data presented m Reference 9, an additional 3 to 4 dB of msertion loss can be expected by Implementing an absorpttve barfler arrangement. This would consist of hrung both Sides of the barrier wall With glass fibre or eqUivalent absorptive matenal and to protect the matenal With some form of covering such as 6 mm plastiC or eqUivalent. 9.2 Rifle Range 9.2.1 Rifle range doors and wmdows shall be kept closed at all times and all operungs shall be well sealed and caulked. Alternatively, smce the door IS a weak lmk m the nfle range enclosure, It may be propped open on occasIOn. It IS recommended to add to thiS door With a vestibule and a second door 9.2.2 The ncochet baffles as well as the ground m the vlclruty of the nfle range shall be made as absorptive as pOSSible With the Implementation of glass fibre and equIvalent matenals. 9.2.3 The wooden barrier arrangement surroundmg the nfle range shall be treated With absorptive material on both the source and receiver Sides of the barfler m a Similar j ". ,;fashion as Quthned for the trap range. As discussed, thiS nOIse control measure Will generally mcrease barrier performance resulting in an approXimate 3 to 4 decibel .. mcrease m barrier msertion loss. c.R.I'f3 BARMAN SWALLOW ASSOCIATES 17 COLD CREEK - 1989 FALL NOISE STIJDY -- 100 REFERENCES 1. Mimstry of the Environment - Ontano "Model Muruclpal NOise Control Bylaw", August 1978. . 2. KraJewskI, C.A., 1986 (May) Mirustry of the Environment Shootmg Range NOise Measurement Survey 3 Barman Swallow Associates, Cold Creek Range NOise Study, Oct. 15, 1987 4 -, Barman Swallow Associates, Cold Creek Conservation Area Shootmg NOise Study Follow-Up, July 6, 1988. 5 Barman Swallow ASSOCiates, Cold Creek ConservatIOn Area Shootmg Range Post Mitigation NOise Study, February 23, 1989 6 Mimstry of the EnVIronment, mternal memo, C.A. Krajewski to R.A. Brooks, Cold Creek Conservation Area, October 16, 1989 7 Smoorenburg, G.F , "Evaluation of Impulse NOIse, m Particular Shootmg NOise, With Regard to Annoyance" InternOlse 81, pages 779 to 782. 8. Falch, Edward, NOise From Shootmg Ranges, NordIC NOIse Group, May 1984 9 L'Esperance, A.,et.al., 'Insertion Loss of Absorbent Barflers on Ground' JASA, September 1989 Pages 1060 to 1064 10. Eystem A., Sorensen S. and Lindblom E., "Annoyance Caused by NOise from Shootmg Ranges", City Health Department, Oslo, Norway FASE 1984, page 443 - cR. J 4-4- TABLEt WIND SPEED AND DIRECTION FREQUENCY SUMMARY FOR PEARSON INfERNATIONAL AIRPORT WIND DIRECTION FREQUENCY (%) AVE. . MO SPEED N NNE NE ENE E ESE SE SSE S SSW SW WSW W WN NW NNW JAN. 18.4 11 4 3 3 3 3 2 2 5 6 11 14 13 6 6 8 FEB. 17.6 12 4 3 3 4 3 3 2 6 6 7 8 13 8 8 10 tvlAR. 17.6 13 4 4 4 8 3 3 3 4 4 6 6 12 8 8 10 APR. 17.3 13 3 3 3 8 4 5 5 5 4 5 5 10 8 8 11 rvlAY 149 12 3 3 3 7 3 6 7 7 4 6 5 9 8 7 10 JUNE. 13.4 12 3 2 2 4 3 6 8 8 5 7 6 9 8 8 9 JULY 12.5 12 3 2 2 3 2 5 7 8 5 8 7 11 8 8 9 AUG 12.3 12 3 2 2 4 3 5 8 7 5 8 7 10 7 8 9 SEPT 13,0 12 4 3 2 4 3 6 6 8 5 7 6 11 7 7 9 OCT 14.1 10 3 3 2 5 4 6 5 7 5 9 8 12 7 7 8 NOV 16.6 8 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 7 6 9 11 13 8 6 7 DEC. 17,0 10 4 4 4 4 4 3 2 6 6 10 11 12 6 6 8 ANNUAL 15.4 11 3 3 2 5 3 4 5 7 5 8 8 12 8 7 9 ~ NOTE. This data is based on wind rose diagrams for Pearson International Airport cR. )4-'5 TABLE 2a Range and Average of LLM (all in dBAI) at Each Monitoring Location LLM ave** Location LLM min. LLM max. (linear average) Entrance 447 651 52.7 Caple ABNM* 45 58 . 51.0 Husky ABNM* 43 54.2 476 Zagerman NA 54.2 456 O'Neill ABNM* 38 554 454 Fogg NA 41. 41. TABLE 2b Range and LLM Average (dBAI) For Shooting Noise During Turkey Shoot Competition Location LLM min. LLM max. (linear average) Entrance 53.2 67.3 57.5 Caple 468 64 556 Husky** ABNM*37 72.9 52.3 Zagerman ABNM*37 56 446 O'Neill ABNM*40. 61.8 52.7 Fogg NA ABNM* .. Notes: NA - Not Audible · ABNM - Audible but not measureable Estimated minimum based on background levels and audibilIty of Impulse nOise at 7 to 8 dB below background (estimated as 4 dB below background) for ABNM cases. *. - Husky Farms location was directly downfire from turkey shoot competition. CR. l4-h TABLE 3 Comparison of Levels at Receptor Location - Entrance Obtained in Previous Studies (all in dBAI) # Audible LLM shots/min Study in Ouestion LLM Range Average Linear (Per day range) 1986-MOE N/A N/A N/A 1987-BSA + 39-59 4 48.5 0-21.2 n. 1988-BSA a. N/A 62.2 N/A 1988-89-BSA .. 41-63 51.1 N/A 1989 - BSA + 447-65 1 52.7 0.3-16.5 n. Note: N/A Not applIcable, NA - Not audible + 1987 testing entailed Easterly wind on 1 of 7 occasIOns + 1989 testing entailed Easterly wind on 4 of 7 occasIOns .. A VERAGE OF BOTH RIFLE RANGE & TRAP RANGE SHOOTING a. Trap range only n. 1987 shots averaged over a 5 minute penod, 1989 shots averaged over a 20 minute penod. TABLE 4 Comparison of Levels at Caple Location Obtained in Previous Studies (all in dBAI) Range of LLM Audible Shots Study LLM Ranee (Averaee-Linear) (Shots/Min ) 1986 - MOE ++ 49-63 56 1 1987 - BSA + 43-65.3 52.2 N/A 1988 - BSA a. N/A 56.5 2.6-30.8 1988-89 - BSA .. 36-54 46.8 N/A 1989 BSA + 46.8 - 58 51. N/A ~ . Note: No(es per Table 3 ., + I.. ,a. + + tests conducted and reported by MOE g. - data obtained under easterly wind conSideration N/ A - Not applicable - c!<.pt7 TABLE 5 Comparison of Levels at Husky Farms Location Obtained in Previous Studies (all in dBAI) Range of LLM . Audible Shots Study LLM Range (Average-Linear) (Shots/Min ) 1986 - MOE N/A N/A N/A 1987 - BSA + N/A 61.6 7 1988 - BSA b 50.2 - 60.8 50.2-60.8 N/A 1988-89 - BSA .. 38 - 54 441 N/A 1989 - BSA +, · 43 - 54.2 476 0-9 0 Note: b. - INCLUDES BOTH TRAP & RIFLE RANGE (RESPECTIVELY) (As per Tables 3,4) TAB LE 6 Comparison of Levels at Zagerman Residence Obtained in Previous Studies (all in dBAI) Range of LLM Audible Shots Study LLM Range (Average-Linear) (Shots/Min ) 1986 - MOE + + 45-52 48.3 N/A 1987 - BSA 40-64.2 53.3 7.8-24.2 1988 - BSA b. ABNM ABNM N/A 1988-89 - BSA .. 33-60 47.2 N/A 1989 - BSA NA - 54.2 456 0-10.1 Notes: As per Table 3-5 ABNM - Audible but not measureable NA - Not audible C,R. J4-~ TABLE 7 Comparison of Levels at O'Neill Residence Obtained in Previous Studies (all in dBAI) Range of LLM . Audible Shots Study LLM Range (Average-Linear) (Shots/Min ) 1986 - MOE 62-68 66 N/A 1987 - BSA 53 4 - 80.4 71.2 6 6-24 1988 - BSA b ABNM ABNM N/A 1988-89 - BSA 34-55 43 N/A 1989 - BSA 38.-55 4 454 1 0-7 7 Residents - 1989 f. 57 4-66.8 62.1 N/A Notes' As per Table 3-6 f - Measurements by residents were taken for wind conditIOn of 20-25 mph (about 15 mph for second set of data) This Impltes strong wind gusts from Northwest direction, whereby, Instantaneous wind Induced ambient nOIse levels can be about 60-70 dBAI. Based on MOE GUidelines for sound level measurements, measurements shall not be reported where wind Induced background level IS wIthin dB of nOIse source and measurements shall not be reported for wind condItions exceeding approximately 10 mIles per hour Therefore, this data obtained by resIdents at O'Netll location IS techmcally Invahd. TAB LE 8 Comparison of Levels at Fogg Residence Obtained in Previous Studies (all in dBAI) Range of -" LLM Audible Shots Study LLM Range (Average-Linear) (Shots/Min ) 1988.89 - BSA Not Audible - 42 42. N/A 1989 - BSA Not Audible - 41 41. 0-2.6 Note: Not a measurement location pnor to November 1988 un - . D . h ~ ~.> N\~ Suite 401. T APPP:O~IMATE" $CA L.E '120000 (1 ~A!> I{\~ I N METRES HORM - 10 L'-- I 0,' ' ( , \ . . ~a:r '~""', , ( :.. u r- - , , ",... ~ .. SO ""lIa 0 ,I \ I __ -' / F IGcJRE: 3 ~ '\ " -, 1\ " . ,- )/ LAyQl)ll)f (PLV \ /'-y .\ i / ~). ! f\~/..-// '-....> ;' -- . . ; ~ < CREt:K StlooTltJG-. . RA,,\&ES A~P llrjE D~ I l'lt'O _ lilt:. / /1 . - } o I~f \ L L,..JC E- .- I.. . - " . Il~Slo~ \ ,I'. u " , \ / ...... . I . I~ I ,,(, I - . ; I - " ' , ..... .~ - ..- ,\ 1 ~ 1-~) ,/ ...... .. "' \t i \ " \ \ ~'-:;.::: .. " \ , / .~ , .- --- - , . " . ' <./ \,-,- ._~ .. - . \ I . I , , . Q , :,;:;.1" , /.. 'tJ . .. . z:Al;.E~,~E/\. ::...,.... lle~loe ;;' \ . ~\.;-' , ~ . >-. ~ / ' ," \ , . I \, ! ,. '- . .\;, . T-~ \-;--/ \ \" I ,...-- " \ ' ,,/ \ , I . i /\. \ 101 0 \'~ \ / \ \ I -'-- \ Y ~ \. ,..,.; -I r' Sui.. 401. TITLE COLI'> C~~ 1 Grocrwbon> On.e, c.o~S~lL"A;TtO,.J AUA CLIENT DATE, ~./ .., CR. L5J , NOU\1. I \ / ( P..~ ~.~ ~\4~~qx;-~, . ~J ,~ ,/ " \ r / '-' ) ~.. / I , I \/ ~ / ~~ / \ STA -;::....... ....'/ / / I ~ ~~ , ~ / ~ (\1' .~~ ....----- /' I ,/ .,1 ",----- ," __ '_.. "l'_\I' ~.... ~ - - , --- -Q "'--- - ~--- -_.~- ______ "1.1 STN. a -~. 1- --- -........ ~ (1 - ~ .............. '" - '" .~~ ~ I'''~'''' \\ \ \ \ \ \ 1\ .\ \ \ \ I \ ~ I \ I I 5CAL~ \ 5~O I No'TE . ARfZ.ows IN 0 lCA 1"E' SffoO(ING-- c.ot4f'6--URA11o N 5 Sl<.A\)IN6t SHo""N IN rT. J I I I s...oL. T I TI.E -r ~ ttAtJG e ? fokldT , ,.J&.. 'BARMAN 1 a..-boN on.-. So . a--. 0... MIW ICl . .SVVALIJJW ''''''''(4lI)U607&CII PRO J E:T C~l.f> ~EfK S~'NG. I ASSOCIATES El.G ORW CHK CL lENT MTRCA VG DAr~ I 10WG" .. 2.7 /JtJl,,~ F='I~ .: - ---~ \ .- -- _0_--- .--.--.- .-.-- _.___n__ - -.- --- .- \ . - -. - - - ",..- I I { G; RAD /, \(1 \ coNTOU" " r- -'> I If) fT. ;r.:'~I'. t 1 t.' I I ....) . I J r'i -' J i I / ~_. . I 1 9-/ I ' ........L - · . .' I .... I ~ . -_/ .........y I "'~ -'0 . '" I'" .-_. FIWRE ...,. '. ' f .-.- -. -, .:~......,.. ......\. ........ ....... I ==,-' "7-' I t~;' ." _0------"--. t: . I .....- .. .. - 27 /Jo/el\ CCLO CREEK CO"SE~1l0" _RE- rflUll'OW:D .,..,..""" MlOCa.ll)ll II" ,. ~ - &(C1IIo" D ~:. ~ .A..:.., ............... ~ ... ?\: ..- ~ .. .... .. ... .. , . - ~ - - --- - -.. - . -.. .. .. .. ... -- - -- - - ~~ g / lit rAPlO('1 1'0MI' · / /Il~ ~ 4 'I ("I.S-l flt:l.'f CA'" 'V) FI~~ 5 / 1_lr= v/J~t ME51t ().} "I{ IFl-E" ~ANGIZ A-r-re,\juATlcN ~- ,:, 'llih~AM.M~f\liliD^ P__A e,'I'''I.' CHAMBER. (CtfAMBf:R, {)CCUP/ES ......( I ~ _ t..\ i Co ""'~'_ APrRovIfVlA1f3,.1 3m AT 1b~"'\FIR{; ..~ -r ~---- F:ND') ._ I \(._..1 I I._ '-------.... . -- ...... - ------ ~ -.... ----- -, '-- / / .-. - - -- -~-~......~ -:.----- . . ~ I . ..... ~~-P-o-a:::Il j-I-o-c.:;--o-i-:l--c;. :-w-w--w \. q--.:.J' ~:"1...J Q--,--, w - ~ r- 1- ----- --- __1_-, r , --. r\y 'I... c. \.. .. . _ . ' I OI.\._.~1 l_Uh,- I -- '.. ~.. 1:.... . ~ ~\I. ~ I \10., I..,." C. - f 1\ I .. I I' I ) C .' . '-"'", , J "" ! -- .--- - - -.- --I C. ~I.... , L ..1.... .,... "1_________ 5 --~..., . I. .. _ __ _ -=;:---ISAfr, f;''; \1 (){l~ ,k. \." I." .01.... .. . (. I _ II r '.. . <1()c..f-ILI.(l1 fAtfP '/., '\4 . \..-'~ ~...... I _ '" .,.~. 4\ w 'I.> L,.... :. '/I nl( 1" ~1611J ~ " .... - ..'.. , /.. I~ \,1..\., .. 0\\.__ v,. hy {.,I Acq f\CJ l~/; . _ ,e ..c., '.. '\. _ ( .' \...... .,..: \0: ~. '- _ , "" - ~, ...- - "\ \...1 qa. l,:........... I,... ,,,,,"1 '" (. ......... e r .,. .... " \ - ... - f On Of' (" {f: .- ... - ..... c.... l:.~o\, 01 o~~..... )flr- v 0.;. ( : . _ _ - I......... ~.. --=, to- SlIoarU'ti) , -;. f). TWI r...... I' ....,...... --.... ......... .. ..... nil C.., '" , w t. f. ~ - C~~"h. -J""6LJ,S~fle(lt._~P.1\ .... ~ I l~) -::;:=-.- ---'-::.-' --- , W(( H'l..t:f.) 1,1 1 Mil rv~ ? fa (t. \,.JI(; "Tll f ~ fll ule c 1\ 0 l'C I I' ~ "1,/ I,ll ) oat 2J SIHPflS .& c: ~ I l'~ ~ .... --=-- ~ - ) II .11 .~ fl. _ _ n7flQVt" _~11 ~L_ - ~IL Ll ." ----- c I J I ., -.JE c., \(..,' \ C. 3h"\ cR.. 15Lf APPENDIX C . CR. \55" l.... 8 89 l.... t:~ 7 48 -N- ~I~ - 9 .... 6 -- Cold I o Creek 400 404 t 1 6 .... 2~ 7 12 -- 13 Lake Ontario wiegard 90.02 Cold Creek Conservation Area - Market Area Analysis Range Facilities - Archery · Handgun · Rifle · Skeet · Trap cR. lsb ~ t- (/) UJ UJ UJ ~ m UJ (/) ]: z ~ UJ (/) ::) :I: ::) 0 :>- (I) ...J UJ Z 0 (/) z ~ ...... !:!: ...J ::) :I: ~ t- !:!: C) UJ UJ ~ m ~ Q. < :I: Q. ~ a m ]: UJ < U U < N Z ::) :I: ]: 0 ~ ~ N L... < ...J UJ t- ...J < U :I: U ]: 0 Cold Creek Conservation Area . T . . C . GP 1 York Skeet Club Mississauga . . . . . SP 2 Karl's Shooti ng Range Richmond Hill . . . . SP 3 Pro Shooti ng Ranges of Canada Ajax . . . . SP 4 Osha'Wa Skeet & Gun Cl ub Os ha'Wa . . . . SP 5 Scarboro Rod & Gun Cl ub Uxbridge . . SP CQ 6 Sharon Gun Club Sharon T . . . . P 7 Tor I nt Trap & Skeet Cl ub Coo ksto'W n . . SP cqRr 8 Barrie Gun Cl ub Barrie . . . SP 9 Isli ngton Sportmen's C1 ub Palgrave . . c P 10 Archers of Caledon Caledan . . P 1 1 Maple Rock Shooti ng RanlJe Milton 12 Galt Sportsmen's Cl ub Cambridge . . c . . P 13 Pioneer Sportman Cl ub Kitchener . . SP 14 Halton Gun Cl ub T CQ 15 Peel Game farm T . . . 16 Timberline Trap Club T . c li mited faci 11 t Y T trap onl y GP open to the lJeneral public, no restrictions SP semi - private, membershi p requi rement or public access li mited to certai n time periods I factlities and lor by other conditions P private, membershi p requi red, severe restictions on public access CQ crazy quail tarlJet RT runni ng tarlJet \IIiegard 90 02 CR. )57 APPENDIX D \) ~ Th1s summary identifies the number of participants and shots for each of the spec1al programs and workshops - ~ NO. OF SHOTS PROGRAM NO OF COURSES PARTICIPANTS TOTAL NO.OF HRS. TOTAL 22 CENTRE SHOT TOTAL NO. OF SHOTS PER NO OF DAYS /PROGRAMS PER COURSE SHOOTING/COURSE HOURS x FIRE GUN SHOTS PER YEAR HOUR SHOOTING Hunter 10 24 240 4 40 4800 2640 7440 186 10" Education Shooting Skill s - Scouts 5 100 500 3 15 2000 1000 3000 200 5" - Guides 3 215 630 3 9 4300 2150 6450 717 3" - Board 4 120 480 3 12 2400 1200 3600 31110 4" of Ed Turkey 4 120 48111 8 8 48111 48111 6111 4 Shoot Bear 1 75 75 8 8 1875 1875 234 1 Workshop Deer 1 75 75 8 8 1875 1875 234 1 Workshop Moose 1 75 75 8 8 1875 1875 234 1 Workshop Waterfowl 1 75 75 8 8 3750 375111 469 1 Workshop Dog Trials 4 - - 8 8 - - - 6111111 19 4 TOTAL (EST.) 34 2639 124 39945 34 DAYS/ YEAR "11/2 DAYS) CR. 159 . THE METROPOLITAN TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY WILD WATER KINGDOM SITE PLAN 1990 DEVELOPMENT Conservation and Related Land Management Advisory Board Meeting #6/89 February 16, 1990 , ~& , " , , 'gJ ~ ,~~ /~~ :. I & ~/&" . {}. , ,.t" 08:~ l (;) :" ."0' .' , , / \.....~ ,. . ~ I ,,' '. 0'<;)" I il ~&"~ ~ t '<'i"~ · pi' ," ," Or....... fllClllU.. r'-'-,- ~ : . ~ ,~ I ,., . . 2 ~...--. ' . ~ . ~ . . . :s ~,Nl1I.A . , . 4 ..- r-\o --' . a...,.."...... ..uPlH> '" . 0 a -we. ~ I '0\ 7 u.z'l' IlMllt . ,0. . ~~~...... I ~. Q.\ . .,........ 10 ...-1_ tt .~~... : i :( \ " I'Ir1 ~ 12 I'lC~ ~p' _"'HIC"'~ I . 10... \ 13~1(.otol,. . i"'- 14 .~."... -, AddItIonS - ~ . i ./ . \ 15 .,t.PIo\""d'f~1N1iO ~vu- '\ "- I ,. ~ll:.....e c~ ~...HJ j 17 fNo1&. 'I' VIPItO i ---...~, ,.~~ . r .", J . ~. """1 t\A'f .... " I . Qll,p&Q.l-' pe( t\AY I ....... :'. Il 141\.1 ~ ., J! iJ 21 t'\IIJl ~Lt 1'JIIW1~ 23 -1'T~ ~ \ '[J i~ "',.. ..... \ ! at Mrr... ~ . b'" I I Site Plan u Ptc.WIC. ,.-. \ j{ . ...""~~ ~"'~L'1 . Ik1W ) Wild Water Kingdom rr A"~~ IW( pt.#t( \ H ~~ ......a;. 4 ~ ItlPi5 ,,/ \ \ tt.~ c-....anta Ud. 2. N1M'N ~ ~ eLI~ \ /' ~ ....!- '.. 111.. :so ~ (OUH &&.:.olD :n 1N6o,...G fWL- \ II ;1 :J2 ~.ElI'&.c .....1117 . 33 L,Qf ~ (ii1'~ \ ~ "'-~.,. \ ---- - \ , "\ () L_ ~\\\ ~ -. ._.___._--.-.-J - . -'-. -.- , - """ 0 c,f<. J b ) . THE METROPOLITAN TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY CONSERVATION AREA DEVELOPMENT PROJECT 1990 Project Revisions . Conservation and Related Land Management Advisory Board Meeting 16/89 February 16, 1990 1990 BUDGET PROGRAM SERVICES PROGRAM PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT SOURCE OF FINANCING ACTIVITY EXPEND OTHER NET MNR MUNICIPAL REVENUE EXPEND GRANT LEVY $ $ $ $ $ BOYD ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT STUDY 125,000 125,000 125,000 KORTRIGHT CONCEPT PLAN 45,000 45,000 22,500 22,500 HEART LAKE SWIM STUDY 15,000 15,000 1,500 1,500 TRAIL STANDARDS STUDY 45,000 45,000 22,500 22,500 CLAIREVILLE ENTRANCE 20,000 20,000 10,000 10,000 GREENWOOD LANDSCAPE 20,000 20,000 20,000 GENERAL DEVELOPMENT 25,000 25,000 12,500 12,500 BOND LAKE STUDY 8,250 8,250 CONSERVATION FOUNDATION 160,000 160,000 TOTAL 463,250 313,250 295,000 15,000 15,000 ======================================================================================================================== () ~ . - 0"- ~