Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/29/2017Final ciffboon General Government Committee Agenda Date: May 29, 2017 Time: 9:30 AM Place: Council Chambers, 2nd Floor Municipal Administrative Centre 40 Temperance Street Bowmanville, Ontario 1% Inquiries & Accommodations: For inquiries about this agenda, or to make arrangements for accessibility accommodations for persons attending, please contact: Michelle Chambers, Committee Coordinator, at 905-623-3379, ext. 2106 or by email at mchambers(a).clarington.net. Alternate Format: If this information is required in an alternate format, please contact the Accessibility Coordinator, at 905-623-3379 ext. 2131. Audio Record: The Municipality of Clarington makes an audio record of General Government Committee meetings. If you make a delegation or presentation at a General Government Committee meeting, the Municipality will be audio recording you and will make the recording public by publishing the rFFR-Ga RQV010 EQFLSDONv❑ website. Noon Recess: 3 0EIvH1EH H_UH10 ❑QFLSDQVRI [&®11D1 Procedural By-law, this meeting will recess at 12:00 noon, for a one hour lunch break, unless otherwise determined by the Committee. Cell Phones: Please ensure all cell phones, mobile and other electronic devices are turned off or placed on non -audible mode during the meeting. Copies of Reports are available at www.clarington.net Clar ngton General Government Committee Agenda Date: May 29, 2017 Time: 9:30 AM Place: Council Chambers 1 Call to Order 2 New Business ❑ Introduction 0 HP EHWCRI ARP P I]%HDLH+U=R❑11L11 F l9ZYlL�-iV-IC&OLNVLDepartment, in advance of the meeting, a copy of any motion the Member is intending to introduce, (preferably electronic) such that staff could have sufficient time to share the motion with all Members prior to the meeting. 3 Adopt the Agenda 4 Declaration of Interest 5 Announcements 6 Adoption of Minutes of Previous Meeting 6.1 May 8 Minutes of a Regular Meeting of May 8, 2017 Page 7 Minutes 7 Delegations 7.1 Andre 2 111 EP VD❑ LC=FFH\A4EL0VEGY 1 RJ:A RP P 11A116H15 HJ D -GU d D FFHW❑ Awareness Week 7.2 David Hanratty & Alyson Beal - St. Marys Cement, Regarding an Update on the St. Marys Cement Bowmanville Underground Mine Expansion 7.3 Brian Laine, Senior Lands Technician, Ministry of Northern Development and Mines, Regarding the Ministry of Northern Development and Mines, Class Environmental Assessment, St. Marys Cement Inc. Underground Aggregate Mining Proposal 7.4 Jim Wilson Regarding the Orono Gun Club and the Various Decibel Levels of Guns Shots 7.5 Tammy Gould Regarding the Orono Gun Club 7.6 Bruce Blight Regarding the Orono Gun Club - Past Present and Future 7.7 Jim Grimley, Wilmot Creek Homeowners Association, Regarding Calling for an End to Whistle Noise Pollution in Wilmot Creek Page 2 Clar ngton General Government Committee Agenda Date: May 29, 2017 Time: 9:30 AM Place: Council Chambers 7.8 Lynn Stilwell, Wilmot Creek Homeowners Association, Regarding Calling for an End to Whistle Noise Pollution in Wilmot Creek 7.9 Jim Gibner Regarding Report CLD -014-17, Noise By-law Limits Pertaining to Gun Clubs 7.10 Andrew Simkins, Board Member, Orono Fish and Hunt Club, Regarding Report CLD -014-17, Noise By-law Limits Pertaining to Gun Clubs 7.11 Dan Lawson, Board Member, Orono Fish and Hunt Club, Regarding Report CLD -014-17, Noise By-law Limits Pertaining to Gun Clubs 7.12 Christopher Holoboff, Board Member, Orono Fish and Hunt Club, Regarding Report CLD -014-17, Noise By-law Limits Pertaining to Gun Clubs 7.13 Tony Bernardo, Canadian Shooting Sports Association, Regarding Report CLD -014-17, Noise By-law Limits Pertaining to Gun Clubs 0 FAW Communications - Receive for Information Bowmanville Minutes of the Bowmanville Business Improvement Area Page 22 BIA Minutes dated May 9, 2017 CLOCA Minutes of the Central Lake Ontario Conservation Authority Page 26 Minutes dated May 16, 2017 Newcastle Minutes of the Newcastle Business Improvement Area BIA Minutes dated May 11, 2017 Durham Kyle Fitzgerald, Chair, Durham Youth Council :] Waverley Youth Road Interchange, Letter of Support Council Page 29 Page 32 Page 3 Clar ngton General Government Committee Agenda Date: May 29, 2017 Time: 9:30 AM Place: Council Chambers 9 Communications []Direction 9.1 Wilmot Creek Wilmot Creek Homeowners Association ❑ Regarding Page 34 Report EGD -014-17, Train Whistling at Bennett Road and Cobbledick Road (Motion to refer to the consideration of Report EGD -14-17, Train Whistling at Bennett Road and Cobbledick Road) 9.2 HSDR Karen L. Ormerod, Executive Director, Humane Society of Page 44 Durham Region - -HSDR Supporting Pet Shop Ban (Motion for Direction) 9.3 Town of Ajax Lorraine Billings, Legislative Services Associate/Legislative Page 46 - Great & Information Services, Town of Ajax ❑ Funding for Great Lakes Lakes Restoration (Motion for Direction) 9.4 Jim Richards Jim Richards ❑ Regarding Seniors Housing Page 49 (Motion for Direction) 9.5 Town of Ajax Alexander Harras, Manager of Legislative Services/Deputy Page 50 ❑ Spring Clerk, Town of Ajax ❑ Spring Flooding Flooding (Motion for Direction) 9.6 Township of Barbara Kane, Township Clerk, The Corporation of the Page 51 Adjala❑ Township of Adjala-Tosorontio ❑ &DCDGDV❑1111:th Birthday Tosorontio (Motion for Direction) Page 4 Clar ngton General Government Committee Agenda Date: May 29, 2017 Time: 9:30 AM Place: Council Chambers 10 Presentations 10.1 Tom Griffin, Assistant Professor, School of Hospitality and Tourism Management and Assistant Director of the Hospitality and Tourism Research Institute, Regarding Tourism as an Economic Activity (Scheduled for 10:00 AM) 10.2 Bobbie Drew, Board Member & Brad Carter, Acting Manager of Strategic Planning, Durham Regional Police Service Board, Regarding the Durham Regional Police Service 2017-2019 Business Plan 11 Engineering Services Department 11.1 EGD -014-17 Train Whistling at Bennett Road and Cobbledick Road Page 52 12 Operations Department No Reports 13 Emergency and Fire Services Department 13.1 ESD -003-17 Emergency Services Activity Report - 4th Quarter 2016 14 Community Services Department 14.1 CSD -005-17 2017 Community Event Sponsorship Requests - Spring Intake 1 ■l1 � «;. 1: i \� 111 s � " 11 15.1 CLD -01-17 Noise By-law Limits Pertaining to Gun Clubs (To be distributed under separate cover) Page 105 Page 5 Clar ngton General Government Committee Agenda Date: May 29, 2017 Time: 9:30 AM Place: Council Chambers 16 Corporate Services Department 16.1 COD -009-17 Architectural Services for MAC 16.2 COD -010-17 Third St and Bernard St Reconstruction 17 Finance Department 17.1 FND-010-17 Annual Statement for the Development Charges Reserve Funds for the Year Ended December 31, 2016 17.2 FND-011-17 2016 Annual Statement Cash in Lieu of Parkland Reserve Fund 18 Solicitorig Department No Reports 19 Chief Administrative Office 19.1 Verbal Update on the Chief Administrative Officer Recruitment Report Project 20 New Business ❑ Consideration 21 Unfinished Business No Reports 22 Confidential Reports No Reports 23 Adjournment Page 133 Page 139 Page 143 Page 156 Clarington General Government Committee Minutes May 8, 2017 Minutes of a meeting of the General Government Committee held on Monday, May 8, 2017 at 9:30 AM in the Council Chambers. Present Were: Mayor A. Foster, Councillor S. Cooke, Councillor R. Hooper, Councillor J. Neal until 3:22 PM, Councillor W. Partner, Councillor C. Traill, Councillor W. Woo Staff Present: C. Clifford, T. Cannella, J. Caruana, F. Horvath, L. Gordon, A. Greentree until 2:22 PM, M. Marano, G. Weir, J. Gallagher, M. Chambers 1 Call to Order Mayor Foster called the meeting to order at 9:30 AM. 2 New Business — Introduction Councillor Partner added a New Business item, regarding the Canada Day Fireworks display at Garnet B. Rickard Recreation Complex on July 1, 2017, to the New Business — Consideration section of the agenda. Councillor Woo added a New Business item, regarding the cessation of train whistles, to the New Business — Consideration section of the agenda. Councillor Cooke added a New Business item, regarding an emergency planning training session for Members of Council and updating By-law 99-161, to the New Business — Consideration section of the agenda. Councillor Traill added a New Business item, regarding Cedar Crest Beach flooding, to the New Business — Consideration section of the agenda. Councillor Traill added a New Business item, regarding shoreline protection, to the New Business — Consideration section of the agenda. 3 Adopt the Agenda Resolution #GG -239-17 Moved by Councillor Cooke, seconded by Councillor Hooper That the Agenda for the General Government Committee meeting of May 8, 2017 be adopted with the addition of the following new business Items: x Canada Day fireworks display x Cessation of train whistles x Updating of By-law 99-161 x Cedar Crest Beach flooding x Shoreline protection Carried - 1 - Clarington 4 Declaration of Interest General Government Committee Minutes May 8, 2017 Councillor Hooper declared an interest in the New Business Item regarding the Canada Day Fireworks display at Garnet B. Rickard Recreation Complex. 5 Announcements Members of Council announced upcoming community events and matters of community interest. 6 Adoption of Minutes of Previous Meeting Resolution #GG -240-17 Moved by Councillor Hooper, seconded by Councillor Partner That the minutes of the regular meeting of the General Government Committee meeting held on April 18, 2017, be approved. Carried 7 Delegations 7.1 Simon Walker, Cooperative Education Teacher, Jasmine Martin, Emily Jackson, and Sam Walker, Bowmanville High School, Regarding Recent ME to WE Trip to Tanzania Simon Walker, Cooperative Education Teacher, Jasmine Martin, Emily Jackson, and Sam Walker, Bowmanville High School, were present regarding their recent Me to We trip to Tanzania. They made a verbal presentation to accompany an electronic presentation. Mr. Walker advised the Committee that a total of 23 students went to Tanzania in March 2017. He noted that the purpose of this trip was for a school building project and to encourage youth to have a voice as well as encourage them to be active in their local community. Mr. Walker added that the students have taken on the issue of water conservation. Sam Walker highlighted details of the trip including the arrival to Namelok, Arusha, the camp life, the build site and the details of the work they did. He added that, on the last part of the trip, they were able to attend a classroom and read with the local children. He added that this was a very rewarding experience. Emily Jackson explained to the Committee that, when they were in Tanzania, they participated in a "water walk" with the local residents. She continued by explaining that the local residents walk two kilometres several times a day carrying 20 litre jugs in order to obtain water for their homes. Ms. Jackson added that occasionally these wells can dry up and then the walk can be up to five kilometres. She explained they have discovered that Clarington residents rely on bottled water when there is a good -2- Clarington General Government Committee Minutes May 8, 2017 municipal water supply. Ms. Jackson concluded by stating that the students are looking to raise awareness. Jasmine Martin explained that, upon their return, the students have made water their focus. She noted they are looking to raise awareness and are asking the Principal for four additional modern water fountains to be installed Bowmanville High School. Ms. Martin explained they are looking for alternative to bottled water and to make Bowmanville High School bottle free. She continued by stating that their goal is to encourage the use of refillable water bottles and they are asking the Municipality to look at purchasing a mobile water filling station for use at events within the Municipality. Ms. Martin concluded by explaining they are asking the Municipality of Clarington to lead by example and encourage the community to not abuse the resources we have available. Resolution #GG -241-17 Moved by Councillor Neal, seconded by Councillor Traill That the delegation of Simon Walker, Cooperative Education Teacher, Jasmine Martin, Emily Jackson, and Sam Walker, Bowmanville High School, regarding recent ME to WE trip to Tanzania, be received with thanks; and That the request, for the Municipality of Clarington to purchase a mobile water filling station for use at events, be referred to staff. Carried Recess Resolution #GG -242-17 Moved by Councillor Partner, seconded by Councillor Traill That the Committee recess for 10 minutes. Carried The meeting reconvened at 10:50 AM with Mayor Foster in the Chair. 7.2 Linda Lowery, Chairperson, Heads Up Durham, Regarding Brain Injury Awareness Month Linda Lowery, Chairperson, Heads Up Durham, was present regarding Brain Injury Awareness Month. She made a verbal presentation to accompany an electronic presentation. Ms. Lowery provided background information regarding her personal experiences with brain injuries. She reviewed the definitions of a traumatic brain injury and a concussion. Ms. Lowery stated that a brain injury is a silent epidemic and she reviewed statistics on brain injuries. She listed some of the causes of brain injuries. Ms. Lowery added that acquired brain injury is the leading cause of death and disability for children, youth and young adults. She highlighted the mission and three main goals -3- E Clarington General Government Committee Minutes May 8, 2017 of Heads Up Durham. Ms. Lowery reviewed the Heads Up Durham Steering Committee members and partners within the community. She reviewed some of the 2016 initiatives including, Heads Up! Durham on the Go, Heads Up on Concussions, a workshop with health care professionals, Rowan's Law and concussion awareness and Durham Regional Police Collision Centres. Ms. Lowery continued by highlighting upcoming direction for 2017-2018 which includes Racing Against Durham Drugs, 2018 Conference at Durham College, distracted driving, and a partnership with the Oshawa Generals. She added that Heads Up Durham is continuously looking to promote prevention and enhance support for people with brain injuries. Ms. Lowery concluded by asking the members of Council to proclaim June as Brain Injury Awareness Month. Resolution #GG -243-17 Moved by Councillor Woo, seconded by Councillor Traill That the delegation of Linda Lowery, Chairperson, Heads Up Durham, regarding Brain Injury Awareness Month, be received with thanks. Carried The proclamation was presented to Ms. Lowery and a photo was taken with members of Committee. Alter the Agenda Resolution #GG -244-17 Moved by Councillor Cooke seconded by Councillor Traill That the Agenda be altered to consider Presentation Item 10.1 from Larry Shanks Executive Director and Pamela Young - Director of Community Development, SafeHope Home, Regarding Fighting Sexual Exploitation & Trafficking, at this time. Carried 10.1 Larry Shanks Executive Director and Pamela Young -Director of Community Development, SafeHope Home, Regarding Fighting Sexual Exploitation & Trafficking Larry Shanks Executive Director and Pamela Young, Director of Community Development, SafeHope Home, were present regarding fighting sexual exploitation & trafficking. They made a verbal presentation to accompany a handout. Ms. Young reviewed the definition of human trafficking and provided background information on the issue. She explained that human trafficking has become the second largest business of criminals. Ms. Young reviewed human trafficking statistics and noted that the highest percentage takes place in the Greater Toronto Area. She explained the steps which need to be taken to assist with recovery and reviewed the SafeHope Home Model. Ms. Young continued by providing details of the various components of the recovery programs. She advised the Committee that currently they do not have a home but are -4- 10 Clarington General Government Committee Minutes May 8, 2017 developing and building the day program. Ms. Young added that objectives of the day program are to resolve issues of abuse and addiction, manage emotions, build relationships, quality of life, parenting skills, and reach a higher level of education. She added that they are trying to develop leaders to assist with future SafeHope Home programs. Mr. Shanks provided an overview of the main issues and explained that the main goal of SafeHope Home is to assist the victims of human trafficking. He added that the problem is more prevalent than people realize. Mr. Shanks advised the Committee that the Durham Regional Police Services has a Human Trafficking Unit and there needs to be education on this issue. He explained that they are looking to support these woman, provide rehabilitation and raise awareness. Mr. Shanks noted that they have received support from various organizations and that the support programs are beginning this week. He added that the goal is to have their own facility. Mr. Shanks concluded by thanking the members of Committee for their support and offered to answer questions. Resolution #GG -245-17 Moved by Councillor Neal, seconded by Councillor Partner That the presentation of Larry Shanks, Executive Director, and Pamela Young, Director of Community Development, SafeHope Home, regarding fighting sexual exploitation & trafficking, be received with thanks. Carried 8 Communications - Receive for Information 8.1 Minutes of the Newcastle Village Community Hall Board, dated March 21, 2017 8.2 Minutes of the Tyrone Community Centre, dated April 19, 2017 8.3 Minutes of the Central Lake Ontario Conservation Authority, dated April 25, 2017 8.4 Minutes of the Ganaraska Region Conservation Authority, dated April 20, 2017 8.5 Minutes of the Bowmanville Business Improvement Area, dated April 11, 2017 8.6 Minutes of the Kawartha Conservation Authority, dated March 22, 2017 and March 29, 2017 8.7 Roger Anderson, Regional Chair and CEO, The Regional Municipality of Durham — Regulatory Registry Proposal Number: 17 MNRF004 — Proposed Changes to Regulation 244/97 Aggregate Fees and Royalties -5- 11 Clarington General Government Committee Minutes May 8, 2017 8.8 Geoff Gordon, Vegetation Management Specialist, Canadian Pacific — Canadian Pacific 2017 Vegetation Control Program Resolution #GG -246-17 Moved by Councillor Neal, seconded by Councillor Cooke That the Communication Items 8.1 to 8.8 be received for information. Carried 9 Communications — Direction 9.1 Gabriel Medel-Carratala, Design -Build Director Blackbird Constructors 407 General Partnership — Highway 407 East Phase 2 Noise By-law Exemption Request Resolution #GG -247-17 Moved by Councillor Hooper, seconded by Councillor Neal That the request from Blackbird Constructors 407 General Partnership, for an exemption to the Municipality's Noise By-law 2007-071 for work along the future Highway 418 from north of Highway 2 to Highway 401 from June 1, 2017 to October 31, 2017, be approved. Carried 10 Presentations 10.1 Larry Shanks Executive Director and Pamela Young - Director of Community Development, SafeHope Home, Regarding Fighting Sexual Exploitation & Trafficking The presentation of Larry Shanks Executive Director and Pamela Young, Director of Community Development, SafeHope Home was heard earlier in the meeting following the delegation portion of the agenda. 11 Engineering Services Department Resolution #GG -248-17 Moved by Councillor Neal, seconded by Councillor Traill That the remainder of the Reports, listed in the Agenda, be approved, on consent with the exception of Reports COD -008-17 and EGD -011-17, as follows: M 12 Clarington General Government Committee Minutes May 8, 2017 15.1 CLD -009-17 Appointment to the Samuel Wilmot Nature Area Management Advisory Committee That Report CLD -009-17 be received; That James Hodge be thanked for his contribution to the Samuel Wilmot Nature Area Management Advisory Committee; That Meaghan Vandenbrink be appointed to the Samuel Wilmot Nature Area Management Advisory Committee for a term ending December 31, 2018 or until a successor is appointed; and That all interested parties listed in Report CLD -009-17 and any delegations be advised of Council's decision. 15.2 CLD -010-17 Appointment to the Clarington Public Library Board That Report CLD -010-17 be received; That Kerri Davis be thanked for her contribution to the Clarington Public Library Board; That Janice Jones be appointed to the Clarington Public Library Board for a term ending December 31, 2018 or until a successor is appointed; and That all interested parties listed in Report CLD -010-17 and any delegations be advised of Council's decision. 11.1 FND-009-17 Financial Update as at March 31, 2017 That Report FND-009-17 be received for information. Carried 16.1 COD -008-17 Newcastle Intersection Improvements Resolution #GG -249-17 Moved by Councillor Partner, seconded by Councillor Woo That Report COD -008-17 be received; That Aloia Brothers Concrete Contractors Ltd. with a total bid amount of $300,077.27(Net HST Rebate) being the lowest compliant bid meeting all terms, conditions and specifications of Tender CL2017-4 be awarded the contract for the Newcastle Intersection Improvements as required by the Engineering Services Department; -7- 13 Clarington General Government Committee Minutes May 8, 2017 That the funds required for this project in the amount of $385,090.09 (Net HST Rebate) which includes the construction cost of $300,077.27 (Net HST Rebate) costs such as inspection and contract administration, material testing, permit fees and contingencies of $85,012.82 (Net HST Rebate) be funded by the Municipality as follows: Newcastle Streetscape 110-32-338-83436-7401 $ 212,319.09 Pavement Rehabilitation 110-32-330-83212-7401 $ 123,761.28 Sidewalks Various 110-32-331-83215-7401 $49,009.72 That all interested parties listed in Report COD -008-17 and any delegations be advised of Council's decision by the Purchasing Division. Carried 11.1 EGD -013-17 Federal Clean Water and Wastewater Fund Resolution #GG -250-17 Moved by Councillor Woo, seconded by Councillor Cooke That Report EGD -013-17 be received; That the By-law attached to Report EGD -013-17 (Attachment 1 to Report EGD -013-17) be approved; That all interested parties listed in Report EGD -013-17 and any delegations be advised of Council's decision. Carried Recess The Committee recessed for their one hour scheduled break as per the Procedural By-law. The meeting reconvened at 1:02 PM with Mayor Foster in the Chair. 12 Operations Department No Reports for this section of the Agenda. 13 Emergency and Fire Services Department No Reports for this section of the Agenda. 14 Clarington 14 Community Services Department No Reports for this section of the Agenda. 15 Municipal Clerk's Department General Government Committee Minutes May 8, 2017 Municipal Clerk's Department Reports were considered earlier in the meeting during the Engineering Services Department portion of the agenda. 16 Corporate Services Department The Corporate Services Department Report was considered earlier in the meeting during the Engineering Services Department portion of the agenda. 17 Finance Department The Finance Department Report was considered earlier in the meeting during the Engineering Services Department portion of the agenda. Suspend the Rules Resolution #GG -251-17 Moved by Councillor Traill, seconded by Councillor Neal That the Rules of Procedure be suspended to introduce the New Business Item 20.4 regarding a Cedar Crest Beach flooding, at this time. Carried 20.4 Cedar Crest Beach Flooding — Request for Report on Actions Taken Resolution #GG -252-17 Moved by Councillor Traill, seconded by Councillor Woo That the Director of Emergency & Fire Services report back to the May 29, 2017 General Government Committee meeting with a full report outlining actions taken with respect to the flooding in Cedar Crest Beach Area from April 25, 2017 to present date, with reference to the provisions and applications of Emergency Services Emergency Plan. Carried M 15 Clarington Suspend the Rules Resolution #GG -253-17 General Government Committee Minutes Moved by Councillor Woo, seconded by Councillor Traill May 8, 2017 That the Rules of Procedure be suspended to allow Members of Committee to ask questions of the Director of Emergency Services a second time. Carried 18 Solicitor's Department No Reports for this section of the Agenda. 19 Chief Administrative Office No Reports for this section of the Agenda. 20 New Business — Consideration 20.1 Canada Day Fireworks Display at Garnet B. Rickard Recreation Complex on July 1, 2017 Councillor Hooper declared an interest in the New Business Item 20.1, regarding Canada Day Fireworks Display at Garnet B. Rickard Recreation Complex on July 1, 2017, as his band may be playing at the event. Councillor Hooper left the room and refrained from discussion and voting on this matter. Resolution #GG -254-17 Moved by Councillor Partner, seconded by Councillor Cooke Whereas the Orono Agricultural Society informed the Mayor's Office that the Society will not be able to organize the annual Clarington fireworks display held at the Garnet B. Rickard Recreation Complex on July 1, 2017; And Whereas the opportunity for the Celebrate Canada funding program through the Department of Canadian Heritage is unavailable; And Whereas the Municipality of Clarington deems it desirable to continue with the tradition of a fireworks display on July 1, 2017; And Whereas July 1, 2017 marks the 150th Anniversary of the Confederation of Canada; -10- 16 Clarington General Government Committee Minutes May 8, 2017 Now therefore be it resolved that the Community Services Department be directed to co-ordinate the July 1, 2017 Canada Day Fireworks Celebration at the Garnet B. Rickard Recreation Complex; That $12,000 be allocated to the Community Services Department to cover the costs for the fireworks display, tenting and staging requirements; and That the funds be charged to the General Capital Reserve, Account #100-00-000-00000-2917. Carried Councillor Hooper returned to the meeting. 20.2 Cessation of Train Whistles Resolution #GG -255-17 Moved by Councillor Woo, seconded by Councillor Traill That Staff report back to the General Government Committee meeting of May 29, 2017, providing cost estimates for the study of level crossings, in Clarington, to meet Transport Canada requirements for whistle cessation; That Staff report back on any Federal legislative requirements and/or guidelines since the last staff report about level crossing train whistle cessation; and That Staff report back on any financial assistance provided by upper levels of government towards level crossing upgrades towards train whistle cessation. Carried as amended (See following motions) Resolution #GG -256-17 Moved by Councillor Neal, seconded by Councillor Hooper That the foregoing Resolution #GG -255-17 be amended to replace the words "in Clarington" with the words "at Bennett Road and Cobbledick Road". Carried The foregoing Resolution #GG -255-17 was then put to a vote and carried as amended. -11- 17 Clarington General Government Committee Minutes May 8, 2017 20.3 Emergency Planning - Information Session and Updating of By-law 99-161 Resolution #GG -257-17 Moved by Councillor Cooke, seconded by Councillor Partner That Staff arrange an information session for Councillors regarding emergency planning and emergency management; and That Staff consider updates to By-law 99-161, including clear direction on the roles and responsibilities of members of Council. Carried Later in the Meeting Suspend the Rules Resolution #GG -258-17 Moved by Councillor Traill, seconded by Councillor Neal That the Rules of Procedure be suspended to allow Members of Committee to speak to the matter of the foregoing Resolution #GG -257-17 a second time. Carried The foregoing Resolution #GG -257-17 was then carried on the following recorded vote: Council Member Yes No Declaration of Absent Interest Councillor Cooke X Councillor Hooper X Councillor Neal X Councillor Partner X Councillor Traill X Councillor Woo X Mayor Foster X 20.4 Cedar Crest Beach Flooding — Request for Report on Actions Taken New Business Item 20.4 Cedar Crest Beach flooding was considered earlier in the meeting during the questions to the Director of Emergency Services portion of the agenda. -12- Clarington General Government Committee Minutes May 8, 2017 20.5 Comprehensive Waterfront Emergency Plans Resolution #GG -259-17 Moved by Councillor Traill, seconded by Councillor Neal That Staff report back on the creation of a comprehensive waterfront emergency plan for each Clarington waterfront area including (but not limited to): flood prevention procedures and protocols, volunteer coordination, involvement of third party agencies, in-home assessments, evacuation criteria and strategies, and communication strategies for same. Carried as Amended (See following motions) Resolution #GG -260-17 Moved by Councillor Neal, seconded by Councillor Traill That the foregoing Resolution #GG -259-17 be amended by replacing the words "flood prevention" with the words "property safeguarding". Carried Resolution #GG -261-17 Moved by Councillor Cooke, seconded by Councillor Hooper That the foregoing Resolution #GG -259-17 be amended by inserting the words "in consultation with the Community Emergency Program Committee" after the words "That Staff report back". Carried The foregoing Resolution #GG -259-17 was then put to a vote and carried as amended. Suspend the Rules Resolution #GG -262-17 Moved by Councillor Traill, seconded by Councillor Woo That the Rules of Procedure be suspended to introduce to add an additional New Business Item regarding a Cedar Crest Beach Shoreline Protection — Water and Septic Conditions. Carried Councillor Neal left the meeting at 3:20 PM. -13- 19 Clarington General Government Committee Minutes May 8, 2017 20.6 Cedar Crest Beach Shoreline Protection — Water and Septic Conditions Resolution #GG -263-17 Moved by Councillor Traill, seconded by Councillor Woo That a portable water station and washrooms be provided until the water and septic conditions improve at Cedar Crest Beach; and That, unless one has already been held to address this specific issue, a meeting with the Durham Region, Clarington Emergency Services, Clarington Operations and Durham Region Health Department be held to address the issue of clean water, well and septic remediation for residents in the Cedar Crest Beach Area. Carried as Amended See following motions Resolution #GG -264-17 Moved by Councillor Cooke, seconded by Councillor Woo That the foregoing Resolution #GG -263-17 be amended by replacing the words: x That a portable water station" with the words "That portable water" x "address" with the word "comment on" Carried The foregoing Resolution #GG -263-17 was then put to a vote and carried as amended. 21 Unfinished Business None 22 Confidential Reports No Reports for this section of the Agenda. -14- 20 Clarington 23 Adjournment Resolution #GG -265-17 General Government Committee Minutes Moved by Councillor Hooper, seconded by Councillor Traill That the meeting adjourn at 3:34 PM. Mayor Carried -15- 21 May 8, 2017 Deputy Clerk BOARD OF MANAGEMENT BOWMANVILLE BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT AREA. Minutes of a regular meeting of the Board of Management held at 6:30 p. m.,,on Tuesday, May.9 201.7 in. Committee Room l -C in the Bowmanvil'le Library. Present: Gilpin, (Chris) Broumley, (Karen) Irvine, (Faye) Langmaid, (Robin) Jefferies Members: Lucas, McDonald,. Hooper, Holmes, Barry Absent:. Re.zazada, Chaput, Pattreson The meeting was called to order by the Chairman who then recognized that r there were two delegations present. The Chair recognized Faye Langmaid from the Planning Department of the Municipality who said that she was present on the direction. of Council to determine our position on the use of parking spaces in the Downtown for bump out eating spaces for restaurants. The restaurants in question would be required to pay a $15,000 fee for this opportunity. Two reported that they were interested. Members expressed concern about the loss of parking space if this was approved, noting, that the limited amount of parking in the Downtown was already a. recognized problem. Another idea under consideration is to enhance the north side of King and Silver Streets in the area of the public domain., where the Municipality would put planters, if the BIA agreed to water the plants. No decision was reach on these proposals. Next,. Karen Irvine from. Sliver Productions tabled three proposals. The first was a one minute header on our website with lots of close-ups which 22 Page 2 .can be put anywhere. Pictures would be 1080 pies. She :recommended the five minutes high level package, broken up into one of two minute clips interspersed among the photos of the various store fronts in "feel good" :quick shots. To do this she would need people to be in the clips of all ages. Lucas stated that the three ;proposals would be addressed under "New Business" later in the meeting. Moving next to the Minutes April 11, 2107, it was noted that the Durham Regional. Police report contained a typing error -2105 should be 2015 and that in the Membership Relations report the new business reported as Division Street Consulting is not correct. McDonald will provide the right name at the June meeting. Moved by Holmes, seconded by McDonald, THAT the Minutes of the previous meeting be adopted as corrected. "C O 1;t TL`D!) Correspondence was received from the Municipality of Clarington. Moved by Hooper, seconded by McDonald, THAT the correspondence be received and filed.. `CARRIED' 23 Page 3 The Treasurer presented his report as follows: Current Account GIC #1 GIC#2 Total. Moved by McDonald, seconded. by Holmes, THAT the Treasurer's Report be adopted as presented. Reports: $ 26,655.45 120,000.00 5,007.91 $151,663.36 "CARRIED" Council Liaison, -.Hooper, reported that the maintenance to benches andthe trees has been done. Events: Holmes stated that the Maple Festival and All That .Jazz event was. a success in spite of the weather.. Membership Relations: McDonald reported that another new business has located in the Downtown—Himalayan Energy. Streetscape Lucas reported that the hanging flower baskets for the Downtown have been ordered from Rekkers' Garden Centre. Gilpin reported that June Binnington started waste clean-up on May 1. Communications: Holmes reported that the Highlights of the April Board meeting have been delivered. 24 Page 4 Board of Trade: No report. Web Site:. No report. Media Relations Hooper and Lucas are to inform Chaput that she is no longer on the Board. There was no "BUSINESS ARISING" from the previous meeting:. Under "NEW BUSINESS", McDonald reported that she had received a telephone call from a .Linda White of the Toronto Sun newspaper, Community Events, about happenings in the Downtown. She referred her to Cathy Holmes as she is the Chairperson of the Events Committee.. Next it was Moved by McDonald,. seconded by Holmes, THAT Sliver Productions be engaged. to do a promotional video for the Website using the High Level Package outlined by Karen Irvine at a cost of $1,,600. "CA1tRIED" Moved by Hooper, seconded by McDonald., THAT the Meeting be adjourned. `CARRIED' The next .meeting is scheduled for Tuesday, June 13 2017 in Committee Room -C in the Bowmanville Library at 6:30 p. m. 25 THAT the Authority minutes of April 25, 2017 be adopted as circulated. 955, (' 26 THAT Staff Report #5520-17 be received for information. 855,(' 6DffHSRWQDSJ 5H 3RSRHG3HKQLDO(,FH6RLO5H*DHRQ 5HV ORHGE�RYIDO 611FRQHGE�$NHU THAT Staff be directed to begin consultations with watershed municipal staff to efficiently and effectively operationalize the new Excess Soil Management Framework in a collaborative fashion; THAT Staff Report 5522-17 and the specific amendments and comments in Appendix 1 be endorsed as CLOCA's comments on the Proposed Excess Soil Regulatory Package (EBR Registry No. 013-0299); and, THAT Staff Report 5522-17 be circulated to the Region of Durham, watershed municipalities, neighbouring conservation authorities, and Conservation Ontario. 8°55,(' 6MHSRW(!DSJ 5H MPLHFMF'KROAOU3HVEWSOLFDARQLIZ9LO ODH8QRCWOLF6FRRODDEE 6HHMZD -HPQFpGMFRHG#WR,WHHFRPPHQDDRQQZRX OGQHIIKWKK 511V ORHGEJISPDQ 6HFRQHGEBLFNOHV THAT permit application RCONI0-6 be approved subject to implementing conditions to be determined by staff; THAT the Durham District School Board be advised in writing that CLOCA will not provide any further permit approvals for the subject lands for additions to accommodate additional pupils; THAT the Durham District School Board be advised in writing that CLOCA will not provide any permit approvals for portable classrooms on the subject lands; THAT the Durham District School Board enter into a save harmless agreement with CLOCA with respect to this approval and that the agreement be registered against the title of the lands; THAT CLOCA staff seek to ensure that the development associated with this permit approval be considered in any future downstream infrastructure works that might mitigate flood risk to the lands municipally known as 155 Gibb Street, and THAT the City of Oshawa, as part of a future update to the Comprehensive Zoning By-law, be requested to extend the OSH zoning, or equivalent, across the entire parcel of lands municipally known as 155 Gibb Street, and only allow permitted uses consistent with provincial land use planning policy. $55,(' (5RLERISGYI QXOQHNLHOO OHDW P '5(&5ZP081,7K1$(V(17 6DIHSRW(7DSJ 5H 3,KOHRRGVDSOH6APHHDO 19HHGDQJSPD HGDDQFRi"DIFGD'PRQ DNDHHQ' 511V ORHGEISPDQ 6HFRQHGE19HHG THAT Staff Report #5521-17 received for information. 8'55,(' 27 5 h ORYIE E - $AhU 6H�RQCW 9 5 +RRShU THAT Staff Report #5519-17 be received for information. 835,(' 6DIHSRWQDSJ 5H DNH2#MDWHHOV SHV ORYIE El - $NIhU 611;RQSFE E 5 +RRSIU THAT Staff Report #5525-17 be received for information. 8'65,(' ;5(&25&5325$7(6(59,06 686HSR8UQDSJ 5H KHW SHV ORMU EI % c'TSPDO 61FRQ7E El I 3L(Z � THAT Staff Report #5524-17 be received for information; THAT the proposed 2017 budget estimates, totalling $7,068,605 be approved, as presented; and, THAT copies of the 2017 Budget Report, as approved, be circulated to the Region of Durham and lower tier municipalities for their information about the projects and programs of the Central Lake Ontario Conservation Authority in 2017. 835,(' 1(8'6,1(66 t1@1JffHGMIY LLFDGRKFHfFDHHDUHDHV $'28510(17 SHV ORHGEJSPDQ 6HFRQHGE4P S55,(' 7MPHHII GMR#GDMP HOHDHRLFSRKIDDRt?O 3DHODQPDVZEHHIFQHGMWDIIQHDRQ THAT the meeting adjourn. Newcastle BIA MINUTES May 11, 2017 www.villageofnewcastle.ca Attendance: Theresa Vanhaverbeke, Marni Lewis, Helen Vatandoust, Valentine Lovekin, Tracy Yates, Ann Harley, Donna Wood, Joyce King, Karen Bastas, Faye Langmaid - Clarington, Amy Schaefer - Clarington, Ashley Kielbiski - Tourism Regrets: Greg Lewis, Waisze Brown, Catherine Peterson 1. Attendance taken. Theresa Chaired the meeting 2. Meeting called to order at 9:00 a.m. 3. Approval of April Minutes: Motion to accept: Joyce King Seconded: Helen Vatandoust 4. Business Arising from Minutes: 109 King Ave Building Valentine moved to write a letter to council on behalf of the BIA showing our support for this new building in the BIA area. Seconded by Joyce King. Please watch for the letter to be emailed shortly. 5. Ann Harley at the Gift of Art received a Canadian Community Foundations 150 Grant. With the grant money they are providing; -30,000 placemats for every restaurant in town with questions and fun facts about Newcastle. -8 banners of famous Newcastle people will go up along King Ave. -large collages of artwork made by students at Newcastle Public School. That will be hung at the library and Rec Centre. 6. Faye Langmaid - Clarington Talked to the BIA about Restaurants Outdoor Patios and Parklets. There are 5 potential restaurants in Newcastle that could take advantage of this new opportunity and 14 in Bowmanville. The Patios season would be from May -October. Each restaurants would be responsible for the cost and storage of the patio structure. This went to council on Monday. Council wanted to know from the BIAs 1) overall idea, 29 do you agree with Main St. patios? 2) Impact of losing parking spaces? We agreed with the idea and would like to see it be an option for restaurants if they choose to want one. Patios encourage more people to come to the BIA. 7. President's Report: The Premier visited Lakeridge Hospital last week. There will be an additional 8.4 million dollars in funding for the hospital. It is thought that in order to decrease wait times in hospitals, more focus should be on elderly care, and getting them moved out of the hospital beds and into long term care homes. 8. Treasurer's Report: As of April 30, 2017 there is a balance of $95,890.35, no outstanding checks. 9. Council Report: n/a 10. Committee Reports: Safety & Decor: The banners are going up soon. Advertising: Newcastle Physio held their grand re -opening open house on May 13. Special Events: a) The Easter Scavenger Hunt was a huge success this year. Some businesses saw 100 kids throughout the day. b) Canada Day is looking for your sponsorship. Please watch for the email requesting your support shortly. This will be Karen Bastas' last year for organizing this event. She has taken this on for many years and its always been a family fun event. We thank her for all her hard work! c) Harvest Festival is NOT going ahead this year if a Newcastle business doesn't step up to organize it. 30 11. CBOT: n/a 12. Chamber News: n/a 13. CIP: Ajoint meeting was held with Newcastle, Orono, Bowmanville and Courtice. Veridian presented a Small Business Lighting Program, helping small businesses with a simple solution for energy efficient lighting. If you are interested please call 1-844-363-4035 for more information. 14. New Business: Theresa motioned for the BIA to continue sponsoring the concerts in the park and move to increase the budget to $250.00 this year. Valentine seconded. Approved. 15. Next meeting, Thursday June 8, 2017 @ 9:OOam 16. Motion to adjourn meeting by M. Lewis, seconded by H. Vatandoust 31 Durham Touth Councir Oef,eve in 10- 1/ May 1St, 2017 Regional Chair Anderson, The Durham Youth Council is pleased to join a growing chorus of organisations calling for an expedited approval for the enhancement of an interchange at Waverley Road and King's Highway 401, in Bowmanville, Ontario. Youth Council applauds the Municipality of Clarington's leadership on this issue, including their pledge to commit $2.495 million to the project. We are calling on the Region of Durham to commit a further $2.495 million, to demonstrate a united, Region -wide commitment to this project. With total economic value of $16 million annually to Ontario's economy, a significant portion of which will benefit the Durham Region, the project is a sound investment. By alleviating the congestion currently seen on Highway 401 between the Holt and Liberty exits, expedited enhancement of the Waverley Road interchange will enhance quality of life for Bowmanville residents, especially commuters. In conjunction with the extension of the Lakeshore East GO Train line to Bowmanville (a project vigorously supported by Youth Council), improvements to the Waverley interchange will advance Clarington, and Bowmanville specifically, as a destination for tourists, professionals, and young families seeking reprieve from housing prices closer to Toronto. Of greatest interest to Youth Council is the 1,500 full- and part-time positions to be generated by a Smart Centre situated near the Waverley Road exit. As young people continue to struggle to enter the workforce, and compete for entry-level jobs that demand ever-increasing experience, the retail positions that will accompany a new Smart Centre in Bowmanville will serve as a prime opportunity for high school and post -secondary students to gain part-time work, or for young people in general to secure employment while remaining within Durham Region. SmartREIT, the entity behind a Smart Centre at the Waverley exit, has committed $2.495 million to enhancements of the Waverley Road interchange. DurhamYC.ca 1 (905) 259-2991 info@DurhamYC,ca ® Durham YOUth COMICH @DurilarnYC 32 1Ourfiana Touth Council Befiel e in 11outF Expedited enhancement of the Waverley Road interchange is an exciting opportunity to stimulate growth, alleviate congestion, and generate employment, especially for the many young residents in Durham seeking to enter the world of work. We applaud both the Municipality of Clarington and SmartREIT for committing a share of the cost, and encourage the Region of Durham to match their contribution. Yours in community service, Kyle Fitzgerald Chair, Durham Youth Council Youth Councillor, City of Oshawa Tenzin Shomar Deputy Chair, Durham Youth Council Youth Councillor, Municipality of Clarington Cc: Clarington Municipal Council Granville Anderson, Member of Provincial Parliament The Honourable Steven Del Duca, Minister of Transportation DurhamYC.ca 1 (905) 259-2991. info@DurhamYC.ca Durham Youth Council @DurharnYC 33 WCHA WILMOT CREEK HOMEOWNERS'ASSOCIATION Calling for an End to Whistle Noise Pollution in Wilmot Creek Report to Clarington Municipal Council calling for a "Train Whistle Cessation Bylaw" covering the Bennett Road and Cobbledick Road CN Rail crossings. Submitted by Wilmot Creek Homeowners Association, 1 Wheelhouse Drive, Newcastle, ON. 1-113 1139 34 z Current Situation in Wilmot Creek Wilmot Creek is promoted with pastoral images of trees, golf greens, muskoka chairs and Lake Ontario. While we do enjoy our beautiful community, the other reality is that Wilmot sits in a blast zone. We endure a barrage of train whistles that can't be seen in sales photos but deeply impact our quality of life. Every day over 300 whistle blasts disrupt our activities and our sleep. Currently there is an average of 28 VIA trains and 10 CN freight trains per day passing through Wilmot Creek. They blow their whistles throughout the 400 metres on either side of the Bennett Road crossing at the west end of Wilmot Creek and Cobbledick Road crossing at the east end. Each train emits four whistle blasts as it passes through these zones approaching both crossings. From Nov 16 - 23, 2016, we took maximum decibel readings in the Wilmot Creek area using an (Phone 5s with a Decibel 10 Professional Noise Meter Application and a Samsung Galaxy S4 with a Smart Tools Sound Application. Average readings were between 80 — 97 decibels from the two devices with distances measured using the Google Earth Application. The two whistle zones are shown with red lines; Bennet Road on the left and Cobbledick Road on the right. Sites where decibel readings were taken: 1. Cobbledick Rd. crossing, 3. 12 Park Place Lane, 5. 234 Wilmot Trail, 2. Bennett Rd. crossing, 4. 206 Wilmot Trail, 6. 42 Heatherlea Drive. 35 3 Decibel Readings around Wilmot Creek Location Date Train Distance Decibel Readings 1. Cobbledick Rd. crossing Nov. W/B Via 30 m 16, 2. Bennett Rd. crossing Nov. 17 W/B 30 m Freight 3. 12 Park Place Lane Nov. 16 W/B Via 233 m 4. 206 Wilmot Trail Nov. 17 E/B Via 240 m 5. 234 Wilmot Trail Nov. 23 E/B Via 466 m 6. 42 Heatherlea Drive, Nov. 23 W/B Via 53 m (behind berm) 97 decibels 97 89 87 80 84 The following Canadian Transportation Agency chart shows decibel readings from some typical devices, compared to the 80 - 97 decibel levels at Wilmot Creek. Typical Noise Levels Compared to Our Outdoor Experience Noise Source Sound Level (decibels) Jet taking off at 600 metres 100 db Electric lawn mower at 1 metre 80 - 90 db Hedge clippers at 1 metre Consider the noise, if you put your ear close to an electric hedge clipper or lawn mower, this is what Wilmot residents endure hundreds of times a day. The majority of our homes are hit with 80 - 89 decibel whistle blasts. 36 4 At night the whistles often seem more prominent. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency applies a 10 decibel penalty from 10 pm to 7 am to account for the increased annoyance of whistles at night. They specify an outdoor -to -indoor transmission loss of 15 decibels with windows partially open and 27 decibels loss with windows fully closed (EPA 1974). Using their figures, if we try to sleep with our windows open, we hear 75-84 decibel blasts. So we can't sleep with our windows open! Even with windows closed, we hear 63-72 decibel whistle blasts. The following chart shows comparable noise levels. Typical Noise Levels Compared to Our Nighttime Experience Noise Source Loud singing at 1 metre Sewing machine at 1 metre Passenger car travelling 60 km/h at 20 metres Hair dryer at 1 metre Sound Level (decibels) 75 db 70-74 db 65 db 58-64 db Canadian Transportation Agency Try to imagine sleeping with a sewing machine or hair dryer frequently starting up, one metre from your pillow. And, it's only going to get worse! Currently there is an average of 28 Via trains per day. However, in April 2016, Via's CEO promised to "Triple the number of trains per day" posting on the company's web site their $4 billion expansion plan, scheduled to take 8 years and will initially concentrate on the Toronto -Montreal section of the corridor. httD://www.viarail.ca/en/about-via-rail/governance-and-reports/dedicated-tracks 37 5 With expansion, Wilmot residents will hear over 750 whistle blasts per day, up from the current 300 blasts. Via Rail's $413 plan for Quebec -Ontario route opts for'frequency' over speed Proposal Wifi d to focus on bui Iding ele Wr-1 tracks untler Liberal ®ore nt l Stay Con nectetl with C$C News VIA - I .:n 35k •^e •ene al gr.ermeri n, -.I n�3b�arJ r. -_ VIA is promising to triple the number of trains from the current 28 trains per day CBC ca Aprti 1:5.2010 Clarington is in the minority. In Ontario, 2/3 of the citizens do not have to listen to the whistles. Almost every community, big and small, in the Windsor to Brockville corridor has banned whistles; Sarnia, Oakville, Pickering, Oshawa, Cobourg and many others. Nationwide, Toronto, Montreal, Vancouver, Halifax, in fact, most major Canadian cities have stopped routine whistle blowing by trains. In the United States over 700 communities have instituted "quiet zones" without routine train whistling where Supplemental Safety Measures (SSMs) such as gates, flashing lights, bells and other measures are in place. In Europe, whistles are not blown routinely at crossings. Whistle cessation does not mean a complete end to whistles. It just ends routine whistle blowing at every crossing. Whenever there is a potential emergency situation, the engineer can always blow the whistle to alert a vehicle or pedestrian in danger. Since 1994 most major Canadian cities and many smaller communities have instituted quiet zones where trains no longer routinely whistle at level crossings. In this same period, rail crossing safety has improved dramatically. N Year 1994 2004 2014 Accidents 391 237 185 Fatalities 54 25 21 Serious Injuries 64 50 29 Transportation Safety Board of Canada statistics http://operationlifesaver.ca/facts-and-stats/statistics/ The increase in the number of quiet zones across the country was coupled with far fewer accidents, fatalities and serious injuries — all have been more than cut in half (possibly due to the installation of improved safety measures). In 2012 Transport Canada engaged in an extensive consultation process with Canadians regarding railway crossing regulations. In their summary report they commented on community concerns about train whistles: "In one case cited, it was noted that over 40 trains a day pass through the community and that the whistling is both incessant and likely to increase due to plans for more trains. It was argued that much of this whistling is a result of an attitude rooted in railway culture and tradition and is today both unnecessary and ineffective. It was suggested that a better approach might be to treat train whistling the same way as a car horn, using it only when necessary to give adequate warning." Now, let's look at the safety for our local crossings. Transport Canada lists the 500 riskiest railway crossings in Canada based on a computer model that measures traffic volumes, vehicle speeds, train speeds, sightlines, number of tracks and warning devices present. Neither the Bennett Road nor Cobbledick Road crossing is on the top 500 list. Top risk -500 -crossings, Transport Canada 2014 As one checks into rail crossing safety, the key to reducing accidents is implementing better safety infrastructure like the crossing gates, the flashing lights and bells, all of which are already installed at our two crossings. Not needless train whistles that disrupts the community. 39 7 Most motorists do not hear train whistles. Drivers normally have their windows closed and external noise has been largely engineered out of modern cars with soundproofing. Usually a radio or music system is on and a train whistle will not be noticed by the driver. This Wikipedia description sums it up: "It is not uncommon for the sound of a train's whistle to propagate for miles; yet vehicle operators still have a difficult time hearing the warning signal due to the vehicle's soundproofing and ambient noise within the cab (such as engine, road, radio, and conversation noises) .... It has been documented that a train's whistle, when operating on compressed air, driving an exponential horn, has been measured at higher decibel levels within the homes of nearby residents than within the cab of a vehicle sitting at the grade crossing." Train traffic is projected to grow and so will the population affected by whistles around the Bennett Road and Cobbledick Road crossings. Thousands of unsuspecting new homeowners will move into the Wilmot Creek Phase 8 and Kaitlin's Lakebreeze projects in the coming years. Rice Development's Phase 8 Community will be built north of the tracks. In the above satellite view, the red lines along the tracks indicate where whistles are blown. White areas are where homes will be built. M Whistle blast effect will range from loud to annoying throughout West area, with distances from whistles ranging from 280 - 500 metres, with an average home distance of 400 metres. In the Central area, whistle blast will be loud at 250 m., to annoying at 480 m., with an average distance of 350 m. The East area distances range from 500 — 700 m. Kaitlin's East Village section of Lakebreeze is even closer to the whistles than Wilmot Creek. In this satellite view, the red lines along the tracks indicate where whistles are blown. White areas are where homes will be built. Whistle blast effect will be severe throughout East Village with distances from whistles ranging from 60 - 190 metres, with an average of 125 metres. In the West Village, distances from whistles will be 770 m. -1100 m., still annoying for many residents. Whistle noise pollution is a quality of life issue. In their extensive study of crossing regulations in 2012, a federal panel pointed out the following: The issue of train whistling was the subject of considerable discussion. While acknowledged as being an important safety procedure, for some stakeholders, especially those living near busy rail lines, train whistling is seen to be very disruptive. It was suggested that frequent train whistling can have adverse health impacts on nearby residents primarily due to sleep interruption/ deprivation. It was noted that these impacts have safety repercussions of their own, such as driver fatigue, etc. 2H The use of 90 decibel train whistles to protect crossings can simply become a late-night auditory assault on the local community. It is further ineffective and outmoded that only a fraction of those hearing the whistle are actually those attempting to use the crossing." "The majority haven't been warned — they've been woken." Motion: We ask that Council endorse the following Motion: Whereas we call upon our Councillors to invest in the future quality of life for Wilmot Creek residents and many more who will soon occupy the area in two new planned developments to be built near the CN Rail crossings; And Whereas the loud and excessive sounding of train whistles is an infringement upon the quiet enjoyment of the community by citizens of Wilmot Creek; And Whereas the Wilmot Creek Homeowners Association believes that routine train whistles are no longer necessary for the Bennett Road and Cobbledick Road crossings, since both of these crossings likely meet the safety requirements for whistle cessation with flashing lights, bells and crossing gates already operational and sightlines on road approaches to both crossings being clear; And Whereas a site safety study is the only way to determine if it is safe to stop the train whistles and only safety engineers can determine the safety of the crossings. 42 10 Now therefore be it resolved that; 1. Municipal Staff initiate discussions immediately with Transport Canada and CN Rail to confirm the necessary safety measures for implementation of train whistle cessation at the Bennett Road and Cobbledick Road level crossings; 2. A consultant be retained to prepare a safety study for implementation of whistle cessation at the Bennett Road and Cobbledick Road level crossings. Costs of the study are to be apportioned among the following parties in an equal ratio, Wilmot Creek Homeowners' Association, CAPREIT, Rice Development and Kaitlin Development, with no costs being borne by the Municipality; 3. The results of the safety study shall be presented to Committee on or before January 2018, for a determination on the implementation of whistle cessation at the Bennett Road and Cobbledick Road crossings. 43 lVHSDR HUMANE SOCIETY OF DURHAM REGION T77 77777 777777 777?777 777777777777 77 7777777777 7777777777 777777 ?7777777777 77 0 m 0 ?777 77777 777777 777777? 0 0 ❑77777777❑7 77 .❑777.777 77 7777777 77 777777 77 777 777777 7777777 77 777777 777777 77 7777 7777777 77 77777777 7777 7777777777 777777777 ❑7 777 77 777 7777 77 7777777 77 777 77777 777 777777 777 77777 7777777 77777777 77 777 77777777 77 7777777 7777777 777 777777 777777?777 77 77 77777777777 77777777 77 77777 77777 777 7777777777 77777777 7777 77777777 7777777 77777777 7777 7777 7777777 777 777777777 ?7777777 77 777777777 77777777 77 77777777777 7777777777 7777 7777777 77 77777 777777777 � 7777 777777 77 777777777777 77777777 77777777 777 7777777 7777777 777 777777777777 77777777 77 7777 77 7777777777 777777 77777777777 777 777777 7777777 7777777 777777 77 777 777777 77 7777777 777777 777 77777 77777 7777777 77 777777777777 777 777777777 77 77777 777777 777777777 777 777777 777 77777777777 77 77777777 777 7777777 7777777 77777 7777777777 77 77777777 777777 777 777,77 7777777?777777 777777 7777777 7777777 77 777 77777 77 777 777777777 7777 777777777 777 777 777777777 777 77777777 777777 7777 777 777777 777777777 7777 77 77777777 777777777 777 7777777777777 7777777 � 77 ® 77 777 777777 7777777 777 � 7 ....777777 77777 7777 77 777777 7777 777 77777777 7777 777 7777777 77 77777 77777 777777777 7777777 77 77 777 7777777 777 77777777 7777777777 77 777777 777777?77 77777 7777 7777 777 ?777 7?7777 777 77777 7777 77777777 777 777777777 77 777777 77777 77777 777 777777777777 77777777777 77777 7777 7777 777777 777777777777 777777 7777 77„77 7777777777 77 777777 7777 77 777 77777 77777777 77777777 777 77777777 _77777 777777777777 7777 777 777777777 � 7777777 777777 77 7777777 77777 77 7777 7777777 77 77777777 777 7777777 777 777777 7777 77777777 7777 77777 77 777 777777 777777 777 77 7777 7777 777 77777777777 777 7777777 77 77777777 777 777777 77 7777777 7777 777 777 777 777 77777777 7777 7777777 77 77777 7777777 7777777777 777 777777 7777777 77 777777777777 7777777 7777 0 0 777777777 777 777 7777 77777 777777777 7777 7777777 777 7777777777 77 777 777777 77 77777 7777777 77 777777 7777777777777 777 77777777 77 77777777 77777777 7777777 7777 777 0 0 777 7777777 0 777777 7777 77 777 777 77 77 77777777 77 77777777 77 777 77 777 7777 77 7777777 77777777777 777777 0 77777 7777 7777 777 7777 77 7777777 77 777777 7?77777777 77777 77 77777777777 777 777 7777777 777 777777 777777 7777 777 777777 7777 7777 7777777 777 777 777 7777 777 777777777 77777777 7777 77 77777 77777 7777777 777 7777777777 7777 7777 7777777 777777 77777777 0 77 7777 7777777777 777 7777777 777777 77777 77777 77777?7777 7777 lVHSDR HUMANE SOCIETY OF DURHAM REGION 0 0 o u? o??_??? ?77777 777777 7777 7777 77 7777 777777 77777777 7777 777777777 7777777 77777? 7777777 77 7777777777 777777 ?7777 ��� 77777 7777 ������ 77 777777 7777777777 77 77777777 777777777 77 r. 7777777 7777 7777 7777 777777 ������� 777 777777 77777777 ��� ������ 77777 ��� 7777 ������ �� ?77777 777 7777 7777777 7777777 777 777777 7777 77 77 77777777777 T7T 777777 77 777777? 77777777777 777777? 77777777 777777777 �777777T 77777777 77777777? ?7777777 7777 777 7777777 7777 7777 77777777 777777 777 7777 777777777777 77 777 7777 77 7777 7777 7777 77777777 77 777777777 T77 77777?777 ?777777 T7 ?77777 7777777 77777 77 77777?777T77 7777 77 7777777 77 777 ?1?1?1?1?1?1?1?1?1?1?lm = MR = 0 777777777 7777777 ❑7 ?? Nip? = M 77777 777 77777 7777777 ???? 7???????? ???? ?? ???????? 777 ??? ??? ?? ????? 7??????? ??? ?????? 7?????777?777 ?7 7??? .? ???? ???? 7?????? ?? ????? ???? ?? .? ????????? ??? ?????? ??? ????? ??????? ???? ??? ??????? ?????????? ??????? ?? ???????? ???????? ????? ??? ?????? ?? ???????????? ?????????? ???? ??? ???? ?? ???? ?? ????? ????? ?????? ????? ????????? ???? ??????? ??? ????????? ???? ????? ??? ????????????? .? ?????? ??? ??????? 777777 7777 777 ?????????? ??? ??? ????? ??? ??????? ?? ????? ??????? ????? ??? ???????????? ????????? ??? 7????????? ?? ???????? ???? ?? .? ???????? 7?????????? 7???????? ????? ??? 7??????? ??? ???????? ?? ???? ????????? ??? ???????? ?? 0 ??? ???? ?????? ?????? ?????????? ?? ????????? ??? ??? ?????? ?? ???? ???????? ???????? ???????? ??? ?????? ????????????? ® m ® m m 7777 7777 77 777777777 77 777 ??????? ???? ??? 7?????? ????? 7????????? ???? ???? 7?????? ?? ????? .? ????? ??? ????????? ?? ???? ??? ???? ?? ?????????? ?? ????? 0 ?????? ??? ??? ????? ??? ????? ?? IT? P? ??? ???? ???? 0 ????????? ??????? ??? ?????? ??????? ?? 0 ?????????? ????????? ?????? ?????? ???????????? 77????777 ????? m T????77 ?? 7777 7?????777 77???777 ?? ?????? ????? From: Chambers, Michelle To: Chambers, Michelle Subject: FW: Funding for Great Lakes Restoration Initiative Date: May -23-17 4:04:52 PM Attachments: Great Lakes St Lawrence Cities Organization - Funding for Great Lakes Restoration Initiative.docx From: Lorraine Billings[mailto:Lorraine.BillingsCcDaiax.ca] Sent: May -19-17 3:09 PM To: wall<ergCcDottawa.iic.org; kwynne.mpp.coPliberal.ola.org; premierPontario.ca; gillian.mceachernPontario.ca; iustin.trudeaufparl.gc.ca; catherine.mcl<ennaCcDparl.gc.ca; pvaniniPamo.on.ca; mturnerCcDamo.on.ca; I<.mdkee@greysauble.on.ca; governor(@state.pa.us; governor2state.i1.LIS; gov.cuomoPchamber.state.ny.us; wisgovPmail.state.wi.us; polladdPwashington.iic.org; Chris Harris Whitby Clerk <harriscPwhitby.ca>; Clerks Department Outside<Clerl<sDepartmentPclarington.net>; clerl<sPoshawa.ca; clerl<sPdurham.ca; dshieldsCftickering.ca; marl<.daytonPstate.mmus Cc: Rachael Matheson <Rachael.Matheson Pajax.ca>; Alexander Harras <Alexander.HarrasCcDaiax.ca> Subject: Funding for Great Lakes Restoration Initiative Please be advised that the following resolution was passed by Ajax Town Council at its meeting held May 15, 2017: That Council endorse the attached resolution in support of restoring funding for the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative. If you require further information please contact Alexander Harras at 905-619-2529 ext. 3342 or alexander.harras anaiax.ca A copy of the correspondence that prompted this actions is attached. Lorraine Billings Legislative Services Associate I Legislative & Information Services Town of Ajax 65 Harwood Ave. S. Ajax, ON US 2H9 E: lorraine.billings aaajax.ca P: 905-619-2529, ext. 3314 1 F: 905-683-1061 The information in this e-mail and in any attachments is confidential and intended solely for the attention and use of the named addressee(s). This information may be privileged, confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient, or a person responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are not authorized to and must not disclose, copy, distribute, or retain this message or any part of it. This e-mail was scanned for viruses and content. W From: Andrea Paine <andrea.painc(tg1slcitics.org> Date: April 10, 2017 at 1:04:50 PM EDT Cc: David Ullrich<david.ullrich(�,gIslcities.org> Subject: Federal Budget Strategy - Great Lakes & St. Lawrence Cities Initiative Dear Cities Initiative Members, The news in the United States on the budget for the Environmental Protection Agency and for the Great Lakes specifically is devastating. The Canadian budget has been increased but needs substantial increases year over year to deal with the challenges we continue to face on the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence. There seems to be a fundamental lack of understanding about how important these resources are to both of our countries economically and environmentally. We have come so far together over the past half century it would be tragic to turn back now. We need to do something about this. As cities, we have invested more than our fair share. Our 2008 study showed that local governments in Canada and the United States invest over $15 billion annually in a wide range of protection and restoration work on the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence. Providing services for waste water, drinking water, and storm water heads the list, but there is much more in terms of improving habitat, managing invasive species, and other efforts. We have been able to leverage significant investment dollars from federal, state, provincial, and private sources in these projects. These investments have improved the quality of life and economic well-being of our communities dramatically. We are asking you to take the following actions to help restore federal budgets to the level that reflects the significance of the resources that are so important to both of our countries: 1. Emphasize the importance of these investments to the people of your communities, the press, and throughout other platforms such as social media (see attached). 2. Contact your senators, congressional representatives, state legislators, MPs, MPPs, and other key elected officials to stress the importance of Great Lakes -St. Lawrence investments. The U.S. Congress began a two-week recess on April 7t" and Congress people have returned to their districts. 3. Introduce a resolution to your City Council in support of these investments (see attached). 4. Join us on Thursday, April 13 from 3-4 PM Central for a webinar about the U.S. and Canadian federal budgets and ways in which your municipality can take action. REGISTER HERE. Materials, including a model resolution, a model letter to the editor, talking points, and fact sheets, are attached to help you with communications and engagement on this important matter. Nothing short of an all-out effort to turn this situation around will do. I appreciate your assistance on this critically important matter. Thank you, M RESOLUTION GREAT LAKES AND ST. LAWRENCE FEDERAL RESTORATION FUNDING WHEREAS, the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence River Basin (the Basin) represents approximately 20% of the world's surface fresh water and 84% of North America's surface fresh water; and WHEREAS, over 48 million people depend on the Basin as a source of drinking water; and WHEREAS, the Basin is the foundation for a $5.8 trillion USD regional economy; and WHEREAS, water contamination, harmful algal blooms, invasive species, and climate change pose threats to the integrity of the resource and prosperity of the Basin; and WHEREAS, Canada and the United States have worked cooperatively on the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence for over 100 years under the Boundary Waters Treaty of 1909 and the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement of 1972, as most recently amended in 2012; and WHEREAS, significant progress has been made over almost 50 years in restoring and protecting the Basin based on a shared responsibility for the resource and significant investment from all orders of government in the United States and Canada; and WHEREAS, local governments in Canada and the United States have invested over $15 billion USD annually in protection and restoration efforts according to a 2008 study; and WHEREAS, the U.S. Federal Government has provided more than $2 billion USD since 2010 for Great Lakes protection and restoration through the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative; and WHEREAS, the Canadian Federal Government has invested more than $250 million CAD in Great Lakes and St. Lawrence River initiatives since 2010; and WHEREAS, the President of the United States proposed eliminating the entire $300 million USD in funding for the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative in the 2017-2018 budget; and WHEREAS, the 2017 Canadian budget proposes approximately $114 million CAD over five years to support water protection and restoration but has no line item dedicated to the Basin at the magnitude necessary; and WHEREAS, these budgets do not adequately address the urgent needs of the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Basin and will slow down or halt critical restoration and protection efforts and economic recovery in the region; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the United States Congress appropriate the full $300 million USD authorized for the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative in the 2017-2018 budget; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Canadian Federal Government work collaboratively with provinces, local governments, First Nations and Metis, and other stakeholders to develop a common strategy and to increase funding for the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Basin to match the significance of the resource and the magnitude of the challenges; BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that all orders of government must share the responsibility for the protection and restoration of the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Basin and recognize the importance of the resource in their budgets; and BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED, that copies of this resolution be forwarded to the President of the United States, the Prime Minister of Canada, the Governors of the eight Great Lakes States, the Premiers of Quebec and Ontario, the Canadian Minister of Environment and Climate Change, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Administrator, and the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Cities Initiative. From: Chambers, Michelle To: Chambers, Michelle Subject: FW: Letter re: seniors housing Date: May -23-17 4:12:02 PM From: Jim Richards [mailto:jmr.naturepix rogers.com] Sent: April 18, 2017 4:11 PM To: 'Foster, Adrian'; 'Woo, Willie'; 'Neal, Joe'; 'Hooper, Ron'; 'Traill, Corinna'; 'Partner, Wendy'; 'Cooke, Steven' Cc: 'Orono Times'; Clerks DepartmentCcbclarington.net; 'O'Meara, Jennifer' Subject: Open Letter: Seniors Housing Mayor Foster, members of Council; I implore you to take a hard and serious look at the future of senior's housing here in our municipality. In my humble opinion, you (as a Council) as well as Durham Region, and both the Provincial and Federal levels of government have paid little heed (other than lip service) to the increasing need for affordable seniors housing here in Clarington, although I am aware that Councillors Hooper and Partner have been seeking answers. Those of us who have lived here and paid taxes here most of our lives are being ignored in our pleas and desires to have our future affordable housing needs met. As we get older, and while we wish to remain in our community of choice (Bowmanville, Newcastle, Orono), we have nowhere to go to live out our remaining years without leaving friends, family and community behind to seek housing in places such as Oshawa and beyond. This is unacceptable. Even in Oshawa, the government(s) have not kept up with the demand even in the face of growing statistics and demographics, not unlike Clarington. Please assure me that this topic will get a thorough audience among those of you elected to represent us, and that you will reach a solution to this growing problem working with senior levels of government in concert with the private sector in the immediate future. It's possible that with a growing, desperate and often ignored population of seniors, that a movement of 'gray' voters could be formed that will alter the status quo. Respectfully submitted, Jim Richards, Orono 0 Town of � ax By the Lake PMW3DWW &ENN RVWWR 3 1e 5H Spring Flooding m®mI mmomXWOB IIPIDIDImm as INOVOUSDWWWWW RIESDWU SUDYSSWWRRWUVVBMUBWM a LI. WWWWWWWRSSW FRII(OWBBWDS RIREISDWWRIMMBDWO YSSWRNE RWR VV BRWBXWl%W90XME6DWV WMWB[EEDWMVMUgW= REEDWH IRE(EVEMDOW WWWRWBW BOWS BBBIO DD W $)P owwmXWmd B\OOKEEMWER 50 TOWN OF AJAX MRWK $IP HPD [IV H THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWNSHIP OF ADJALA — TOSORONTIO 7855 Sideroad 30 * R.R.#1 * Alliston, Ontario * L9R 1V1 Telephone: (705) 434-5055 Fax: (705) 434-5051 Office of the Clerk BY E-MAIL ONLY April 20, 2017 The Right Honourable Justin Trudeau Office of the Prime Minister 80 Wellington Street Ottawa, ON K1 OA2 Dear Prime Minister Trudeau: Re: Canada's 150th Birthday Please be advised that Council at their meeting of April 10, 2017 passed the following resolution: A motion was made by Deputy Mayor Little, seconded by Councillor Keenan: RESOLVED THAT in recognition of Canada's 150th birthday, the federal and provincial governments be requested to wave the taxes payable on the purchase of a Canadian Flag or Canada 150 Anniversary flag for the year 2017; and further, THAT this motion be forwarded to the Prime Minister of Canada, the Premier of Ontario and Ontario municipalities for their support. Yours truly, Barbara Kane Township Clerk C.C. Premier of Ontario Kathleen Wynne Ontario Municipalities 51 Clarftwn Engineering Services Report If this information is required in an alternate accessible format, please contact the Accessibility Coordinator at 905-623-3379 ext. 2131. Report To: General Government Committee Date of Meeting: May 29, 2017 Report Number: EGD -014-17 Resolution: File Number: n/a By-law Number: Report Subject: Train Whistling at Bennett Road and Cobbledick Road Recommendations: 1. That Report EGD -014-17 be received; 2. That, in the interest of public safety, the request for an anti -whistling By-law be denied; and 3. That all interested parties listed in Report EGD -014-17 and any delegations be advised of Council's decision. 52 Municipality of Clarington Report EGD -014-17 Report Overview Page 2 At the May 9, 2017 General Government Committee meeting Council requested that staff report back to them with a cost estimate to complete a study of the Bennett Road and Cobbledick Road level crossings to meet Transport Canada's requirements for whistle cessation. Council also asked that staff report back with any changes to Federal legislation and/or guidelines since the last staff report on whistle cessation, as well as any opportunities for financial assistance available for level crossing upgrades to allow for whistle cessation. This report is in response to Council's request and provides the information requested. 1. Background 1.1 Bennett Road and Cobbledick Road Resident Concerns In response to concerns that have been raised recently by residents in the area of Bennett Road and Cobbledick Road, along the Canadian National Railway, Council passed the following resolution at the May 9, 2017 General Government Committee meeting: That Staff report back to the General Government Committee meeting of May 29, 2017, providing costs estimates for the study of level crossings, at Bennett Road and Cobbledick Road, to meet Transport Canada requirements for whistle cessation; That Staff report back on any Federal legislative requirements and/or guidelines since the last staff report about level crossing train whistle cessation; and That Staff report back on any financial assistance provided by upper levels of government towards level crossing upgrades towards train whistle cessation. 1.2 The Municipality's Current Position The Municipality's current position on train whistling in Clarington received Council support in 2012 after extensive research was provided in two separate reports EGD -001- 12 (see Attachment 1) and EGD -013-12 (see Attachment 2). The first report provided explanation about train whistling protocols and the importance of them and then went on to explain the process involved in having Transport Canada consider whistle cessation. Staff then provided a detailed review and analysis of all of the safety concerns that prevented them from being able to recommend anti -whistling and concluded with a discussion about risk management and liability. Our second report, EGD -013-17, looked specifically at feasibility and implementation and also at the unique features of rail within Clarington. We provided a broad overview of potential costs and upgrades required to protect public safety and took the position, in consultation with the railways, that the Kingston subdivision line is a high speed line with 53 Municipality of Clarington Report EGD -014-17 Page 3 a large volume of rail traffic involving twenty different level crossings and that a whistle cessation study could only be considered across the system as a whole and not at individual crossings. We took this position for several reasons but highest among those was the concern that: a. Resident expectations and behavior can only be safely managed if there is consistency across the Municipality. A resident who has come to rely on a whistle to warn that a train is approaching the crossing cannot be protected if there is inconsistency and confusion about what the expectations are at different crossings. b. The railways have also made it clear that train operators would also find it very difficult to conduct their operations safely if they had to try treat each location differently within Clarington. Railway executives explained that the chance of an accident would go up, especially at night time if a high speed train operator were required to treat various locations within Clarington differently. The report talked about the cost of a system wide cessation study rather than one that looked at separate crossings for the reasons listed above. We also looked at the operating costs and annual capital cost implications that would need to be considered if we had to upgrade our crossings enough to protect both our residents and the Municipality in the face of substantially increased risk and liability. It was explained that the Municipality would be required to enter into a liability agreement with the railway and obtain liability insurance to protect the municipality and the railway against third party claims for bodily injury and property damage resulting from or connected with the issuance of an order to stop whistling Dff&ted crossings because the likelihood of both increases when anti -whistling is implemented in the absence of grade separations. 2. An Update and the Recent Resolution The May 9t" resolution asked us to look at three separate questions: x The cost of a study which looks at whistle cessation for two crossings one at Bennett Road and the other at Cobbledick Road x An update on Federal guidelines and legislation with regards to train whistling x The possibility of financial assistance programs to assist with upgrades that would allow for whistle cessation at Bennett Road and Cobbledick Road specifically 54 Municipality of Clarington Report EGD -014-17 Page 4 3. The Cost of a Study The cost of a study that would look at Bennett Road and Cobbledick Road in isolation conducted by qualified professionals would be approximately $15,000. The purpose of the study would be to identify any non -conformities and deficiencies at the subject crossings in order to ensure that potential safety concerns are identified and removed or mitigated. In addition to confirming the requirements for the cessation of routine whistling the consultant would review the subject crossings for compliance with all relevant requirements. The review would be carried out according to the guidelines provided in the Canadian Road/Railway Grade Crossing Detailed Safety Assessment Field Guide using the new regulations and standards. However staff's position is that the review would be incomplete unless a system wide study of the 20 crossings in proximity to the urban areas is undertaken to ensure consistency and to protect public safety. 4. Federal Legislative Requirement Updates In July of 2014 Transport Canada developed new Grade Crossings Regulations (GCR) under the Railway Safety Act to "improve safety by establishing comprehensive and enforceable safety standards for grade crossings, clarifying the roles and responsibilities of railway companies and road authorities and ensuring that they share key safety information". These new regulations came into effect on November 27, 2014 and "were intended to help reduce the frequency and severity of accidents at Canada's federally - regulated grade crossings, therefore saving lives and preventing injuries and derailments" by introducing enhanced safety standards. Two years after the Grade Crossings Regulations came into force, or by November 27, 2016, railway companies and road authorities were required to have shared safety information about their existing public grade crossings with each other. Seven years after the Grade Crossings Regulations came into force, or by November 27, 2021, railway companies and road authorities must meet all requirements to upgrade existing grade crossings, including signage, crossing surface specifications, sightlines and warning systems. This phased in approach, which has budget implications for the Municipality, requires immediate safety improvements at grade crossings across Canada, while allowing railway companies and road authorities' sufficient time to comply with all of the requirements in the Grade Crossings Regulations. 55 Municipality of Clarington Report EGD -014-17 Page 5 5. Funding Programs and Whistle Cessation Transport Canada does offer funding through the Rail Safety Improvement Program but the funding is "intended to improve rail safety, contribute to the reduction of injuries and fatalities, and increase public confidence in Canada's rail transportation system". This funding program is specific in terms of its intended targets which are to enhance current safety standards. Improvements related to meeting safety standards required for whistle cessation are seen as a responsibility that a municipality elects to assume and will not be eligible as part of the program. 6. Concurrence This report has been reviewed by the Director of Finance/Treasurer and the Director of Operations who concur with the recommendations. 7. Conclusion Rail safety is a Transport Canada priority and it is for that reason that new guidelines were introduced in July of 2014 to help reduce the frequency and severity of accidents at Canada's federally -regulated grade crossings, therefore saving lives and preventing injuries and derailments by introducing enhanced safety standards. Staff continue to maintain their position that public safety is our highest priority despite our respect for and recognition of the quality of life issues that residents face when living in close proximity to a railway. Staff have been in discussions with both CP and CN Rail and both have again expressed that for safety and liability reasons whistle cessation reduces the safety at a level crossing. If the Municipality chooses to proceed it must do so in full recognition of the increased liability and risk to public safety we will be required to assume. It is therefore staff's recommendation that whistle cessation not be considered for Clarington but if it is Council's wish to do so then we strongly urge that a detailed safety assessment of all twenty level crossings in proximity to urban areas be conducted looking at system wide impacts, consistency, safety and costs rather than a study that would look at individual crossings in isolation. 8. Strategic Plan Application Not applicable. Submitted by. Reviewed by: Anthony Cannella, Director of Engineering Services 56 Curry Clifford, MPA, CMO Interim CAO Municipality of Clarington Report EGD -014-17 Page 6 Staff Contact: Ron Albright, Assistant Director, Engineering Services, (905) 623-3379, Ext. 2305 or ralbright@clarington.net AC/ra/j b Attachments: Attachment 1 -Report EGD -001-12 Attachment 2 - Report EGD -013-12 Attachment 3 - Grade Crossings Regulations: what you need to know The following is a list of interested parties: Wilmot Creek Homeowners Association 57 Clarftwn ENGINEERING SERVICES $WWDFKPHQW W (.1 'R EE P 0 RT Meeting: GENERAL PURPOSE AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE Date: January 09, 2012 Resolution#: ®066-0 By-law#: Report#: EGD -001-12 File#: Subject: TRAIN WHISTLE CESSATION RECOMMENDATIONS: It is respectfully recommended that the General Purpose and Administration Committee recommend to Council the following: 1. THAT Report EGD -001-12 be received; 2. THAT in the interest of public safety, and liability concerns, the Municipality not proceed with an anti -whistling by-law as a means of reducing "nuisance noise"; 4. THAT all interested parties listed in Report EGD -001-12 be given a copy of this report. Submitted by: ASC/LJ B/jb/jo "" , I Reviewed by: A.S. Cannella, C.E.T. Director of Engineering Services 0114 n Franklin Wu, Chief Administrative Officer CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON 40 TEMPERANCE STREET, BOWMANVILLE, ONTARIO L1C 3A6 T 905-623-3379 REPORT NO.: EGD -001-12 1. INTRODUCTION PAGE 2 The Municipality of Clarington receives requests (approximately one official request every two years) from residents asking that the municipality approach the Canadian National Railway or the Canadian Pacific Railway to request train whistle cessation at public crossings because of the impact this practice has on the quality of life for those living in close proximity to a rail line. In Canada trains are required under the Railway Safety Act of 1988 to whistle at all level (grade) public crossings and difficulties arise from the fact that "most rail yards and many railway lines were built many years ago in undeveloped areas, far from homes and businesses. As towns and cities grew, many new neighbourhoods were built near pre-existing rail operations". The interesting paradox arises from the fact that as the number of residents increases in the area the discomfort and quality of life issues caused by train whistles grows at precisely the same time as the rising risk caused by increasing traffic volumes on roadways adjacent to the rail lines. 2. BACKGROUND In 2001, Council considered a request for whistle cessation in the vicinity of residential areas (Attachment #1). Council concluded "THAT in the interest of public safety, and liability concerns, the Municipality not proceed with an anti - whistling by-law as a means of reducing `nuisance noise'." Since the issue of anti - whistling has not been considered by Council since that time, staff participated in an updated research study of the matter to provide Council with an update on the status of the muncipality's anti -whistling policy as it pertains to the elimination of train whistling when approaching level grade crossings. The municipality is serviced with two main railway lines. The Canadian Pacific Railway (CP) provides two (2) railway subdivision lines, the Belleville Subdivision Line running along the lakeshore and the Havelock Subdivision Line running along the northern extreme running through Burketon. The Canadian National Railway 59 REPORT NO.: EGD -001-12 PAGE 3 (CN) has the Kingston Subdivision Line running along the lakeshore. The different types of road/railway crossing for each railway are identified on attachment #2. 3. TRAIN WHISTLING PROTOCOL Train whistling protocols are strictly regulated and enforced by Transport Canada. The Canadian Rail Operating Rules (CROR) state that the train whistles will be sounded (long -long -short -long). Train whistles are safety devices that alert motorists and pedestrians to the presence of an approaching train. They also warn trespassers away from the rails right-of-way. Locomotive engineers follow a detailed set of instructions in the Canadian Rail Operating Rules (CROR) that outline when a whistle must be sounded and the whistling sequence to be used. The CROR were developed jointly by the railways and their unions, and approved by Transport Canada. Every at grade crossing is protected by a warning system consisting of either flashing lights and bells or flashing lights, bells and gates. The CROR specifies that all trains must sound their whistle at least 400 metres before all public level crossings for trains exceeding 70 kilometres per hour or at least 20 seconds in advance of the crossing for trains travelling under 70 kilometres per hour until the train has occupied the crossing. The whistle must be sounded while approaching the crossing and until the train has fully occupied the crossing. Train operators can sound the whistle any time that visibility is impaired (eg. weather, curvature) or in the event of a safety issue where sounding the train whistle is appropriate. Locomotive whistles are manufactured to meet sound level and tone requirements recommended by Transport Canada. The whistles on all locomotives manufactured since 1982 are push button controlled to provide a consistent sound level. However, local weather conditions and wind direction can affect the noise a whistle makes. REPORT NO.: EGD -001-12 4. WHISTLE CESSATION PAGE 4 In order for whistle cessation to be considered, the municipality must follow the requirements outlined in the Transport Canada — Procedure & Conditions for Eliminating Whistling at Public Crossings — Guideline No. 1 (Attachment #3). In short: • The municipality must contact the matter. rtinent railway company to discuss the • The municipality must notify the general public and all relevant organizations of its intent to forbid whistling in the municipality. • A detailed safety assessment of each crossing at the crossing and recommend upgrades which would meet the requirements of Schedule `A' of the above referenced Guidelines. • A Public Information Centre is recommended. • The municipality must pass a resolution of its intent to pass a by-law forbidding the use of whistles at certain crossings. • The municipality must implement the upgrades where required to meet the Guidelines. • The municipality must enter into an agreement with each railway with respect to the roles and responsibilities under Section 11 of the Railway Safety Act. • The railway will then enter into a liability agreement with the municipality and will obtain additional liability insurance with a recognized commercial insurer to protect the Municipality and the railway against third party claims for bodily injury and property damage arising out of or resulting from or connected with the issuance of an order to stop whistling at this crossing. It must be understood that the municipality becomes liable for collisions on the tracks if the automatic gate system fails. This has been a deciding factor against implementing the ban for many municipalities. 61 REPORT NO.: EGD -001-12 7eTO W The process to eliminate train whistles can take three to four years to complete, depending on the number of crossings and the required upgrades to those crossings. 5. STAFF REVIEW AND ANALYSIS Staff does not recommend the implementation of anti -whistling primarily due to ---reasons t at -are reate` to safety.---€veryyear some-350�ac dem#s- §Uti ' - - 50 fatalities take place at railway crossings in Canada. Removing whistling at a safety device cannot be taken lightly as public safety is deemed to be paramount and so we consider the following: • The high speed of most trains through Clarington, particularly on the CN line. • A motorist is 40 times more likely to die in a crash involving a train than in a collision involving another motor vehicle. • Risk to the community if there is a collision with cars containing hazardous materials. • Proximity to Highway 401 in the event of an accident. • A typical locomotive with 100 cars attached can weigh approximately 6,000 tons. The weight ratio of an automobile to a train is compared to a pop can and an automobile. • Trains require one mile to stop and modern trains are much quieter than their predecessors, in fact approaching trains will always be closer and moving faster than people think. • Approximately 50% of vehicle/train collisions occur at crossings with active warning devices (gates, lights, bells). • Motorists and pedestrians are distracted by different technological devices (cell phones, blackberries, (pods, MP3 players, etc.) and are not always paying attention to their surroundings, we can understand how important train whistles, which can be heard over iPods and MP3 players, really are. • The risk of cars weaving through the barricades when they occasionally get stuck in the "down" position. • Lack of upgrades that effectively protect pedestrians and cyclists. 62 REPORT NO.: EGD -001-12 PAGE 6 In 1999 the City of Brockville implemented whistle cessation in its municipality. In 2005, a tragic accident involving two young pedestrians resulted in the death of one youngster and serious injury to the other. The teens noted the gates, bells and flashing lights at the railway crossing and understood that this meant a train was coming. What they could not and tragically did not understand was that while a first train had passed in one direction they were proceeding directly into the oncoming direction. The railway immediately restored whistling at this crossing. 6. RISK MANAGEMENT AND LIABILITY As mentioned earlier, if a whistle cessation by-law is put in place the railway must enter into a liability agreement with the municipality and obtain additional liability insurance with a recognized commercial insurer to protect the municipality and the railway against third party claims for bodily injury and property damage arising out of or resulting from or connected with the issuance of an order to stop whistling at this crossing. The cost of this additional liability coverage will be passed along to the municipality along with the cost of upgrades (such as fencing), continual monitoring, inspection, repairs maintenance and more. The Director of Risk Management Services at Frank Cowan Company had this to say about the possibility of passing whistle cessation by-laws in Clarington: "From a risk management perspective, we do not recommend the cessation of rail whistles at rail crossings. According to the Railway Association of Canada, train whistles are vital safety features that protect motorists and pedestrians from collisions at public road and pedestrian rail crossings. We believe as does the association, that train whistles save lives". We must also consider the importance of a uniform train whistle protocol across Clarington. Imagine if whistle cessation by-laws were passed for select locations, but not all, the risk that might arise if a youngster from one area were visiting a friend in another and relying upon the fact that everywhere else across Clarington one 63 REPORT NO.: EGD -001-12 PAGE 7 could count upon the sound of a whistle to act as the final alert that an oncoming train is approaching. Any loss of life is irreplaceable. Railways are unlikely to consider whistle cessation at individual crossings and CN has advised that they would not likely support the inconsistent application of whistle cessation as it can be confusing to the train crews. As well, whistling at one �. gmaymn tg kaggg. -.Mimalemil UAH time. .. , ... ,. - 7. CONCURRENCE — Nancy Taylor, Director of Finance. 8. CONCLUSION A current study of whistle cessation has led staff to recommend that the municipality not pursue anti -whistling on either the CN or CP rail lines due to significant concerns for public safety (particularly in the presence of reported pedestrian trespass) and for increased liability exposure. CONFORMITY WITH STRATEGIC PLAN — Not Applicable Staff Contact: Leslie J. Benson, P.Eng., Manager, Transportation and Design Attachments: Attachment 1 — Report WD -33-01, Train Whistling and Flat Spots Attachment 2 — Canadian Railway Network Key Map Attachment 3 — Procedure & Conditions for Eliminating Whistling at Public Crossings (Transport Canada) M ATTACHMENT NO.:1 REPORT NO.: EGD -001-12 Meeting: GENERAL PURPOSE AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE File# Jute: . JUNE 18, 2001 .. dorsa. A W. Subject: TRAIN WHISTLING AND FLAT SPO'T'S Recommendations: Res. # It is respectfully recommended that the General Purpose and Administration Committee recommend to Council the following: 1. THAT Report WD -33-01 be received; 2. THAT in the interest of public safety, and liability concerns, the Municipality not proceed with an anti -whistling by-law as a means of reducing "nuisance noise"; 3. THAT staff not proceed with a formal request and pay subsequent inspection costs of approximately $400.00 to the rail authority to consider an anti -whistling policy at the Scugog Street, Bowmanville crossing; 4. THAT staff not proceed with a formal request(s) and pay subsequent inspection costs of approximately $400.00 per crossing to the rail authority(s) to consider an anti -whistling policy at the following. locations which already have the minimum protection of railway gates or where gates are approved for 2001: ® Port Darlington Road, Bowmanville, C.N.R. e Toronto Street, Newcastle, C.N.R. • Metcalf Street, Newcastle, C.N.R. ® Riley Road, Newcastle, C.N.R. ® East Townline Road, Former Clarke Township, C.N.R. 6Tt 4 REPORT 'rOr O D -33-01 o Darlington Park Road, Courtice, C.N.R. 0 Bennett Road, Bowmanville, C.N.R. a Cobbledick Road, Newcastle, C.N.R ® Baseline Road (McKight Road), Courtice, C.P.R ® Trulls Road, Courtice, C.P.R.; and 5. THAT Mr. Doug Hately be provided with a copy of this report. PAGE 2 RE, PORT 1.0 ATTACHMENTS No. 1: Correspondence dated October 1, 1999 from C.P.R. No. 2: . Correspondence dated October 5, 1999 from C.N.R. No. 3: Correspondence received October 25, 1999 from Mr. D. Hately No. 4: Transport Canada Railway Safety Directorate Guideline No. 1, Procedure and conditions for eliminating whistling at public crossings dated August 13, 1999 received June 2000 No. 5: Key map showing level railway crossings which have protective crossing gates or are approved for 2001, which is a minimum requirement before anti -whistling can be considered. 2.0 BACKGROUND 2.1 At a meeting held October 25, 1999, Couricil passed the following resolution: "THAT Correspondence Item I-10 and Item I-11 be received for information; and THAT Correspondence Item I,10 and Item I-11 be referred. to the' By-law and Works Departments in order to meet with C.P.R. and C.N.R. staff in order to mediate excessive noise from train whistling and also review the warrants for protective crossing gates and report back to Council." 66 715 r REPORT NO.: ®33-01 PAGE 3 2.2 At a meeting held on November 8, 1999, Council passed the following resolution: "THAT Correspondence dated October 20, .1.999 from Mr. D. Hately be referred to the By-law and Works Departments in order to meet with C.P.R. and C.N.R. staff in order to mediate excessive noise from train whistling and Council." 3.0 REVIEW AND CO NT 3.1 Protective Gates at Scugog Street, Bowmanville Staff met with representatives of Transport Canada and C.P.R. during June of 2000 and all Parties agreed that with existing and future traffic volumes that the addition of gates would improve public safety. This budget item in the amount of $21,000.00 was approved in the 2001 budget. 3.2 Other At -Grade Crossing Locations Requiring Protective Gates Transport Canada,. C.P.R. and Public Works have also identified the following locations where upgrades to provide gates are approved in the 2001 budget: ® Trulls Road north of Baseline Road ® Baseline Road east of McKnight Road 3.3 Flat Spots Residents occasionally complain of excessive train noises, which they believe to be "flat spots" on train wheels. -Such wheel abnormalities are the focus of rigorous inspection and repair programs and are rare occurrences. All railway crossings are posted with a 24-hour toll free phone number and a crossing identification number for anyone to call if they are aware of an urgent safety problem. 67 7.1 A 'l PAGE 4 3.4 Train Whistling Regulations Whistling in Canada isgoverned by Transport Canada — Railway Operating Rules, which state that: "Long — long- short — long At least one-quarter of a mile from every public crossing at grade (except within limits as may be prescribed in special instructions), to be prolonged or repeated according to the speed of the movement until the crossing is fully occupied by the engine or cars. At frequent intervals when view is restricted by weather, curvature or other conditions." The train engineer has the right and is obligated to sound a whistle at any time hazardous conditions are encountered or perceived and may do so notwithstanding the existence of an anti -whistling by-law. The whistles on all trains manufactured since 1982 are push button controlled to provide a consistent sound level. However, local weather conditions and wind direction can affect the noise a whistle makes. 3.5 Anti -Whistling By -Laws The railways and Transport Canada both recognize that precautionary whistling can be a nuisance for occupants of dwellings close to the railway. In this regard, the parties are prepared to work with municipal governments to establish exemptions from the whistling rule, providing that to do so, does not compromise public safety. The Municipality must meet Transport Canada's guidelines for eliminating whistling at a public crossing. The guideline is neither a regulation, nor an order. Therefore, it does not have the force --, law. If an accident were to occur, the Municipality who made the change would -be' under a stricter duty of care. 68 717 . REPORT O WD -33-01 An anti -whistling by-law establishes a methodology for removing the use of train whistles at at -grade crossings, provided that other safety elements including flashing lights, bells and gates are in place. Additional safety requirements may include chainlink fencing, signing, brushing or even consideration of a pedestrian overpass to resolve trespassing problems. This location cannot be considered for inclusion in an anti -whistling by-law until after the gates have been installed. After the gates are installed, this location should be reviewed for other safety concerns before any consideration is given to an anti -whistling by-law. There is a trespassing concern in this area where pedestrians have climbed or cut the chain link fencing near the north end, of Waverley Road and walk along the tracks over King Street. A fatality also occurred a number of years ago when a pedestrian was killed while trespassing on the tracks at the Liberty Street Bridge. 3.7 Insurance The Municipality would be required to execute an insurance agreement with the rail authority, .whereby the parties equally share the cost of the annual insurance premium per crossing. Approximate annual municipal cost would range from $1,000.00 to $1,300.00 per crossing (11 (eleven) crossings in total) with a $10,000.00 deductible. These costs are also subject to escalation and would be in perpetuity. The premiums would be subject to significant increase depending upon the number and extent of claims at a given crossing. An initial inspection fee would also apply, which must be paid for solely by the Municipality. At this point it is uncertain whether the municipal insurance pool would require separate policies outside of the pool. It should also'be noted that the liability may reside entirely with the Municipality if it proceeds with the no whistling policy. 3.8 Risk Management The Railway and the Municipality are the only authorities responsible for anti -whistling; this gives individuals who suffer damage as a result of a crossing accident the right to question the decision to cease whistling in court. The thought of removing whistling as a safety device cannot be taken lightly, as a collision with a freight train loaded with chemicals could 69 71 impact the entire community. Poor sight lines at railway crossings are an area of municipal exposure that is on the increase. Without the train whistle, proper sight lines become critical for safety and the courts in recent case law have demonstrated no reluctance to imcose liability when vision was a factor. STAV, :. :.:..T�..,q ..� .._...o..=" A9Gai IGM►%.10MMH ,3 place at railway crossings in Canada". There is a concern that removal of train whistling may affect the current insurance pool. As well, in case law, anti -whistling by-laws place an additional liability with respect to repair of level crossing safety equipment. The road authority is frequently found primarily responsible for property damage claims by third parties (i.e. vehicle damage). The same is also true for bodily injury. 3.9 Future Anti -Whistling Requests If anti -whistling is introduced at one crossing. in Clarington, additional requests are sure fn follow. In fact, if Staff and Council are prepared to support anti -whistling at any one urban crossing, then a proactive approach to the other Clarington crossings should be consik-_--2d. Due to the costs and increased risk of accidents if whistling is removed, such policies should only apply in urban areas, where "nuisance whistling" affects thousands of residents. Anti -whistling by-laws cannot be introduced at a crossing unless other safety devices including railway gates are in place. Railway gate systems cost approximately $175,000.uO, with Transport Canada funding 80% and the railway contributing 8%, leaving 12% for the road authority. Neither Transport Canada nor the rail authority will contribute their share just to introduce anti -whistling. To justify the expenditure of gates, there must be a real safety concern such as a double track, a siding adjacent to a track, high accident exposure factors based on automotive/train volumes and speeds, or accident history. 70 ............719..... 0 REPORT NO.: 4D-33-01 3.10 Costs PAGE i The introduction of anti -whistling policies will add to municipal budgets in a number of ways. ® Staff time, fencing inspections ® Additional insurance with costs subject to increases from liability claims ($10,000.00 deductible) ® Cost of safety protection upgrades to meet anti -whistling guidelines ® Additional annual maintenance costs for fencing and other safety devices 3.11 Other Municipalities The City of Oshawa introduced anti -whistling at three crossings during July 2000 but still receive complaints. because the by-law only removes the legal obligation for the train engineer to sound the whistle. Many train engineers still sound the whistle because they feel it is a necessary safety feature while others sound the whistle anytime they see motorists or pedestrians near the crossing or along the tracks. The Town of Cobourg is funding a safety review to determine what upgrades and costs would be involved to reduce whistling to benefit tourism. The Town of Port Hope has rejected the anti -whistling requests to maintain a higher level of safety while avoiding costly upgrades and liability concerns. J. r r�; Zl ' W1 4.1 The removal of whistling as a safety device cannot be taken lightly, as the additional costs of insurance, accident claims, annual maintenance and staff time will impact the entire community. From a staff perspective, the removal of the whistling safety device cannot be supported. In other areas where anti -whistling by-laws have been approved, it has been a Council decision when the community feels the benefit of stopping "nuisance whistling" for nearby residents outweighs the costs involved and increased risks to residents, pedestrians and motorists. 71 1 7,)n PORT NO.: -33-01 Respectfully submitted, tep en A. Vokes, P. Eng,, Director of Public Works RDB*SAV*ce 11/06/01 Pc: Mr. Doug Hately 3 First Street Bowmanville, ON LIC 2A2 Reviewed by, Franklin Wu, Chief Administrative Officer 72 7') PAGE g IAC: Paul Thurston Suite 200 Tel( 416) 595-3032 Monager 40 Universrty Avenue Publk Affairs and Media Relations Toronto Ontano M51 ITI October 1, 1999 John Mutton Regional Councillor Municipality of Clarington Regional Municipality of Durham 40 Temperance Street Bowmanville, ON, L 1 C 3A6 Dear Mr. Mutton, In response to your September 24 letter regarding complaints of excessive whistling in Bowmanville and noise from railway equipment, please refer to the following -excerpts from Transport -Canada -approved Canadian Railway Operating Rules: 14 (1) long - long - short - long (ii) At least one-quarter of a mile from every public crossing at grade (except within limits as may be prescribed in special instructions), to be prolonged or repeated according to the speed of the movement until the crossing is fully occupied by the engine or cars. At frequent intervals when view is restricted by weather, curvature or other conditions. While we are required to adhere to procedures which have the weight of federal regulations, the Canadian Pacific Railway and its e'tem subsidiary, the St. Lawrence & Hudson Railway, recognize that precautionary whistling can be a nuisance for occupants of dwellings close to the railway. In this regard. we are prepared to work with municipal governments wishing to establish exemptions from the whistling rule, providing that to do so would not compromise public safety. For further information, please contact Gerry McKechnie, Public Affairs Officer, St.*Lawrence & Hudson Railway, 416 595-3010. 73* .../2 ATTACHMENT NO.: 1 Y1TY r'%in rT ATl1 . XIM 22. n9 In regard to reports of flat -spots on train wheels, please understand that a variety of noises made by trains in the normal course of daily operations can sound, similar to those that would be produced by wheel abnormalities, Such abnormalities are the focus of rigorous inspection and repair programs. and are in fact rare occurrences. However, should evidence of such a condition (or any other a a 1011 -tree telephone er is posted at every St. Lawrence & Hudson public g railway crossing For your records, the number is 800 716-9132. Any responsible person who may become aware of an urgent safety problem should be encouraged to telephone that number at any hour of the day or night. Yours truly, Paul Thurston Manager, Public Affairs & Media Relations Canadian Pacific Railway, TORONTO cc ' G.D. McKechnie Public Affairs Officer St. Lawrence & Hudson Railway 74 72� CO Com, ICU TON I®il Cj\j October 5, 1999 Her Worship Mayor Diane Hamre Municipality of Clarington 40 Temperance Street Bowmanville, ON L1C 3A6 Noise from train operations - including train whistling _ is a fact of life for many Canadians who live near railway facilities. nuisance that "someone" In fact, train whistling is often considered a should remove. However most people don't fully understand that train whistles, together with crossing protection, are a key element in ensuring public safety at road/rail intersections. As such IY change in their use requires careful consideration by both the railwa and its regulator, Transport Canada. Y , The accompanying pamphlet explains - in clear terms - the regulatory and safety reasons behind train whistling, who regulates train whistling, and the process for implementing an anti -whistling bylaw should a community desire that option. We trust that this information .will prove useful to you and to those of your constituents with questions about train whistling Additional copies of this pamphlet are available b contacting our toll-free public enquiries line at 1-888-885-5909, where an operator is Y available to handle your request during core business hours. Thank you. Ian Thomson Director'— Public Affairs. , Enclosure 75 724 ATTACHMENT NO).! -Z- Mayor and Council Members Municipality of Clarington 40 Temperance Street Bowmanvile ON LIC3M COUNCIL DIRECTION D-5 OCT P99 Madam Mayor and Members of Counc�: Quality Of life in central BaMnanville would be improved if the horn b1ming. for the CPR aDwAV at SCU909 Street were discontnued. CrossIngg eswould to be r alled, am mues addressed. and mWr at have ist The Ctty of Oshawa has been successful in eliminating hOM blowing at a number of locations, tYA the process is *m consuming ar ,�. —, Dtves ffm Cansadian Transport COmmiss�n, the railwayand the municipality. peter Stevenson at the City of Oshawa Transportation DePartrnent (Phone 4-36-5608 Ed.. 281) can provide details. Will council support a motion to study and implement the -A Sincerely Doug W. Hatefy 905-697-0275 ATTACIEMNT NO.: 3 Engine whaling requirements are controlled through the Canadian Rail. Operating Rules (CROR). Rule 14(L)(ii) requires whistling for public crossings at grade '°except as may be prescribed in special instructions". The railway company can initiate an exemption by issuing an instruction which eliminates the application of rule 14(L)(i). Procedure Municipalities seeking relief from whistling at public crossings must now contact the pertinent railway company directly to discuss the matter. At the same time, the municipality must also notify the general public and all relevant organizations of its intention to pass a resolution forbidding the use of whistles in the area. The organizations are shown in Schedule D. For any crossings where the road authority is not the municipality itself, then the road authority must also be contacted. If the municipality and the railway company, and the road authority where the road authority is not the municipality itself, are in agreement, and the crossings meet the requirements outlined in Schedule A attached, the municipality should -pass a motion prohibiting whistling. If a dispute arises, one or the other party may contact the pertinent regional director of the Surface Group in order to mediate (addresses listed in Schedule C). -, -- August 13,1 sss 77 ATTACH VIENT NO.: 4 2 Where an agreement has been reached between the railway and the munioipak (and the road authority, in the above-mentioned case) that whistling may be discontinued, the railway should arrange to have the crossings inspected by a Transport Canada railway U Iq U111 15 ur me opinion that the crossings meet the conditions contained in Schedule "A" of this guideline, Transport Canada's Director General Railway Safety will confirm this opinion by letter {sample letter attached -as Schedule "13") to the railway involved, following which, the railway may issue special instrictions eliminating the application of CROR Rule 14(L)(ii) at the crossings. If the crossing meets the conditions contained in Schedule "A" of this guideline but the officer has some safety concerns, the correction of which is a straightforward matter (for example: brush clearing, signal circuit. shortening), they will be identified in the letter. They should be addressed prior to the elimination of whistling at the crossing. If the crossing does not meet the general conditions set out in Schedule "A" or if there is a serious safety concern, the parties will be advised by letter that the whistling should be retained. Once the corrective measures have been carried out, the officer may be invited to reinspect the locations. Examples of such problems- are trespassing, the absence of necessary automatic waming devices, and so forth. Ordinarily, the officer will visit the site after the railway's request: however, he or she may become involved sooner. In the case where the railway does not agree to a prohibition of whistling, it should inform the municipality of its reasons and also advise Transport Canada.. .', . !,.. The following outlines suggested conditions for crossings where relief from whistling is being sought: 1. Crossing warning systems should be as indicated on the attached Schedule A. 2. Generally, whistling restrictions should be on a 24 hour basis. Under exceptional circumstances, and following consultation with Transport Canada, relief from' whistling may be permitted between the hours of 2200 and 0700, local time. However the protection requirements should be the same as those required for a 24 hourwhistling relief. 3. Rules, respecting the sounding of locomotive bells, should still apply. 4. Dere a crossing has experienced two or more accidents in fie past five years, even if the requirements laid out in Schedule A are met, the railway should refer the matter to the appropriate regional director of the Surface Group for a thorough safety review before whistling is discontinued. August 13, 1999 7-1) Q GUIDELINE CANADATRANSPORT WARNING SYSTEMS REQUIRED WHERE WHISTLING IS TO BE ELIMINATED Motor Vehicle Crossings Pedestrian/Sikeway Crossings (not adjacent to motor vehicle Maximum Train crossings) Seed at Crossing No of Tracks NUo of Tracks 1 2 or more 1 2 or more Stop & proceed Flagging Flagging RCS RCS or FLB - or FLB (Note 2) (Note 2) Up to 15 m.p.h. FLB- 2: FLB & G° Flagging, or Flagging, or maze barriers maze barriers & gtide & gdde fencing fencing (Note 5) (Mote 5) 16 - 65 m.p.h. FLB FLB & G FLB, maze FLB G barriers & guide farting (Note 5) Over65 m.p.h. FLB & G .FLB & G FLB & G FLB & G Except in uses where there is no possibility of a second train occurrence. Notes: Railway advance waming signs (Type VVC--4, 41 - or 4R) should be installed on all vehicular approaches as per clause A.3.71 of the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Canada. K M 2. RCS is pictogram type reflectorized crossing sign. These are mandatory at all public crossings. 4. FLB & G is flashing lights, bell and gates. 5. Guide fencing is for the purpose of preventing detours around' the maze barriers. The design should be site specific. 6. Additional signs, signals, ora combination thereof maybe required if specific safety problems exist at a particular crossing or if requirements, as outlined in the grade crossing regulations, exist for a higher form of protection. 7. Normal railway operations shall not result in approach warning times of an automatic waming system of more than 13 seconds longer than the "Approach Waming Time". B. Traffic signals within 30m of a crossing with automatic roaming systems shall be interconnected. Traffic signals over 30m from a crossing with automatic warning systems shall be interconnected if queued traffic reaches the crossing. 9. Notwithstanding the above, there may be other safety factors such as a high level of trespassing, and frequently poor environmental conditions, including fog or blowing snow, which may require a higher level of crossing protection or else • the retention of whistling. August 13,19% R.. R ` I The items in brackets f..... j should be used only if necessary. Place de Ville, ower r 10'h Floor 330, Sparks Street Ottawa, Ontario K1A ON5 7 September 1990 Dear Mr. As requested in your letter of ........... a railway safety officer on.. (date) has inspected the crossing[s] at mileage[s] of your subdivision. At the time of his inspection the railway safety officer was of the view that the crossing[s] met the'conditions contained in Transport Canada Railway Safety Directorate Guideline No. 1. [However the officer noted the following deficiencies which should be corrected regardless of any plans to cease whistling at the crossings: Under the circumstances there would appear to be no reason why (railway company) may not issue a special instruction which would prohibit the applicatbn of CROR rule 14 (1)(ii) at the above crossing[s] [once the above -noted deficiencies have been rectified]. At the same time I would ask you to bring the provisions of CROR rule 14 (f) to the attention of train crews operating in this area. Yours sincerely, Director General Railway Safety Regional Director Atlantic Region Transport Canada Heritage Court, Suite 418 95 Foundry Street Moncton, N.B. E1 C 5H7 Tel. 506-851-2298 Fax. 506-851-7042 Regional Director Ontario Region Transport Canada 20 Toronto Street, Suite 600 Toronto, Ontario M5C 2B8 Tel. 416-973-9820 Fax. 416-973-9907 Regional Director Pacific Region Transport Canada #225 - 625 Agnes Street New Westminster, B.C. V3M 5Y4 Tel. 604-666-2955 Fax. 604-666-7747 Regional' Director Quebec Region Transport Canada Suite 638 800 Rene Levesque Blvd. West Montreal, Quebec H381X9 Tel. 514-283-5722 Fax. 514-283-8234 Regional Director Praire and Northern Region Transport Canada 344 Edmonton Street, Room 402 Winnipeg, Manitoba R3 B 21_4 Tel. 204-983-5969 Fax. 204-983-8992 .M�w.v..N.v..Y�.y.M. 2 SCHEDULED RELEVANT ORGANIZATIONS Mr. Tim Secord Canadian Legislative Director mite Transportation _Union 1595 Telesat Court GLOUCESTER, Ontario K1 B 5R3 Tel. (613)747-7979 Mr. Gary Housch Vice President Brotherhood of Maintenance of fty Employees 2775 Lancaster Road #1 OTTAWA, Ontario K1 B 4V8 Tel. (613)731-7356 Mr. George Hucker Vice Presidents ional Legislativ Representative Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers 150 Metcalfe Street, Suite 1401 OTTAWA, Ontario K2P 1 P 1 Tel. (613)235-1828 :- �� �•.-111 -- - __�:�___•�• ° C4 na iin 3acifid kal IWa — o. . .Fa m - - v Z.n 7Rid `— `�.�. ��`�•�.� � ��r--'F �. � emu existing gates proposed gates in 2001 Note Gates are a minimum requirement to introduce anti -whistling by-laws. .... .... ... .. ...... .. .... . ... ..... ... ............ ...... ................ ..... . ......... ....................................................................... KEY MA 85 ,- '' 11- REPORT "{i9 p WD—33-01 N ! 77 �n BURKEfON ea ENNISKILLEN YD N 01 :N4INEERING SERVICES DEPARTMENT CLARINGTON RAILWAY NETWORK Legend C.P. Belleville Subdivision Railway Line M C.N. Kingston Subdivision Railway Line 04 100 C.P. Havelock Subdivision Railway Line - Regional Roads Provincial Highways REPORT No. EGD -001-12 ATTACHMENT No. 2 REVISED: January 3,2012 I 85x11—d ATTACHMENT NO.:3 REPORT NO.: EGD -001-12 Eliminating Whistling At Public Crossings Guideline No. Engine whistling requirements are controlled through the Canadian Rail Operating Rules (CROR). Rule 14(L)(ii) requires whistling for public crossings at grade "except as may be prescribed in special instructions". The railway company can initiate an exemption by issuing an instruction, which eliminates the application of rule 14(L)(ii). Procedure Municipalities seeking relief from whistling at public crossings must now contact the pertinent railway company directly to discuss the matter. At the same time, the municipality must also notify the general public and all relevant organizations of its intention to pass a resolution forbidding the use of whistles in the area. The organizations are shown in Schedule C. For any crossings where the road authority is not the municipality itself, then the road authority must also be contacted. The responsible authorities, which are the municipality and the railway company, and the road authority where the road authority is not the municipality, shall jointly conduct a detailed safety assessment of the grade crossings. If the responsible authorities are in agreement, and the crossings meet the requirements of this Guideline, the municipality should pass a motion prohibiting whistling. Where an agreement has been reached between the railway and the municipality (and the road authority, in the above-mentioned case) that whistling may be discontinued, the railway can arrange to have the whistling discontinued. The parties may request a Transport Canada railway safety inspector to inspect the crossing to confirm their assessment that the crossing meets the requirements of the guideline. If the inspector is of the opinion that the crossings meet the conditions contained in Schedule "A" of this guideline, Transport Canada's Director General Railway Safety will confirm this opinion by letter to the railway involved, following which, the railway may issue special instructions eliminating the application of CROR Rule 14(L)(ii) at the crossings. If the crossing meets the conditions contained in Schedule "A" of this guideline but the inspector has some safety concerns, the correction of which is a straightforward matter (for example: brush clearing, simple signal circuit shortening), they will be identified in the letter. They should be addressed prior to the elimination of whistling at the crossing. If the crossing does not meet the general conditions set out in Schedule "A" or if there is a serious safety concern, the parties will be advised by letter of the safety concerns and that the whistling should be retained. Once the corrective measures have been carried out, the inspector may again be invited to re -inspect the locations. Examples of such problems are trespassing, queuing, the absence of necessary automatic warning devices, and so forth. Ordinarily, the inspector will visit the site after the railway request; however, he or she may become involved sooner. 88 In the case where the railway does not agree to a prohibition of whistling, it should inform the municipality of its reasons and also advise Transport Canada. All parties involved in this whistling elimination process must remain aware of their roles and responsibilities under Section 11 of the Railway Safety Act (RSA). Further information on these roles and responsibilities can be found in section 1.3 of the Guideline - Engineering Work Related to Railway Works (Section 11 - Railway Safety Act). Conditions The following outlines suggested conditions for crossings where relief from whistling is being sought: 1. Crossing warning systems should be as indicated on the attached Schedule A. 2. Generally, whistling restrictions should be on a 24 hour basis. Under exceptional circumstances, and following consultation with Transport Canada, relief from whistling may be permitted between the hours of 2200 and 0700, local time. However the protection requirements should be the same as those required for a 24 hour whistling relief. 3. Rules, respecting the sounding of locomotive bells, should still apply. 4. Where a crossing has experienced two or more accidents in the past five years, even if the requirements laid out in Schedule A are met, the responsible authorities should undertake a thorough safety review. Schedule A Warning Systems Required Where Whistling Is To Be Eliminated Maximum Train Motor Vehicle Pedestrian/Bikeway Crossings (not Speed at Crossings (No. of adjacent to motor vehicle crossings) (No. of Crossing Tracks) Tracks) —12 1 or more 11 2 or more Flaggingor Flagging or [RCS (Note 2) RCS (Note 2) Stop & proceed 013 171,13 Flagging, or maze or maze [FInagging, Up to 15 m.p.h. FLB FLB & G* barriers & guide arriers & guide fencing (Note 5) ecing (Note 5) rFLI3, maze barriers &16 - 50 m.p.h. FLB FLB & GFLB & G fencing 5); uide (Note Over 50 m.p.h. FLB & G FLB & G JFLB & G JFLB & G * Except in cases where there is no possibility of a second train occurrence. 89 Notes: 1 2 Railway advance warning signs (Type WA -18, 18L, 18R, 19R, 20R) should be installed on all vehicular approaches as per clause A.3.4.2 of the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Canada. RCS is pictogram type reflectorized crossing sign. These are mandatory at all public crossings. 4. FLB & G is flashing lights, bell and gates. 5. Guide fencing is for the purpose of preventing detours around the maze barriers. The design should be site specific. 6. Additional signs, signals, or a combination thereof may be required if specific safety problems exist at a particular crossing or if requirements, as outlined in the grade crossing regulations, exist for a higher form of protection. 7. Normal railway operations shall not result in approach warning times of an automatic warning system of more than 13 seconds longer'than the "Approach Warning Time". 8. Traffic signals within 30m of a crossing with automatic warning systems shall be interconnected. Traffic signals over 30m from a crossing with automatic warning systems shall be interconnected if queued traffic reaches the crossing. 9. Notwithstanding the above, there may be other safety factors such as a high level of trespassing, queuing, and frequently poor environmental conditions, including fog or blowing snow, which may require a higher level of crossing protection or else the retention of whistling. Schedule B - National headquarters and Regional offices Transport Canada - Rail Safety Rail Safety Branch 427 Laurier Street West, Ottawa, Ontario K1A ON5 Telephone: 613-998-2985 TTY: 1-888-675-6863 Email: railsafetygtc.gc.ca Website: http://www.tc. cg ca/eng/railsafety/menu.htm Regional offices The following regional sites provide information on services and activities as well as local contacts. ® Atlantic Region - http://www.te.ge.ca/eng/atlantic/menu.htm ® Ontario Region -http://www.te.ge.ca/eng/ontario/rail-menu-1360.htm ®mat-' R gisn��tr v ca/�n C e� .htn ® Prairie & Northern Region - http://www.te.ge.ca/eng/Trairieandnortheill/menu.htm ® Quebec Region - http://www.te.ge.ca/eng/Auebech•ail-menu-1453.htm Schedule C - Relevant Organizations Mr. B, McDonagh National Representative CAW 326 -12th Street, 12th Floor New Westminster, B.C. V3M 4H6 Mr. Brehl President Teamsters Rail Conference Canada (MWED) 2775 Lancaster Road, Suite 1 Ottawa, Ontario K1B 4V8 Mr. Rob Smith National Legislative Director Teamsters Rail Conference Canada 130 Albert Street, Suite 1710 Ottawa, Ontario K1P 5G4 Mr. K. Depuck National Advisor Teamsters Rail Conference Canada (MWED) 2,775 Lancaster Road, Suite 1 Ottawa, Ontario K1B 4V8 J $WWDFKPHQW WR a W • �' Meeting: GENERAL PURPOSE AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE Date: March 19, 2012 Resolution#: P -0w1 By-law#: -�/ Report#: EGD -013-12 File#: Subiect: WHISTLE CESSATION — FEASIBILITY RECOMMENDATIONS: It is respectfully recommended that the General Purpose and Administration Committee recommend to Council the following: 1. THAT Report EGD -013-12 be received; 2. THAT in the interest of public safety, and liability concerns, the Municipality not proceed with an anti -whistling by-law; and 3. THAT a copy of this report and Council's decision be forwarded to the interested parties listed in report EGD -013-12. Submitted by: ASC/lb/ib Reviewed by: A.S. Cannella, C.E.T. Director of Engineering Services Franklin Wu, Chief Administrative Officer CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON 40 TEMPERANCE STREET, BOWMANVILLE, ONTARIO L1C 3A6 T 905-623-3379 92 REPORT NO.: EGD -013-12 1. BACKGROUND PAGE 2 On January 16, 2012 Council approved the following resolution with respect to our report EGD -001-12: THAT Staff report to Council with the detailed information regarding the cost and feasibility of potentially implementing whistle cessation at all urban area crossings, including but not limited to Mearns Avenue, Lambs Road, Cobbledick Road and Bennett Road crossings; and THAT staff describe the steps that would need to be taken to implement said cessations. While our whistle cessation report, EGD -001-12, outlined the technical process that municipalities must observe in order to implement an anti -whistling by-law (see page 4, item 4 Whistle Cessation), what Council needed was a very clear sense of the specific steps that Clarington would need to take, before further consideration can be given. To further support Council in the decision making process, staff attempted not only to detail the facts but also to understand what the implications might be if we were to consider moving forward. This report will discuss feasibility and implementation as well as clarify the unique features of rail within Clarington. We will present the information and recommendations we were able to obtain through consultation with the railways, and provide a broad overview of potential costs and upgrades that would be required to protect public safety. And to conclude we will once again put forward our own recommendation that while whistling can no doubt be considered an intrusion by some there are many who support the notion that whistling may in fact save lives. 93 REPORT NO.: EGD -013-12 2. RAIL IN CLARINGTON PAGE 3 In consideration of the resolution staff reviewed the Canadian Pacific (CP) and the Canadian National (CN) rail lines passing through the urban areas of Courtice, Bowmanville and Newcastle Village, including the Mearns Avenue, Lambs Road, Cobbledick Road and Bennett Road crossings. Staff determined that the study area limits should commence in the east, near Stephenson Road, at mileage 155.66 C.P. Rail — Belleville Subdivision Line and C.N. Rail at mileage 284.30 — Kingston Subdivision line, westerly to the western Clarington Boundary (Oshawa). In this study area there are twenty (20) level crossings within Clarington, thirteen (13) are on the CP line and seven are on the CN line (refer to attachment #1). Train operating speeds on the CN line are 60 mph for freight trains and 100 mph for passenger trains. On the CP line throughout Clarington the operating speeds are approximately 60 mph. Train whistles are regulated by Transport Canada under the Railway Safety Act, the Railway Locomotive Inspection and Safety Rules. Under these rules, Section 11 (a), a train whistle must be, "(a) a horn capable of producing a minimum sound level of 96 decibels at any location on an arc of 30 meters (100 feet) radius subtended forward of the locomotive by angles 45 degrees to the left and to the right of the centerline of the track in the direction of travel". While we are not experts in train safety we have tremendous respect for the science, research, experience and testing that must have informed this precise definition of safety which is mandated by those who are. When we look at the distance and radius that a train whistle is specifically designed to cover the need to assess an entire study area becomes clear, particularly in locations where one level crossing is in close proximity to others (see attachment #1). If we were to eliminate whistling at one specific crossing with the intent to minimize disruption within a defined area we would need to be sure that whistles at nearby crossings do not radiate into the intended area, negating the desired effect. REPORT NO.: EGD -013-12 PAGE 4 3. CONSULTATION WITH THE RAILWAYS Staff met separately with representatives from both railways and each made clear the fact that while they could not openly oppose an anti -whistling by-law, neither would they actively support it. Both railways made clear the fact that in order to implement whistle cessation a by-law would need to be passed by the municipality instructing the railway to deviate from their normal operational practice. The representative from the Canadian National Railway stated, "While CN strives to assist municipalities in safely implementing whistle cessation, we only wish to do so in the safest locations. The Kingston subdivision line is a high speed line, with large volume for all rail traffic, which increases the risk factors associated with whistle cessation". The railway has also explained that whistling consistency tends to minimize risk because a scattered, "whistling here, no whistling there", may complicate things. Issues of trespass were also discussed and a review of CP Police records has shown that since October, 2009 there were nineteen reported cases of trespass within Clarington. Of these nineteen cases, fourteen were in the area of the Scugog Street crossing, and tragically, one included a pedestrian fatality. Pedestrian fatalities involving trains, is unfortunately a growing concern, particularly amongst young, adolescent males. This risk rises in urban areas, during the school year near crossings that are in relative proximity to schools. 4. AN OVERVIEW OF COSTS 4.1. CESSATION STUDY AND LEVEL CROSSING IMPROVEMENT COSTS As has been made clear, in order for whistle cessation to be considered, the municipality must follow the requirements outlined by Transport Canada, which includes the need for a detailed safety assessment of each crossing and the recommended upgrades which would be required. In Clarington's case a cessation study which looks at each of our twenty (20) level crossings, would carry 95 REPORT NO.: EGD -013-12 PAGE 5 a price tag of $4,000 to $5,000 per crossing, with the total cost expected to be approximately $80,000 to $100,000 for the cessation study alone. The improvements that would need to be undertaken would be based on the number of tracks at each level crossing, operating speeds of the trains, horizontal track geometry and the protection from conflicts with vehicular and pedestrian traffic. Electric gates with flashing lights and bells will be necessary in many locations, the installation of fencing to prevent trespass will be needed, sight line improvements may be required and even barriers to prevent pedestrian/train conflicts may be appropriate when considering a whistle cessation by-law. On the subject of fencing it should be noted that in order to deal with the significant issue that trespass presents, fencing is an essential feature that implies significant cost even though it is difficult to determine the extent of fencing necessary at this point. The specific and detailed costs for the necessary improvements will be determined through the cessation study but for conceptual purposes we have identified the preliminary costs as being significant and would of course need to be funded entirely through the tax levy. 4.2. OPERATING COSTS AND ANNUAL CAPITAL COSTS IMPLICATIONS In addition to the costs associated with upgrading our Operations Department would be required to inspect both the crossings and all fencing existing and required fencing on an ongoing basis. In our discussions with the railways we were cautioned that in areas where trespass is an issue they have observed a high level of vandalism by those who use the tracks as a short cut. Our Operations Department have experienced ongoing maintenance costs for repairs to existing railway fencing under the Municipality's ownership. Dependent on the extent of fencing necessary to address any trespass issues prior to the passing of an anti - whistling, annual maintenance costs could increase significantly. REPORT NO.: EGD -013-12 PAGE 6 Of particular concern is the fact that the use of short cuts is particularly common the closer you get to schools. Naturally then, it will be no surprise to suggest that in these situations those who may be most at risk are students and younger people. It should not be surprising then to understand that fence maintenance to discourage trespass will be an ongoing, onerous and costly endeavor. CN stated that whistles would be restored if fencing was not maintained. CP said that whistle cessation "makes the crossings less safe". 4.3. COSTS OF ADDITIONAL INSURANCE COVERAGE The municipality will be required to enter into a liability agreement with the railway and obtain additional liability insurance to protect the municipality and the railway against third party claims for bodily injury and property damage arising out of or resulting from or connected with the issuance of an order to stop whistling at affected crossings. The estimated cost of additional insurance coverage would be in the order of approximately $400 per crossing, per year. 5. IMPLEMENTATION OF WHISTLE CESSATION Should the Municipality wish to pursue whistle cessation the following steps are necessary: 1. Contact the pertinent railways 2. Notify the public and all relevant organizations of our intent to forbid whistling in the municipality. 3. Arrange for a detailed whistle cessation study of each crossing at the crossing and recommend upgrades which would meet all relevant requirements. 4. Conduct a Public Information Centre. 5. Pass a resolution of our intent to pass a by-law forbidding the use of whistles at certain crossings. 6. Implement the required upgrades to meet the guidelines. 97 REPORT NO.: EGD -013-12 PAGE 7 7. Enter into an agreement with each railway with respect to the roles and responsibilities under Section 11 of the Railway Safety Act. 8. Enter into a liability agreement with the railway and obtain additional liability insurance to protect the Municipality and the railway against third party claims for bodily injury and property damage arising out of or resulting from or connected with the issuance of an order to stop whistling. 9. Where an agreement has been reached between the railway and the municipality and all required improvements made, the parties may request a Transport Canada railway safety inspection, after which the municipality can make sure the public is aware of the intended changes through a public education campaign, after which they can pass a motion to prohibit whistling. It is anticipated that this process may take as much as three years to complete. 6. CONCURRENCE — Nancy Taylor, Director of Finance; Fred Horvath, Director of Operations. 7. CONCLUSION The issue of train whistling in urban areas has and always will be a quality of life issue for some in adjacent neighborhoods, while many simply become accustomed to their presence. Looking at quality of life issues is an important part of the work we do and so it is on rare occasion that we might look at other issues as having more importance. Public safety is most certainly one. Staff have looked in detail at this very complex issue and the deeper we go in our review; the more convinced we are that the risks need to be appraised. Trespass continues to be a significant issue particularly because those at risk are, more often than not, likely to be younger pedestrians, particularly in areas closer to schools. REPORT NO.: EGD -013-12 PAGE 8 We have explained that in passing a whistle cessation by-law, we are in effect, asking the railway to suspend usual operational practice. If we were in fact to do this we would be required to give serious thought to the complexity of the liability the municipality would be likely to assume. If we were to proceed, a comprehensive whistle cessation study would need to be conducted in the study area, looking at each of the twenty (20) level crossings in Clarington. The cost of this study is currently expected to cost approximately $80,000 to $100,000 for the safety assessment alone. The cost for making any of the recommended improvements suggested by the study would need to be borne by the Municipality and the cost implications of these improvements, while significant, would be in addition to the ongoing costs of fencing, maintenance and increased liability insurance. It is therefore our continued position that the municipality not pursue anti -whistling on either the CN or CP rail lines within Clarington because of the potential risk to public safety. CONFORMITY WITH STRATEGIC PLAN — Not Applicable Staff Contact: Leslie J. Benson, Manager, Transportation and Design Attachments: Attachment 1 - Key Map List of interested parties to be advised of Council's decision: Anne Black J. i �' "jcry fsrnNa�nc u' Al b ,y• v� j. N� ',1• a ` o r<«IcxnL aono .--t - t. _. - ^� --.II _ —••^ _- �- - =•--'1. :.[vrON aonv r--..,-..^ � -GY•i✓L aOAD -:� - L - L-- �— e• 8 1I _r I v r i FnAD, i`Eee�Estor:E r"o. f 44I _.. 011tE 1� 133 Rao3,•�jccnc.e. sn— acneNj o . rF COWEsslcl Ra1']s _ ;•�-- Yo :j= .TORT I CIAI�' 7 I + rf I }i l•.-r•--.�.. ! C,n <;r 1 full i!Ar•Rr LE.:M c��a aLi: Ls .1.�:5 : ', C'' I ' `` CRT }. RT ■�/ A j � I 1 sl R'.1•ETT �C {'1-I iY_ II I !- hhf)E['..�CFfa '�D I�OYYM7"N ILLE I .� �IX RGAD COI:CE SEiIi FCA0 _ ���• =r��; �I cavc�ssl�N I Rcnn. }` �::.! l ✓;-�r�'I�_I_ �:�.=sx rti- �`�;�Y? E �.'_ • � ..7 . -� 152.39. l �-'yr'�� �Z��"�"��` .,I� • � f � I I � s}� '' i 161-841 3 r"'I'� �'' �i 161.29kf 164'.22° - ;163-58 4 al 9' _�.j I i— `'•�, ; " C 'CEMGN' TREET - 1164:89 r _ � ac.3•� 3 n 1 " -�Jf-".'.•�:-.y'~ — � j � �4�. �I F' � I C.'•VCE`.ssCk _�-�:.�. .— _— _�-`fps GDUR ICE,i�. 1fi539—iI_l j•� _ , ._ 4 I G CI I r I NEWCASTLE - _ o L. -�- .�• I -1 7907 169-31 168.79 i. = °1 r-Y,I�a .:Sy ^� �. I 158.6D �( Jl "i L 165 22166.92.,E r Q�• �+'..nY I '-•"9r '. - �. �I.-1.. 'ao.%v! :! -158.97 82a OrA. =166-55 157.4s�r. - ST z9s.22 291.5 as 62 - .- :-- 04 l '15693 STUDY 296.19 29OA4 4N 0 288.76 28616: 28908 287.26LIMITS 286.75 156:40 7 .. --- ---- — TYPE OF CROSSING p '285o5wl -w =-�•-• �' I - '�� 155,66 �� Closed/Blocked Z. Grade Separation Level crossing with lights and gates zsa.3o Level crossing with lights Level crossing with no automatic protection DRAWN BY: E.L. DATE: March 13, 2012 RAILWAY SUBDIVISDN LINES C.P. flail - Belleville Subdivision Line IIT REPORT EGD -013-12 C.P. Rail - Havelock Subdivision Line C.N. Rail- Kingston Subdivision Lineinn ATTACHMENT NO. 1 C�•10!}�rhmnn}clR�ilLAroli f mccinn nm�n�..o mvri Transport Transports Canada Canada There are about 14,000 public and 9,000 private grade crossings along more than 40,000 kilometres of federally regulated railway track in Canada. Transport Canada's Grade Crossings Regulations (the Regulations) help to improve safety at these crossings by: • establishing comprehensive and enforceable safety standards for both new and existing crossings in Canada; • clearly defining the roles and responsibilities of railway companies and road authorities; and • ensuring that railway companies and road authorities share key safety information with each other. What is a grade crossing? A grade crossing is an intersection where a road or path crosses railway tracks at the same level. Grade crossings are also known as level crossings, railway crossings, or train crossings. What is a public grade crossing? A public grade crossing is where railway tracks intersect with a road that is owned by a public authority, such as a province, municipality or band council, and is used by the general public. What is a private grade crossing? A private grade crossing is where railway tracks intersect with a road that is owned and used by private parties, such as farmers, commercial businesses or private individuals. 101 Canaalla' Did you know that you may have responsibilities under the Regulations? Railway companies, road authorities (provinces, municipalities and band councils) and private crossing owners are each responsible for managing the safety at grade crossings. The Regulations identify the roles and responsibilities of railway companies and road authorities that relate to: • Information sharing • Crossing surfaces • Sightlines • Roadway and railway signs • Traffic signals • Warning systems Do you know what's expected of you? Greater Collaboration Through Information Sharing Transport Canada has developed forms that may be used by the railway company or the road authority to facilitate information sharing. These forms can be found at www.Canada.ca/grade-crossings. The Regulations require that railway companies and road authorities share safety-related information on their grade crossings. Sharing this information with each other will allow them to determine what they need to do to make their crossings safer. What's happening when? • Immediately: When constructing a new grade crossing or making a change to an existing grade crossing. • By November 28, 2016: To share safety information with each other for existing public grade crossings. Available funding for grade crossings Enforceable Grade Crossings Standards The Regulations incorporate standards based on the best engineering practices known today and make them law. This requires all federally regulated grade crossings in Canada to meet the same standard. Railway companies and road authorities will continue to apply the best options, building on the existing guidelines, for making their crossings safe.* What's happening when? • Immediately: The standards will apply to new grade crossings; or when making a change to an existing grade crossing – widening the road, for example. • By the end of 2021: The standards will apply to surfaces, signs, sightlines and warning systems for existing grade crossings. *Note: Immediate action can and will be taken by Transport Canada where a serious safety deficiency is identified. Effective Sightlines A safe crossing is a visible crossing — so the Regulations contain formulas for defining the area that road authorities, railway companies and private land owners must keep clear of anything that could block a road user's view of an oncoming train. What's happening when? The Regulations prescribe customizable requirements for your crossings. • Immediately: When constructing new grade crossings, or making a change to an existing grade crossing. • By the end of 2021: To existing grade crossings. Transport Canada can provide funding for eligible costs related to a grade crossing improvement project. To learn more visit: https://www.canada.ca/en/services/transport/rail.htmi Working Together to Safeguard Public Grade Crossings The Regulations and standards require road authorities and railway companies to work together on: Blocked public crossings Under the Grade Crossings Regulations: • Railway equipment cannot block a public grade crossing for more than five minutes when a road user requires passage, unless the railway equipment is moving. • When emergency vehicles require passage, railway companies must immediately clear any grade crossing. If the municipality has a safety concern relating to a crossing that is blocked, both parties must work together to find a solution to the safety concern. After 90 days, if they find no solution, the municipality can inform Transport Canada. Activity on/near a crossing The requirements are that if a railway company or road authority performs any activity, such as rail or road repair at or near a crossing, they must: • Share information about the activity with each other, and • Take temporary protection measures (e.g. detours) to address any threat to the safety of railway operations. Train whistling cessation Train whistling is an important way to keep drivers, cyclists and pedestrians safe when using public grade crossings. Whistling cessation • Section 23.1 of the Railway Safety Act provides a process for whistling cessation at a public grade crossing subject to certain requirements outlined in the Regulations. • Crossings must be equipped with an appropriate warning system based on railway speed design, vehicle and pedestrian use, and the number of railway tracks going through the crossing. • The municipality must also pass a resolution agreeing that the whistle should not be used at that crossing. Transport Canada encourages railway companies and municipalities to work together to ensure that all the requirements have been met. Should these two parties disagree that the requirements have been met, they may approach Transport Canada for a final decision. Should a road authority wish to pursue whistling cessation, the procedure for train whistling at public crossings can be found at www.canada.ca/grade-crossings. Complaint and Dispute Resolution Who can help when complaints or issues become disputes that railway companies and road authorities cannot resolve? If the complaint or dispute is about grade crossing safety, contact Transport Canada. Learn more at www.Canada.ca/grade-crossings. If a railway company and a road authority disagree on who should pay for railway work at a crossing, either party can ask the Canadian Transportation Agency to apportion the costs of the project. Learn more at the Canadian Transportation Agency at www.otc-cta.gc.ca. Need help? For general inquiries: Email: RailSafety@tc.gc.ca Phone: 613-998-2985 Toll-free: 1 -844 -897 -RAIL (1-844-897-7245) Fax: 613-990-7767 Transport Canada Rail Safety Branch Mailstop: ASR 427 Laurier Street West, Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0N5 Pacific: 604-666-0011 Prairie and Northern: 1-888-463-0521 Ontario: 416-973-9820 Quebec: 514-283-5722 Atlantic: 506-851-7040 www.canada.ca/grade-crossings 103 / rim C4 N r,o e 1O E N %k 4z 06IT 00 E N ?k 4 z 10 ) \ ( §2 a� § % G e 7 " ƒ \ \ § : ` , u - ; � ® s t = G 2$ s/ k 2 / \ \ w \ \ - \ §z % // % , = % � \ / @ } g 2 (D k§ V em ! o ? % 2 / \ \ / 7 j / ± ) a \ } E � - u C4f�c s / 2 y / j \ \ 2 o\ 0 6 } \ \ \ 00 ( _o/ - 2 �,0 2 ( \G± \ ® - \ § " CD as 7 0 2/\\\ " k ix \ ( §2 a� § % G " ƒ \ \ § : ` , u - ; � ® s t = G 2$ s/ k 2 / \ \ w \ \ - \ % S % , = % 2 » { / / @ } g 2 (D k§ = em ! o 0 / \ \ / 7 j / ± ) a \ } Clarftwn Community Services Report If this information is required in an alternate accessible format, please contact the Accessibility Coordinator at 905-623-3379 ext. 2131. Report To: General Government Committee Date of Meeting: May 29, 2017 Report Number: CSD -005-17 Resolution: File Number: By-law Number: Report Subject: 2017 Community Event Sponsorship Requests - Spring Intake Recommendations: 1. That Report CSD -005-17 be received; 2. That Council consider all submitted sponsorship requests; and 3. That all interested parties listed in Report CSD -005-17 and any delegations be advised of Council's decision. 105 Municipality of Clarington Report CSD -005-17 Page 2 Report Overview The purpose of this report is to provide Council with a summary of the 2017 Community Event Sponsorship — Spring Intake applicants in order to make decisions about awarding funding. 1. Background The Community Event Sponsorship Program is an opportunity for Council to recognize and support events in our community that promote engagement and foster civic pride. The Program is intended to provide financial assistance to community organizations or groups of residents offering event based activities; one-off occurrences that are planned in order to promote, raise awareness or provide an opportunity for community gathering. Funds are awarded by Council through an application process on a semi-annual basis. The applications presented herein were accepted through the Spring Intake for events occurring July 1 to December 31, 2017 inclusive. Applications were received until April 1, 2017 (11:59 p.m.). The Community Event Sponsorship Program outlines eligibility for the program. Applications have been reviewed to ensure they meet the funding criteria. Individual requests through the Community Event Sponsorship Program may not exceed $2,000 per application. The budget for the 2017 Community Event Sponsorship Program is $35,000. At the first intake, $9,500 was awarded for events occurring in the first half of 2017. For this second intake, $25,500 remains available for allocation at this time. A total of 22 sponsorship applications requesting $38,800 have been received for review and consideration. 2. Application Process All eligible applications have been recorded in the 2017 Master List of Sponsorship Applicants (Attachment 1), providing Council with an overview of the requested funding. Each application is also presented on a summary sheet (Attachment 2) numbered from S17-6 to S17-27. These summaries provide an overview of the event, the recognition 106 Municipality of Clarington Report CSD -005-17 Page 3 opportunities, a financial summary, and the organization's funding history, to assist Council in their decision making. Organizations and groups who submitted incomplete applications were contacted and staff worked with them to provide as much of the outstanding information as possible. This application period will cover events occurring July 1 to December 31, 2017. Applications for events occurring January 1 to June 30, 2018 will be accepted until October 1, 2017 (11:59 p.m.). 3. Concurrence Not Applicable 4. Conclusion The Community Event Sponsorship Program is intended to provide an opportunity for Council to assist groups and organizations in offering special events that benefit the residents of Clarington. Such activities and events serve to bring community members together, connect our neighbours and foster pride in Clarington. 5. Strategic Plan Application The recommendations contained in this report conform to the Strategic Plan. -- �' -71 Submitted by: / Reviewed by: Joseph P. Caruana, Curry Clifford, MPA, CMO Director of Community Services Interim CAO Staff Contact: Erica Mittag, Community Development Coordinator, 905-623-3379 ext 2563 or emittag@clarington.net Attachment 1: 2017 Master List of Sponsorship Applicants Attachment 2: Community Event Sponsorship Requests List of interested parties to be notified of Council's decision is on file in the Community Services Department. 107 2017 Master List of Sponsorship Applicants Attachment 1 to Report CSD -005-17 Appl. # Organization Event Name Contact Name 2016 2017 Comments 2017 Running Sponsorship Request Sponsorship Balance $17,500.00 Central Lake Ontario Durham Children's Watershed 17-S6 Conservation Festival - Next Generation Yvonne Storm $0.00 $2,000.00 Authority 17-S7 Bark in the Park Bark in the Park Orono 2017 Sandra Howlett $0.00 $2,000.00 Durham Grandview Brigitte 17-S8 Children's Pure Imagination Gala $0.00 $2,000.00 Foundation Tschinkel 17-S9 Orono Agricultural 165th Orono Fair Shelby Dillon $2,000.00 $2,000.00 Society Memorial Hospital 17-S10 Foundation- Fire & Ice Gala Andrea Russell $2,000.00 $2,000.00 Bowmanville 17-S11 Soper Valley Model Bowmanville 31st Annual Bill Harford Jr. $0.00 $1,200.00 Railroad Model Railroad Show Tyrone Community Received sponsorship in 2016 17-S12 Centre Breakfast with Santa Joy Vaneyk $2,000.00 $2,000.00 for 40th anniversary celebration 17-S13 VON Durham Memorial Butterfly Release Vikki Gilmour $1,000.00 $2,000.00 Received sponsorship in 2016 Hospice Services for Beach Ball Gala 17-S14 Hampton United Clemy Classic 9 -hole Golf Barbara $500.00 $750.00 Church Tournament Pokorski Great Canadian David Received funding through 17-S15 Town Band Festival Canada Day 1867 Concert Climenhage $1,000.00 $1,500.00 Community Grant Program in 2016 1 2017 Master List of Sponsorship Applicants Attachment 1 to Report CSD -005-17 Appl. # Organization Event Name Contact Name 2016 2017 Comments 2017 Running Sponsorship Request Sponsorship Balance $17,500.00 Community 17-S16 Development Clarington Bus Tour Kate Bird $0.00 $2,000.00 Council Durham Newcastle Art Show 10th Annual Newcastle's Artist 17-S17 Inc. (A Gift and Artisans Show Ann Harley $0.00 $2,000.00 of Art) Newcastle Canada Day 150 Received sponsorship in 2016 17-S18 Newcastle BIA Celebration Karen Bastas $2,000.00 $2,000.00 for Newcastle Santa Claus Parade 17-S19 Kendal Community Kendal Long Lunch Laurie Tkaczuk $0.00 $2,000.00 Centre 17-S20 Bethesda House Clarington Community Jaki MacKinnon $500.00 $850.00 Christmas Party Newcastle Village Received funding through 17-S21 Concerts Newcastle Village Concerts Lorraine Forget $750.00 $1,000.00 Community Grant Program in 2016 Newtonville Music Received funding through 17-S22 Night in the Park Music Night in the Park Betty Stapleton $1,000.00 $1,500.00 Community Grant Program in 2016 17-S23 Concerts in the Park Concerts in the Park Brian Purdy $2,500.00 $2,000.00 (Bowmanville) Received funding through 17-S24 Orono DBIA Orono Santa Claus Parade Lisa Roy $500.00 $2,000.00 Community Grant Program in 2016 Newtonville Debbie Received sponsorship in 2016 17-S25 Community Hall Halloween Community Event Dunham $1,650.00 $2,000.00 for Newtonville Community BBQ 2017 Master List of Sponsorship Applicants Attachment 1 to Report CSD -005-17 Appl. # Organization Event Name Contact Name 2016 2017 Comments 2017 Running Sponsorship Request Sponsorship Balance $17,500.00 17-S26 Help from Hol Help From Hol Baseball Nick Van $2,000.00 $2,000.00 Tournament Seggelen 17-S27 Durham Farm "All About Farming" Mobile Mary Ann $0.00 $2,000.00 Connections Exhibit Found 110 Attachment 2 to Report CSD -005-17 Municipality of Clarington Community Services Department Summary of Community Event Sponsorship Information Applicant / Organization: Central Lake Ontario Conservation Authority Application #: 17-S6 Date Received: December 7, 2016 Contact Name: Yvonne Storm Event Information Event Name: Durham Children's Watershed Festival- Next Generation Event Date: September 25-29, 2017 Event Location: Camp Samac Anticipated Attendance: 5,100 students Admission Cost: $9.50 Sponsorship Benefits • Sponsors are listed on the Event's promotional board, sponsor board and Teachers' Event Guide • Event website • Post -event recognition in local paper • Recognition plaques Description of the event that the sponsorship will be used for: The Durham Children's Watershed Festival - Next Generation is a giant outdoor science centre for grade 4 students. In 2017, they are proposing to celebrate the Festival's 20th anniversary and Canada's 150th anniversary with a "Next Generation" focus. The event will connect participants to all water resources and their importance to human health and ecosystem function. The Festival incoporates 35 hands-on interactive activity centres with messages relevant to the students' everyday lives. Event Financial Summary: 2017 Revenue $127,750.00 Expenses $136,148.00 Net $ 8,398.00 Organization Funding History: 2015 Received 2016 Received 2017 Request $1,000.00 Did not apply $2,000.00 Durham Children's Groundwater Festival Durham Children's Watershed Festival — Next Generation 111 Attachment 2 to Report CSD -005-17 Municipality of Clarington Community Services Department Summary of Community Event Sponsorship Information Applicant / Organization: Bark in the Park Durham Application #: 17-S7 Date Received: January 31, 2017 Contact Name: Sandra Howlett Event Information Event Name: Bark in the Park Orono 2017 Event Date: August 26-27, 2017 Event Location: Orono Fair Grounds Anticipated Attendance: 5,000 Admission Cost: $5.00 Sponsorship Benefits • Recognition on website and social media • Recognition in Event Program and signage at event • Recognition on event volunteer shirts • Logo on all printed material and advertising Description of the event that the sponsorship will be used for: Bark in the Park is a two day community festival celebrating pets and the people who love them. Providing support and awareness for local animal rescue groups and promoting local businesses and organizations. Event Financial Summary: 2017 Revenue $ 26,800.00 Expenses $ 13,900.00 Net $ 12,900.00 Organization Funding History: 2015 Received 1 2016 Received 2017 Request Did not apply $2,000.00 Bark in the Park Orono 2017 112 Attachment 2 to Report CSD -005-17 Municipality of Clarington Community Services Department Summary of Community Event Sponsorship Information Applicant / Organization: Grandview Children's Foundation Application #: 17-S8 Date Received: February 9, 2017 Contact Name: Bridgitte Tschinkel Event Information Event Name: Pure Imagination Gala Event Date: November 10, 2017 Event Location: Deer Creek Golf & Banquet Facility Anticipated Attendance: 250 Admission Cost: $150.00 Sponsorship Benefits • Recognition on website and social media • Two complimentary tickets to the event Description of the event that the sponsorship will be used for: Grandview Children's Foundation Pure Imagination Gala is a night of entertainment, "marche" style dining and fun all in support of the programs and services at Grandview Children's Centre. Guests have the opportunity to learn more about Grandview, bid on incredible auction items, mingle and dance the night away as they are entertained by vocalists, a DJ and a variety of other entertainers. Event Financial Summary: 2017 Revenue $ 82,000.00 Expenses $ 29,000.00 Net $ 53,000.00 Organization Funding History: 2015 Received 1 2016 Received 2017 Request Did not apply $2,000.00 Pure Imagination Gala 113 Attachment 2 to Report CSD -005-17 Municipality of Clarington Community Services Department Summary of Community Event Sponsorship Information Applicant / Organization: Orono Agricultural Society Application #: 17-S9 Date Received: March 12, 2017 Contact Name: Shelby Dillon Event Information Event Name: 165th Orono Fair Event Date: September 7-10, 2017 Event Location: Orono Fair Grounds Anticipated Attendance: 40,000 Admission Cost: $10.00 Sponsorship Benefits • Recognition on website and social media • Recognition in Event Program and signage at event • Recognition on event volunteer shirts • Logo on all printed material and advertising Description of the event that the sponsorship will be used for: Orono Fair is one of the oldest running fairs in Ontario and is one of the largest tourist events in Durham Region. The fair has been hosted by the Orono Agricultural Society since 1852. The fair annually features exquisite displays and competitions involving paintings, photographs, agriculture (fruits, vegetables and crops), livestock (sheep, cattle, poultry and rabbits), flowers, knitting, woodworking, sewing, crafts, school displays, culinary creations and many other artistic works. As well as one of the largest midways throughout the area. Event Financial Summary: 2017 Revenue $ 334,950.00 Expenses $ 312,550.00 Net $ 22,400.00 Organization Funding History: 2015 Received 2016 Received 2017 Request $10,200.00 $2,000.00 $2,000.00 Orono Fair, Orono Ram Rodeo, Canada Day Fireworks Orono Fair 165th Orono Fair 114 Attachment 2 to Report CSD -005-17 Municipality of Clarington Community Services Department Summary of Community Event Sponsorship Information Applicant / Organization: Memorial Hospital Foundation-Bowmanville Application #: 17-S10 Date Received: March 22, 2017 Contact Name: Andrea Russell Event Information Event Name: Fire & Ice Gala Event Date: October 20, 2017 Event Location: Ajax Convention Centre Anticipated Attendance: 350-400 Admission Cost: $200.00 Sponsorship Benefits • Logo displayed at venue • Recognition in Event Program Description of the event that the sponsorship will be used for: The Bowmanville Hospital Foundation is hosting their annual gala, "Fire & Ice". The black -tie event brings together business and community leaders for an evening of relationship building, live and silent auctions, fine dining and dancing. Proceeds will support the purchase of urgently needed SMART IV Pumps at the Bowmanville Hospital. Event Financial Summary: 2017 Revenue $ 196,800.00 Expenses $ 59,800.00 Net $ 137,000.00 Organization Funding History: 2015 Received 2016 Received 2017 Request $3,500.00 $2,000.00 $2,000.00 Various events Tee Off Fore Health Golf, 1St Fire & Ice Gala Annual Fashion Show and Harvest Ball 115 Attachment 2 to Report CSD -005-17 Municipality of Clarington Community Services Department Summary of Community Event Sponsorship Information Applicant / Organization: Soper Valley Model Railroad Application #: 17-S11 Date Received: March 22, 2017 Contact Name: Bill Harford Jr. Event Information Event Name: Bowmanville 31 st Annual Model Railroad Show Event Date: October 14-15, 2017 Event Location: Clarington Central Secondary School Anticipated Attendance: 1,200 Admission Cost: $6.00 Sponsorship Benefits • Recognition on promotional flyers Description of the event that the sponsorship will be used for: Soper Valley Model Railroad is hosting its 31 st annual Bowmanville Model Railroad Show which features a number of operating model train displays and various vendors selling model train equipment from all over southern Ontario. Event Financial Summary: 2017 Revenue $ 7,500.00 Expenses $ 4,410.00 Net $ 3,090.00 Organization Funding History: 2015 Received 1 2016 Received 2017 Request Did not apply $1,200.00 Bowmanville 31St Annual Model Railroad Show 116 Attachment 2 to Report CSD -005-17 Municipality of Clarington Community Services Department Summary of Community Event Sponsorship Information Applicant / Organization: Tyrone Community Centre Application #: 17-S12 Date Received: February 24, 2017 Contact Name: Joy Vaneyk Event Information Event Name: Breakfast with Santa Event Date: September 12, 2017 Event Location: Tyrone Community Centre Anticipated Attendance: 200 Admission Cost: FREE Sponsorship Benefits • Recognition on facebook, posters and newspapers Description of the event that the sponsorship will be used for: Tyrone Community Centre is offering a Breakfast with Santa event which provides free pancakes and sausages for all members of the community with children's actvities and a visit from Santa. Donations of non-perishable food items are accepted for the Clarington East Food Bank. Event Financial Summary: Organization Funding History: 2015 Received 2017 Revenue $ 0.00 Expenses $ 500.00 Net $ 500.00 Organization Funding History: 2015 Received 2016 Received 2017 Request $500.00 $2,000.00 $2,000.00 Breakfast with Santa 40th Anniversary Celebration Breakfast with Santa 117 Attachment 2 to Report CSD -005-17 Municipality of Clarington Community Services Department Summary of Community Event Sponsorship Information Applicant / Organization: VON Durham Hospice Services Application #: 17-S13 Date Received: March 24, 2017 Contact Name: Vikki Gilmour Event Information Event Name: Memorial Butterfly Release Event Date: July 9, 2017 Event Location: Rotary Park - Bowmanville Anticipated Attendance: 120-175 Admission Cost: FREE Sponsorship Benefits • Recognition on all correspondence affiliated with the event • Verbal recognition at event Description of the event that the sponsorship will be used for: The VON Durham Hospice Services are hosting a memorial butterfly release where guests release butterflies in the name of their loved ones. Dignitaries speak, a local officiant is MC; entertainment and refreshments are provided. Event Financial Summary: 2017 Revenue $ 4,000.00 Expenses $ 2,025.00 Net $ 1,975.00 Organization Funding History: 2015 Received 2016 Received 2017 Request Did not apply $1,000.00 $2,000.00 Beach Ball Gala Memorial Butterfly Release 118 Attachment 2 to Report CSD -005-17 Municipality of Clarington Community Services Department Summary of Community Event Sponsorship Information Applicant / Organization: Hampton United Church Application #: 17-S14 Date Received: March 28, 2017 Contact Name: Barbara Pokorski Event Information Event Name: Clemy Classic 9 -Hole Golf Tournament Event Date: September 29, 2017 Event Location: Stone Henge Golf Course and Hampton United Church Anticipated Attendance: 85-100 Admission Cost: $80.00 Sponsorship Benefits • Recognition event signage • Recognition in Event Program (poster) Description of the event that the sponsorship will be used for: Clemy Classic 9 Hole Golf Tournament is a charity tournament to support the Restoration Fund of Hampton United Church. It generates community spirit and involvement. Event Financial Summary: 2017 Revenue $ 11,400.00 Expenses $ 3,900.00 Net $ 7,500.00 Organization Funding History: 2015 Received 2016 Received 2017 Request $100.00 $500.00 $750.00 Clemy Classic 9 -Hole Golf Tournament Clemy Classic 9 -Hole Golf Tournament Clemy Classic 9 -Hole Golf Tournament 119 Attachment 2 to Report CSD -005-17 Municipality of Clarington Community Services Department Summary of Community Event Sponsorship Information Applicant / Organization: Great Canadian Town Band Festival Application #: 17-S15 Date Received: March 27, 2017 Contact Name: David Climenhage Event Information Event Name: Canada Day 1867 Concert Event Date: July 1, 2017 Event Location: Clarington Museum Anticipated Attendance: 500+ Admission Cost: FREE Sponsorship Benefits • Recognition at event Description of the event that the sponsorship will be used for: The Great Canadian Town Band Festival is celebrating Canada Day with a Canada Day 1867 Concert by the Orono Cornet Band. They will recreate an authentic 1867 Canada Day concert playing music from the period on original 19th century instruments. Event Financial Summary: Organization Funding History: 2015 Received 2017 Revenue $ 500.00 Expenses $ 3,510.00 Net $ 3,010.00 Organization Funding History: 2015 Received 2016 Received 2017 Request $1,000.00 (Grant) $1,000.00 (Grant) $1,500.00 Orono Cornet Band Commemoration of the Battle of Canada Day 1867 Concert Ridgeway and Summer Concerts 120 Attachment 2 to Report CSD -005-17 Municipality of Clarington Community Services Department Summary of Community Event Sponsorship Information Applicant / Organization: Community Development Council Durham Application #: 17-S16 Date Received: March 30, 2017 Contact Name: Kate Bird Event Information Event Name: Clarington Bus Tour Event Date: August 16, 2017 Event Location: Throughout Clarington Anticipated Attendance: 60 Admission Cost: FREE Sponsorship Benefits • Recognition on social media • Recognition in promotional literature • Recognition during outreach activities • Logo on t -shirts provided to guests Description of the event that the sponsorship will be used for: The Community Development Council of Durham (CDCD) is hosting a bus tour through Clarington which will highlight local attractions, businesses and community resources. The tour will be a full day trip with admission to attractions and lunch provided to each guest. The purpose of the tour is to educate Durham residents about the hidden gems of Clarington, giving guests the opportunity to learn about the rich history and culture within their own region. Event Financial Summary: Organization Funding History: 2015 Received 1 2016 Received 2017 Revenue $ 0.00 Expenses $ 2,000.00 Net ($ 2,000.00) Organization Funding History: 2015 Received 1 2016 Received 2017 Request Did not apply $2,000.00 Clarington Bus Tour 121 Attachment 2 to Report CSD -005-17 Municipality of Clarington Community Services Department Summary of Community Event Sponsorship Information Applicant / Organization: Newcastle Art Show Inc. (A Gift of Art) Application #: 17-S17 Date Received: March 23, 2017 Contact Name: Ann Harley Event Information Event Name: 10th Annual Newcastle's Artist and Artisans Show Event Date: July 8-9, 2017 Event Location: Newcastle Memorial Arena Anticipated Attendance: up to 5,000 Admission Cost: FREE Sponsorship Benefits • Recognition on website and social media • Recognition in Event Program and all print advertising, posters • Recognition in radio advertisements • Verbal recognition at event Description of the event that the sponsorship will be used for: The Newcastle Art Show Inc. (A Gift of Art) is hosting the 10th annual Newcastle's Artists and Artisans Show. The indoor event is open to the public and features 65+ artists and artisans, local musicians, tourist and local information booth, Newcastle Photography Club and a dance exhibition. There will also be a kids activity centre and lounge for vendors. Event Financial Summary: 2017 Revenue $ 13,000.00 Expenses $ 15,100.00 Net ($ 2,100.00) Organization Funding History: 2015 Received 2016 Received 2017 Request $1,000.00 Did not apply $2,000.00 Newcastle's Artist and Artisans Show 10th Annual Newcastle's Artist and Artisans Show 122 Attachment 2 to Report CSD -005-17 Municipality of Clarington Community Services Department Summary of Community Event Sponsorship Information Applicant / Organization: Newcastle BIA Application #: 17-S18 Date Received: February 28, 2017 Contact Name: Karen Bastas Event Information Event Name: Newcastle Canada Day 150 Celebration Event Date: July 1, 2017 Event Location: Newcastle & District Recreation Complex Anticipated Attendance: 15,000 Admission Cost: FREE Sponsorship Benefits • Recognition on website and social media • Recognition in Event Program and signage at event • Recognition in post -event print advertising (Village Voice) • Verbal recognition at event Description of the event that the sponsorship will be used for: The Newcastle BIA is hosting a Canada's 150th Canada Day celebration at the Newcastle & District Recreation Complex. With up to 15,000 visitors expected, the event will include food, fireworks, activities and music. Event Financial Summary: 2017 Revenue $ 21,875.00 Expenses $ 24,225.00 Net ($ 2,350.00) Organization Funding History: 2015 Received 2016 Received 2017 Request $300.00 $2,000.00 $2,000.00 Newcastle Santa Claus Parade Newcastle Santa Claus Parade Newcastle Canada Day 150 Celebration 123 Attachment 2 to Report CSD -005-17 Municipality of Clarington Community Services Department Summary of Community Event Sponsorship Information Applicant / Organization: Kendal Community Centre Application #: 17-S19 Date Received: March 24, 2017 Contact Name: Laurie Tkaczuk Event Information Event Name: Kendal Long Lunch Event Date: August 13, 2017 Event Location: Kendal Community Centre Anticipated Attendance: 200 Admission Cost: $15.00 Sponsorship Benefits • Recognition on posters and flyers Description of the event that the sponsorship will be used for: The Kendal Community Centre provides community events and activities for the residents of Kendal. They are hosting a Long Lunch which includes lunch, desserts and beverages as well as live entertainment and family activities. Event Financial Summary: Organization Funding History: 2015 Received 2017 Revenue $ 980.01 Expenses $ 1,043.90 Net $ 63.89 Organization Funding History: 2015 Received 2016 Received 2017 Request $2,000.00 Did not apply $2,000.00 Oktoberfest Kendal Long Lunch 124 Attachment 2 to Report CSD -005-17 Municipality of Clarington Community Services Department Summary of Community Event Sponsorship Information Applicant / Organization: Bethesda House Application #: 17-S20 Date Received: February 28, 2017 Contact Name: Jaki MacKinnon Event Information Event Name: Clarington Community Christmas Party Event Date: November 26, 2017 Event Location: Clarington Beech Centre Anticipated Attendance: 100 to 300 Admission Cost: FREE Sponsorship Benefits • Recognition on social media • Recognition in event posters and advertising • Recognition through word of mouth Description of the event that the sponsorship will be used for: The 4th Annual Clarington Community Christmas Party is a free, multi -generational indoor event which brings together residents of Clarington to enjoy a non-sectarian celebration of the holiday season. Participating host agencies and organizations coordinate the event, providing games, crafts, story- telling, caroling, cookie decorating, refreshments, photos with Santa and more. Event Financial Summary: Organization Funding History: 2015 Received 2017 Revenue $ 0.00 Expenses $ 850.00 Net ($ 850.00) Organization Funding History: 2015 Received 2016 Received 2017 Request $500.00 $500.00 $850.00 Clarington Community Christmas Party Clarington Community Christmas Party Clarington Community Christmas Party 125 Attachment 2 to Report CSD -005-17 Municipality of Clarington Community Services Department Summary of Community Event Sponsorship Information Applicant / Organization: Newcastle Village Concerts Application #: 17-S21 Date Received: February 24, 2017 Contact Name: Lorraine Forget Event Information Event Name: Newcastle Village Concerts Event Date: Weekly, Summer 2017 Event Location: Newcastle Community Hall Anticipated Attendance: Various Admission Cost: FREE Sponsorship Benefits • Recognition on signage, posters and flyers Description of the event that the sponsorship will be used for: Newcastle Village Concerts offer free outdoor musical summer concerts for the enjoyment of Clarington residents. Event Financial Summary: 2017 Revenue $ 4,049.20 Expenses $ 4,900.00 Net ($ 850.80) Organization Funding History: 2015 Received 2016 Received 2017 Request $750.00 (Grant) $750.00 (Grant) $1,000.00 Newcastle Village Concerts Newcastle Village Concerts Newcastle Village Concerts 126 Attachment 2 to Report CSD -005-17 Municipality of Clarington Community Services Department Summary of Community Event Sponsorship Information Applicant / Organization: Newtonville Music Night in the Park Application #: 17-S22 Date Received: February 23, 2017 Contact Name: Betty Stapleton Event Information Event Name: Music Night in the Park Event Date: Weekly, Summer 2017 Event Location: Ina Brown Parkette Anticipated Attendance: Various Admission Cost: FREE Sponsorship Benefits • Recognition on website and social media • Recognition in weekly printed flyers • Verbal recognition at event Description of the event that the sponsorship will be used for: Newtonville Music Night in the Park offers local entertainment for the community at no cost. Event Financial Summary: Organization Funding History: 2015 Received 2017 Revenue $ 3,045.15 Expenses $ 3,635.00 Net $ 589.85 Organization Funding History: 2015 Received 2016 Received 2017 Request $1,000.00 (Grant) $1,000.00 (Grant) $1,500.00 Music Night in the Park Music Night in the Park Music Night in the Park 127 Attachment 2 to Report CSD -005-17 Municipality of Clarington Community Services Department Summary of Community Event Sponsorship Information Applicant / Organization: Concerts in the Park (Bowmanville) Application #: 17-S23 Date Received: February 10, 2107 Contact Name: Brian Purdy Event Information Event Name: Concerts in the Park Event Date: Weekly, Summer 2017 Event Location: Rotary Park, Bowmanville Anticipated Attendance: 300-800 Admission Cost: FREE Sponsorship Benefits • Recognition on promotional poster • Recognition on signage at event Description of the event that the sponsorship will be used for: Concerts in the Park (Bowmanville) offers free musical entertainment througout the summer. Event Financial Summary: 2017 Revenue $ 11,500.00 Expenses $ 13,500.00 Net ($ 2,000.00) Organization Funding History: 2015 Received 2016 Received 2017 Request $1,000.00 $2,500.00 $2,000.00 Concerts in the Park Concerts in the Park Concerts in the Park 128 Attachment 2 to Report CSD -005-17 Municipality of Clarington Community Services Department Summary of Community Event Sponsorship Information Applicant / Organization: Orono DBIA Application #: 17-S24 Date Received: April 1, 2017 Contact Name: Lisa Roy Event Information Event Name: Orono Santa Claus Parade Event Date: November 25, 2017 Event Location: Downtown Orono Anticipated Attendance: 200 Admission Cost: FREE Sponsorship Benefits • Recognition on website and social media • Recognition in event posters Description of the event that the sponsorship will be used for: The Orono DBIA hosts the annual Orono Santa Claus Parade that travels through the village of Orono. The parade includes floats, music and marching bands. The parade brings holiday cheer and promotes the spirit of giving in the community. Event Financial Summary: Organization Funding History: 2015 Received 2017 Revenue $ 8,200.00 Expenses $ 7,930.00 Net $ 270.00 Organization Funding History: 2015 Received 2016 Received 2017 Request $300.00 $500.00 (Grant) $2,000.00 Orono Santa Claus Parade Orono Santa Claus Parade Orono Santa Claus Parade 129 Attachment 2 to Report CSD -005-17 Municipality of Clarington Community Services Department Summary of Community Event Sponsorship Information Applicant / Organization: Newtonville Community Hall Application #: 17-S25 Date Received: March 31, 2017 Contact Name: Debbie Dunham Event Information Event Name: Hallowe'en Community Event Event Date: October 28, 2017 Event Location: Newtonville Community Hall Anticipated Attendance: 50-75 Admission Cost: FREE Sponsorship Benefits • Recognition on website and social media Description of the event that the sponsorship will be used for: The Newtonville Community Hall is offering a Hallowe'en Community Event which is open to families in the community at no charge. Event Financial Summary: Organization Funding History: 2015 Received 2017 Revenue $ 0.00 Expenses $ 1,600.00 Net ($ 1,600.00) Organization Funding History: 2015 Received 2016 Received 2017 Request Did not apply $1,650.00 $2,000.00 Newtonville Community BBQ Hallowe'en Community Event 130 Attachment 2 to Report CSD -005-17 Municipality of Clarington Community Services Department Summary of Community Event Sponsorship Information Applicant / Organization: Help from Hol Application #: 17-S26 Date Received: April 1, 2017 Contact Name: Nick Van Seggelen Event Information Event Name: Help from Hol Baseball Tournament Event Date: September 23-24, 2017 Event Location: Clarington Fields and Garnet B. Rickard Recreation Complex Fields Anticipated Attendance: 400-450 Admission Cost: FREE admission for spectators $45.00 per ball player Sponsorship Benefits • Recognition on website and social media Description of the event that the sponsorship will be used for: Help From Hol is a co-ed baseball tournament. Funds raised through this tournament support families who are struggling with cancer. Event Financial Summary: 2017 Revenue $ 28,200.00 Expenses $ 11,780.00 Net $ 16,420.00 Organization Funding History: 2015 Received 2016 Received 2017 Request Did not apply $2,000.00 $2,000.00 Help from Hol Baseball Tournament Help from Hol Baseball Tournament 131 Attachment 2 to Report CSD -005-17 Municipality of Clarington Community Services Department Summary of Community Event Sponsorship Information Applicant / Organization: Durham Farm Connections Application #: 17-S27 Date Received: March 31, 2017 Contact Name: Mary Ann Found Event Information Event Name: "All About Farming" Mobile Exhibit Event Date: July 1 to October 14, 2017 Event Location: Various locations throughout Clarington Anticipated Attendance: 1,000+ Admission Cost: FREE Sponsorship Benefits • Recognition on signage at event • Verbal recogntion at end of year banquet Description of the event that the sponsorship will be used for: Durham Farm Connections strives to enhance knowledge, understanding and appreciation of agriculture. Through their "All About Farming" mobile exhibit, they will attend various scheduled events to provide opportunities for non-farm people to learn first-hand where their food comes from and to foster a broader understanding of agriculture today and its impact on our local community. Event Financial Summary: 2017 Revenue $ 13,000.00 Expenses $ 11,750.00 Net $ 1,250.00 Organization Funding History: 2015 Received 1 2016 Received 2017 Request Did not apply $2,000.00 "All About Farming" Mobile Exhibit 132 Clarftwn Corporate Services Report , I W K L V L Q I R U P D W L R Q L V U H T X L U H G & R R U G L Q D W R U a VVW Report To: * H Q H U D O * R Y H U Q P H Q W & R P P L W' Date of Meeting: 0 D \ Report Number: & 2 ' Resolution: File Number: 5 ) 3 By-law Number: Report Subject: Architectural Services for MAC Recommendations: 7 K D W 5 H S R U IN H& 12 H F H L Y H G 7 K D W W K H S U R S R V D O U H F H L Y H G I l U H V S R Q V L Y H E L G G H U P H H W L Q J D D 10 D Z D U G H G W K H F R Q W U D F W E\ W K H 6 H U YUL F, HP VS U I RR Y H P H Q W V & DH VQ WWJ Ki H 0 X Q L 7 K D W W K H I X Q G V U H T X L U H G L Q W K W K H D R D 10 X2 (Z Il Q J 5 H Q R Tit (D $W& L R Q V 7 K D W D O O L Q W H U H V W H m Q S; D UD M U H 13 H a R I & R X Q F L O V G H F L V L R Q E\ W K H 3 133 Municipality of Clarington Report COD -009-17 Report Overview 7RE1 DMPBMPR DROBOMBOSRU05A IRU BBRE IIOfi111 06ERIMDOSW PS Hull W 1. Background ., , JA'A.--- r $ JIRSSDU I e r '�►I''twl �''tw PRR6RBfRO 70DRRBNIRII EMSRBFFOSSMOSHRIOG DOORERDE03MMMUMMODUNRIIEH SDVWFFRPPR0MVDZWFF9W & $F9WV NPVB SNWMF F9W MEOFRI FRIMB P RBMRB®RO RHR��1N DFFORODOR13B MIWSDO�O�MERRSH ��� [RRY�FBF�00\ 011 5 fkf&bzsiVWDDBZISFKWOIISRZW 2MG3iDE0RPSDiWRDiWRW 7WFORBIIDDW 134 Page 2 Municipality of Clarington Report COD -009-17 Page 3 2. Architectural Services for MAC Improvements 7 K H 0 X QHL GF L W B[ B L W )\ 3 L W It X R E W D L Q S U W K U H H V H S D U D W H F D S L W D O S U R M H F X U W D L Q Z D O O V\ V W H P Q G 1 O R R U D F F H V V L E O H U H F H S W L R Q D U H D L Q F D Q G D F F H V V L E L O L W\ X S J U D G H V W R 7 K H 5) 3 V W L S X O D W H G W K D W E L G G H U N H\ T X D O L I K IF ,D WV CL LR JQKVW R L U S' D NS W R V W QJ Z L W K S U R M H F W V R I V L P L O D U V L] H W K H 0 X Q L F L S D O L W\¶ V U H T X L U H P H Q W 7 K U H H V X E P L V V L R Q V Z H UV HL R LQ H F F R Q V L V W H G R I D F R P S U H K H Q V L Y H S x 4 X D O L I L F D W L R Q V D Q G H[ S H U L H Q F x ( [ S H U L H Q F H FR RI Q W A( CH W 1$ Q W 9 R Q H VW W D Q G F R P S O H[ L W\ x 8 Q G H U V W D Q G L Q J R I W K H 5) 3 D Q G x, G H Q W L I L F D W L R Q R I D F F H V V L E L O P H W K R G R O R J\ R I S U R M H F W G H O L l x 0 H D V X U H V W K D W W K H 3 U R S R Q H Q W G H O L Y H U D E O H V D Q G W K D W W K H\ 7 K H V X E P L V V L R Q V Z H U H U H Y L H Z H G R X W O L Q H G L Q W K H 5) 3 E\ D Q H Y D O ' H S D U W P H Q W W K H & O H U N V H S D U W P D U H D V R Q Z K L F K V X E P L V V L R Q V Z H U x+ L J K O L J K W V R I V H U Y L F H V S U R Y L x$ O O R F D W H G U R O H V D Q G U H V S R Q V S U R M H F W W L P H O L Q H Z L W K V X I I L F x 3 U R Y H Q H[ F H O O H Q F H L Q F R Q F U H V x' H P R Q V W U D W H G X Q G H U V W D Q G L Q J U H O D W H G L V V X H V x' H P R Q V W U D W H G D E L50 3. W\ W R F D U x 9 D 0 9 IS H G V H U Y L F H V W K D W V X S S R Z H QJ Ri W H G D Q G L G H Q W L I L H G L I W k W K H 0 X Q L F L S D O L W\ 8 S R Q F R P S O H W L R Q R I W K H H Y D O X D W I R U 3 K D V H D Q G P R Y H G R Q W R W N 135 Municipality of Clarington Report COD -009-17 Page 4 , W L Z D V G H H P H G E\ W K H H Y D O X D W L R Z R X O G E H U H T X L U H G W R S U R Y L G H I F O D U L I\ W K H S U R M H F W G H O L Y H U D E O 7 K H 3 U L F L Q J H Q Y H O R S H- 5 R g U N d RVW \ 6 % D U U\ % U\ D Q $ V V R F L D W H V Z H U H R S W K H R O R Z H V W E L G G H U Z L W K D W R W D 3. Financial and Budget Considerations 7 K D W W K H I X Q G V U H T X L U H G L Q W K I U R P W K H I R O O R Z L Q J D F F R X Q W V 5 H Q R R OD $W& L R Q V 4 X H U L H V Z L W K U H V S H F W W R W K H G R 1 2 S H U D W L R Q V 4. Concurrence 7 K L V U H S R U W K D V E H H D QQ GOJ )HAV IL FH LZ 9-I DG O F R Q F X U Z L W K W K H U H F R P P H Q G D W L R C 5. Conclusion W L V U H V S H F W I X O O\ U H F R P P H Q G H G , U H V S R Q V L Y H E L G G H U E H D Z D U G H G W 0$& , P S U R Y H P H Q W V D V S H U W K H W H 136 Municipality of Clarington Report COD -009-17 Page 5 6. Strategic Plan Application 7 K H U H F R P P H Q G D W L R Q V F R Q W D L Q H G 6 X E P_ G E\ 5 H Y L H- FI JG 0 D U L H 0 D U D Q R +& OX U U 6 F&&00 L2 I&I R CIJ ' L U H F W R U R I & R U S, RQ UAJWF R K P 6 H U Y L F i,mil, . /j, �'ld 1 D Q \ 7 D\ O R U %%$ & 3$ &$ ' L U H F W R U R I ) L Q D Q F H 7 U H D V X U H U 6 W D I I & R Q W D F W ' D Y L G ) H U Ra Ug W R Q G I H U J X V R Q# F O D U L Q J W R Q Q H W / L V W R I L Q W H U H V W H G ' H S D U W P H Q W 137 S D U W L H V W R E Municipality of Clarington Attachment 1 to Report COD -009-17 O X Q L F LDSUDL OQ LJVWV Summary of Submissions Received RFP2017-2 Provision of Professional Services Architectural Services for MAC Bidder 11 % D U U\ % U\ D Q D Q G 1 L F N 6 Z H U G I H J H U - 5 ) U H H W K\ $ U F 138 $ V V R F L D W $ U F K L W H F W L W H F W Clarftwn Corporate Services Report If this information is required in an alternate accessible format, please contact the Accessibility Coordinator at 905-623-3379 ext. 2131. Report To: General Government Committee Date of Meeting: May 29, 2017 Report Number: COD -010-17 Resolution: File Number: CL2017-2 By-law Number: Report Subject: Third St and Bernard St Reconstruction Recommendations: That Report COD -010-17 be received; 2. That Nick Carchidi Excavating Ltd. with a total bid amount of $713,635.11 (Net HST Rebate) being the lowest compliant bidder meeting all terms, conditions and specifications of Tender CL2017-2 be awarded the contract for the reconstruction of Third Street and Bernard Street as required by the Engineering Services Department; 3. That the funds required for this project in the amount of $874,900.00 (Net HST Rebate) which includes the construction cost of $713,635.11 (Net HST Rebate) and other related costs such as design, Ontario Land Surveyor, inspection and contract administration, materials testing and contingencies of $161,264.89 (Net HST Rebate) be funded by the Municipality as follows: Third Street Reconstruction Pavement Rehabilitation Sidewalk Replacement - Unspecified Region of Durham 110-32-330-83331-7401 110-32-330-83212-7401 110-32-331-83215-7401 100-00-000-00000-1010 $230,000.00 $ 92,310.67 $ 15,389.33 $ 537,200.00 4. That all interested parties listed in Report COD -010-17 and any delegations be advised of Council's decision by the Purchasing Department. 139 Municipality of Clarington Report COD -010-17 Page 2 Report Overview To request authorization from Council to award the contract for the Third St and Bernard St Reconstruction work as required by the Municipality of Clarington's Engineering Services Department. 1. Background Tender specifications were prepared by the Engineering Services Department and provided to the Purchasing Services Division. This project relates to the reconstruction of Third St and Bernard St. The limits established for this work is Bernard St from the south limit to Third St and Third St from west of Bernard St to Liberty St. The Municipality is working in conjunction with the Region of Durham who will be replacing the watermain and sanitary sewers and related replacement of the road structure and new sidewalks. Tender CL2017-2 was issued by the Purchasing Services Division and advertised electronically on the Municipality's website. Notification of the availability of the document was also posted on the Ontario Public Buyer's Association website. Nine (9) companies downloaded the document. The tender closed on Friday, March 17, 2017. 2. Analysis Three (3) bids were received in response to the tender call. Bids were reviewed and tabulated by the Purchasing Services Division (see Attachment 1). All submissions were deemed compliant. The results were forwarded to the Engineering Services Department for their review and consideration. After review and analysis of the submissions by the Engineering Services Department and the Purchasing Services Division, it was mutually agreed that the low bidder, Nick Carchidi Excavating Ltd. be recommended for the award of contract CL2017-2. Nick Carchidi Excavating Ltd. has successfully completed work for the Municipality in the past. 3. Financial The funds required for this project in the amount of $874,900.00 (Net HST Rebate) which includes the construction cost of $ 713,635.11 (Net HST Rebate) and other related costs such as design, Ontario Land Surveyor, inspection and contract administration, materials testing and contingencies of $161,264.89 (Net HST Rebate) to be funded as follows: Third Street Reconstruction 110-32-330-83331-7401 $230,000.00 140 Municipality of Clarington Report COD -010-17 Page 3 Pavement Rehabilitation Sidewalk Replacement - Unspecified Region of Durham 4. Concurrence 110-32-330-83212-7401 $ 92,310.67 110-32-331-83215-7401 $ 15,389.33 100-00-000-00000-1010 $ 537,200.00 This report has been reviewed by the Director of Engineering Services who concurs with the recommendations. 5. Conclusion It is respectfully recommended that Nick Carchidi Excavating Ltd. being the lowest compliant bid be awarded the contract for the Third St and Bernard St Reconstruction in the amount of $ 713,635.11 (Net HST Rebate) as per the terms and conditions of Tender CL2017-2. 6. Strategic Plan Application Not applicable. Submitted by: Marie Marano, H.B. Sc., CMO Director of Corporate Services Nancy Tayor,B A, CPA, CA Director of Finance/Treasurer Reviewed by: Curry Clifford, MPA, CMO Interim CAO Staff Contact: David Ferguson, Purchasing Manager, ext. 2209 or dferguson@clarington.net Attachment 1 — Bid Summary List of interested parties to be notified of Council's decision is on file in the Corporate Services Department. 141 Municipality of Clarington $ W W D F K P H Q W CL2017-2 Third St and Bernard St Reconstruction Bid Summary BIDDER TOTAL BID (Including HST) TOTAL BID (net HST Rebate) Nick Carchidi Excavating Ltd. $ 792,460.37 $ 713,635.11 Hard -Co Construction Ltd. $1,016,504.50 $ 915,393.78 Elirpa Construction $1,175,767.67 $1,058,815.20 142 Clarftwn Finance Department Report If this information is required in an alternate accessible format, please contact the Accessibility Coordinator at 905-623-3379 ext. 2131. Report To: General Government Committee Date of Meeting: May 29, 2017 Report Number: FND-010-17 Resolution: File Number: By-law Number: Report Subject: Annual Statement for the Development Charges Reserve Funds for the Year Ended December 31, 2016 Recommendations: 1. That Report FND-010-17 be received; and 2. That a copy of this report be posted on the Municipal website. 143 Municipality of Clarington Report FND-010-17 Page 2 Report Overview This report complies with the reporting requirements of Section 43 of Bill 98 to disclose the annual activity in the Development Charges Reserve Funds for 2016. It has been revised to comply with amendments to the Act effective for reporting January 1, 2016. 1. Background 1.1. In accordance with Bill 98, an Act to Promote Job Creation and Increased Municipal Accountability While Providing for the Recovery of Development Costs Related to New Growth, Schedule "A" attached shows the activity in the Development Charges Reserve Funds for the year ended December 31, 2016, including opening and closing balances. 1.2. Schedule "B", "C", and "D" attached shows all assets whose capital costs were funded by development charges, the manner in which any capital cost not funded by development charges were funded, and other information as required by the Act. 1.3. This statement is compliant with Subsection 59.1(1) of the Development Charges Act. 2. Additional Information 2.1 For the year ended December 31, 2016, a total of 995 residential building permits were issued of various types. Approximately 591 units were anticipated for 2016 in the 2015 development charges background study. A total of 54 capital fund and 26 revenue fund projects have been financed by development charges. 3. Concurrence Not Applicable 4. Conclusion It is respectfully recommended that the annual statement for the Development Charges Reserve Funds be received for information and made available to the public by posting on the Municipal website. 5. Strategic Plan Application The recommendations contained in this report conform to the Strategic Plan. 144 Municipality of Clarington Report FND-010-17 Page 3 Submitted by. Nancy Taylor, BBA, CPA, CA, Director of Finance/Treasurer NT/LP/hjl Reviewed by: Curry Clifford, MPA, CMO Interim CAO Staff Contact: Nancy Taylor, Director of Finance/Treasurer, 905-623-3379 ext. 2602 or ntaylor@clarington.net There are no interested parties to be notified of Council's decision. Attachments: Schedule "A" — Development Charges Reserve Funds Statement Schedule "B" - Capital Expenses Schedule "C" — Revenue Fund Expenses Schedule "D" — Committed Amounts from Prior Years' Budgets/Council Approvals 145 Municipality of Clarington Development Charges Reserve Funds Statement For the 2016 Year * See Schedule B ** See Schedule C *** See Schedule D **** 2017 Budget (includes 2017 debenture payments) Note: brackets = funds available, no brackets = shortfall Total Development Charges collected on behalf of the Region in Dec 2015/2016 Less: amounts paid to the Region 2016 Total Development Charges due to the Region at December 31, 2016 1 � � $ 12,683,210.59 12,395,008.73 $ 288,201.86 580 581 582 583 584 585 586 General Library Fire Protection Indoor Park Dev. & Operations Roads and Government Services Services Recreation Related Facilities Related Balance as of December 31, 2015 1,100,875 519,902 2,948,684 - 1,396,111 2,741,073 16,099,926 Plus: Development Charge Proceeds (283,135) (513,808) (601,871) (3,304,949) (1,050,821) (584,000) (5,362,813) Accrued Interest Apportionment (11,881) (6,444) (32,041) (53) (17,370) (27,461) (179,591) Transfer from Revenue Fund Transfer from Capital Fund 2,424 Subtotal 295,017 520,252 636,336 3,305,002 1,068,191 611,461 5,542,404 Less: Amount Transferred to Capital Fund - - - - 798,472 649,256 1,638,663 Amount Transferred to Revenue Fund** 108,559 139,170 33,386 2,807,914 3,673 33,045 771,802 Repayment of Interim Financing from Reserve Funds - 161,704 - 497,088 - - - Subtotal 108,559 300,874 33,386 3,305,002 802,145 682,302 2,410,465 Closing Balance as of December 31, 2016 1,287,333 739,281 3,551,635 - 1,662,157 2,670,232 19,231,864 Committed Amounts from Prior Years *** 718,403 231,429 - - 357,182 1,164,132 8,903,644 Available at December 31, 2016 568,929 507,852 3,551,635 - 1,304,975 1,506,099 10,328,220 Committed Amounts from 2017 Budget **** 522,000 268,375 15,000 2,802,378 792,000 76,500 5,004,062 Balance remaining of Interim Financing from Reserve Funds - - - 2,660,824 - - - Balance Available for Future Needs 46,929 239,477 3,536,635 5,463,202 512,975 1,429,599 5,324,158 * See Schedule B ** See Schedule C *** See Schedule D **** 2017 Budget (includes 2017 debenture payments) Note: brackets = funds available, no brackets = shortfall Total Development Charges collected on behalf of the Region in Dec 2015/2016 Less: amounts paid to the Region 2016 Total Development Charges due to the Region at December 31, 2016 1 � � $ 12,683,210.59 12,395,008.73 $ 288,201.86 Schedule A * See Schedule B ** See Schedule C *** See Schedule D **** 2017 Budget (includes 2017 debenture payments) Note: brackets = funds available, no brackets = shortfall 147 587 Parking Total Balance as of December 31, 2015 325,012 25,131,583 Plus: Development Charge Proceeds (30,008) (11,731,405) Accrued Interest Apportionment (3,283) (278,125) Transfer from Revenue Fund - Transfer from Capital Fund 2,424 Subtotal 33,292 12,011,954 Less: Amount Transferred to Capital Fund - 3,086,392 Amount Transferred to Revenue Fund** 2,990 3,900,539 Repayment of Interim Financing from Reserve Funds - 658,792 Subtotal 2,990 7,645,723 Closing Balance as of December 31, 2016 355,314 29,497,814 Committed Amounts from Prior Years *** 19,800 11,394,590 Available at December 31, 2016 335,514 18,103,224 Committed Amounts from 2017 Budget **** - 9,480,315 Balance remaining of Interim Financing from Reserve Funds - 2,660,824 Balance Available for Future Needs 335,514 5,962,085 * See Schedule B ** See Schedule C *** See Schedule D **** 2017 Budget (includes 2017 debenture payments) Note: brackets = funds available, no brackets = shortfall 147 Schedule B Municipality of Clarington Development Charges Reserve Funds Statement For the 2016 Year Capital Expenses I otal txpenses For 2016 Wt.; Kir Financing Non U/l: Financing Description D/C - Park Development & Related Facilities 1,583 Mun Cap Works R/F 79,605 71,644 Bondhead Park 344,383 309,945 34,438 Eng Park Cap R/F Port Darlington Park 18,523 16,671 1,852 Eng Park Cap R/F Waverley Park 79,739 71,765 7,974 Eng Park Cap R/F Foster Creek Park 222,695 200,426 22,270 Eng Park Cap R/F Springfield Park 44,507 40,057 4,451 Eng Park Cap R/F Aspen Spring Park 141,055 126,950 14,106 Eng Park Cap R/F Leash Free Park 2,266 2,039 227 Eng Park Cap R/F Tooley Mill Park 5,020 4,518 502 Eng Park Cap R/F Foster Creek Park- Parking Lot 26,102 26,102 202,682 25,051 D/C - Operations Hampton Office Expansion Depot 42 New Equip Parks / 2016 Cemetery New Equip Purch- 2016 Roads New Equip Purch- 2015 Roads D/C - Roads And Related Concession Rd 3 (Liberty St to Jollow Dr) Concession Rd 3 (Middle Rd to Liberty St) Middle Road Reconstruction Scugog St / Middle Road (Bons Ave to Conc Rd 3) Concession Road 3 (#57 to Middle Rd) Grady Drive Enviromental Assessment Completion Lake Road Extension Nelson Street Road Reconstruction Port Darlington Subdivision Rd Port Darlington Earth Removal Port Darlington Waterfront Park East Beach Phase I Mill St Reconstruction Trulls Road Reconstruction (George Reynolds Dr. to Daiseyfield Ave) North Scugog Court(West Scugog Lane to Conc Rd 3) Soper Creek Crossing Pedestrian Link to Camp 30 884,291 1 798,472 1 85,819 239,766 215,790 23,977 Tax Levy 15,831 14,248 1,583 Mun Cap Works R/F 79,605 71,644 7,960 Mun Cap Works R/F 104,417 93,975 10,442 Mun Cap Works R/F 281,776 253,599 28,178 Mun Cap Works R/F 721,396 1 649,256 1 72,140 16,376 14,247 2,129 Mun Cap Works R/F 29,690 25,533 4,157 Mun Cap Works R/F 51,355 42,624 8,730 Mun Cap Works R/F 12,709 9,278 3,431 Mun Cap Works R/F 39,942 35,548 4,394 Mun Cap Works R/F 9,050 9,050 10,151 1,051 9,100 Strategic Cap R/F 46,381 32,930 13,450 Mun Cap Works R/F 107,392 107,392 66,549 47,250 19,299 Mun Cap Works R/F 1,228 1,228 43,366 40,330 3,036 Mun Cap Works R/F 113,830 67,160 46,670 Mun Cap Works R/F 227,732 202,682 25,051 Mun Cap Works R/F 2,231 2,231 Schedule B Municipality of Clarington Development Charges Reserve Funds Statement For the 2016 Year Total Expenses D/C R/F Non D/C Capital Expenses For 2016 Financing Financing Description Longworth Ave Extension EA(Green Rd to Holt Rd) 44,895 44,895 Green Road Grade Seperation 73,749 73,749 Green Rd (Baseline Rd to Aspen Springs Dr)/(Aspen Spring Dr through CPR su (2,156) (2,134) (22) Tax Levy Holt Road Reconstruction (Hwy401 to Hwy#2) 32,777 27,861 4,917 Mun Cap Works R/F 2015 Pavement Rehabilitation 115,245 65,248 49,996 Fed Gas Tax Multi -Use Trail RR#57 (Nash Rd -Longworth Ave) 7,481 7,481 Newcastle Streetscape Improvements 46,952 23,476 23,476 Tax Levy Newcastle Streetscape Improvements 7,009 3,504 3,504 Mun Cap Works R/F 2016 Planning Land Acquisition 310,991 310,991 Various Erosion Protections Works- 2015 775 4,464 (3,690) Mun Cap Works R/F Various Erosion Protections Works- 2016 211,380 140,927 70,453 Mun Cap Works R/F King Street Streetscape Improvements 1,370 685 685 Mun Cap Works R/F Nash Road Traffic Signals 623 391 232 Mun Cap Works R/F George Reynolds Drive Connecting Link 4,625 4,625 Osbourne Road Reconstruction (Energy Dr to South limit) 5,978 5,743 235 Mun Cap Works R/F Street lighting- Hwy/2 (Haines St to Bennett Rd) 15,640 15,640 Street lighting- Baseline Rd (Green Rd to West Side Dr.) 13,333 12,453 880 Mun Cap Works R/F Street lighting- Liberty St 0 0 Street lighting- Courtice Rd (South of Holyrod Dr.) 52 52 Street lighting- RR#57 (Aspen Springs to King St) 12,115 12,115 Sidewalk- Highway#2 (Trulls Rd to Courtice Rd) south side 9,212 9,212 Sidewalk- Liberty St (Nelson to Albert St) 38,169 38,169 Sidewalk- Green Rd (Boswell Dr to Hwy#2) west side 115,957 115,957 Sidewalk- Osborne Road 4,477 4,298 179 Mun Cap Works R/F Sidewalk- RR17 (Mill St -CPR) 80,326 80,326 1,928,956 1,638,663 290,293 Total Capital Expenses 3,534,643 3,086,392 448,251 Summary of Financing: 798,472 D/C - Park Dev/Related Facilities R/F 649,256 D/C - Operations R/F 1,638,663 D/C - Roads and Related R/F 255,905 Municipal Capital Works R/F 85,819 Engineering Parks Capital R/F 49,996 Fed Gas Tax 9,100 Strategic Capital 47,431 Tax Lev Total Financing 3,534,643 3,086,392 448,251 Schedule C Municipality of Clarington Development Charges Reserve Funds Statement For the 2016 Year Total Expenses D/C R/F Non D/C R/F REVENUE FUND EXPENSES For 2016 Financing Financing Description D/C - General Government Facility Development 16,582 14,924 1,658 Prof Fees Courtice Main Street CIP 59,968 53,971 5,997 Prof Fees Planning - Official Plan Review 21,946 19,752 2,195 Prof Fees OPG- Refund for LEED Certification 13,963 13,963 Legal- DCA 2,320 2,088 232 Tax Levy Consulting -Zoning Bylaw Review 4,290 3,861 429 Prof Fees 119,070 108,559 10,511 D/C - Library Services 2015 D/C Appeal Refund 167 167 2013 Library Collections Unexpended Funds to Library 110,000 77,143 32,857 Lib Cap R/F Contribution towards Debenture Debt - Newcastle Library 103,202 57,793 45,409 Tax Levy Courtice Library Debenture 4,067 4,067 217,436 139,170 78,266 D/C - Emergency Services OPG- Refund for LEED Certification 33,386 33,386 33,386 33,386 D/C - Indoor Recreation Contribution towards Debenture Debt- Newcastle District Recreation Ctr 1,762,940 1,586,646 176,294 Tax Levy Contribution towards Debenture Debt- South Courtice Arena 1,073,850 1,073,850 Contribution towards Debenture Debt- Bowmanville Indoor Soccer 162,520 146,268 16,252 Debt Retirement RF 2015 D/C Appeal Refund 1,150 1,150 3,000,460 2,807,914 192,546 D/C - Park Development & Related Facilities 2015 D/C Appeal Refund 312 312 Parks Development - Consulting 1,214 1,093 121 Tax Levy Buttonshaw Park -Consulting 2,442 2,198 244 Tax Levy Longworth Drainage -Consulting 78 70 8 Tax Levy 4,046 3,673 373 D/C - Operations 2015 D/C Appeal Refund 16 16 OPG- Refund for LEED Certification 33,029 33,029 33,045 33,045 Schedule C Municipality of Clarington Development Charges Reserve Funds Statement For the 2016 Year Total Expenses D/C R/F Non D/C R/F REVENUE FUND EXPENSES For 2016 Financing Financing Description D/C - Roads and Related Orono Main Street s/walk design 3,684 1,842 1,842 Prof Fees OPG- Refund for LEED Certification 190,959 190,959 Contribution towards Debenture Debt- Green Road 528,771 528,771 Engineering Consulting - Design 100,460 50,230 50,230 Tax Levy 823,874 771,802 52,072 D/C - Parking OPG- Refund for LEED Certification 2,990 2,990 2,990 2,990 Total Revenue Fund Expenses 4,234,307 3,900,539 333,768 Summary of Financing: 108,559 D/C - General Goverment 139,170 D/C- Library Services 33,386 D/C- Emergency Services 2,807,914 D/C-Indoor Recreation 3,673 D/C-Park Dev/Related Facilities 33,045 D/C - Operations 771,802 D/C - Roads and Related 2,990 D/C- Parking 16,252 Debt Retirement R/F 272,538 Tax Levy 12,120.52 Professional Fees Reserve 32,857 ILib Ca R/F TOTAL FINANCING 4,234,307 3,900,539 1 333,768 151 Schedule D Municipality of Clarington Development Charges Reserve Funds Statement For the 2016 Year Committed Amounts From Prior Years' Budgets and Council Approvals Year Project Description Amount Committed Reserve Fund: DIC - General Government 2016 operating Operations -needs study [10% Prof fees Res tax levy] 90,000 2015 Operating comm serv-facilities development study -90% (10% Prof fees tax levy) 5,808 2007 Operating Plan -OP Review 50,993 2008 Operating Plan -OP Review 3,009 2009 Plan -OP Review -Consulting services growth mangement & Intensification (GPA-155-09/COD-019-09) 80,805 2011 Operating Plan -OP review -commercial policy review 38,730 2011 Operating Plan -OP review-miscellaneous/contingency 25,419 2011 Operating Planning studies - Hancock master plan -servicing 36,000 2011 Operating Planning studies -Technology Park-streetscape 31,500 2011 Operating Planning stud ies-Cou rtice Main Street-streetscape 31,500 2012 Operating Planning Studies -Industrial Site Plan Application Guidelines 18,000 2012 Operating Planning studies -Technology & Planning/Review project 18,000 2015 unexpended planning studies -zoning bylaw review -90% DC [10% Prof fees Res tax levy] 108,639 2016 operating Plan studies -waterfront vision implementation plan [10% Prof fees Res tax levy] 90,000 2016 operating Plan studies -cam 30/Jury lands neighbourhood plan 10% Prof fees Res tax levy] 90,000 Total Committed: 718,403 Reserve Fund: DIC - Library Services 2014 unexpended Library Collection - purchase of additional resources in all formats 77,143 2015 Capital Library Collection - purchase of additional resources in all formats 77,143 2016 Capital Library Collection - purchase of additional resources in all formats 77,143 Total Committed: 231,429 Reserve Fund: DIC - Emergency Servcies Total Committed: - Reserve Fund: DIC - Indoor Recreation 2012 Balance remaining of Interim Financing from Reserve Funds 768,485 2013 Balance remaining of Interim Financing from Reserve Funds 1,096,407 2014 Balance remaining of Interim Financing from Reserve Funds 795,932 Total Committed: 2,660,824 Reserve Fund: DIC - Park Development & Related Facilities Pale.5GZ 0 Schedule D Municipality of Clarington Development Charges Reserve Funds Statement For the 2016 Year Committed Amounts From Prior Years' Budgets and Council Approvals Year Project Description Amount Committed 2011 Capital Port Darlington Waterfront Park 8,792 2006 Capital Waverly Rd, Bow. - landscape feature area/plantings/sign/lighting 29,824 2016 capital Aspen Springs parkette 71,050 2015 Capital Foster Creek neighbourhood Park 50,709 2016 Capital Foster Creek neighbourhood Park 4,379 2015 Capital Newcastle Leash Free Park 3,344 2015 Capital Springfield Parkette 4,027 2016 Capital Bondhead waterfront park 140,055 2016 Capital Prince William parkette 45,000 Total Committed: 357,182 Reserve Fund: D/C - Operations 2013 Capital Depot 42 Operations Centre - Construction of Pole Barn/Quonset Hut 264,427 2016 Capital Depot 42 Operations Centre - Construction of Pole Barn/Quonset Hut 675,000 2015 Capital Hampton Office Expansion 30,681 2016 Capital Fleet New - Cemetery 63,000 2016 Capital Fleet New - Roads 131,025 Total Committed: 1,164,132 Pz3e-503 0 Schedule D Municipality of Clarington Development Charges Reserve Funds Statement For the 2016 Year Committed Amounts From Prior Years' Budaets and Council Aotwovals Year Project Description Amount Committed Reserve Fund: D/C - Roads and Related 2014 Operating Engineering Consulting- Design CIMA (Longworth Ave W) 637 2016 Operating Pond Maintenance/Sediment Cleanout-Clarington Ponds/Clarnew, Newc & WestSide, Bow(CIMA) 11,143 2016 Capital Streetlights-Courtice Road (south of Holyrod Dr) 31,948 2015 Capital Hwy #2 Streetlighting ( Haines St - Bennett Rd) 4,360 2015 Capital Baseline Rd Streetlighting (Green Rd - West side Dr) 38,917 2015 Capital South Service Rd Streetlighting (Lake Rd - Bennett Rd) 176,142 2013 Capital Port Darlington Waterfront Park East Beach Phase 1 112,216 2016 Capital Pavement Rehabilitation -Green Road cycling lanes [DC -project #25] - trsf UECF from Trulls Rd for CL2 12,352 2016 Capital Longworth Ave extension EA (Green to Holt) 236,105 2016 Capital Middle Rd reconstruction (Con Rd 3 to urban limit) 1,824,876 2015 Capital Green Rd Surface Ashphalt (Baseline to Aspen Springs) 51,683 2015 Capital Green Rd Surface Ashphalt (Aspen Springs - Boswell Dr) 85,140 2015 Capital Port Darlington earth removal 6,000 2016 Capital Soper Creek pedestrian link to Camp 30 362,119 2013/2014/2016 Capital Grady Drive Environmental Assessment Completion (@ Foster Creek) 202,992 2011/2015 Capital Rudell Road Reconstruction 122,645 2010/2014 Capital Osbourne Road 393,052 2016 Capital Nelson Street Rd. Reconstruction (Hunt St. - Ontario St.) 12,473 2011 Capital Green Road- 635 m North of Stevens Road 45,655 2011 Capital North Scugog Court 346,609 2016 Capital North Scugog Court surface asphalt (Dan Sheehan to West Scugog) 21,437 2016 Capital Mill St reconstruction -Clarke to Toronto 15,151 2015 Capital Scogog St./Middle Rd Reconstruction 773,709 2015 Capital Green Rd Reconstruction (Harvey Jones to Longworth) 910,035 2016 Capital Trulls Rd Reconstruction (George Reynolds to Billet Gate) 37,284 2013 Capital George Reynolds Dr Connecting Link (Courtice Rd -Harry Gay Dr) Environmental Assessment 22,417 2013 Capital Concession Rd. 3 (Liberty St. - Jollow Dr.) Design 14,049 2013 Capital Concession Rd. 3 (Middle Rd. - Liberty St.) 19,950 2013 Capital Concession Rd. 3 (#57 - Middle Rd.) 36,339 EGD -020-16 Green Rd Grade Separation- trf'd from Conc Rd#3 (Middle to Liberty) per EGD -020-16 75,780 2013 Capital Lake Road Extension 369,982 2014 Capital Brookhill Blvd Oversizing 310,000 2016 Capital Holt Rd Reconstruction (Bloor to Hwy 2) 948,435 2015 Capital Holt Rd Reconstruction (Hwy 401 to Hwy 2) Design 114,639 2016 Capital Port Darlington subdivision Rd (Port Darlington to east) 36,658 PaIeSO4 0 Schedule D Municipality of Clarington Development Charges Reserve Funds Statement For the 2016 Year Committed Amounts From Prior Years' Budgets and Council Approvals Year Project Description Amount Committed 2016 Capital Lambs Road interchange at Hwy 401 - cost/benefit study 30,000 2015 Capital Sidewalk -Hwy 2 (Rudell Rd to Given Rd) North Side 86,000 2015 Capital Multi -Use Trail RR#57 (Nash Rd -Longworth Ave) 137,870 2015 Capital Sidewalk-Rudell Rd (Sunset Blvd to Hart) 43,000 2014 Capital Liberty St DC Sidewalk (Trsf fr Manvers Rd RR17 S/W 9,338 2016 Capital Liberty St sidewalk (Longworth to Bons -west side) 98,000 2011 Capital Baseline Rd Sidewalk- Green to Westside 75,248 2015 Capital Green Rd SideWalk(Boswell to Hwy2) 42,079 2015 Capital Green Rd SideWalk(Boswell to Hwy2) (Trsf fr Manvers Rd RR17 S/W) 22,000 2014 Capital RR 17 Sidewalk - East Side ( Mill St N to CPR) 75,978 2016 Capital Nash Rd at Varcoe Rd - Traffic Signals 162,920 2016 Capital Nash Rd at Centerfield Dr -Traffic Signals 163,093 2016 Capital King St at Scugog - Design intersection improvements for pedestian taffic 4,410 2016 Capital Newcastle Streetscape Improvements (King & Beaver) 110,996 2016 Capital King St Streetscape (RR57 to Bow Creek) 4,315 2011 Capital Brookhill Tributary Nick Point Remedial Work 7,101 2013 Capital Bowmanville Creek Erosion Protection South of Goodyear Dam 15,000 2016 Capital Various Erosion Protection 33,369 Total Committed: 8,903,644 Reserve Fund: D/C - Parking 2015 Capital New Central Parking Meters - Newcastle 19,800 Total Committed: 19,800 Total Committments to Development Charges Reserve Funds 14,055,414 PaX I5 510 Clarftwn Finance Department Report If this information is required in an alternate accessible format, please contact the Accessibility Coordinator at 905-623-3379 ext. 2131. Report To: General Government Committee Date of Meeting: May 29, 2017 Report Number: FND-011-17 Resolution: File Number: By-law Number: Report Subject: 2016 Annual Statement Cash in Lieu of Parkland Reserve Fund Recommendations: 1. That Report FND-011-17 be received; and 2. That a copy of this report be posted on the Municipal website. 156 Municipality of Clarington Report FND-011-17 Page 2 Report Overview This report complies with amendments to the Planning Act R.S.O. 1990 c.P.13 effective for 2016. The Smart Growth for Our Communities Act 2015 (Bill 73) now requires reporting on Section 37 (Increased Density) and Section 42 (Conveyance of land for park purposes). This report discloses the annual activity in the Parkland Cash -in -Lieu Reserve Fund for 2016. There is nothing to report for increased density funds at this time. 1. Background 1.1. In accordance with the Planning Act, as amended through Bill 73, The Smart Growth for Our Communities Act, 2015. Section 37 (Increased Density) and Section 42 (Cash -in - lieu of parkland) of the Planning Act requires the Treasurer to provide a financial statement including opening and closing balances to Council relating to cash -in -lieu of parkland monies and increased density funding. This statement must be made available to the public. 2. Section 42 (Conveyance of land for park purposes) 2.1 Under section 42 of the Planning Act, a municipality may require, as a condition of development, that land be conveyed to the municipality for park or other public recreational purposes. In certain circumstances, Council may require a payment in lieu of land dedication, to the value of the land otherwise required to be conveyed. These funds must be held in a special account (reserve fund), allocated interest and spent only for the acquisition of land to be used for park or other recreational purposes including the erection, improvement or repair of buildings and the acquisition of machinery, particular to park purposes. 2.2 Attachment #1 details the Statement of the Treasurer, in compliance with the Act. 3. Section 37 (Increased Density) 3.1 Clarington does not currently have a program set up for Section 37; therefore an annual statement is not required. The Official Plan has a section on "community benefits" (section 37) but Clarington does not have a market that would make this provision useful at this time. The OP provision is in place to allow Clarington to consider this opportunity in the future. As a result, there is no Statement of the Treasurer required. 157 Municipality of Clarington Report FND-011-17 Page 3 4. Conclusion 4.1 It is respectfully recommended that the new report required by Section 42 of the Planning Act, R.S.O., 1990, c.P. 13, as a result of the changes made to the Planning Act in accordance with The Smart Growth for Our Communities Act (Bill 73) be received for information and made available to the public by posting on the Municipal website. 5. Strategic Plan Application The recommendations contained in this report conform to the Strategic Plan. Submitted by: Nancy Taylor, BBA, CPA, CA, Director of Finance/Treasurer NT/LP/hjl Reviewed by: Curry Clifford, MPA, CMO Interim CAO Staff Contact: Nancy Taylor, Director of Finance/Treasurer, 905-623-3379 ext. 2602 or ntaylor@clarington.net There are no interested parties to be notified of Council's decision. 158 Municipality of Clarington Municipality of Clarington Statement of the Treasurer Cash -in -lieu of Parkland Reserve Fund For the Year Ended December 31, 2016 Attachment 1 to Report FND-011-17 159 Parkland R/F (504) Balance as of December 31, 2015 (604,629) Plus: Cash -in -lieu Collected in 2016 2016 Reserve Fund Interest (530,625) 33,693 Subtotal 564,318 Closing Balance as of December 31, 2016 (1,168,947) Committed Amounts from Prior Years - Available at December 31, 2016 (1,168,947) 159 Clarington Clerk's Report If this information is required in an alternate accessible format, please contact the Accessibility Coordinator at 905-623-3379 ext. 2131. Report To: General Government Committee Date of Meeting: May 29, 2017 Report Number: CLD -014-17 Resolution: File Number: By-law Number: Report Subject: Noise By-law Limits Pertaining to Gun Clubs Recommendations: It is recommended that the Committee choose either: Option A 1. That Report CLD -014-17 be received for information; and 2. That all interested parties listed in Report CLD -014-17 and any delegations be advised of Council's decision. Option B 1. That Report CLD -014-17 be received; 2. That subsection 3.1.1 (a) of Clarington's Noise By-law 2007-071 be amended to reduce the maximum noise level of a shooting range from 70 dBAI to 60 dBAI Logarithmic Mean Impulse Sound Level (LSM ) at the point of reception for any shooting range which began operation prior to January 1, 1980; 3. That staff prepare a by-law to make such amendment to Noise By-law 2007-071 for presentation to Council on June 12, 2017; and 4. That all interested parties listed in Report CLD -014-17 and any delegations be advised of Council's decision. Municipality of Clarington Report CLD -014-17 Page 2 Report Overview Residents in the area of the Orono Fish and Hunt Club (OFHC) report that they are continuing to have issues with the noise levels emanating from the OFHC. This Report details the OFHC, provincial and municipal actions that have been taken since the matter was last considered by Council, explains existing regulations governing gun clubs in general and gun clubs within the Municipality of Clarington and provides choices for Committee going forward. . 1. Background Earlier Municipal Key Actions: In 2011, Council amended Noise By law 2007-071 to limit levels of noise emanating from gun clubs. (See Report CLD -017-11, being Attachment 1 to this Report.) Effectively, the By-law amendment set the noise level maximum that was set out in the Provincial recommended Guidelines NPC -232. However, as is explained in 2.1 below, the methods of measuring noise levels are different. The limits set out in By-law 2007-071 are, oo a maximum noise level of 70 dBAI if the gun club was operating before January 1, 1980; and oc a maximum noise level of 50 dBAI if the gun club began to operate after January 1,1980. These amendments were implemented in response to concerns raised by some area residents. In September 2011 and September 2012, before Council considered Report CLD -017-11, mediated meetings were held involving the area residents and members of the Orono Fish and Hunt Club (OFHC). As well, input was received from the Chief Firearms Officer and from acoustical consultants. See Attachments 2-5 of this Report, being Reports CLD -024-11, CLD -033-11, CLD -007-12 and CLD -027-12. Earlier OFHC Key Actions: In response to the resident concerns expressed during the 2011/2012 period, the OFHC voluntarily implemented a number of noise mitigation measures, including, • Discontinued professional shooting (RCMP, MNR CP Rail). • Limited regular shooting days to Wednesdays and Sundays. Municipality of Clarington Report CLD -014-17 Page 3 • Resident notification protocol for any shooting events outside of Sundays and Wednesdays • Installed berms: on the east side at height of 5.6 meters, with a second on the east side at a height of 7-9 metres; on the north berms (Backstops) are also at heights 5.1 meters at the 25 Yard Range, 5.7 meters at the 50 Yard Range, and 7.5 meters at the 100 Yard Range. (See Attachment 6 to this Report being Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services July 30, 2015 inspection.) Note, all berms are in excess of the RCMP requirements for licensing and recommended berm heights by Swallow acoustics as detailed in Report CLD -033-11. • Installed insulated shooting stations. OFHC reports they continually look for sound mitigation measures including further grass seeding to assist in the reduction of noise. Residents' More Recent Concerns: In the summer of 2016 residents again raised concerns regarding the levels of sound emanating from OFHC. More specifically, some residents believe they are experiencing health issues, problems with their animals including behaviour and health issues, and shaking windows on their house as a result of the gun fire. Residents also sought clarification of legislation, regulations, by-laws and the concept of "grandfathering". Municipal Actions in Response to more recent concerns: This Report details the steps taken by staff in response to their concerns, the research findings, and testing results as compared to the results from previous testing. Note this report deals only with Municipal response to OFHC as no complaints have been received concerning shooting activities at the Pineridge Target Sports Club since 2012 2. Discussion 2.1 Gun Club / Shooting Range Regulations and Noise Federal Regulation: It is the responsibility of the Chief Firearms Officer (CFO) to license and regulate firearm ranges under federal regulations. The purpose of licensing is to ensure safe firearms Municipality of Clarington Report CLD -014-17 Page 4 practices are being followed. The CFO does not regulate sound relating to outdoor or indoor ranges. Currently both outdoor ranges are in compliance with CFO regulations. The OFHC serves 300 members and Pineridge serves 200 members; with approximately 30% of both clubs being Clarington residents. Firearm ranges provide a safe environment for sporting enthusiasts and members of law enforcement agencies to discharge firearms. Provincial Involvement: The MOECC is responsible for protecting clean and safe air, land and water to ensure healthy communities, ecological protection and sustainable development for present and future generations. In fulfilling their role, the MOECC ensures the sources of emissions to the environment are adequately controlled to prevent the potential for adverse effects, and this includes noise emissions to the environment. To assist in understanding, and presumably to assist in the regulating of noise emissions, the MOECC established noise guidelines. The MOECC's NPC -232 Sound Level Limits for Stationary Sources in Class 3 Areas (Rural) directly referenced gun clubs and set maximum noise levels based on how long the gun club was in existence. It read as follows: For impulsive sound, other than Quasi -Steady Impulsive Sound, from a stationary source which is the discharge of firearms on the premises of a licensed gun club, the sound level limit at a point of reception within 30 m of a dwelling or a camping area, expressed in terms of the Logarithmic Mean Impulse Sound Level (LLM), is: • 70 dBAI if the gun club were operating before January 1, 1980; or • 50 dBAI if the gun club began to operate after January 1, 1980; or • the LSM prior to expansion, alteration or conversion. In 2013, NPC -232 was replaced with NPC -300 as the new Noise Guidelines for Stationary Sources. As stated by the MOECC, NPC -300 is a guideline and is intended to be used by municipalities as such; in particular when considering making land use planning decisions and when drafting or reviewing noise by-laws. Note, that the MOECC does not currently regulate gun clubs. See Section 3 of this Report. The levels set in NPC -300 are based on the average of the total number of impulses recorded in an hour. According to the MOECC, the OFHC is considered a Class 3 Area. Charts 1 and 2 below Municipality of Clarington Report CLD -014-17 Page 5 are excerpts from NPC -300 which show the NPC -300 Class 3 Area Guidelines for impulsive sounds. Chart 1 NPC -300 - Table B-3 Exclusion Limit Values for Impulsive Sound Level (LLM, dBAI) Outdoor Points of Reception Time of Day Actual Number of Impulses in Period of One -Hour Class 1 Area Class 2 Area Class 3 Area Class 4 Area 07:00 — 9 or more 50 50 45 55 23:00 7 to 8 55 55 50 60 60/55 5 to 6 60 60 55 65 2 4 65 65 60 70 75/70 3 70 70 65 75 2 75 75 70 80 1 80 80 75 85 Chart 2 NPC -300 - Table B-4 Exclusion Limit Values for Impulsive Sound Level (LLM, dBAI) Plane of Window — Noise Sensitive Spaces (Day/Night) Actual Number of Impulses in Period of One -Hour Class 1 Area Class 2 Area (07:00-23:00)/ (07:00-23:00)/ (23:00-07:00) (23:00-07:00) Class 3 Area (07:00-19:00)/ (19:00-07:00) Class 4 Area (07:00-23:00)/ (23:00-07:00) 9 or more 50/45 50/45 45/40 60/55 7 to 8 55/50 55/50 50/45 65/60 5 to 6 60/55 60/55 55/50 70/65 4 65/60 65/60 60/55 75/70 3 70/65 70/65 65/60 80/75 2 75/70 75/70 70/65 85/80 1 80/75 80/75 75/70 90/85 Municipality of Clarington Report CLD -014-17 Page 6 Municipal Regulation: Gun Club noise levels detailed in Clarington's Noise By-law 2007-071 were amended in 2011 based on the levels set out in the guidelines in place at that time - in NPC -232,- but were set as maximums and not logarithmic mean. The two existing gun clubs have been in existence well before 1980, and therefore, During non -curfew times, any noise emanating from the use of a shooting range shall not exceed: (a) 70 dBAI at the point of reception for any shooting range which began operation prior to January 1St 1980; ... To be clear, By-law 2007-071, as amended in 2011, sets out a maximum level of 70 dBAI per each shot fired, whereas NPC -300 (the Guideline established in 2013) sets out a maximum level based on the average of the total shots fired within an hour. Chart 3 below depicts the shots recorded at 7606 Leskard Rd. during the 2017 controlled test. This sample set of recordings demonstrates how the two measuring methods differ. Chart 3 Shot # Impulse Sound Level dBAI Comply with By-law 2007-071 ? Logarithmic Mean Measurement 1 55 Yes Logarithmic mean level is 61.1 dBAI 2 58 Yes 3 54 Yes 4 53 Yes 5 55 Yes 6 57 Yes 7 51 Yes 8 52 Yes 9 51 Yes 10 66 Yes 11 66 Yes 12 69 Yes 13 63 Yes 14 57 Yes 15 58 Yes 16 51 Yes 17 51 Yes Municipality of Clarington Report CLD -014-17 Page 7 Note in the sample results above from the controlled test results and are not necessary indicative of levels experienced during regular operations. These sample results shows no violation of the current maximum limit of 70 dBAI in By-law 2007-071 and confirms, based on this sample, that a maximum limit of 60 dBAI LLM is more restrictive than the existing limit. The logarithmic mean is calculated using the following formula: LSM = 10 log ( [10"(Imp1/10) + 10"(Imp2/10) + ... ] / number of impulses) Where Imp1, Imp2, etc are the impulsive sound levels measured. The arithmetic mean is calculated using the following formula: Arithmetic Mean = (Imp1 + Imp2 + ...) / number of impulses 2.2 General Noise Levels General noise level limitations can be found in various documents. Not to diminish the reported impact of the noise of gun fire by some of the area residents, but rather to add context and to assist in understanding noise levels, Chart 4 below describes how Worker Safety and Insurance Board (WSIB) rates noise levels, and Chart 5 describes the sound pressure levels of sounds encountered in daily life. Chart 4 Worker Safety and Insurance Board (WSIB) Common Sounds Decibel Levels Harm dB(A) Rock concert, jet takeoff, gun shot 120 to 140 Damaging Chainsaw, air gun, portable stereo, dance club, boiler 100 to 120 Damaging room, sandblasting Power tools, motorcycle, headphones, snowmobile, 90 to 100 Harmful manufacturing plant, lawnmower, hydraulic press, pneumatic drill Dishwasher, computer room, subway, busy restaurant or 75 to 90 Irritating kitchen City traffic, hair dryer, office equipment, cell phone 70 to 90 Irritating Countryside with rustling leaves 20 to 50 Safe Municipality of Clarington Report CLD -014-17 Page 8 Section 139 O.Reg 381/15 Noise, under Occupational Health and Safety Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. 0.1, places the duty on the employer to protect workers. 2. (1) Every employer shall take all measures reasonably necessary in the circumstances to protect workers from exposure to hazardous sound levels. (4) Without limiting the generality of subsections (1) and (2), every employer shall ensure that no worker is exposed to a sound level greater than an equivalent sound exposure level of 85 dBA, Lex,8.[Where Lex,Bis the equivalent sound exposure level in 8 hours.] Chart 5 Typical Sound Pressure Level Encountered in Daily Life Sound Pressure Level dB(A) Sound Pressure Level dB(A) Subjective Evaluation 140 Jet engine Deafening 130 Jet aircraft during takeoff 300 ft. away) Painful 120 "Hard rock" band (with electronic amplification Onset of pain 107 Air hammer Temporary hearing Loss 100 Crowd noise at football game Very loud 92 Heavy city traffic Very loud 80 Ringing alarm clock at 2 ft. Very loud 70 B-757 aircraft cabin during flight Loud 65 Busy restaurant or canteen Loud 60 Conversational Speech Moderate 5 Window air conditioner Moderate 34 Soft whisper at 5 ft. Faint 20 Rustling leaves Very faint 10 Human breathing Very faint The 1999 RCMP Shooting Range and Sound document states the range of sound levels for limited community reaction is between 50 dBAI- 70 dBAI for firearms. (See Attachment 7, RCMP Shooting Ranges and Sound.) Charts 4 and 5 above speak specifically to common sounds other than impulse noises. It is understandable that the impact of stationary noise (ie noises at a steady level such as a lawn mower) is much different than the impact of impulse noise such as gun fire. Therefore, it would be understandable that the recommended noise limits should also be Municipality of Clarington Report CLD -014-17 Page 9 different. According to Guido F. Smoorenburg, "evaluation of impulse noise, in particular shooting noise, with regard to annoyance," Internoise, 81, pp.779-782. 44 indicates that the "threshold for annoyance" due to impulsive noise is from 60 to 65 dBA (fast), which corresponds to approximately 65 to 70 dBAI. These references specify that the range of sound levels for limited community reaction to the sound of firearms is between 50 dBAI and 70 dBAI." 3. Municipal Investigations and Consultation Actions The Municipality retained professional acoustic consultants to conduct testing in early September 2016. In consultation with local residents, special events were determined to be of highest concern and random testing was preferred over an arranged "controlled" test in cooperation with OHFC. Chart 6 below shows the results of the October 22, 2016 test. Attachment 8 to this Report is the full May 12, 2017 Swallow Thornton Tomasetti Testing Report. Chart 6 October 22, 2016 Test Results Address Recorded Noise Level 55 Shooting noise faintly audible 7560 Leskard Road 53 Shooting noise faintly audible. 52 Shooting noise faintly audible. 53 Shooting noise faintly audible. 57 Shooting noise faintly audible. Includes noise from leaves rustling 51 Ambient 7685 Leskard Road 53 Shooting noise barely audible. 54 Shooting noise barely audible. 55 Shooting noise barely audible. 53 Shooting noise barely audible. 59 Shooting noise barely audible. 54 Shooting noise barely audible. 50 Ambient 7150 Leskard Road 54 Shooting noise barely audible. 51 Shooting noise barely audible. 53 Shooting noise barely audible 60 Shooting noise faintly audible. 7506 Leskard Road 57 Shooting noise faintly audible. 53 Shooting noise faintly audible. 53 Shooting noise faintly audible. 53 Shooting noise faintly audible. Municipality of Clarington Report CLD -014-17 Page 10 There were few shots heard during the testing conducted in October 2016, which is inconsistent with what has been described and experienced by the residents as continuous firearm discharges. Attachment 8 is the full Swallow Thornton Tomasetti Report dated May 17, 2017. There appeared (through several emails received from some residents) to be confusion regarding legislation, regulations, guidelines and apparent "grandfathering". Staff therefore researched the history of this matter and facilitated a meeting with some area residents, members of the OFHC board, an MOECC representative, and Councillors Partner and Woo. In response to the question of how the Guideline limits were set and if any clubs have achieved these limits, the MOECC representative provided the following response: The NPC -300 impulsive limits are not specifically intended for gun clubs, although the municipality could use these limits for determining the likelihood of generating adverse effects. We are not aware of whether any gun clubs are operating in accordance with the NPC -300 impulsive limits because we don't regulate them. It would depend on the site-specific conditions. Further meetings were held with the MOECC, some area residents, the OFHC and the Pineridge Target Sports Club to better understand the issues at hand, and receive interpretation of NPC guidelines and outline the process being taken. To better understand the magnitude of the noise impact of the OFHC, correspondence was sent to all surrounding residents of the OFHC (approximately 100 properties). Residents were requested to advise staff of any concerns they have regarding noise from OFHC. Of the 15 responses received, 7 raised concerns about the levels of noise or that levels have not been reduced. Discussions with OFHC members were held to seek their continued participation in determining the levels of sounds. With their agreement, a "controlled" test was conducted. With the participation of the OFHC the test was conducted under similar conditions to that in 2012. This approach was chosen such that the results from the 2017 test could be compared to the 2012 test to determine if the mitigation measures implemented by the OFHC have had any success in reducing noise levels. The same firearms were used with the exception of the 375 H&H Magnum in 2017 which was the closet match used to the SAKO .478 Magnum used in 2012. These are both firearms which may be seldom used at the firing range if used at all. Two additional firearms were tested in 2017 that were not in 2012. The 375 H&H Magnum was removed from the March 2017 firing after identifying a safety issue. The locations selected were chosen using the properties that had the highest levels recorded in 2012. Weather conditions were similar with a more general wind from southwest compared to a south wind in 2012. Municipality of Clarington Report CLD -014-17 Page 11 Graph 1 — 2012 / 2017 Test Results Comparison (by address) The following graphs show the results from 2012 (in orange) and 2017 (in blue) of the shots fired at each of the locations. Where there is only one coloured bar, it means that there is no corresponding comparator. (See Attachment 9 for the March 23, 2017 Test Results Report and Attachment 10 for the 2012/2017 Test Results Comparison.) � 2e2`onIlllllllllllllltll 7374 Leskard (Fired Out of Order) 7606 Leskard Municipality of Clarington Report CLD -014-17 Page 12 7615 Leskardt t t I I t I t t t 7685 Leskard 7560 Leskard 7506 Leskard Municipality of Clarington Report CLD -014-17 Page 13 7580 Leskard r ttt r- Vt With the exception of one location a reduced level of noise has occurred. Also of note is that in testing of 2017, one identified property directly south of the club registered levels of low 50 dBAI compared to the low 60 dBAI in 2012. Over the past few weeks, an area resident has documented and recorded shooting noise levels using a hand held phone application. The average of discharges within a 2hr period on each of the days recorded totalled approximately 380 discharges per day. This Report does not include the resident's sound level measurements because the equipment and recording application have not been calibrated. 4. Area Municipalities Clarington is not alone in addressing resident concerns related to noise emanating from gun clubs. In 2014, the Township of Uxbridge amended their Noise By-law to gradually decrease the permitted sound level over 2 years. 2.13 Every Licence issued to a Shooting Range existing prior to this By-law coming into force and effect shall be subject to the following maximum noise level requirements: COMPLIANCE PERIOD MAXIMUM NOISE LEVEL As OF AUGUST 31, 2015 maximum of 60 dBAI As OF AUGUST 31, 2016 maximum of 50 dBAI 2.14 Every Licence issued to a new Shooting Range established following this By-law coming into force and effect shall be subject to a maximum noise level of 45 dBAI effective immediately upon issuance of Licence. Municipality of Clarington Report CLD -014-17 Page 14 In July 2015, the Uxbridge gun club (Uxbridge Shooting Sports Inc.) filed an Application with Ontario Superior Court of Justice seeking to quash Uxbridge's By-law. In the Application, the Uxbridge gun club alleged, amongst many things, that the prescribed noise levels were impossible to achieve. The Township of Uxbridge has since amended their By-law in February 2017. 2.13 Every Licence issued to a Shooting Range existing prior to this By-law coming into force and effect shall be subject to the following maximum sound level requirements: Maximum Sound Level A maximum of 60 dBAI Logarithmic Mean Impulse Sound Level (LSM) 2.15 Every Licence issued to a new Shooting Range established following this By-law coming into force and effect shall be subject to a maximum noise level of 45 dBAI effective immediately upon issuance of Licence. Douro Dummer, Cavan Monaghan, and Port Hope currently have outdoor ranges. None of these municipalities regulate the levels of noise. Staff from these municipalities report that there have not been any concerns brought to their attention to require regulatory intervention from a by-law perspective. 5. Changing Landscape Some area residents have raised concerns that the 407 construction will increase the level of noise with the clearing of trees and changing of the landscape. This could be an ongoing issue until the completion of the 407. Since the March testing was conducted the OFHC reported that another large area of trees were removed to the east of the club. A document written by Swallow acoustics for the RCMP identifies high traffic areas (major highways) as an ideal location for gun clubs. The average background noise from major highways falls between 60-70 dBAI, generally assisting in burying the noise emanating from gun club into the highway background noise. Additional items are identified in the RCMP document Ranges and Sound and Noise Management for Outdoor ranges. Ranging from natural barriers to Berms and enclosures, the OFHC and Pineridge clubs have implemented some the measures and are continually working to improve. Municipality of Clarington Report CLD -014-17 Page 15 6. Enforcement Considerations 6.1 Testing Approach Investigation and enforcement of noise related matters fall within the scope of our Municipal Law Enforcement Division. Calls related to noise are prioritized based on existing call volumes and issues. Noise related files generally take a considerable amount of staff time as they often require numerous site visits. To date, the Municipal Law Enforcement staff have relied on the services of acoustical consultants to test for noise (whether it be relative to guns or other noises such as air conditioners). The consultants have the necessary equipment and are trained experts to calibrate and test. While not physically testing, Clarington enforcement staff usually attend the testing sites alongside the consultants. Depending on the issue, the costs of monitoring the levels of sound to the Municipality through an acoustic consultant can become exuberant. In this particular case, a total of $16,500 has been expended for the sound tests and the results reports between 2011 and 2017. Although not terribly often, there are occasions where a noise related issue may be more quickly resolved if we have in-house noise testing equipment and expertise. Staff are currently researching equipment, software and training options and expect to be including this in the 2018 budget submission. In the meantime, expert consultants will be relied on for any sound testing requirements. 6.2 Method to Setting Noise Limits As explained in Section 2 above, Clarington's current Noise By-law sets the noise regulations based on a maximum level. NPC -300 sets the noise regulations based on the logarithmic mean average based on number of bursts over a period of time. The method of regulating does not impact the enforcement activities. For either method, the person testing (whether it be a consultant or a trained enforcement officer) would be expected to attend the property/properties and register the impulses over a set period of time (eg. 1 hour) to get a full understanding of the noise impact. 6.3 Possible By-law Change If Council wishes to follow Uxbridge's example and change the existing noise limits for shooting ranges in Clarington, Noise By-law 2007-071 would need to be amended, and staff recommend that the maximum be set based on logarithmic mean as is currently included in NPC -300 rather than a set maximum level as set out in By-law 2007-071. To Municipality of Clarington Report CLD -014-17 Page 16 implement such a new regulation, the following resolution (stated as Option 2 in the Recommendations section of this Report) would be appropriate: That Report CLD -014-17 be received; 2. That sub -section 3.1.1 (a) of Clarington's Noise By-law 2007-071 be amended to reduce the maximum noise level of a shooting range from 70 dBAI to 60 dBAI Logarithmic Mean Impulse Sound Level (LSM) at the point of reception for any shooting range which began in operation prior to January 1, 1980; 3. That staff prepare a by-law to make such amendment to Noise By-law 2007-071 for presentation to Council on June 12, 2017; and 4. That all interested parties listed in Report CLD -014-17 and any delegations be advised of Council's decision. Proceeding with this option may present risks to the Municipality. These same risks and challenges are being addressed through the court proceedings in Uxbridge. 7. Concurrence This report has been reviewed by the Municipal Solicitor who concurs with the recommendations. 8. Conclusion By-law 2007-071 sets a maximum noise level for shooting ranges of 70 dBAI. Despite a number of mitigating measures employed by the OFHC, some area residents near the OFHC express great concern with the noise emanating from the gun club and do not agree with the current allowable maximum noise level. Staff presents the foregoing information to Council in consideration of options in assessing Clarington's existing noise level regulations pertaining to shooting ranges. 9. Strategic Plan Application Not applicable. Municipality of Clarington Report CLD -014-17 Page 17 1 Submitted by-' Reviewed by: '{ C. Anne Greentree, Curry Clifford, MPA, CMO Municipal Clerk Interim CAO Staff Contact: Duncan Anderson, Manager of Municipal Law Enforcement, 905-623-3379 ext. 2110 or danderson@clarington.net Attachment 1 — Report CLD -017-11 Attachment 2 — Report CLD -024-11 Attachment 3 — Report CLD -033-11 Attachment 4 — Report CLD -007-12 Attachment 5 — Report CLD -027-12 Attachment 6 - 2015 Ministry of Community Safety and Corrections July 30th Range Inspection Attachment 7 - RCMP Shooting Ranges and Sound Attachment 8 - May , 2017 Swallow Thornton Tomasetti Report 2 F W FST EH Fig/ LVV Attachment 9 - Orono Fish and Hunt Club April 28, 2017 Attachment 10 - Comparative Tests $ W W D F K P H Q W 2 F W R E H U List of interested parties to be notified of Council's decision is on file in the Clerk's Department. 5 H Subrect; AMENDMENTS TO -NOISE BY-LAW RECOMMENDATIONS; It is respectfully recommended that the General Purpose and Administration Committee recommend to Council the following: 1. THAT Report CLD -017-11 be received; 2. THAT the amendment to the Noise By-law attached to Report CLD -0.17-11 be forwarded to Council for approval.; and 3. THAT the interested parties listed in Report CLD -017-11 be advised of Council's actions .. Submitted t PABfIc rrie, CMO Franklin Wu, Cleric Chief Administrative. Officer CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON 40 TEMPERANCE STREET, BOWMANVILLE, ONTARIO L1C 3A6 T 905-623-3379 77.7 �i�C•�•]��1[TFQ�I Pursuant to the GPA Resolution (#GPA -406-11) approved by Council on June 7th, 2011, Staff were directed to, "review the current Noise By-law 2007-071 and, where appropriate, update the language and provisions of the By-law as they relate to the regulation of noise coming from shooting ranges within the Municipality." In order to undertake this review Staff have looked into the history of the changes to the Clarington Noise By-law. 1.1 BACKGROUND In 1985 Staff were requested to examine the need for a comprehensive noise by-law. On March 20th, 1985 Council invited the public to submit their comments on the proposed by-law. Among the responses received were requests from the Union Rod and Gun Club and the Orono Fish and Hunt Club requesting that they be exempted from the By-law. For reasons unknown the By-law never went forward until July 31St 1987. At that time, the requests from the Union Rod and Gun Club and the Orono Fish and Hunt Club were approved and included in the by-law. An exemption was also provided for the Marksmen Club of Oshawa. In 1989 more amendments were requested and Council repealed the By-law and replaced it with By-law 89-184. This by-law carried forward the noise exemption for the shooting ranges and added a curfew of 11:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. from Sunday night to Saturday morning. On Saturday the curfew began at 11:00 p.m. and ran through to 9:00 a.m. on Sunday. Provided that the ranges observed the curfew hours, they were free to conduct their business without impediment. In 1994 new complaints forced a change to the operation of the Marksmen Club. The outdoor range was being used by the Durham Regional Police for training purposes. An environmental Noise Assessment Study was conducted on their outdoor shotgun range. REPORT PAGE 3 The firm of Howe Gastmeier Chapnik Limited was retained by the Municipality to conduct the testing. Because the outdoor range had been constructed after 1980 it was required to meet the then current Ministry of Environment and Energy (MOEE) standard of 50 dBAI. Testing showed that the existing exterior berming and shielding had reduced the noise levels to between 67 to 73 dBAI. The firm concluded that there would be no further action that the Club could take that would bring the sound level down to the required 50 dBAI. As a result the exterior noise exemption for the Marksmen Club was deleted from the By-law but the overall exemption, which also regulated noise from the indoor range remained in place. Since both the Orono Fish and Hunt Club and the Union Rod and Gun Club pre- dated the 1980 standard, they had only to achieve a level of 70 dBAI to comply with MOEE standards. In 1997 specific noise restrictions and criteria were imposed by the Municipality to deal with increasing concerns at the Mosport Park race tracks. These amendments required the track operator to meet specific noise levels and required detailed testing procedures. In 2004 those levels were repealed. In 2007 the entire by-law was overhauled to modify and update enforcement procedures. At that time there was no intent to alter the direction or application of the existing provisions of the by-law. Among those provisions were the existence of the curfew provisions and the overall exemption for the existing shooting ranges. Other than the Marksmen Club the exemptions were intended to continue. A review of the 2007 by-law was conducted in relation to the latest GPA Resolution and shows that there was an unintended oversight. The overnight curfew was maintained but the wording of the exemption was not included. This year Staff have received complaints from citizens in the area of the Orono Fish and Hunt Club concerning the ongoing noise from the range. The range is currently used by the members of the Gun Club and the local detachment of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police as their training range. This increase in use has resulted in higher than normal complaints from the neighbours. `�kVj jLCYA1WL • s1 0 01 Section 4 of Newcastle By-law 87-131 stated in part, the by-law shall not apply to a person who permits or causes the emission of sound connection with any of the traditional, festive, religious activities and such other activities listed hereunder: ... 0 Orono Fish and Hunt Club, shooting range; g) Union Rod and Gun Club, shooting range; h) the Marksmen Club of Oshawa, shooting range;... The 1989 By-law, 89-184 created a set of curfew times for the ranges to ensure overnight peace and quiet. It also stated in Section 5, It is noted that noises emanating from such operations shall not be considered a violation when said operations are carried on outside the time periods set out by a curfew. This overriding exemption does not appear in the current Noise By-law 2007- 071. The staff report (CLD -010-07) which accompanied By-law 2007-071 made no reference to the deletion of the noise exemption; however it did itemize other changes which were proposed in the by-law. While the exemption had originally existed for all ranges, it is within Council's scope of authority to remove the exemption thus placing the ranges on the same level of enforcement as any other activity in the Municipality save and except those industries for which 24 hour operation is a necessary fact. In 1978 the Ministry of the Environment produced a document called "Model Municipal Noise Control By-law: Final Report". This set the upper limit for noise emanating from a shooting range in a rural setting at 70 dBAI. This was adopted as the standard province -wide. The level was reduced in 1980 to 50 dBAI however the previous level was recognized as still valid for pre-existing facilities. In 1995 the Ministry produced Publication NPC -232, "Sound Level Limits For Stationary Sources in Class 3 Areas (Rural)". Section 8(2) of the publication states: 8. SOUND LEVEL LIMITS - SPECIFIC IMPULSIVE SOUNDS (2) For impulsive sound, other than Quasi -Steady Impulsive Sound, from a stationary source which is the discharge of firearms on the premises of a licensed gun club, the sound level limit at a point of reception within 30 m of a dwelling or a camping area, expressed in terms of the Logarithmic Mean Impulse Sound Level (LL,), is: C 70 dBAI if the gun club were operating before January 1, 1980; or C 50 dBAI if the gun club began to operate after January 1, 1980 The proposed amendment will establish a maximum noise level for the existing ranges of 70 dBAI in accordance with the Ministry's guidelines and 50 dBAI for any new ranges which may come along. Currently the ranges all have a curfew of 11:00 p.m. For many young families this is long after the bedtime of the children. The ranges are not set up for ongoing night-time operations. Staff are recommending that the curfew on night-time operations begin at 9:00 p.m during the week and 4 p.m. on Sundays. Fw 1 14 � 'oij i Currently the Noise By-law sets a construction noise curfew time of 11:00 p.m. until 7:00 a.m. the following day, Monday through Saturday, 11:00 p.m. Saturday night until 10:00 a.m. Sunday and 5:00 p.m. on Sunday until 7:00 a.m. Monday morning. The By-law goes on to state: 3.3 A noise curfew shall apply to any noise from any excavation or construction work whatsoever, including the erection, demolition, alteration or repair of any building; (b) except in the case of urgent necessity and then only under prior authorization from the Municipality. 3.4 During the time when construction, excavation or demolition work is permitted on Sunday as outlined in Section 3.3 above, such work shall not include the operation of any mechanically powered excavation or earth moving equipment. 2.2 COMMENT During the review Staff have come to the conclusion that 11:00 p.m. is too late to allow construction noise to continue. Staff are therefore recommending that the termination time be reduced to 9:00 p.m. This would still allow the homeowner to undertake work in the evenings after returning from their daytime job while not severely impacting the neighbours. Staff do note that there is a need to provide an exemption for construction noise during the non -curfew times to prevent frivolous complaints and have added an exemption similar to that which formally existed for the gun ranges. REPORT NO.: CLD -017-11 3.0 CONCLUSION PAGE 7 While the outdoor exemptions for the Orono Fish and Hunt Club, the Union Rod and Gun Club and the indoor range at the Marksmen Club have existed for several years it has always been a special status not enjoyed by other groups within the Municipality. The removal of that status and the imposition of maximum sound levels will make for a more tranquil environment for the neighbours surrounding the three clubs. If a new range is started anywhere in Clarington, the operators will have to comply with the lower noise level standard. The imposition of a lower sound level for any new ranges is in accordance with the Ministry of the Environment's "Publication NPC 232" for operations which began after January 15t 1980. The imposition of the 9:00 p.m. curfew for construction noise will help to better regulate construction activities within the Municipality, while the exemption during normal business hours will allow companies to work without undue municipal interference. It is therefore recommended that the by-law attached hereto be forwarded to Council for passage. Interested Parties: Todd Newman, Orono Fish and Hunt Club Union Rod and Gun Club The Marskmen Club THE CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON BY-LAW 2011 - Being a By-law amend Noise By-law 2007-071 WHEREAS Section 129 of the Municipal Act, 2001, S.O. 2001, Chapter 25 states that a local municipality may prohibit and regulate noise; AND WHEREAS The Council of the Corporation of the Municipality of Clarington deems it appropriate to amend By-law 2007-071, which is a by-law to regulate noise levels within the Municipality of Clarington; NOW THEREFORE the Council of the Corporation of the Municipality of Clarington enacts as follows: 1. Section 1.1 of By-law 2007-071 is deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following: No person shall ring any bell, blow or sound any horn or cause the same to be rung, blown or sounded, or shout or create, cause or permit any unusual or excessive noises which, at the point of reception, are likely to disturb any other inhabitant of the Municipality of Clarington. 2. Section 3.1 of By-law 2007-071 is deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following: 3.1 A noise curfew shall apply to the following shooting ranges within the Municipality of Clarington: (a) the Orono Fish and Hunt Club; (b) the Union Rod and Gun Club; and (c) the Marksman Club of Oshawa. This curfew shall be from 9:00 p.m. until 8:00 a.m. the following day (Monday through Saturday), 9:00 p.m. Saturday until 10:00 a.m. Sunday, and 4:00 p.m. Sunday until 8:00 a.m. Monday. 3.1.1 During non -curfew times, any noise emanating from the use of a shooting range shall not exceed: (a) 70 dBAI at the point of reception for any shooting range which began operation prior to January 1't 1980; or (b) 50 dBAI at the point of reception for any shooting range which began operation after January 1St 1980. 2.0 Section 3.3 of By-law 2007-071 is deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following: 3.3 A noise curfew shall apply to any noise from any excavation or construction work whatsoever, including the erection, demolition, alteration or repair of any building from 9:00 p.m. until 7:00 a.m. the following day, (Monday through Saturday), 9:00 p.m. Saturday until 10:00 a.m. Sunday, and from 4:00 p.m. Sunday until 7:00 a.m. Monday. 3.3.1 For the purposes of this by-law, noise related to construction work shall be interpreted to include the starting, idling and warming up of any truck or mechanically powered excavation or earth moving equipment. 3.3.2 Noises emanating from the operations described in sections 3.3 and 3.3.1 shall not be considered to be a violation under this by- law when said operations are carried on outside the time periods set out by a curfew. 3.3.3 Notwithstanding any other provision to contrary, Council may authorize construction work to be carried on outside the curfew restrictions set out in this By-law only in the case of urgent necessity and then only under prior authorization from Council. 3.0 Should any section, clause or provision of this By-law be declared by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, the same shall not affect the validity of this By-law as a whole or any part thereof, other than the part so declared to be invalid. 4.0 The provisions of this by-law shall come into full force and effect immediately upon its final passing by Council. BY-LAW read and passed in open session this `h day of July, 2011 Mayor Municipal Clerk Meeting: GENERAL PURPOSE AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE Date: Sept. 12, 2011 Resolution#: By-law#: Report#: CLD -024-11 File#: Subject: RESULTS OF MEDIATION MEETING - SHOOTING CLUB NOISE RECOMMENDATIONS: It is respectfully recommended that the General Purpose and Administration Committee recommend to Council the following: 1. THAT Report CLD -024-11 be received; 2. THAT an expenditure not to exceed $5,800.00 be approved, the funds to come from Account # 19-191-00000-7161 By-law Enforcement — Professional Fees, to retain the services of Swallow Acoustic Consultants Ltd.; and 3. THAT all interested parties listed in Report CLD -024-11 be advised of Council's decision. Submitted by: PLB/LDC f Reviewed by: Franklin Wu Chief Administrative Officer CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON 40 TEMPERANCE STREET, BOWMANVILLE, ONTARIO L1C 3A6 T 905-623-3379 REPORT NO.: CLD -024-11 PAGE 2 BACKGROUND AND COMMENT On July 4, 2011 Council passed By-law 2011-068, amending the Noise By-law. This amendment affects the gun clubs and their users by redefining the times of operation for the clubs. At that time, Council passed a resolution which reads, in part: "THAT the shooting clubs, law enforcement agencies, area residents and staff communicate on how they can move forward on this matter to meet the limits as set forth in the proposed draft by-law in items 1 and 2 with an effective date of September 19, 2011;" Subsequent to Council passing this resolution, staff arranged a meeting with the affected parties. In order to deal fairly and openly with all sides, staff retained the services of an outside mediator, Valerie Hazlett Parker, a solicitor and trained mediator with several years experience. All involved parties were asked to submit a brief of their concerns which would be distributed to the other individuals attending the meeting. Only one participant, Ms. Nancy Wilson, forwarded any documentation. Ms. Hazlett Parker and all parties were supplied with copies of these documents as well as background material from staff. On August 16th this year, a meeting was convened at the Municipal Administrative Centre. Present were representatives from the Leskard community, the Union Rod and Gun Club, the Orono Fish and Hunt Club, the Marksmen Club of Oshawa, the RCMP, the Canadian Pacific Railway Police, the Chief Firearms Officer, the Ministry of Natural Resources' Bear Response Team and Municipal Clerks' Department staff. The main issue centered on the Orono club and the increased use of the facilities by the various enforcement agencies. Local residents stated that they did not have an issue with the "regular users" of the club or the original frequency of the shooting. The problems arose when the enforcement agencies began to use the facility for training of their officers. At that point the intensity, frequency and volume of the noise increased dramatically. Where residents had been used to the Club being used only two days each week, Wednesday and Sunday, they were now listening to the sound of shooting five and six days for several weeks at a time. The mediator focused the discussion on how the gun clubs planned to deal with the concerns of the residents. Representatives from the Union Rod and Gun Club stated that they had installed large sound attenuation berms around the property and done tree planting along the berms. The trees help break up the sound waves and the berms absorb and deflect the sound waves. The representative from the Orono club stated that the club is in the process of purchasing an unopened road allowance along the east side of the property to be used to construct a large berm to absorb and deflect the sound travelling east toward the hamlet of Leskard. REPORT NO.: 1 PAGE 3 According to the representative, studies conducted by the National Association of Shooting Ranges have shown that the berms will decrease the noise levels by approximately 10 decibels. In addition, they will be installing noise baffles around the pistol range itself and in the area of the targets to absorb some of the sound at its source. Several residents voiced the concern that the 70 decibel level that was established by By-law 2011-068 is too high and want it reduced to 50 decibels. There is a new draft guideline in the preparation stage at the Ministry of the Environment which, if left unchanged, would recommend a noise level of 50 decibels irrespective of when a gun club or shooting range first operated. This document entitled MPC -300 is a draft document only and, if approved, would form part of the Provincial Guidelines. As such, it is not enforceable legislation. It is only a guideline, as NPC -232 currently is, which can be considered by municipalities when making land use planning decisions and/or regulating noise limits through noise by-laws. A concern was raised about the frequency of shooting on the range. It was felt by several residents that if the range was going to be allowed legal non -conforming status then the members have to abide by the terms and use of the range as it was first established, that being shooting only twice each week. This view is not correct. Legal non -conforming status speaks only to the land use, not the hours or days of operation. The Orono Fish and Hunt Club existed at its' current location prior to the enacting of the first Clarke Township Zoning By-law, therefore it has a right to continue operation. Zoning regulations do not speak to frequency, intensity of use or times of operation, simply whether or not the use is permitted on the land. The clubs indicated that they are open to having their sound levels monitored and would also like to conduct independent monitoring on the neighbouring properties to determine the effectiveness of their efforts. Also, the Orono club advised that they would address the matter of reducing the hours of operation with their Board of Directors and perhaps shorten the times available to the enforcement agencies. All parties agreed that, in the case of the Orono Fish and Hunt club a firm schedule of use would be most helpful to the area residents so that they can plan their activities around the use of the range and thereby minimize the impact on their lives. At the conclusion of the meeting several of the residents stayed behind to talk privately with the Orono representatives. A schedule will be drawn up of all Orono's shooting activities for the year and made available to the local residents. This Report has been reviewed by Nancy Taylor, Director of Finance/Treasurer and Andrew Allison, Municipal Solicitor, who concur with the recommendations. CONCLUSION Ms Hazlett Parker prepared a report for staff on the meeting. In her conclusion Ms Hazlett Parker stated: "After lengthy discussions and statements made by everyone present, who wished to be heard, a number of agreements were reached. They include the following: 1. Neighbouring residents of the Orono Fish and Hunt Club will allow Gun Club members onto their properties to conduct sound tests. They agreed that after the meeting they would exchange contact information so that this could be organized directly. 2. The Orono Fish and Hunt Club will give advance notice of special events to nearby residents as far in advance as possible. 3. The Orono Fish and Hunt Club is in the process of acquiring a properly calibrated sound meter from Cameco, which they will use under various weather conditions, to take sound reading. 4. The Representative for the Orono Fish and Hunt Club would take to his Board the possibility of reducing the hours of operation of the Orono Fish and Hunt Club." The process of purchasing the abandoned road allowance is proceeding through the Engineering Services Department as per Municipal procedure. A report to that effect is being considered by the General Purpose and Administration Committee on September 12, 2011. It is staff's opinion that the meeting and the use of an independent mediator were helpful in bringing both sides together and will lead to better relations and a general improvement for all concerned. With regard to the noise levels at the range, staff have contacted Swallow Acoustic Consultants Ltd. to arrange for them to conduct sound monitoring in the area when the range is in use. This will provide staff with a baseline for measuring the current noise levels and the effects of any future work done by the club to reduce the noise. The cost of the sound monitoring is estimated at $5,800 and will require a few weeks to complete. The Municipal Law Enforcement Division is prepared to retain the firm to conduct the monitoring however the cost exceeds the funds currently available in the Division's Operating Budget. Staff are therefore seeking approval for this expense. CONFORMITY WITH STRATEGIC PLAN — Not applicable STAFF CONTACT: Len Creamer, Manager, Municipal Law Enforcement REPORT NO.: CLD -024-11 7T1 S[+�7I��.7i77_V�iL'11I+ZI�«Z�1T1�IILL+�[] Ard Neiman Resident Ron Alldred Orono Fish & Hunt Club Tony Bernardo Orono Fish & Hunt Club John Baker The Marksmen Club of Oshawa Karen McArthur Resident Nancy Wilson Resident Alan Risebrough Resident Elizabeth Macleod Resident Bruce Blight Resident Rick Roddy President Orono Fish & Hunt Club Brady Hooker Vice -President Orono Fish & Hunt Club Kelly Adams Resident Steve Cody RCMP Shelly Richards Resident Lynne Richards Resident Sue Richards Resident Ron Kirst CP Rail Police Tammy Gould Resident Paul Young Union Rod and Gun Club Hank Krawczyk Chief Firearms Office ftwin1. ' $WWDFKPHQW WR 5HSRUW &/' R E P 0 R' - T Meeting: GENERAL PURPOSE AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE Date: November 28, 2011 Resolution#: a 64--1" // By-law#: Report#: CLD -033-11 i e Subject: RESULTS OF NOISE INVESTIGATION, ORONO FISH AND HUNT CLUB RECOMMENDATIONS: It is respectfully recommended that the General Purpose and Administration Committee recommend to Council the following: 1. THAT Report CLD -033-11 be received; and 2. THAT all interested parties listed in Report CLD -033-11 be advised of Council's decision. Submitted by: PLB/LDC �C Reviewed by: by Franklin Wu, Chief Administrative Officer CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON 40 TEMPERANCE STREET, BOWMANVILLE, ONTARIO L1C 3A6 T 905-623-3379 REPORT NO.: CLD -033-11 1. BACKGROUND PAGE 2 At the General Purpose and Administration Committee meeting held on September 12, 2011 Resolution GPA -556-11 was passed, authorizing the expenditure of up to $5,800.00 to retain the services of Swallow Acoustic Consultants Ltd. (SACL) to determine the current sound levels of operations at the Orono Fish and Hunt Club. Staff attended a number of properties on September 20 and October 6 in the company of Aaron Wood of SACL. Mr. Wood is an Engineer and he was in attendance to take sound readings from surrounding properties to determine whether or not the existing sound levels of the Club meet or exceed the permitted 70 dBAI limit established in By-law 2001-071, as amended. 2. INVESTIGATION For the purposes of obtaining sound readings staff and Mr. Wood attended six properties and obtained readings while the RCMP was conducting their training exercises. The community members who spoke at the Mediation meeting held on August 16th had identified the level of noise emanating from the RCMP training as being the most disturbing. The properties where the readings were taken are indicated on the map attached to this report as Page 6 of Attachment #1. 3. DIFFERING INTERPRETATIONS SACL raised a concern with the difference in the wording between the Clarington Noise By-law and the standard as set out in the Ministry of the Environment's publication NPC -232 "Sound Level Limits for Stationary Sources in Class 3 Areas (Rural), October 1995". Section 3. 1.1 of the By-law states that: "During non -curfew times, any noise emanating from the use of a shooting range shall not exceed: (a) 70 dBAI at the point of reception for any shooting range which began operation prior to January 1st 1980 or (b) 50 dBAI at the point of reception for any shooting range which began operation after January 1 st 1980." while Section 8.(2) of the MOE noise publication states that: "For impulsive sound ... from a stationary source which is the discharge of firearms on the premises of a licensed gun club, the sound level limit at a point of reception within 30 m of a dwelling or a camping area, expressed in terms of the Logarithmic Mean Impulse Sound Level (LLM), is ... 70 dBAI if the gun club were operating before January 1, 1980..." REPORT NO.: CLD -033-11 PAGE 3 The subtle difference between the two documents is that Clarington's by-law sets a maximum permitted noise level of 70 dBAI. The MOE standard can be interpreted that a single impulsive sound occurrence can exceed the maximum level of 70 dBAI as long as the average over a number of readings does not exceed 70 dBAI limit. The more stringent 70 dBAI limit in the Clarington by-law was applied to assess the compliance. 4. RESULTS The initial results of the readings showed that two of the test sites minimally exceeded the permitted limit, however when these readings were extrapolated to provide a "Worst Case Scenario" the numbers increased into the mid 70s for three of the test properties (ie, one additional property). In their report, SACL provides two possible solutions: 1. Limit the number of shooters at any one time to no more than three people; or 2. Construct acoustic barriers or berms along the north, east and south boundaries of the property. These barriers would vary in height from 2 metres along the south property line to a maximum of 5 metres on the north-east. The Orono Fish and Hunt Club have indicated that they are prepared to proceed with the second solution noted above. Their intent is to purchase the unopened road allowance which runs north and south along the east side of their property. Once the land is acquired they will construct a berm of sufficient size to reduce and contain the noise. The Club is currently in discussion with Engineering Services to acquire the land. The following items have already been completed: ➢ The formal Application for Road Closure and Conveyance has been received. ➢ Consent for the proposed closure from all other property owners situated adjacent to the subject road allowance has been obtained. ➢ The application fee of $250 has been paid. ➢ The plan of survey required to prepare the deed has been received. ➢ All municipal departments, other governments and outside agencies have now endorsed the road closure in principle. ➢ Initial formal approval from Municipal Council has been obtained. REPORT NO.: CLD -033-11 PAGE 4 The following items remain outstanding: ➢ The Municipality will require payment of $3,500 + HST for the cost of an appraisal of the land value. The appraisal will be prepared by a certified property appraiser who has been retained by the Municipality. ➢ The Municipality must advertise the proposed road closure in local newspapers. ➢ The Municipality must prepare by-laws to legally close the road and convey ownership. ➢ Payment for the land value as well as all legal, advertising and other costs associated with the closure and conveyance must be paid to the Municipality. ➢ The Club must retain the services of a lawyer to complete the final land transfer. ➢ The Club must pay any land transfer tax. ➢ The Club must complete any other terms or conditions deemed necessary by the Director of Engineering Services. 5. CONCURRENCE This report has been reviewed by Andy Allison, Municipal Solicitor and Tony Cannella, Director of Engineering Services, who concur with the recommendations. 6. CONCLUSION The results of the Noise Study have shown that there is a problem which must be dealt with by the Orono club. As noted above, they have indicated a willingness to work to correct the problem. Should that not occur, staff are prepared to initiate proceedings against the Club. CONFORMITY WITH STRATEGIC PLAN — Not Applicable Staff Contact: Len Creamer, Manager, Municipal Law Enforcement Attachments: Attachment 1 - Swallow Noise Report 10:1061 . ffkT6]NrQWIMInW List of interested parties to be advised of Council's decision: Ard Neiman Ron Alldred, President, Orono Fish and Hunt Club Tony Bernardo Karen McArthur Nancy Wilson Alan Risebrough Elizabeth MacLeod Bruce Blight Rick Roddy, President, Union Rod & Gun Club Brady Hooker, Vice -President, Union Rod & Gun Club Kelly Adams Steve Cody Shelly Richards Lynne & Sue Richards Ron Kirst, Canadian Pacific Railway Police Tammy Gould Paul and Sharon Young, Union Rod & Gun Club Orono Fish and Hunt Club The Marksmen Club Jeremy Ross Dianne Vetzal Mike Box Dean Link Keith Linton Tammy Gould Anne Ball Al Risebrough Greg Farrant, Ontario Federation of Anglers & Hunters Attachment No. 1 to SWALLY)W Report CLD-033-11 Noise Study Report Gun Club 3292 Concession Road 7 Clarington, Ontario Prepared for The Municipality of Clarington 40 Temprence Street Bowmanville, ON L 1 C 3A6 Prepared by Von Wood, M.Eng. Approved by k j C. w ow, M.A.Sc., P.Eng. Vin# Swallow Acoustic Consultants Ltd. 366 Revus Avenue, Unit 23 Mississauga, ON L5G 4S5 T: 905-21-7888,1x': 9052714846 November 6, 2011 11128 SWALIL$6W Acoustics, Noise & Vibration Control Table of Contents 1. Introduction......................................................................................................................... 1 2. Facility Description............................................................................................................. 1 3. Noise Sources...................................................................................................................... 1 4. Points of Reception............................................................................................................. 2 5. Sound Level Limit.............................................................................................................. 2 6. Sound Level Measurements................................................................................................ 3 7. Worst-case Scenario............................................................................................................ 3 8. Noise Impacts at Critical Receptors.................................................................................... 3 9. Noise Control Measure....................................................................................................... 4 10. Conclusion.......................................................................................................................... 5 Figure 1: Locations of Gun Club and PORs............................................................................ 6 Figure2: Gun Club Layout.......................................................................................................... 7 Figure 3: 12 Targets of 25 -metre Range.................................................................................. 8 Figure 4: 10 RCMP Shooting Positions.................................................................................... 9 Figure 5: RCMP Officers Shooting Together......................................................................... 10 Figure 6: Barrier Heights and Locations................................................................................. 11 Appendix A: Clarington By-law and MOE Noise Guideline ................................................. 12 Appendix B: Measurements Raw Data................................................................................... 17 SWALILbW Acoustics, Noise & Vibration Control Clarington—Gun (131-128) 1. INTRODUCTION Page 1 The Municipality of Clarington has retained the services of Swallow Acoustic Consultants Ltd (SACL) to prepare an Acoustic Assessment Report for an existing gun club at 3292 Concession Road 7 in Clarington, Ontario. The area surrounding the site is generally farm lands. There are residences around 600 metre away at the northeast and south of the gun club. An area map showing the location of the gun club is provided in Figure 1. The assessment was required by the Municipality to assist in investigating the noise complaints filed against the gun club operation. 2. FACILITY DESCRIPTION The gun club is located approximately 700 metres north of Concession Road 7, and 600 metres east of Leskard Road. The gun club is approximately 140 meters in length (north to south) and 110 meters in width (east to west). A map showing the layout of the gun club is provided in Figure 2. It includes a 25 -metre range, a 50 -metre range, a 100 -metre range, and a trap shooting area near the centre of the gun club. The 25 -metre one has 12 shooting targets, the most among the 3 ranges. The 12 targets are shown in Figure 3. With regard to the noise complaints, SACL learned the following information from the Municipality; 1) The gun club has been operated since 1960s; 2) The nearby residents used to tolerate the noise from the gun club, until 3) In recent years since the gun club hosted RCMP shooting training. 4) The residents complained that the RCMP shooting training was significantly more annoying than the operation of the gun club before its hosting the training, because the training often involved a team of officers shooting simultaneously, rather than amateurs shooting separately. 3. NOISE SOURCES SACL conducted site visits on September 20 and October 6, 2011. There were about 20 RCMP officers on site for training sessions on September 20 and 14 officers on October 6. Each day they were divided into two teams. On September 20, SACL staff eye -witnessed one team was for shooting which occupied 8 of the 10 shooting positions of a range. A photo of the 10 shooting positions is provided as Figure 4. A photo of officers in shooting positions is provided in Figure 5. The other team was out of the shooting ranges, conducting non -shooting training activities. The major noise sources were officers firing their pistols simultaneously. Swallow Acoustic Consultants Ltd. Nov 2011 t allr-'WA L$ Acoustics, Noise & Vibration Control Clarington_Gun (131-128) Page 2 On October 6, SACL staff heard the sound of shooting while measuring noise impact at residences along Leskard Road and Concession Road 7. When SACL staff arrived at the gun club around lunch time, the officers were having their snacks. SACL learned the number of officers and the dividing them into two teams from conversing with an RCMP officer on site. 4. POINTS OF RECEPTION The critical points of reception (PORs), where the noise impacts are expected to be greatest, occurs at the nearest noise sensitive land use. We learned from the Municipality of Clarington that the residents of the PORs in Table 1 complained most of the noise from the gun club. The locations of the PORs are also indicated in Figure 1. Table 1: PORs ID Address Distance to Gun Club m Note POR1 7506 Leskard Road 520 Backyard, 30 metres from the house POR2 7580 Leskard Road 610 Backyard, 30 metres from the house POR3 7606 Leskard Road 620 Backyard, 30 metres from the house POR4 7782 Leskard Road 1050 Backyard, property line, 20 metres from the house POR5 7685 Leskard Road 840 Front yard, 30 metres from the house PORE 3283 Concession Road 7 630 Backyard, 30 metres from the house 5. SOUND LEVEL LIMIT Section 3.1.1 of the Corporation of the Municipality of Clarington By-law 2011-068 states that: During non -curfew times, any noise emanating from the use of a shooting range shall not exceed: (a) 70 dBAI at the point of reception for any shooting range which began operation prior to January 1st 1980 or (b) 50 dBAI at the point of reception for any shooting range which began operation after January I st 1980. Section 8.(2) of the Ontario Ministry of the Environment noise publication NPC -232 "Sound Level Limits for Stationary Sources in Class 3 Areas (Rural), October 1995" states that: For impulsive sound ... from a stationary source which is the discharge of firearms on the premises of a licensed gun club, the sound level limit at a point of reception within 30 m of a dwelling or a camping area, expressed in terms of the Logarithmic Mean Impulse Sound Level (LLM), is... 70 dBAI if the gun club were operating before January 1, 1980... There is a subtle difference between the 70 dBAI in Clarington by-law and MOE noise publication. The wording of "shall not exceed ... 70 dBAI" can be interpreted that it is the Swallow Acoustic Consultants Ltd. Nov 2011 SWALILbW Acoustics, Noise & Vibration Control Clarington—Gun (131-128) Page 3 maximum impulsive sound level that is allowed by the by-law, The wording of "Logarithmic Mean Impulse Sound Level (LLx), is ... 70 dBAI" can be interpreted that a single impulsive sound occurrence can exceed the maximum level of 70 dBAI as long as the "logarithmic mean (a type of averaging algorithm) impulse sound level" meets the 70 dBAI limit. Alternatively speaking, the limit is Clarington by-law can be interpreted to be more stringent than the MOE limit. The more stringent 70 dBAI limit in the Clarington by-law is selected to assess the compliance. A copy of the by-law and two pages of the MOE NPC -232 are provided in Appendix A. 6. SOUND LEVEL MEASUREMENTS 6.1 Instrumentation Sound level measurements were taken in the afternoon of September 20, 2011 and in the morning of October 6, 2010 with a Bruel & Kjaer hand-held analyzer type 2250, serial number 2630269. It was calibrated before and after measurements with a Bruel & Kjaer sound calibrator type 4231, serial number 2623794. A wind shield was used during all outdoor measurements. 6.2 Meteorology There was no precipitation during site visits. The wind was less than 5 kilometers per hours. The temperature was about 20 degree Celsius during September 20 site visit, about 15 degree Celsius during October 6 site visit. The atmospheric pressure was about 100 kilopascals. The humidity was about 80%. 6.3 Measurements Sound level measurements were taken at the gun club at about 100 meters behind 8 RCMP officers firing pistols simultaneously and at about 20 meters behind one officer firing one pistol for 20 shots. Sound level measurements were also taken at critical receptors PORI -6. 7. WORST-CASE SCENARIO We assume that the worst-case scenario is 12 RCMP officers shooting simultaneously because (a) the range with most targets have 12 targets, consequently 12 shooting positions; (b) the RCMP shooting noise is the most complained activity; and (c) due to safety concerns, there will be no other shooting while RCMP training is underway. 8. NOISE IMPACTS AT CRITICAL RECEPTORS The maximum impulsive sound levels measured at critical receptors during RCMP officers' shooting are listed in Table 2. Swallow Acoustic Consultants Ltd. Nov 2011 Clarington_Gun (B1-128) SWALILS5W Acoustics, Noise & Vibration Control Table 2: Maximum Impulsive Sound Levels at PORs Location Measurement dBAI Worst-case Prediction dBAI Compliance POR1 66.7 69.7 Yes POR2 71.1 74.1 No POR3 65.0 68.0 Yes POR4 66.8 69.8 Yes POR5 72.4 75.4 No POR6 69.9 72.9 No Page 4 For each location in Table 2, the maximum impulsive sound level of the worst-case prediction is 3 dB higher than that of the measurement. The reason for the 3 dB difference is explained below. Sound level measurements were taken at the site of the gun club on September 20, 2011. The measured maximum impulsive sound levels are listed in Table 3. Table I Maximum Imnulsive Sound Levels Gun Club ID Distance m Level dBAI Note L1a 98 101.0 Measured behind 8 RCMP officers shooting simultaneous) L2a 21 105.1 Measured behind 1 RCMP officers firing 20 shots continuous) L1 b 100 100.8 L1 a ex olated to 100 meters L2b 100 91.5 L2a expolated to 100 meters It can be seen in Table 3 that the difference between Llb and L2b is 9.3 dBAI, which corresponds well with the relationship that doubling the number of same sources will increase the sound level by 3 dB at same distance under same acoustical condition; reversely, halving the number of same sources will reduce the sound level by 3 dB at same distance under same acoustical condition. During the site visit on October 6, 2011, SACL staff learned that there were 14 officers equally divided into 2 teams, each with 7 officers. We assumed that there were 5 to 6 officers in a team firing simultaneously, with 1 or 2 officers in the team as instructors. Since the 25 -meter range in the club has 12 shooting positions, we assume that in Table 2 the predicted worst-case sound levels should be approximately 3 dB higher than those of measurements. 9. NOISE CONTROL MEASURE Since there is non-compliance in Table 2, we recommend the gun club choose either of the following noise control options. Option 1: Acoustic Barriers Acoustic barriers or berms shall be built along the north, east and south boundaries of the gun club to fully block the line -of -site between the gun club and POR1-6. The acoustic Swallow Acoustic Consultants Ltd. Nov 2011 SWALILS6W Acoustics. Noise & Vibration Control Clarington—Gun (B1-128) Page 5 barriers shall made of durable material, with minimum surface density of 20 kg/m2, structurally sound, appropriate to wind and snow load, designed and constructed without cracks or gaps. Any gaps under the barriers necessary for drainage purpose shall be minimized and localized. The recommended locations and minimum heights of the barriers in Figure are based on elevations of the gun club and PORI -6 in Google Earth. It is recommended that when elevation information or contour maps of the study area are available from another source, they should be submitted to an acoustical consultant for review. Option 2; Operational Changes No more than 3 people in the shooting range shall fire their guns simultaneously. Preferably they should fire consecutively, one after one. The reasoning for this option is explained below: As stated in the last paragraph of Section 8, it was assumed that 5 to 6 officers in a team firing simultaneously during the site visit on October 6, 2011. The highest impulsive sound level measured during site visit is 72.4 dBAI at POR5, which is less than 3 dB higher than the limit of 70 dBAL By reducing the number of people firing simultaneously to 3 (about half of the assumed 5 to 6 officers), the sound levels at PORs are expected to be lowered by approximately 3 dB as described in the last second paragraph of Section 8. 10. CONCLUSION SACL conducted a noise study of the gun club at 3292 Concession Road 7, Clarington, Ontario. Based on measured sound levels (see Table 2 in Section 8) at critical receptors regarding the impulsive sound of the most complained RCMP officers' firing pistols together, it is predicted that noise impacts will not be totally in accordance with the sound level limit of 70 dBAI in the Clarington By-law 2011-068, under worst-case scenario (described in Section 7). Therefore it is recommended that the noise control measure (described in Section 9) should be implemented. Swallow Acoustic Consultants Ltd. Nov 2011 SWALLJ,O)W Clahngton_Gun(B1'128 Figure 1: Locations of Gun Club and PORs Swallow Acoustic Consultants Ltd. Nov 2011 sWALIL'-,'o_O,)w Clari ngton_G u n (B1-128) ­40.4.� 44 Figure 2: Gun Club Layout Page 7 Swallow Acoustic Consultants Ltd- Nov 2011 SWALLo' ,,)W Vii ' .[ion -'ori'rni Clarington_Gun (B1-128) Page 8 Figure 3: 12 Targets of 25 -metre Range Swallow Acoustic Consultants Ltd, Nov 2011 WALLOW '`jV'U: c [1•:Jfl Jt::l :-,I Clarington_Gun (B1-128) Page 9 r • t-, Y.lt Y''�� 43�' µ3,i •l.� , . t.. •�-".., .- -! �fiY.. �_ � � .i �• '• I � � y��� : x� �_�Y"gc .. iJ+-Y x ��_� •' ^,. . � {f� IL: _ �•yy�x i• ' } I I Liar t-� "'r• Figure 4: 10 RCMP hooting Positions Swallow Acoustic Consultants Ltd. Nov 2011 SWAL L:.)VII Clan ngton_Gun (B1-128) Page 10 Figure 5: RCMP Officers Shooting Together Swallow Acoustic Consultants Ltd, Nov 2011 Clari ingto n—G u n (B1-128) SWALLV W lma q U ions W,136, 9 8'3 Page 11 Swallow Acoustic Consultants Ltd. Nov 2011 SWALIL'�bW Acoustics, Noise & Vibration Control Clarington_Gun (B1-128) Appendix A: Clarington By-law and MOE Noise Guideline Page 12 Swallow Acoustic Consultants Ltd. Nov 2011 SWALL15W Acoustics, Noise & Vibration Control Clarington_Gun (B1-128) Page 13 THE CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON BY-LAW 2011-068 Being a By-law to amend Noise By-law 2007-071 WHEREAS Section 129 of the Municipal Act, 2001, S.O. 2001, Chapter 25 that a local municipality may prohibit and regulate noise; AND WHEREAS The Council of the Corporation of the Municipality of Clarington deems it appropriate to amend By-law 2007-071, which is a by-law to regulate noise levels within the Municipality of Clarington; NOW THEREFORE the Council of the Corporation of the Municipality of Clarington enacts as follows: Section 1.1 of By-law 2007-071 is deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following: No person shall ring any bell, blow or sound any horn or cause the same to be rung, blown or sounded, or shout or create, cause or permit any unusual or excessive noises which, at the point of reception, are likely to disturb any other inhabitant of the Municipality of Clarington. Section 3.1 of By-law 2007-071 is deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following: 3.1 A noise curfew shall apply to the following shooting ranges within the Municipality of Clarington: (a) the Orono Fish and Hunt Club; (b) the Union Rod and Gun Club; and This curfew shall be from 9:00 p.m. until 8:00 a.m. the following day (Monday through Saturday), 9:00 p.m. Saturday until 10:00 a.m. Sunday, and 4:00 p.m. Sunday until 8:00 a.m. Monday. 3.1.1 During non -curfew times, any noise emanating from the use of a shooting range shall not exceed: (a) 70 DdBAIt the point of reception for any shooting range which began operation prior to January 15t 1980; or (b) 50dBAI at the point of reception for any shooting range which began operation after January 15t 1980. Swallow Acoustic Consultants Ltd. Nov 2011 SWALILS6W Acoustics, Noise & Vibration Control Clarington_Gun (131-128) Page 14 3.1.2 Notwithstanding section 3.1 above, all approved indoor shooting ranges within the Municipality shall be exempt from the noise curfew. Section 3.3 of By-law 2007-071 is deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following: 3.3 A noise curfew shall apply to any noise from any excavation or construction work whatsoever, including the erection, demolition, alteration or repair of any building from 9:00 p.m. until 7:00 a.m. the following day, (Monday through Saturday), 9:00 p.m. Saturday until 10:00 a.m. Sunday, and from 4:00 p.m. Sunday until 7:00 a.m. Monday. 3,3.1 For the purposes of this by-law, noise related to construction work shall be interpreted to include the starting, idling and warming up of any truck or mechanically powered excavation or earth moving equipment, 3.3.2 Noises emanating from the operations described in sections 3.3 and 33.1 shall not be considered to be a violation under this by- law when said operations are carried on outside the time periods set out by a curfew. 3.3.3 Notwithstanding any other provision to contrary, appropriate staff may authorize construction work to be carried on outside the curfew restrictions set out in this By-law only in the case of urgent necessity and then only under prior authorization from appropriate staff. The provisions of this by-law shall come into full force and effect on the 19th day of September 2011. BY-LAW read and passed in open session this 4`h day of July, 2011 A. Foster, Mayor Patti L. Barrie, Municipal Clerk Swallow Acoustic Consultants Ltd. Nov 2011 SWALL$5W Acoustics. Noise & Vibration Control Clarington_Gun (B1-128) Page 15 MINISTRY OF THE ENVIRONMENT (2) Approval of Stationary Sources The One Hour Equivalent Sound Level (Lea) and/or the Logarithmic Mean Impulse Sound Level (LLM) produced by the stationary sources shall be obtained by measurement or prediction. The estimation of the L, and/or L„m of the stationary source under impact assessment shall reflect the principle of "predictable worst case" noise impact. The "predictable worst case" noise impact occurs during the hour when the difference between the predicted sound level produced by the stationary source and the background sound level of the natural environment is at a maximum. 6. PROCEDURES All sound level measurements of the One Hour Equivalent Sound Level (Lea) and the Logarithmic Mean Impulse Sound Level (LLM) shall be made in accordance with Reference [3]. All sound level measurements of the One Hour Ninetieth Percentile Sound Level (L,) shall be made using a Sound Level Meter capable of measuring percentile sound levels. The meter shall meet the applicable requirements for an Integrating Sound Level Meter of Reference [2]. The measurements shall be carried out following procedures for the measurement of varying sound described in Reference [3]. Sound from existing adjacent stationary sources may be included in the determination of the background hourly sound levels L and L,; if such stationary sources are not under consideration for noise abatement by the Municipality or tie Ministry of Environment and Energy. SOUND LEVEL LIMITS - GENERAL (1) For impulsive sound, other than Quasi -Steady Impulsive Sound, from a stationary source, the sound level limit at a point of reception within 30 m of a dwelling or a camping area, expressed in terms of the Logarithmic Mean Impulse Sound Level (LLM), is the lower of: the background One Hour Equivalent Sound Level (L,) obtained pursuant to Section 5; and the background One Hour Ninetieth Percentile Sound Level (1-90) plus 15 dB, i.e. L, + 15 dB, obtained pursuant to Section 5. (2) For sound from a stationary source, including Quasi -Steady Impulsive Sound but not including other impulsive sound, the sound level limit at a point of reception within 30 m of a dwelling or a camping area, expressed in terms of the One Hour Equivalent Sound Level (Lea), is the lower of: the background One Hour Equivalent Sound Level (L,,) obtained pursuant to Section 5; and the background One Hour Ninetieth Percentile Sound Level (L,,) plus 10 dB, i.e. L. + 10 dB, obtained pursuant to Section 5. SOUND LEVEL LIMITS - SPECIFIC IMPULSIVE SOUNDS (1) For impulsive sound, other than Quasi -Steady Impulsive Sound, from a stationary source which is an industrial metal working operation (including but not limited to forging, hammering, punching, stamping, cutting, forming and moulding), the sound level limit at a point of reception within 30 m of a dwelling or a camping area, expressed in terms of the Logarithmic Mean Impulse Sound Level (LLM), is 60 dBAI, if the stationary source were operating before January 1, 1980, and otherwise is 50 dBAL (2) For impulsive sound, other than Quasi -Steady Impulsive Sound, from a stationary source which is the discharge of firearms on the premises of a licensed gun club, the sound level limit at a point of reception within 30 m of a dwelling or a camping area, expressed in terms of the Logarithmic Mean Impulse Sound Level (LLM), is: October 1995 Swallow Acoustic Consultants Ltd. Nov 2011 Clarington_Gun (B1-128) o SWALILS6W Acoustics, Noise & Vibration Control Page 16 MINISTRY OF THE ENVIRONMENT I • 70 dBAI if the gun club were operating before January 1, 1980; or • 50 dBAI if the gun club began to operate after January 1, 1980; or • the LLM prior to expansion, alteration or conversion. (3) For impulsive sound, other than Quasi -Steady Impulsive Sound, from a stationary source which isnot' a blasting operation in a surface mine or quarry, characterized by impulses which are so infrequent that they cannot normally be measured using the procedure for frequent impulses of Reference [3], the sound level limit at a point of reception within 30 m of a dwelling or a camping area, expressed in terms of the impulse sound level, is 100 dBAI. 9. SOUND LEVEL LIMITS - PEST CONTROL DEVICES (1) For impulsive sound, other than Quasi -Steady Impulsive Sound, from a pest control device employed solely to protect growing crops, the sound level limit at a point of reception within 30 m of a dwelling or a camping area, expressed in terms of the Logarithmic Mean Impulse Sound Level (LLM), is 70 dBAI. (2) For sound, including Quasi -Steady Impulsive Sound but not including other impulsive sound, from a pest control device employed solely to protect growing crops, the sound level limit at a point of reception within 30 m of a dwelling or a camping area, expressed in terms of the One Hour Equivalent Sound Level (L,), is 60 dBA. 10. PROHIBITION - PEST CONTROL DEVICES The operation of a pest control device employed solely to protect growing crops is prohibited during the hours of darkness, sunset to sunrise. 11. PRE-EMPTION The least restrictive sound level limit of Sections 8, 9 and 10 applies. 12. EXCLUSION Wy 21. 1999 No restrictions apply to any stationary source resulting in a One Hour Equivalent Sound Level (L,) or a Logarithmic Mean Impulse Sound Level (LLM), at a point of reception within 30 m of a dwelling or a camping area, lower than the minimum values for that time period, as specified in Table 232-1. TABLE 232-1 Minimum Values of One Hour L or LL by Time of Day Time of Day One Hour L, (dBA) or L1m (dBAI) 0700-1900 45 1900-2300 40 2300-0700 40 -7- Swallow Acoustic Consultants Ltd. Nov 2011 Clarington_Gun (131-128) SWALIL15W Acoustics, Noise & Vibration Control Page 17 Appendix B: Measurements Raw Data No. Lmax dBAI Address Note Date 1 101.0 3292 Concession Rd 7 8 officers shooting together Se t 20, 2011 2 99.4 3292 Concession Rd 7 8 officers shooting together Sept 20, 2011 3 105.1 3292 Concession Rd 7 1 officer firing 20 shots Sept 20, 2011 4 66.7 7506 Leskard Rd PORI Se t 20, 2011 5 55.9 7506 Leskard Rd PORI Sept 20, 2011 6 69.9 3283 Concession Rd 7 PORE Sept 20, 2011 7 61.3 3283 Concession Rd 7 PORE Sept 20, 2011 8 68.2 7580 Leskard Rd POR2 Oct 6, 2011 9 70.7 7580 Leskard Rd POR2 Oct 6, 2011 10 71.1 7580 Leskard Rd POR2 Oct 6, 2011 11 60.2 7606 Leskard Rd POR3 Oct 6, 2011 12 65.0 7606 Leskard Rd POR3 Oct 6, 2011 13 59.2 7782 Leskard Rd POR4 Oct 6, 2011 14 65.9 7782 Leskard Rd POR4 Oct 6, 2011 15 66.8 7782 Leskard Rd POR4 Oct 6, 2011 16 65.1 7685 Leskard Rd POR5 Oct 6, 2011 17 72.4 7685 Leskard Rd POR5 Oct 6, 2011 18 65.1 7685 Leskard Rd POR5 Oct 6, 2011 19 53.4 3283 Concession Rd 7 PORE Oct 6, 2011 20 57.0 3283 Concession Rd 7 PORE Oct 6, 2011 21 57.2 3283 Concession Rd 7 PORE Oct 6, 2011 The End Swallow Acoustic Consultants Ltd. Nov 2011 Meeting: GENERAL PURPOSE AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE Date: February 27, 2012 Resolution#: 6 Pd- 7- By-law#: N/A Report#: CLD -007-12 File#: Subject: RESULTS OF SOUND TESTING AT ORONO FISH AND HUNT CLUB RECOMMENDATIONS: It is respectfully recommended that the General Purpose and Administration Committee recommend to Council the following: 1. THAT Report CLD -007-12 be received; and 2. THAT all interested parties listed in Report CLD -007-12 be advised of Council's decision. Submitted by:.r° Reviewed by: Jatt4 Barr CMO Franklin Wu, unicirp Clerk Chief Administrative Officer PLB/LC CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON 40 TEMPERANCE STREET, BOWMANVILLE, ONTARIO DC 3A6 T 905-623-3379 REPORT NO.: CLD -007-12 PAGE 2 1. BACKGROUND At the December 5, 2011 meeting, Council received and approved Report CLD -033-11 concerning the work and test results from the acoustical engineering firm of Swallow Acoustic Consultants Ltd. conducted at the Orono Fish and Hunt Club at 3292 Concession Rd. 7 in Leskard. Council went on to direct Staff to conduct additional testing in cooperation with the Gun Club using higher caliber weapons. 2. INVESTIGATION Staff contacted Swallow Acoustics Consultants Ltd. and Ron Aldread from the Orono Fish and Hunt Club to coordinate a time and availability of the rifles to be tested. This time there were to be five different firearms tested with the intent of determining the possible "worst case scenario" of noise from the range. The weapons chosen for this set of tests were: 1. SAKO manufactured 6.5X55 mm. (.264 caliber) bolt action rifle 2. SAKO .458 caliber bolt action rifle 3. Lee -Enfield .303 caliber bolt action military rifle 4. Winchester 12 gauge shotgun 5. Winchester 20 gauge shotgun In order to get the widest possible impact of the sound from the range, staff attended nine properties in Leskard to obtain readings. The attached report from Swallow Acoustic Consultants Ltd. shows the properties and their location relative to the Orono club. Due to the number of properties involved and the variety of firearms being tested, the entire testing process took two days. On January 9th and 10th the Municipal Clerk, the Manager of the Municipal Law Enforcement Division and a representative from the Orono club accompanied the sound engineer to the nine properties while another MLEO remained at the Club to record which firearms were being used. It quickly became evident that the shotguns and the 6.5X55 mm. were generating noise levels well below the 70 dBAI level specified in the by-law and these guns were removed from further testing. The final sets of readings were conducted using the .303 caliber Lee Enfield and the .458 caliber SAKO. The .458 is the rifle often referred to by the residents as the "elephant gun". Prior to the commencement of the tests, staff noted that there has been much work done to the firing booths at the range. They are now enclosed on three sides and ROXUL sound insulation has been applied to the walls and roof, resulting in a significant reduction in the noise levels recorded. Several of the residents were present when the testing was conducted on their properties and many commented on the reduced levels of sound. REPORT NO.: CLD -007-12 PAGE 3 Throughout the testing process, the Club has shown a willingness to work with staff to find a resolution to this situation. In order to meet Council's requirements for caliber of weapons to be tested, Mr. Aldread canvassed his members to acquire the weapons, and in the case of the .458 rifle in particular, both the rifle and the ammunition had to be borrowed from another individual since Mr. Aldread no longer owns one himself. The Club has also been working diligently with the Municipality to acquire the land necessary to construct the berm along the east property line. Engineering Services will be bringing forward their own Report on closure and conveyance of the unopened road allowance along the east boundary of the property. Once obtained, the berm will be constructed on the road allowance. 3. RESULTS A review of the Report prepared by Swallow Acoustic shows that two properties did not exceed 57.1 dBAI, (highest ambient level 76.7 dBAI), five properties reached the 60 dBAI level with the highest of them being 68.3, (highest ambient level 82.7dBAl), one property hit a maximum of 79.3 dBAI (ambient 61.4 dBAI) and one achieved 81.7 dBAI (ambient 59.6 dBAI). In total, seven of the nine properties tested did not exceed the permitted maximum of 70 dBAI yet the ambient noise level on three properties did exceed the 70 dBAI limit. Previous discussions with the engineers have indicated a probable decrease in the range of 5 to 10 decibels through the installation of the berm along the east side of the property. If the effects of the berm are consistent with anticipated results, the noise readings for most of the firearms should be reduced to below the 70 dBAI limit set out in the by-law. The one firearm to reach the highest level in each test was the SAKO .458 caliber rifle. This is a rifle that is not common with club members and we have been advised that it is no longer being fired at the range. 4. CONCURRENCE This Report has been reviewed by the Director of Engineering Services Department who concurs with the contents of the Report. 5. CONCLUSION This Report is submitted in order to provide the results of the noise testing Council requested to be conducted at the Orono Fish and Hunt Club. Staff appreciates the cooperation received from the area residents and the club in attempting to resolve the concerns brought forward. REPORT NO.: CLD -007-12 PAGE 4 It should also be noted that the club has reduced its shooting schedule and are now shooting on their original schedule of Sundays and Wednesdays only, with no outside groups using the range. It respectfully recommended that the report be received and that all interested parties be advised of Council's decision. CONFORMITY WITH STRATEGIC PLAN — Not Applicable Staff Contact: Len Creamer, Manager, Municipal Law Enforcement Attarhmantc- Attachment 1 - Swallow Acoustic Consultants Ltd. Noise Report List of interested parties to be advised of Council's decision: Ard Neiman Ron Alldred, President, Orono Fish and Hunt Club Tony Bernardo Nancy Wilson Alan Risebrough Elizabeth MacLeod Bruce Blight Kelly Adams Shelly Richards Lynne & Sue Richards Tammy Gould Jeremy Ross Anne Ball SWALL15W Acoustics, Noise & Vibration Control February 14, 2012 The Municipality of Clarington 40 Temprence Street Bowmanville, ON L1C 3A6 Attn: Len Creamer I Via email to icreamerL@ciarington.net Re: Report - Measurements of Impulsive Noise - Orono Gun Club Dear Len, SACL conducted two site visits on January 9 and 10, 2011 to measure noise impact on several residences due to gun firings at the Orono Gun Club at 3292 Concession Road 7, Clarington, Ontario. Sources The impulsive noise sources are five long guns firing separately (not simultaneously) at the gun club. A summary of the sources is provided in Table 1. Table 1: Impulsive Noise Sources ID Name Description G1 Gun #1 SAKO 6.5 x 55 Rifle G2 Gun #2 SAKO .458 Magnum Rifle G3 Gun #3 Lee -Enfield #4 303 British Rifle G4 Gun #4 Winchester 12 GA Shotgun G5 Gun #5 Winchester 20 GA shotgun Receptors The impulsive noise receptors are residences in the vicinity of the gun club. The locations of the receptors are listed in Table 2 and indicated in Figure 1. Table 2: Impulsive Noise Receptors ID Address fn Note 3282 Concession Rd 7 Backyard, 30 m from house B 7374 Leskard Rd Backyard, 30 m from house C 7606 Leskard Rd . Backyard, 30 m from house D 7782 Leskard Rd Backyard, property line, 20 m from house E 7685 Leskard Rd Front yard, 30 m from house F 7580 Leskard Rd Backyard, 30 m from house G 7560 Leskard Rd Backyard, 30 m from house H 7535 Leskard Rd Front yard, propertyline 15 m from house I 7506 Leskard Rd Backyard, 30 m from house 2012-02-14 Clarington_Gun2 (132-023) Swallow Acoustic Consultants Ltd. Page 1 of 8 366 Revus Avenue, Unit 23 • Mississauga, Ontario, Canada L5G 4S5 t: 905.271.7888; f: 905.271.1846; email: awood@swallowacoustic.ca SWALLl�W Acouvics. Noise w Vi fc'l'l Cv.�tro'. 7WW_� -.-W W. 1' Figure 1: Location of Receptors Limit According to Section 3.1.1 of the Corporation of the Municipality of Clarington By-law 2011-068, the impulsive sound level limit for the gun club is 70 dBAI at the receptors. Instrumentation Sound level measurements were taken on ]anuary 9 and 10, 2011 with a Gruel & Kjaer (B&K) hand held analyzer (type 2250, serial number 2630269). It was calibrated before 2012-02-14 Clarington_Gun2 [62-023] Swallow Acoustic Consultants Ltd. Page 2 of 8 366 Revus Avenue, Unit 23 • Mississauga, Ontario, Canada L50 4S5 t: 905.271.7888; f: 905.271.1846; email: awoodC7swa11owacoustic.ca Acoustics, Noise & Vibration Control and after measurements with a B&K sound calibrator (type 4231, serial number 2623794). A windshield was mounted on the analyzer during all measurements. Weather Conditions There was no precipitation during site visits. The wind speed was less than 10 km/hr generally from south. The temperature was about 2 °C. The atmospheric pressure was about 101 kPa. The humidity was about 75%. Measurements Impulsive sound level measurements were taken at 9 receptors (A to I). The measurement results are shown in Tables.3 to 11. Table 3: Impulsive Sound Levels at Receptor A ID Sound Level dBAI Note Ala 57.2 Gun #1 Alb 62.7 Gun #1 A1c 63.0 Gun #1 Ata 59.0 Gun #2 Alb 56.8 Gun #2 A2c 52.0 Gun #2 A2d 51.4 Gun #2 Ate 51.4 Gun #2 Alf 51.1 Gun #2 A3a 48.7 Gun #3 A3b 50.1 Gun #3 A3c 55.4 Gun #3 Ma 52.9 Gun #4 A4b 42.6 Gun #4 A4c 60.3 Gun #4 A5a 42.6 Gun #5 A5b 51.1 Gun #5 A5c 43.0 Gun #5 Aka 67.4 Background noise: traffic; no gun firing Akb 61.8 Background noise: light conversation in the middle of backyard, 10 to 15 m from B&K analyzer; no gun firing Table 3 shows that all measured impulsive sound levels at receptor A are below the limit of 70 dBAI. The last two readings (''Aka" and "Akb') in Table 3 are background noise measured without gun firings, using the same algorithm of measuring impulsive sound levels due to gun noise. It can be noted that the noise impact of gun firings is not significant compared to background noise. 2012-02-14 Clarington_Gun2 (62-023) Swallow Acoustic Consultants Ltd. Page 3 of 8 366 Revus Avenue, Unit 23 • Mississauga, Ontario, Canada L5G 4S5 t: 905.271.7888; f: 905.271.1846; email: awood@swallowacoustic.ca Acoustics, Noise & Vibration Control Table 4: Impulsive Sound Levels at Receptor B ID Sound Level dBAI Note B -a 71.1 Guns #1, 2 and 3 fired out of order B -b 79.3 B -c 77.0 B -d 63.5 B -e 63.8 B -f 59.2 B -g 59.5 B -h 66.8 B -i 71.2 B-' 74.8 B -k 71.1 B-1 74.6 B -m 69.9 B -n 70.2 B -o 71.9 Bka 61.4 Background noise: traffic; no gun firing Table 4 shows that the measured impulsive sound levels at receptor B due to firings of guns #1, 2, and 3 exceed the limit of 70 dBAI. Although guns #4 and 5 are not included, it can be learned from the following Table 5 that sound levels due to guns #1, 2 and 3 are higher than those due to guns #4 and 5. Table 5: Impulsive Sound Levels at Receptor C ID Sound Level dBAI Note C1a 74.6 Gun #1 Clb 74.6 Gun #1 Clc 75.4 Gun #1 C2a 79.9 Gun #2 C2b 81.7 Gun #2 C2c 80.5 Gun #2 C3a 76.9 Gun #3 Cab 73.8 Gun #3 C3c 76.1 Gun #3 C4a 67.8 Gun #4 C4b 66.5 Gun #4 C4c 67.7 Gun #4 C5a 69.9 Gun #5 C5b 63.5 Gun #5 C5c 70.0 Gun #5 Cka 59.6 Background noise; no gun firing Ckb 53.7 Background noise; no gun firing Ckc 53.4 Background noise; no gun firing 2012-02-14 Clarington_Gun2 (132-023) Swallow Acoustic Consultants Ltd. Page 4 of 8 366 Revus Avenue, Unit 23 • Mississauga, Ontario, Canada L5G 4S5 t: 905.271.7888; f: 905.271.1846; email: awood@swallowacoustic.ca , SWALL1 Acoustics, Noise & Vibration Control Table 5 shows that the measured impulsive sound levels at receptor C due to firings of guns #1, 2, and 3 exceed the limit of 70 dBAI. It can be seen that sound levels due to guns #2 and 3 are higher than those due to other guns. Therefore Tables 6 to 10 focus on the noise of guns #2 and 3. Table 6: Impulsive Sound Levels at Receptor D ID Sound Level dBAI Note D2a 55.8 Gun #2; with noise from foot steps D2b 47.8 Gun #2 D2c 48.0 Gun #2 D3a 45.1 Gun #3 D3b 44.5 Gun #3 D3c 46.6 Gun #3 Dka 56.1 Background noise: light conversation; no gun firing Table 6 shows that the measured impulsive sound levels at receptor D due to firings of guns are all below the limit of 70 dBAI. Table 7: Impulsive Sound Levels at Receptor E ID Sound Level dBAI Note Eta 57.8 Gun #2 E2b 57.5 Gun #2 Etc 57.6 Gun #2 E3a 62.2 Gun #3; traffic noise audible E3b 56.0 Gun #3 E3c 52.6 Gun #3 Eka 67.6 Background noise: light conversation; lane noise; no gun firing Ekb 59.1 Background noise: traffic; no gun firing Table 7 shows that the measured impulsive sound levels at receptor E due to firings of guns are all below the limit of 70 dBAI. Table 8: Impulsive Sound Levels at Receptor F ID Sound Level dBAI Note Fla 63.2 Gun #2 F2b 66.4 Gun #2 F2c 64.0 Gun #2 F3a 55.4 Gun #3 F3b 56.0 Gun #3 F3c 55.3 Gun #3 Fka Fkb 79.3 82.7 Background noise: light conversation (owner of the house offered coffee); no gun firing Table 8 shows that the measured impulsive sound levels at receptor F due to firings of guns are all below the limit of 70 dBAI. 2012-02-14 Clarington_Gun2 (132-023) Swallow Acoustic Consultants Ltd. Page 5 of 8 366 Revus Avenue, Unit 23 • Mississauga, Ontario, Canada L5G 4S5 t: 905.271.7888; f: 905.271.1846; email: awood@swallowacoustic.ca SWALL-f)W Acoustics, Noise & Vibration Control Table 9: Impulsive Sound Levels at Receptor G ID I Sound Level dBAI Note G2a 66.6 Gun #2 G2b 62.3 Gun #2 G2c 66.6 Gun #2 G2d 67.9 Gun #2; top of slope* G3a 59.5 Gun #3 G3b 64.0 Gun #3 G3c 62.8 Gun #3 G3d 64.2' Gun #3; top of slope* Gka 72.1 Background noise: traffic; no gun firing. *Note: Since the house is on top of a slope and the measurement location (30 m away from the house) is down the slope, we also measured the gun noise on top of the slope, a few metres from the house. Table 9 shows that the measured impulsive sound levels at receptor G due to firings of guns are all below the limit of 70 dBAI. Table 10: Impulsive Sound Levels at Receptor H ID I Sound Level dBAI Note H2a 55.9 Gun #2 H2b 57.1 Gun #2 H2c 57.6 Gun #2 H2d 55.8 Gun #2 H3a 56.5 Gun #3 Hka 76.7 Background noise: traffic; no gun firing Table 10 shows that the measured impulsive sound levels at receptor H due to firings of guns are all below the limit of 70 dBAI. The reason for Table 1O's including only one reading of the noise of gun #3 is that the gun was out of ammunition. However the measurements at receptors D to G (Tables 6 to 9) indicate that the noise of gun #2 is louder than that of gun #3. Therefore if the noisiest gun #2 meets the limit of 70 dBAI, all other guns meet the limit. Table 11: Impulsive Sound Levels at Receptor I ID Sound Level dBAI Note I2a 60.0 Gun #2 I2b 59.7 Gun #2 I2c 59.5 Gun #2 Iia 67.7 Gun #2, top of slope* I3b 68.3 Gun #2 top of slope* I3c 66.3 Gun #2, top of slope* Ika 60.9 Background noise; no gun firing Ikb 59.4 2012-02-14 Clarington_Gun2 (B2-023) Swallow Acoustic Consultants Ltd. Page 6 of 8 366 Revus Avenue, Unit 23 • Mississauga, Ontario, Canada L5G 4S5 t: 905.271.7888; f: 905.271.1846; email: awood@swallowacoustic.ca SWALL-:$'0)W Acoustics, Noise & Vibration Control *Note: Since the house is on top of a slope and the measurement location (30 m away from the house) is down the slope, we also measured the gun noise on top of the slope, a few metres from the house. Table 11 shows that the measured impulsive sound levels at receptor I due to firings of guns are all below the limit of 70 dBAI. Summary Reviewing the impulsive sound level measurements at Receptors A to I (Tables 3 to 11), it can be seen that the noise impact at most receptors meets the limit of 70 dBAI. However, the noise impact exceeds the limit of 70 dBAI at Receptors B and C. The highest measured impulsive sound level is 81.7 dBAI at Receptor C (7606 Leskard Rd) due to firing of gun #2 (sound level ID "C2b'), approximately 12 dBAI higher than the limit of 70 dBAI. Discussion Considering that the noise of gun firing is directional and that the land between the gun club and receptors is not flat (thus the terrain likely provides various sound attenuation effects at receptors), it is understandable that the sound levels measured at receptors do not have linear relationship with the distances between the gun club and receptors. For receptors B and C, the measured sound levels clearly exceed the limit. It is likely that the terrain provides little or no sound attenuation to the two receptors. In Section 8 of our noise study report dated November 8, 2011 (project code 131-128), the sound level of 8 RCMP officers shooting simultaneously follows the acoustical rule of "3 dB increase with doubling the number of noise sources". During the site visits on January 9 and 10, 2012, the measured sound levels are due to guns firing separately (one by one). If several people fired together, the noise impact might become higher than the measured sound levels. However, amateurs firing guns together may not necessary become firing simultaneously; ie, the gun shots may still be separate (although close to each other) in time. Therefore it is likely that, with amateurs firing, simultaneous firing will be very rare. This possible effect is no longer a concern in this report. Recommendations Since the terrain makes significant difference with regard to noise impact, we recommend that a contour map (preferably in AutoCAD .DXF format) of the study area be provided to us for further noise study. Since the sound level measurements show as high as approximately 12 dBAI exceedance over the limit of 70 dBAI, we recommend that noise control measures should be studied so that the noise impact of the gun club meets the limit of 70 dBAI. SACL successfully designed local noise control measures at each gun firing position for a previous project, regarding the noise impact of another gun club. 2012-02-14 Clarington_Gun2 (132-023) Swallow Acoustic Consultants Ltd. Page 7 of 8 366 Revus Avenue, Unit 23 • Mississauga, Ontario, Canada L5G 4S5 t: 905.271.7888; f: 905.271.1846; email: awood@swallowacoustic.ca Acoustics, Noise & Vibration Control Concluding Comments We thank you for the opportunity of conducting site visits and taking sound level measurements early this month. We are looking forward to cooperating with you in further study. If you have any questions regarding this letter, please do not hesitate to call the undersigned. Our contact information can be found at the bottom of this page. Yours truly, Swallow Acoustic Consultants Ltd. Aa"41, Aaron Wood, M.Eng. Reviewed by &1141 John C. Swallow, M.A.Sc., P.Eng. 2012-02-14 Clarington_Gun2 (132-023) Swallow Acoustic Consultants Ltd. Page 8 of 8 366 Revus Avenue, Unit 23 • Mississauga, Ontario, Canada L5G 4S5 t: 905.271.7888; f: 905.271.1846; email: awood@swallowacoustic.ca Meeting: GENERAL PURPOSE AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE Date: September 10, 2012 Resolution#:��f By-law#: Report#: CLD -027-12 File#: Subject: NOISE TESTING AT UNION ROD AND GUN CLUB RECOMMENDATIONS: It is respectfully recommended that the General Purpose and Administration Committee recommend to Council the following: 1. THAT Report CLD -027-12 be received; and 2. THAT all interested parties listed in Report CLD -027-12 be advised. Submitted by: PLB/LDC Reviewed by: ".._ arde, CMO nicia Clerk Franklin Wu Chief Administrative Officer CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON 40 TEMPERANCE STREET, BOWMANVILLE, ONTARIO L1C 3A6 T 905-623-3379 REPORT NO.: CLD -027-12 1. BACKGROUND PAGE 2 At the regular meeting of Council held on March 26, 2012, Resolution #C-107-12, was passed. This Resolution involved a request for Staff to investigate the noise levels resulting from the regular operations of the Union Rod and Gun Club located at 3796 Concession Rd 3 Newcastle. The services of Swallow Acoustic Consultants Ltd were retained to conduct testing on the sound levels emanating from the Club property during routine operations. Swallow had previously tested the sound levels at the Orono Fish and Hunt Club. 2. COMMENTS The concerns over the noise levels broke down into two specific issues. The first involved the use of the range by Ontario Power Generation (OPG) for the firearms training of its security force. The second issue was the use of the range by the members themselves and the increase in frequency and duration of the shooting. On May 17th this year staff attended at the range along with a Sound Consultant from Swallow Acoustic. That day members of OPG's Security Force were conducting training and qualification firing. With the co-operation of both OPG and the Gun Club arrangements were made to monitor and record the sound levels from their shooting. The firearms used were the standard issue weapons used by OPG Security, a 10 mm. Glock pistol and a .223 caliber rifle. Over the course of the testing the officers fired the weapons in separate relays so that individual recordings could be made of both sound levels. Tests were conducted at four separate properties near the gun range; these were 3770 Concession Road 3, 3025 Moffat Road, 3755 Concession Road 3 and 3795 Concession Road 3. Each of these property owners had requested that testing be undertaken. These properties are indicated on the maps in the attached reports. On July 31St a second round of testing was conducted. This time the testing was conducted using 12 gauge shotguns and a .338 caliber rifle. The .338 is a ballistic match for the .458 caliber rifle. The .458 is the largest caliber rifle which can legally be discharged on the Union Club's range. It is not one which is commonly used at the club and the .338 was available. Sound readings were again conducted at the same four properties as before. The results of the testing are listed below. REPORT NO.: CLD -027-12 PAGE 3 3. TEST RESULTS The first tests produced two sets of results, one for the pistols and one for the rifles. The pistols ranged from a low of 47.4 dBAI at 3795 Concession Rd. 3 to a high of 55.2 dBAI at 3770 Concession Rd. 3. The rifle results varied from 49.5 dBAI at 3755 Concession Rd 3 to 61.2 dBAI at 3770 Concession Rd. 3 The findings of the shooting on July 31St also produced two sets of results. The first were for the shotgun. The shotgun was fired from the new trap range which had been built at the direction of the Chief Firearms Officer for Ontario. The readings were recorded as a low of 48.1 dBAI at 3025 Moffat Road and a high of 58.7 dBAI at 3770 Concession Road 3. One set of readings was inconclusive since a crow sitting in a nearby tree was cawing and producing a louder sound level than that of the shotgun on several tries. The rifle results also varied from a low of 50.6 at 3025 Moffat Road to a high of 60.1 dBAI at 3770 Concession Road 3. 4. CONCURRENCE - None 5. CONCLUSION 3770 Concession Rd 3 is directly west of the Club property so it is not surprising that this property recorded the highest overall numbers. It should be remembered that the MOE standard for rural area noise limits for gun clubs like the Union Rod and Gun Club which were in existence prior to January 1, 1980 is 70 dBAI. Given this limit, none of the test firings exceeded the permitted limits. CONFORMITY WITH STRATEGIC PLAN — Not Applicable Staff Contact: Len Creamer, Manager, Municipal Law Enforcement List of interested parties to be advised Jack Bergs Andy Thang Andrew Banstra George & Diane Vetzal Mike Box Lorne Rosamond Ben & Jane Vanderhyden of Council's decision: Ed & Diane Swynar Mike McGrath Paul Young, Union Rod & Gun Club Brady Hooker, Union Rod & Gun Club ATTACHMENTS Attachment 1: Report from Swallow Consultants Ltd. dated June 29, 2012 Attachment 2: Report from Swallow Consultants Ltd. dated August 17, 2012 ok Acoustics, Noise & Vibration Control June 29, 2012 The Municipality of Clarington 40 Temperance Street Bowmanville, ON L1C 3A6 ATTACHMENT # TO REPORT # OF 7 `0127®> 17 Attention: Len Creamer Email to Icreamer@claringlon.net Re.: Report (132-072) — Measurements of Impulsive Noise — Union Rod and Gun Club — 3796 Concession Road 3, Newcastle Dear Len: We understand that there have been noise complaints from the residents in the vicinity of the Union Rod and Gun Club at 3796 Concession Road 3, Newcastle. At your request, Swallow Acoustic Consultants Ltd. (SACL) conducted sound level measurements at selected residential properties near the Union Rod and Gun Club on May 17, 2012. The noise impact is assessed based on the Ministry of Environment (MOE) guidelines. This letter reports our findings. 1. Noise Sources The noise sources are the impulsive noise due to firearm shooting at the Union Rod and Gun Club. Rifles and pistols were fired in turn during the sound level measurements. Sound level measurements were carried out when shooting practice took place in a shooting range in the Union Rod and Gun Club. The location of the shooting practice is shown in Fill . The firing line is not enclosed. 2. Receptors Impulse sound levels were measured at the following locations where the residents filed noise complaints against the Union Rod and Gun Club: • Backyard of 3770 Concession Road 3, near east property line • Backyard of 3770 Concession Road 3, approximately 30 in from house • Backyard of 3025 Moffat Road, approximately 18 in from house • Front yard of 3755 Concession Road 3, approximately 30 in from house • Front yard of 3795 Concession Road 3, approximately 20 in from house The measurement locations and the location of shooting in Union Rod and Gun Club are shown in Figure 1. Swallow Acoustic Consultants Ltd. Page 1 of 3 366 Revus Avenue, Unit 23 Mississauga, Ontario, Canada L5G 4S5 Tel: 905.271.7888 Fax: 905.271.1846 email: pyung@swallowacoustic.ca A SWALL$ Acoustics, Noise & Vibration Control 3. Sound Level Limits MOE Publication NPC -232 "Sound Level Limits for Stationary Sources in Class 3 Areas (Rural) states that: "For impulsive sound, other than Quasi -Steady Impulsive Sound, from a stationary source which is the discharge of firearms on the premises of a licensed gun club, the sound level limit at a point of reception within 30 m of a dwelling or a camping area, expressed in terms of the logarithmic Mean Impulsive Sound Level (LLM) is: • 70 dBAI if the gun club were operating before January 1, 1980; or • 50 dBAI if the gun club began to operate after January 1, 1980; or • The LLM prior to expansion, alteration or conversion. We understand that the Union Rod and Gun Club started its operation in 1962. Therefore the impulsive sound level limit for the gun club is 70 dBAI at the receptors. 4. Instrumentation Sound levels were measured using a Bruel & Kjwr Hand-held Analyzer Type 2250 (serial number 2630269) with a Bruel & Kjwr'/2" Prepolarized Condenser Microphone Type 4189 (serial number 2631315). The sound level meter was calibrated with a Bruel & Kjwr Sound Level Calibrator Type 4231 (serial number 2623794). A wind shield was used for all outdoor sound level measurements. 5. Meteorological Conditions Sound level measurements were carried out in the morning of May 17, 2012. The weather conditions during the measurements are: sunny, temperature 14°C, relative humidity 41%, wind northwest 9.3 km/h, pressure 102.32 kPa. The weather conditions are suitable for outdoor sound level measurement. 6. Measurement Results Impulsive sound level measurements were taken at 4 receptors. The results are shown in Table 1. Table 1 Sound Level Measurement Results Measurement Location Type of Firearm Measured Sound Level (dBAI) Backyard of 3770 Concession Road 3, Rifle 59.4 near east property line Backyard of 3770 Concession Road 3, Rifle 61.2 approximately 30 m from house Swallow Acoustic Consultants Ltd. Page 2 of 3 366 Revus Avenue, Unit 23 Mississauga, Ontario, Canada L5G 4S5 Tel: 905.271.7888 Fax: 905.271.1846 email: pyung@swallowacoustic.ca SWALU��W Acoustics, Noise & Vibration Control Measurement Location Type of Firearm Measured Sound Level (dBAI) Backyard of 3770 Concession Road 3 Pistol 55.2 Backyard of 3025 Moffat Road Rifle 52.2 Backyard of 3025 Moffat Road Pistol 54.7 Front yard of 3755 Concession Road 3 Rifle 49.5 Front yard of 3755 Concession Road 3 Pistol 48.0 Front yard of 3795 Concession Road 3 Rifle 53.3 Front yard of 3795 Concession Road 3 Pistol 47.4 7. Assessment The measured sound levels due to shooting noise from the Union Rod and Gun Club are below the sound level limit of 70 dBAI at all measurement locations. Therefore the shooting noise from pistol and rifle in the gun club meets the MOE sound level limits. 8. Conclusion The shooting noise from pistol and rifle in the Union Rod and Gun Club meet the MOE sound level limits for a gun club. If you have any questions regarding this report, please do not hesitate to contact us. Yours truly, Swallow Acoustic Consultants Ltd. 4 Pearlie Yung, M.Sc. B2-072 Reviewed by 68 t � John C. Swallow, M.A.Sc., P.Eng. LEED AP Swallow Acoustic Consultants Ltd. Page 3 of 3 366 Revus Avenue, Unit 23 Mississauga, Ontario, Canada L5G 4S5 Tel: 905.271.7888 Fax: 905.271.1846 email: pyung@swallowacoustic.ca flys'• yy � A �f. . v •Z 4� __ ^' Jai SWALLje!)W Acoustics Noise & Vibration Control August 17, 2012 The Municipality of Clarington 40 Temperance Street Bowmanville, ON LIC 3A6 ATTACHMENT # TO REPORT # 0-t--07®® Attention: Len Creamer Email to lcreamer@clarington.net Re.: Report (132-072) — Measurements of Impulsive Noise — Hunting Rifle and Shotgun — Union Rod and Gun Club — 3796 Concession Road 3, Newcastle Dear Len: We understand that there have been noise complaints from the residents in the vicinity of the Union Rod and Gun Club at 3796 Concession Road 3, Newcastle. At your request, Swallow Acoustic Consultants Ltd. (SACL) conducted sound level measurements for hunting rifle and shotgun shooting noise at selected residential properties near the Union Rod and Gun Club on July 31, 2012. The noise impact is assessed based on the Ministry of Environment (MOE) guidelines. This letter reports our findings. 1. Noise Sources The noise sources are the impulsive noise due to firearm shooting at the Union Rod and Gun Club. Hunting rifle and shotgun were fired in turn in two shooting ranges respectively during the sound level measurements. The locations of the shooting ranges are shown in Figure 1. The firing lines are not enclosed. 2. Receptors Impulse sound levels were measured at the following locations where the residents filed noise complaints against the Union Rod and Gun Club: • Backyard of 3770 Concession Road 3, approximately 30 in from house • Backyard of 3770 Concession Road 3, open area • Backyard of 3025 Moffat Road, approximately 18 in from house • Front yard of 3755 Concession Road 3, approximately 30 in from house • Front yard of 3795 Concession Road 3, approximately 20 in from house The measurement locations are shown in Figure 1. Swallow Acoustic Consultants Ltd. Page 1 of 3 366 Revus Avenue, Unit 23 Mississauga, Ontario, Canada L5G 4S5 Tel: 905.271.7888 Fax: 905.271.1846 email: pyung@swallowacoustic.ca SWALLIOW Acoustics, Noise & Vibration Control Sound Level Limits MOE Publication NPC -232 "Sound Level Limits for Stationary Sources in Class 3 Areas (Rural) states that: "For impulsive sound, other than Quasi -Steady Impulsive Sound, from a stationary source which is the discharge of firearms on the premises of a licensed gun club, the sound level limit at a point of reception within 30 in of a dwelling or a camping area, expressed in terms of the logarithmic Mean Impulsive Sound Level (LLM) is: • 70 dBAI if the gun club were operating before January 1, 1980; or • 50 dBAI if the gun club began to operate after January 1, 1980; or • The LLM prior to expansion, alteration or conversion. We understand that the Union Rod and Gun Club started its operation in 1962. Therefore the impulsive sound level limit for the gun club is 70 dBAI at the receptors. 4. Instrumentation Sound levels were measured using a Briiel & Kjwr Hand-held Analyzer Type 2250 (serial number 2630269) with a Bruel & Kjwr'/z" Prepolarized Condenser Microphone Type 4189 (serial number 2631315). The sound level meter was calibrated with a Bruel & KjXr Sound Level Calibrator Type 4231 (serial number 2623794). A wind shield was used for all outdoor sound level measurements. 5. Meteorological Conditions Sound level measurements were carried out in the morning of July 31, 2012. The weather conditions during the measurements are: cloudy, temperature 26°C, relative humidity 65%, wind northeast 11 km/h, atmospheric pressure 98.8 kPa. The weather conditions are suitable for outdoor sound level measurement. 6. Measurement Results Impulsive sound level measurements were taken at 4 receptors. The results are shown in Table 1. Table 1 Sound Level Measurement Results Measurement Location Type of Firearm Measured Sound Level (dBAI) Backyard of 3770 Concession Road 3, Hunting Rifle 60.1 approximately 30 in from house Backyard of 3770 Concession Road 3, Shotgun 56.4 approximately 30 in from house Swallow Acoustic Consultants Ltd. Page 2 of 3 366 Revus Avenue, Unit 23 Mississauga, Ontario, Canada L5G 4S5 Tel: 905.271.7888 Fax: 905.271.1846 email: pyung@swallowacoustic.ca SWALL'q'O)W Acoustics, Noise & Vibration Control Measurement Location Type of Firearm Measured Sound Level (dBAI) Backyard of 3770 Concession Road 3, open area Shotgun 58.7 Backyard of 3025 Moffat Road Hunting Rifle 50.6 Backyard of 3025 Moffat Road Shotgun 48.1 Front yard of 3755 Concession Road 3 Hunting Rifle 50.8 Front yard of 3755 Concession Road 3 Shotgun 51.0 Front yard of 3795 Concession Road 3 Hunting Rifle 54.8 Front yard of 3795 Concession Road 3 Shotgun 57.1 * *Measured sound level partially contributed by crow cawing. 7. Assessment The measured sound levels due to hunting rifle and shotgun shooting from the Union Rod and Gun Club are below the sound level limit of 70 dBAI at all measurement locations. Therefore the shooting noise from hunting rifle and shotgun in the gun club meets the MOE sound level limits. 8. Conclusion The shooting noise from hunting rifle and shotgun in the Union Rod and Gun Club meet the MOE sound level limits for a gun club. If you have any questions regarding this report, please do not hesitate to contact us. Yours truly, Swallow Acoustic Consultants Ltd. Pearlie Yung, M.Sc. B2-072 Reviewed by John C. Swallow, M.A.Sc., P.Eng. LEED AP Swallow Acoustic Consultants Ltd. Page 3 of 3 366 Revus Avenue, Unit 23 Mississauga, Ontario, Canada L5G 4S5 Tel: 905.271.7888 Fax: 905.271.1846 email: pyung@swallowacoustic.ca �• ter- A' Ir Av� . q •_ 1 _:tk, •fir 411 ie ., 'rte �, �� ..` J'�• `� ��y _ moo' di-J6 03 ZOA 4D i�7:7 •�.. .� Thr '� .. - ' r - ` .� r�' S -. -�. - IDT - -� - � ter,: ''� r : �•:: �. ��� v� a t v • Y r i Y F ' t - • yLj. � � os Ministry of Community Safety Ministere de la Securite communautaire and Correctional Services et des Services correctionne€s Chief Firearms Office 777 Memorial Avenue Orillia ON L3V 7V3 Tel: 705-329-5522 Fax: 705-329-5623 August 21, 2015 Bureau du Contr6ieur des armes a feu 777 avenue Memorial Orillia ON L3V 7V3 Tel.: 705-329-5522 Telec.: 705-329-5623 Mr. Ron Aldred 71 Temperance Street Bowmanville, Ontario LIC 3131 Dear Mr. Aldred: Re: Orono Fish and Hunt Club ry..j Ontario File Reference: 677 50 25 On July 30, 2015, Range Inspectors Ken C. Smith and David Goode and Supervisor of Shooting Clubs and Ranges Sgt. Peter Niedermaier from the Chief Firearms Office attended your shooting range location. The purpose of the inspection was to confirm. your range has maintained compliance in accordance with the Canadian Firearms Centre Range Design and Construction Guidelines (September 1999). Enclosed you have been provided with an inspection report dated July 30, 2015, which confirms your range is in full compliance with the range Guidelines. An amended range approval certificate is enclosed outlining the shooting disciplines currently approved at your range location. Please review the conditions on your shooting range approval. Thank you for your dedication to range safety. Please take a few moments to complete and return the enclosed "Range Inspection Evaluation Form". If you have any questions, please call. Yours truly, 7 William V. Price, Superintendent Chief Firearms Officer Mr. Ken C. Smith — Provincial Range hispector WVP/eb Encl. Ministry of Community Safety Ministere de la Securite communautaire and Correctional Services et des Services correctionnels Chief Firearms Office 777 Memorial Avenue Orillia ON L3V 7V3 TeL 705-329-5522 Fax: 705-329-5623 MEMORANDUM TO Bureau du Contr6leur des armes a feu 777 avenue Memorial Oriilia ON L3V 7V3 Tel.: 705-329-5522 Telec- : 705-329-5623 Superintendent William V. Price Chief Firearms Officer Prepared by: K.C. Smith #073 Provincial Range Inspector Chief Firearms Office Re: Orono Fish and Hunt Club. Mailing Address: P.O. Box 374, Orono, ON. LOB IMO Ontario Date: 30 July 2015 *ECEIVEC JUL 3 0 2015 Range Location: 3292 Concession Road #7, Orono, ON. GPS Location: 17T PJ 88769 175138 (new Front Gate entrance north side from 7th Concession Road.) Hours of Operation: loam -dusk Wednesday 1 Oam — 4pm Sundays plus - Special events as arranged with Town Council Range Operator/Contact: Ron ALDRED 71 Temperance St. BOwmanvxlle. ON, 905 623-1566 Ranee Inspected - Approval Number, 0082 Range #I 25/50/100 Yard (25149/102 Metre) Outdoor Handgun/Centre Fire Rifle/.22 Calibre Rifle/Shotgun (slugs only). Executive Summary On Thursday 30 July 2015 1 attended the Orono Fish and Hunt Club to inspect their ranges for compliance with the Canadian Firearms Centre Range Design and Construction Guidelines (September 1999). This was the regular scheduled Bi -Annual regulatory Inspection and I was accompanied by Range Inspector D. Goode 050 and Supervisor of Ranges and Shooting Clubs Sergeant P. Niedennaier. Present on behalf of the Orono Fish and Hunt Club were Mr. Ron Aldred, President, Mr. Ard Neimann, Director of Finance and Mr. Peter Admanski, Past Director. On this date the construction of the 200yard and 300 yard rifle ranges is continuing with additional movement of earth and materials received from the 407 Higbway Expansion which will be located adjacent to this Range. Materials have been placed to add height and significant depth to the 25 yard, 50 yard and 100 yard ranges depicted as Range 1 on the Approval. The Range operators do not allow any form of action shooting on the Range nor do they rent out the facility to Law Enforcement agencies for training purposes. The Club Executive present has undertaken to replace the Main Facility sign, and erect Range Safety signs along the south border along Concession Road 7, once all heavy equipment has completed deliveries of soil and materials to this location. Inspection First Aid Kits are available on site equipped with pressure bandages to be utilized in the event of gunshot injury. The First Aid Kit will be housed within the Range Safety Enclosed Structure at the Centre of the Range as noted in the attached photo. 3 Range I1 is equipped with a red green light warning system and is outfitted with an audible horn which activates when the Red Status light is activated to warn any person who may be inadvertently downrange on the 100 yard Range area. There are currently 12 shooting positions available for the 25 yard range, and six positions for the 50 yard and 100 yard respectively. Consideration is being given to increase the number of shooting positions on the 50 yard range. There is ample room on the backstop at this location to facilitate further shooting lanes while maintaining sufficient flanking. (See attached photo) 25 Yard Handgun Range Backstop Height 5.1 m (minimum required 4 m,) Slope 46 degrees Crest 75 Yards (New materials) 50 yard Rifle Range Backstop Height 5.7 m (minimum required 4 m.) Crest 100 yards deep (new materials) Slope 45 degrees 1.00 Yard Rifle Range Backstop Height in excess of 7.5 m. (Minimum required 6 in.) Crest 200 yards deep of new material. Slope 46 degrees Sideberm on east side of 100 yard Range Height 5.6 m. (Minimum required 2.5 m) (Recently constructed) Crest 3.6 m (Minimum required 1.5 m.) . ... ....... . ....... Shooting Ranges and Sound Table of Contents Table of Contents LISTOF TABLES.............................................................................................................IV LISTOF FIGURES............................................................................................................V ABOUT THIS DOCUMENT..............................................................................................VI EXECUTIVE SUMMARY................................................................................................VII 1 INTRODUCTION.......................................................................................................8 1.1 PHYSICS OF SOUND........................................................................................8 1.1.1 Sound Waves..............................................................................................8 1.1.2 Frequency....................................................................................................8 1.1.3 Sound Pressure...........................................................................................9 1.1.4 Sound Pressure Levels, Decibels................................................................9 1.1.5 Directivity.....................................................................................................9 1.2 MECHANISMS OF NOISE GENERATION AND SHOOTING NOISE GENERATION............................................................................................................... 9 1.2.1 Shock Wave................................................................................................9 1.2.2 Vibrating Surfaces.....................................................................................10 1.3 SOUND CHARACTERISTICS OF FIREARMS................................................10 1.4 SOUND PROPAGATION.................................................................................12 1.4.1 Distance.....................................................................................................12 1.4.2 Ground Effect............................................................................................12 1.4.3 Air Absorption............................................................................................12 1.4.4 Weather, Wind and Temperature Inversion...............................................13 1.5 HUMAN SENSITIVITY......................................................................................13 1.6 SOUND MEASUREMENT................................................................................13 1.6.1 Constant Sounds.......................................................................................13 1.6.2 Time -Varying Sounds................................................................................16 1.6.3 Impulsive Sounds......................................................................................17 1.6.4 Measuring Sound Levels From Firearms..................................................18 2 SOUND LEVEL ASSESSMENT..............................................................................19 2.1 PHILOSOPHY OF CRITERION SOUND LEVEL DEVELOPMENT .................19 2.1.1 Fixed Criterion Sound Levels....................................................................19 2.1.2 Background Sound Levels as Criteria.......................................................20 2.1.3 Hybrid Sound Level Criteria.......................................................................20 2.2 POINT OF RECEPTION SELECTION.............................................................22 Shooting Ranges and Sound ii Table of Contents 3 SOUND LEVEL MEASUREMENTS........................................................................23 3.1 SOUND LEVEL METER REQUIREMENTS.....................................................23 3.1.1 Sound Level Meter Types..........................................................................23 3.1.2 Sound Level Meter Calibration..................................................................23 3.1.3 Accessories Required for Sound Level Meters.........................................23 3.2 SOUND LEVEL MEASUREMENT PROCEDURES.........................................24 3.2.1 Calibration.................................................................................................24 3.2.2 Weather Conditions................................................................................... 24 3.2.3 Recording..................................................................................................24 3.3 SOUND LEVEL MEASUREMENT PERSONNEL............................................25 4 RANGE CONSTRUCTION PLANNING ADVICE....................................................26 4.1 DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS FOR OUTDOOR AND INDOOR RANGES ......26 4.1.1 Design Considerations — Outdoor Ranges ................................................ 26 4.1.2 Design Considerations — Indoor Ranges...................................................29 4.2 PLANNING FOR SHOOTING RANGES..........................................................30 4.2.1 Outdoor Ranges........................................................................................ 30 4.2.2 Indoor Ranges...........................................................................................32 5 ABATEMENT TECHNIQUES..................................................................................33 5.1 NOISE ABATEMENT TECHNIQUES FOR OUTDOOR SHOOTING RANGES 33 5.1.1 Natural Hill.................................................................................................33 5.1.2 Barriers at Sides........................................................................................ 34 5.1.3 Barrier Behind Shooter..............................................................................35 5.2 NOISE ABATEMENT TECHNIQUES FOR INDOOR SHOOTING RANGES... 36 5.2.1 Walls..........................................................................................................36 5.3 PRACTICAL MEASURES OF NOISE CONTROL............................................36 5.3.1 Outdoor Shooting Ranges.........................................................................36 5.3.2 Indoor Shooting Ranges............................................................................37 6 GLOSSARY............................................................................................................. 38 7 REFERENCES........................................................................................................41 Shooting Ranges and Sound OBLIST OF TABLES LIST OF TABLES Table 1: Sound Pressure Levels of Firearms Being Measured at 10 m from the Muzzle (Downrange)...................................................................................................................11 Table 2: Typical Sound Pressure Level Encountered in Daily Life.................................15 Table 3: Sound Levels, dBAI, 100m from Indoor Range (Sound Pressure of the Handgun Being Measured is 160 dBAI at 600 mm)........................................................................36 Shooting Ranges and Sound iv 1 BList of Figures LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1: Directivity of a Typical Rifle at 10 m.................................................................11 Figure 2: Directivity of a Typical Shotgun at 10 m...........................................................12 Figure 3: Frequency Characteristics of A -Weighting and C -Weighting ...........................14 Figure 4: Attenuation Over Distance — No Ground Effect ............................................... 26 Figure 5: Attenuation over Distance with Ground Effect.................................................27 Figure 6: Attenuation Over Distance With and Without Berm.........................................28 Figure 7: Noise Reduction Across the Wall.....................................................................29 Figure 8: Attenuation Over Distance With and Without Hill.............................................33 Figure 9: Attenuation Over Distance With and Without Side Barriers .............................34 Figure 10: Attenuation Over Distance With and Without Barrier Behind Shooter ........... 35 Shooting Ranges and Sound v About this Document ABOUT THIS DOCUMENT "Shooting Ranges and Sound" was written in March 1999 by the following Subject Matter Experts: 3/4 John C. Swallow, M.A.Sc., P.Eng. 3/4 John Hemingway, M.Phil., P.Eng. 3/4 Pearlie Yung, M.Sc. "Shooting Ranges and Sound" was edited by: Technical Documentation and Graphics Section Information Management Branch IM/IT Business Solutions CIO Sector RCMP Headquarters 3000 Merivale Road. M-8 Ottawa, Ontario, Canada K1 OR2 Fax: (613) 825-9617 © (2007) HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN IN RIGHT OF CANADA as represented by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) PDF Version Navigation To view a specific page, enter the page number in the Navigation toolbar located at the bottom of the page and press the Enter key. Text in blue font indicates a hyperlink; click the link to view related information. To return to the original page, click Previous View on the Navigation toolbar. Erter pagr Prr virus lfir w r,urn ber r1 of So) F 0 Shooting Ranges and Sound vi Executive Summary EXECUTIVE SUMMARY "Shooting Ranges and Sound" is a document intended for those people not trained in acoustics, who would like to gain an understanding of the propagation and control of sound and firearm noise. Such persons might be involved in the planning, construction or regulation of a shooting range in development or re -development. The introductory section of this document provides the background information needed to understand the mechanisms involved in the generation, propagation and control of shooting noise. It describes the physics of sound, mechanisms of noise generation, sound characteristics of firearms, characteristics of sound wave propagation and sound measurement techniques. Subsequent sections in the document describe existing noise guidelines or noise regulations and limits that are found in literature and/or law. With respect to these limits and measurements of shooting noise, an assessment can be made. The concluding sections identify basic noise control principles and noise reduction techniques, and consider the construction of a new shooting range. Typical principles, such as shooting noise levels, noise reduction with distance and sound barriers, provide real-life examples and realistic expectations for noise control. Shooting Ranges and Sound vii Introduction 1 INTRODUCTION This document is a precursor to "Range Design and Construction Guidelines" and was prepared for the Government of Canada. It is intended for use by a lay person who might be involved in the planning, construction or regulation of a shooting range in development or re -development. "Shooting Ranges and Sound" solely reviews various guidelines, regulations and limits for shooting noise; it does not set nor recommend limits. The examples included in the document are intended to provide realistic interpretations of sound level. This document should not be used for design purposes, as the sound levels of shooting noise are dependent on many factors, all of which must be considered in a particular application. 1.1 PHYSICS OF SOUND This section presents background information that is essential to the understanding of shooting range noise generation, propagation and control. Sound, as we hear it, consists of a pressure wave with frequency (or pitch), travelling in a direction. Subsections 1.1.1 through 1.1.5 describe the components of sound in more detail. 1.1.1 Sound Waves Sound is a disturbance that propagates through an elastic material, at the speed characteristic of that material. In general, such a disturbance reaches the human ear by travelling through air. In more technical terms, let us consider a body vibrating in air. As it moves in an outward direction, it pushes a "layer" of air along with it. Since the pressure in this layer is higher than that in the undisturbed surrounding atmosphere, the air particles in the body tend to move in an outward direction and transmit their motion to the next layer. This layer then transmits its motion to the next, and so on. As the vibrating body moves inward, the layer of air adjacent to it is rarefied to the point where its pressure is lower than that of the undisturbed atmosphere. This layer of rarefaction follows the layer of compression in the outward direction, at the same speed. The pressure at the layer of compression is higher than that of the undisturbed atmosphere. The succession of outwardly travelling layers of compression and rarefaction is called wave motion. The individual vibrating particles that transmit a sound wave do not change their average positions if the transmitting medium itself is not in motion. They merely vibrate about their equilibrium positions. 1.1.2 Frequency The subjective pitch of a simple sound is determined by the number of times per second at which the sound pressure disturbance oscillates between positive and negative values. The physical measure of this oscillation rate is called frequency. The unit of frequency is the cycle per second (cps), which by international standards is called hertz (Hz). The range of normal adult hearing extends approximately from 20 to 16,000 Hz. The human ear is most sensitive — that is, the threshold of audibility is lowest — for sounds around 3,000 Hz. For reference purposes, the frequency of the middle "C" key on a piano is 256 Hz, most vowels in speech are in the 250 to 500 Hz range, and consonants like the letter "S" are in the 2000 to 3000 Hz range. Shooting Ranges and Sound 8 Introduction 1.1.3 Sound Pressure Sound can be sensed by the measurement of some physical quantity in the medium that is disturbed from its equilibrium value. The physical quantity that is generally of interest is the incremental variation in sound pressure above and below atmospheric pressure, which is normally about 100,000 Pa (1 Pa = 1 pascal = 1 newton/metre2, N/M2). Sound pressures are extremely small. For normal speech, they average about 0.1 Pa above and below atmospheric pressure, at a distance of one metre from the talker. 1.1.4 Sound Pressure Levels, Decibels The human ear is remarkably sensitive and responds to sound pressures ranging from 0.00002 Pa to 60 Pa, which is a one -million -to -one ratio. The tripling of the sound pressure is sensed as a doubling of the loudness; therefore, the threshold of audibility to pain is about twelve doublings of the loudness. This implies that a compressed scale will correlate better to loudness. Taking the ratio of a given sound pressure to the threshold of hearing (technically, it is the ratio of the squares of the pressures), and then the logarithm of that ratio, results in a scale of 0 to about 12 representing the range from threshold of hearing to painful. These scale numbers are called bels, which is a measurement unit named after Alexander Graham Bell. Multiplying the scale by 10 results in a range of 0 to 120 dB (decibels — tenths of bels), which is a much easier range to use. Each set of 10 dB represents a doubling of the subjective impression of the loudness of the sound. 1.1.5 Directivity Directivity is a measure of the difference in sound intensity, with respect to direction, and is usually stated as a function of angular position around the acoustical centre of the source and of frequency. Some sources of sound radiate nearly uniformly in all directions. These are called nondirective sources. In general, such sources are small in size as compared to the wavelength of the sound that they are radiating. Most practical sources are somewhat directive; in other words, they radiate more sound in some directions than in others. However, it is natural for sources of noise to be nondirective or nearly so at low frequencies. As the frequency increases, directivity generally also increases. 1.2 MECHANISMS OF NOISE GENERATION AND SHOOTING NOISE GENERATION In this section, two mechanisms of noise generation and shooting noise generation are discussed. 1.2.1 SHOCK WAVE Impulse noise is a transient noise that arises as a result of a sudden release of energy into the atmosphere. The physical characteristics of these impulses are largely dependent upon the geometry and scale of the source. The resulting waveform is further dependent upon the environment in which it propagates. Shooting Ranges and Sound 9 Introduction More specifically, impulses fall within the domain of shock wave physics. Given a sound source and receiver, gradually increase the sound pressure level of the source and measure the signal transmitted to the receiver. At the lower range of the sound pressure level, there is a linear relation between the source and the received sound pressure level. As the sound pressure level increases, the source -receiver function deviates from linearity and the wave distorts. This wave distortion is due to the wave speed that changes from one point to another. The original high-level sinusoid gradually distorts into a "saw tooth" -like wave, referred to as a shock sound wave, or a repeated series of shock waves. Across a shock front, the properties of the system change discontinuously. There are very high gradients of property change and viscous stresses become large. The thickness of the shock front is related to the rise time of the ideally -measured pressure 'jump" across the shock. 1.2.2 VIBRATING SURFACES Sound can also be generated by a vibrating surface. A layer of air adjacent to the surface is moved and sound is subsequently radiated, as previously explained in Section 1.1.1. A loudspeaker mounted to a wall is an example. In a more complicated case, knocking on a door causes the surface of the door to vibrate and generate sound both inside and out. Larger surfaces generate more sound energy than smaller ones, which is the reason the tympani in an orchestra is large. Furthermore, sound can strike a surface causing it to vibrate and radiate sound from the other side. This is how sound gets through a glass window. 1.3 SOUND CHARACTERISTICS OF FIREARMS The muzzle report can be regarded as a point source with a directional characteristic. The ballistic wave can be treated as a coherent line source, radiating a conical shock wave. The propagation of the ballistic wave is extremely directional and is limited to a well-defined geometrical area. It is radiated mainly at an angle of 60° from the bullet path. The sound of a firearm usually concentrates on high frequency (i.e. above 1000 Hz). Some examples of sound pressure levels of firearms, measured at 10 m from the muzzle (downrange), using the A -weighted impulse setting, are listed in Table 1 below [8]. This type of measurement is discussed further in Section 1.6. It should be noted that the sound pressure levels are mostly between 100 dBA(I) and 130 dBA(I). These are given in dBA(I) since it is the correlation between the maximum sound level and the subjective impression of loudness that is important. Directivity diagrams of a typical rifle and a typical shotgun are shown in Figure 1 and Figure 2 respectively'. 1 Falch, Edvard, "Noise from Shooting Ranges, a Nordic Prediction Method for Noise Emitted by Small -Bore Weapons," Nordic Council of Ministers' Noise Group, NBG, May 1984. Shooting Ranges and Sound 10 Introduction Table 1: Sound Pressure Levels of Firearms Being Measured at 10 m from the Muzzle (Downrange) Name, Calibre and Ammunition of Weapon Sound Pressure Level in dBA(I) Rifle M/96, 6.5 mm, SK PTR M/94 PRJ M/41 126 Rifle M/96, 6.5 mm, KPTR M/14 120 Hunting rifle, 7.62 mm, 30-60 Norma Jaktmatch 127 Hunting rifle II, 5.7 mm, 222 Remington N. Jaktmatch 124 AK 4, 7.62 mm, KPTR 10 120 AK 4, 7.62 mm, SK PTR 10 PRJ 128 AK 5 125 CC 63 Junior, Cal. 22, NORMA 22 LR (pistol) 103 Pistol m/40, 9 mm, SK PTR M/39 B 126 Shotgun, Cal. 12, NIKE Skeet, 70 mm, 32 g, 2 mm 127 Sound pressure level ( 270 51 180 Figure 1: Directivity of a Typical Rifle at 10 m Shooting Ranges and Sound 11 Introduction Sound pressure le if -W Ell Figure 2: Directivity of a Typical Shotgun at 10 m 1.4 SOUND PROPAGATION This section describes the environmental factors affecting the propagation of sound. 1.4.1 Distance Sound spreads spherically at propagating distances that are large, as compared to the size of the source (point source approximation). Therefore, the sound level at the receiver decreases at a rate of 6 dB per doubling of distance from the source. From a line source, the propagation is more nearly cylindrical and the sound level decreases at 3 dB per doubling of distance. Although other factors can come into play, actual sound measurements often show this characteristic decay of 6 dB per doubling of distance. 1.4.2 Ground Effect The "ground effect" occurs over soft surfaces, such as a ploughed field or grass -covered field. A reflection from the soft surface becomes out of phase and then interferes with sound going in a straight line from source to receiver. The interference almost cancels the straight line sound resulting in as much as a 25 dB reduction in sound level. 1.4.3 Air Absorption Sound absorption occurs due to the vibration relaxation of oxygen molecules. Collisions with water vapour molecules is an important part of the energy transfer process and the frequency of maximum absorption is strongly dependent on the concentration of water vapour. At normal temperature and humidity, the oxygen relaxation results in strong absorption of sound at frequencies above approximately 2 kHz, which is significant for shooting range noise. Shooting Ranges and Sound 12 Introduction 1.4.4 Weather, Wind and Temperature Inversion Weather is an important factor in outdoor sound propagation. Under most weather conditions, both wind and temperature vary with height above the ground. These vertical gradients cause the speed of sound to vary with height, which in turn cause the sound waves to travel along curved paths from source to receiver. For downwind propagation, the speed of sound relative to the ground increases with height, and sound paths are concave downwards due to the drag on the moving air at the ground. Conversely, for upwind propagation, speed decreases with height and sound paths tend to curve upwards, thus producing a shadow zone near the ground beyond a certain distance from the source. Hence, sound levels are increased downwind and decreased upwind. In a temperature inversion, most common at night and in the early morning due to radiation cooling of the ground, the sound speed increases with height up to a few tens or hundreds of metres, and sound paths are concave downwards. Under conditions of temperature lapse, which are most common during the day when the air near the ground is warmer, the ray paths curve upwards and produce a refractive shadow zone near the ground beyond a certain distance that depends on height of source above the ground. Sound levels are increased during a temperature inversion, and reduced in "normal lapse" conditions. The scattering effects of atmospheric turbulence increase with increasing distances of propagation. They increase approximately as the square root of increasing sound frequency and are greater in regions of the spectrum where the sound level is determined by interference or diffraction mechanisms. 1.5 HUMAN SENSITIVITY The greatest hearing acuity ranges from sound pressure level 40 dB to 80 dB and frequency 300 Hz to 5 kHz. Hearing acuity is poor at the extremes of the sound pressure level and frequency ranges. The human ear requires a finite amount of time to register a sound. Very short sounds (those that last less than about 0.2 seconds) do not register the same loudness as they would if they were to continue for a larger period of time. Sudden or unexpected noise can evoke a startle reflex, where the body is prepared for "fight or flight." The body normally returns to the pre -exposure condition over a period of a few minutes. However, it is suggested that sustained or repeated exposure could lead to persistent changes in the neurophysiological, endocrine, sensory, digestive and cardiovascular systems, which in turn could cause deterioration in health. 1.6 SOUND MEASUREMENT This section presents various sound measurement cases. 1.6.1 Constant Sounds As described in Section 1.1, sound is a pressure wave travelling through the air from a source to a receiver. The simplest sound measurement case is that of a constant sound, such as that originating from a hydro transformer or idling truck. Shooting Ranges and Sound 13 Introduction Linear, A and C Frequency Weighting The human ear does not hear all frequencies equally well. The human ear is significantly insensitive to low frequency sounds (from 20 Hz to 250 Hz), sensitive to mid -frequency sounds (from 500 Hz to 2 kHz) and somewhat insensitive to high frequency sounds (from 4 kHz to 16 kHz). The frequency response of the human ear is taken into account by "weighting" the sound according to the frequency. If a sound is measured "un -weighted" – that is, with a "linear" or "Lin" frequency weighting – then the incoming sound pressure is not changed. The result is described as a sound pressure level and is expressed in dB, dB(Lin) or dBLin. At present, the most common and widely used frequency weighting is the A -weighting. The frequency characteristic of the A -weighting is shown in Figure 3. 20 0 CO @ -20 N J N > m -40 -60 -80 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 I I I I I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I I I I I I I I 11 T 1 I I 1 I I I I I I 77- I- II- -r -I-T-r7-r--T-r1-r-1-1-r-1'T--1-r-I-T-1-7 I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I I I I I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I I I I I I I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I I I I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I I I I I 1 1 I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I _ L _I _ 1 _ 1_ _ i _I _ _ I_ i _ L _1_ .1 _ 1_ _i _ L _ _ .1 _ I_ _I _ L _ I_ i _ i _I _ _ 1_ V I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I I I I 1 I I 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I I I I I I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I I I I I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ( I I I I I I I I I Frequency (Hz) A weighting — — C weighting Figure 3: Frequency Characteristics of A -Weighting and C -Weighting If a sound is measured with the A -weighting, then the result is described as a "sound level" and is expressed in dBA or dB(A). "C -weighting" is sometimes used for impulse noise measurement, although it is not often used for general sound level measurement. The C -weighting is similar to linear weighting, as only the low and high frequencies are reduced. C -weighting is also shown in Figure 3 above. Sound pressure levels, expressed in dBA, for a wide range of typical sounds are shown in Table 2. The sound levels are given in dBA because they are relatively steady and the dBA value corresponds to the subjective impression of loudness. Shooting Ranges and Sound 14 Introduction Table 2: Typical Sound Pressure Level Encountered in Daily Life Sound Pressure Level dB(A) Description of Sound Source Subjective Evaluation 140 Jet engine Deafening 130 Jet aircraft during takeoff (300 ft. away) Painful 120 "Hard rock" band (with electronic amplification) Onset of pain 107 Air hammer Temporary hearing loss 100 Crowd noise at football game Very loud 92 Heavy city traffic Very loud 80 Ringing alarm clock (at 2 ft.) Very loud 70 B-757 aircraft cabin during flight Loud 65 Busy restaurant or canteen Loud 60 Conversational Speech Moderate 5 Window air conditioner Moderate 34 Soft whisper (at 5 ft.) Faint 20 Rustling leaves Very faint 10 Human breathing Very faint Slow Sound Level Meter Response Sound level meters are originally analog measuring devices indicating the sound level by means of a moving needle. The maximum speed at which the needle moves is set by the "response time" of the needle. If the response time is long, then the needle moves more slowly. If the response time is short, then the needle moves more quickly. For the measurement of constant (or nearly constant) sound, a slow response time of 1 second is defined. Shooting Ranges and Sound 15 Introduction 1.6.2 Time -Varying Sounds If a time -varying sound is measured, such as that from a passing truck, then the sound level expressed in dBA will rise and fall. This presents a more difficult problem for measurement than with a constant sound level. Fast Sound Level Meter Response In order to measure time -varying sounds, such as those from a passing truck, the "fast" meter response time of 0.125 seconds is defined. This allows the meter needle to move faster than it does for the slow meter response time. Using the fast response will result in the sound level meter needle rising as the truck approaches, reaching a maximum value that can be recorded, and then dropping as the truck recedes. The "fast' response corresponds well with the subjective impression of loudness because a response time of 0.125 seconds is close to that of the human ear. Modern digital sound level meters have a "Maximum" or "Max" Hold capability that automatically holds the maximum sound level achieved. The Energy Equivalent Sound Level, Leg Instead of measuring the sound level from a single passing truck, let us say that we need to measure the sound from traffic on a typical street. In this case, there will be many vehicles passing by, with each one having its own maximum level. Therefore, we must consider how to assess this time -varying sound. A method of describing time - varying sounds using a single number, which has gained widespread use, is the Energy Equivalent Sound Level, or "Leq." The Leq of a sound is that single level which represents the same energy as the time -varying sound over the measurement period. Integrating Sound Level Meters measure Leq values directly by summing the incoming sound energy over the time of the measurement, averaging the energy, and then indicating a single Leq value for the measurement. Studies have shown a reasonable correlation between Leq sound levels in dBA and the overall community response to noise. The numerical definition of Leq is contained in Section 6. Since a Leq measurement must be taken over a certain time period, the length of time for the measurement is important. Some common time scales associated with Leq measurements are 1 hour, 24 hours, a 16 -hour daytime measurement (e.g. 07:00 am to 11:00 pm) and an 8 -hour night-time measurement (e.g. 11:00 pm to 07:00 am). The results of Leq measurements performed over these time periods are described as Leq (1 hour), Leq (24 hour), Leq (day) and Leq (night) respectively, and they are expressed in terms of dBA. Single Event Level (SEL) The Single Event Level (SEL) is a variation of the Leq, in which the level is adjusted to a standard time of 1 second. Calculation of the SEL from the Leg and measurement time is described in Section 6. The SEL has also been used for the measurement of impulsive sound from firearms. Levels measured in this way using A -weighting, are described as dBA(SEL). Shooting Ranges and Sound 16 Introduction 1.6.3 Impulsive Sounds The noise from firearms is described as being "impulsive," which signifies that the sound lasts for only a very short period of time, typically less than 1 second. Impulsive sounds are so short that even the fast meter response is not fast enough to give a true maximum level. The overall energy of a series of impulsive noises from firearms is correctly described by means of a Leve measurement. However, there is doubt that the Leq measurement adequately describes the community response to impulsive sound because of the startling effect such noise can have. This problem can be overcome by adding a penalty to the measured Leq value. In the 1971 version of ISO 1996 [14], a 5 dB penalty is recommended for impulsive noise. Other research has indicated penalties of 7 dB [25], 10 dB [10] or 12 dB [29]. Impulse Sound Level, dBAI A different solution to the impulse noise measurement problem is to develop a specific measurement technique for impulsive sounds. As previously stated, impulsive sounds have a very short duration; consequently, the 0.125 second fast meter response is not quick enough to keep up with them. The "impulse" meter response time of 0.035 seconds was originally developed to measure the hearing loss potential of impulsive noise in industry. Therefore, the Impulse Sound Level Meters have a meter response that is considerably faster than "fast." In order to facilitate the act of taking the maximum reading, the meter needle is arranged to fall slowly (with a 3 second meter response time). Modern digital sound level meters contain a "Maximum" or "Max" Hold function that holds the maximum level for recording purposes. Measurements using the impulse sound level meter response are commonly taken with the A -weighting and expressed in terms of dBAI or dBA(I). Since the impulse sound level meter response represents a different measurement technique than that of the Leg, use of the impulse time response is not generally used for a Leq measurement. Leq measurements are usually performed with either fast or slow meter response times. Peak Sound Level Impulsive noise from blasting operations and firearms has been measured using the "Peak" meter response. Peak is the fastest meter response of all, as the digital meter holds the maximum instantaneous sound pressure difference (or overpressure) from the steady state ambient air pressure. Peak sound level measurements can be made with linear weighting expressed as dB Peak, or with A -weighting expressed as dBA Peak. Shooting Ranges and Sound 17 Introduction 1.6.4 Measuring Sound Levels From Firearms Continuing from the previous section, there are two main methods of measuring impulsive sound, and hence firearm sound levels. The first method is to measure the Leg of the sound from a range over a 1 hour period, and then apply a penalty between 5 dB [14] and 12 dB [29]. The second method is to measure typical shots with the impulse (or peak) meter response and A -weighting to obtain a level expressed in terms of dBAI (or dBA Peak). If the individual impulse (or peak) sound levels vary, then they can be averaged to obtain a single result. Simple arithmetic averaging is one possibility; however, it is recommended to calculate the Logarithmic Mean Impulse Sound Level (LLM) which weights the higher levels [20]. The numerical definition of LLM is contained in Section 6. There is no strict correlation between sound levels measured in dBAI and Leq (measured in dBA). But, as indicated in Section 1.6.3, if about 8 is added to the dBAI level (5 to 12 depending on the reference), it can be considered equivalent to the Leq. That is, a series of 62 dBAI impulses is roughly equivalent to 70 dBA Leq in community response. Assessment of the annoyance of the sound from firearms using these techniques is discussed further in Section 2. Shooting Ranges and Sound 18 SOUND LEVEL ASSESSMENT 2 SOUND LEVEL ASSESSMENT There are four stages in sound level assessment: 1. Determine a sound measurement technique, or parameter, which adequately describes the annoyance of a noise; 2. Develop a criterion sound level for the parameter; 3. Select the critical point of reception; and 4. Measure the sound at the critical point of reception using the parameter. In Section 1.6, the methods of measuring the impulsive sound from firearms were discussed, and it included the description of two impulsive sound level measurement parameters. The first parameter is a Leg measurement over a time period of 1 hour, expressed in dBA, to which is added a penalty of between 5 dB and 12 dB to compensate for the startle characteristic of impulsive noise. The second parameter is the measurement of individual shots using the impulse meter response and A -weighting, suitably averaging the resulting readings to provide a single level expressed in dBAI. In this section, the development of criterion sound levels (expressed in terms of dBAI or dBA Leq) and selection of the critical point of reception are reviewed. Procedures for the actual measurement of sound levels are discussed in Section 3. 2.1 PHILOSOPHY OF CRITERION SOUND LEVEL DEVELOPMENT Criterion sound levels can be set by following two philosophies: by establishing a fixed sound level as the criterion and by setting the existing background sound level as the criterion level. 2.1.1 Fixed Criterion Sound Levels Fixed criterion sound levels are based on two factors. They are based, firstly, on the level at which significant annoyance is expected to occur and, secondly, on the feasibility of achieving a particular level in actual practice. It should be noted that criterion sound levels do not necessarily set the level at which sound will become audible. Many jurisdictions accept that criterion sound levels are set at values for which a "slight community response" or "sporadic complaints" might result. One example of a fixed criterion level is the one contained in the Ontario Model Municipal Noise Control By-law, as follows: "For impulsive sound... from... the discharge of firearms on the premises of a licensed gun club... the applicable sound level limit — if it was in operation before January 1 st 1980 is 70 dBAI, and otherwise is 50 dBAI."Z 2 Ministry of the Environment, "Model Municipal Noise Control By -Law: Final Report," August 1978, section 7. Shooting Ranges and Sound 19 SOUND LEVEL ASSESSMENT The Ministry of the Environment, "Model Municipal Noise Control By -Law: Final Report," August 1978, recognizes that existing gun clubs may have difficulty reaching the 50 dBAI level, and thus include a "grandfather" clause allowing the higher sound level of 70 dBAI. The 50 dBAI level is also included in the Ministry of Environment and Energy, "Guide to Applying for Approval (Air): Noise and Vibration," November 1995 and in the Federal -Provincial Advisory Committee on Environmental and Occupational Health, Health and Welfare Canada, "National Guidelines for Environmental Noise Control." Arntzen, Eystein, Sorensen, Stefan and Lindblom, Eva, "Annoyance Caused by Noise from Shooting Ranges,"FASE, 84, pp. 443-448 indicates that community reaction to impulsive sound is "very low" when levels are less than 60 dBAI. Smoorenburg, Guido F., "Evaluation of impulse noise, in particular shooting noise, with regard to annoyance,"Internoise, 81, pp. 779-782. 44 indicates that the "threshold for annoyance" due to impulsive noise is from 60 to 65 dBA (fast), which corresponds to approximately 65 to 70 dBAI. These references specify that the range of sound levels for limited community reaction to the sound of firearms is between 50 dBAI and 70 dBAI. One disadvantage of a fixed criterion is that it does not account for where the noise source is located. It might be expected that a firing range placed in rural surroundings will have a greater noise impact than one located close to a busy highway. A fixed criterion does not differentiate between these two surroundings. 2.1.2 Background Sound Levels as Criteria One technique for avoiding the problem of a fixed criterion and for differentiating between quiet rural situations and noisy urban situations is to set the existing background sound level as the criterion level. The philosophy is that the existing background sound levels should not be significantly increased by the noise from the noise source. In urban situations, the background sound level is primarily set by local and distant traffic or "urban hum." In rural situations, the background sound is primarily set by natural sounds. One disadvantage of using background sound levels as criteria is that the background sound levels have to be measured before the noise source can be assessed. This makes the process more complicated. As a result, the rigidity of a fixed sound level criterion has been replaced by the complexity of having to measure the background sound levels. An added difficulty may exist in very quiet rural surroundings where it is often impossible to achieve sound levels as low as the existing background. In order to overcome these difficulties, "hybrid" criteria have been developed. These are discussed in Section 2.1.3. 2.1.3 Hybrid Sound Level Criteria Hybrid sound level criteria are actually a set of sound level criteria for different surroundings, such as rural, urban, downtown, etc. The sound level criteria actually represent typical background sound levels, which can be expected in surroundings of each type. The existing background sound levels no longer have to be measured; however, the different types of surroundings have to be carefully (or even legally) described so that the correct criterion for a particular surrounding area can be selected. Shooting Ranges and Sound 20 SOUND LEVEL ASSESSMENT In summation, a set of fixed sound level criteria for different surroundings overcomes the problems associated with the rigidity of a single fixed criterion and the complexity of having to measure existing background sound levels. The existing background sound environment will generally be either traffic noise in urban environments (urban hum) or natural sounds (wind, leaves rustling, etc.) in a rural environment. These sounds are not impulsive in nature, but are normally assessed using Lam. Therefore, the very use of hybrid sound level criteria leads to the use of Leq, with an appropriate penalty for the impulsive nature of the sound of firearms. Hybrid sound level criteria can be developed using ISO R1996 — 19713, which gives a Base Criterion range of 35 to 45 dBA with an average of 40 dBA. Corrections to the basic criterion for time of day and type of district are provided. These corrections can be applied to give the following set of sound level criteria values (in terms of 1 hour, Leq) for general sounds, depending on time of day and type of district. Time of Day Rural Urban Busy Urban Day 40 dBA 50 dBA 55 dBA Evening 35 dBA 45 dBA 50 dBA Night 30 dBA 40 dBA 45 dBA The Ministry of Environment and Energy, "Guide to Applying for Approval (Air): Noise and Vibration," November 1995 xcontains levels below which no further requirements apply. These levels can be compared with the above ISO levels. Time of Day Rural Quiet Urban Noisy Urban Day 45 dBA 50 dBA 50 dBA Evening 40 dBA 47 dBA 45 dBA Night 40 dBA 45 dBA 45 dBA It can be seen that the two sets of levels are generally similar. The only difference is that the ISO levels are somewhat stricter than the Ontario levels. 3 ISO R1996, "Assessment of Noise with Respect to Community Response," May 1971. Shooting Ranges and Sound 21 SOUND LEVEL ASSESSMENT 2.2 POINT OF RECEPTION SELECTION Definition of the point of reception for noise from shooting ranges is an important step. Clearly, residences are the first choice; however, other buildings are also sensitive to noise. A point of reception for urban surroundings: "... any point on the premises of a person where sound or vibration originating from other than those premises is received." "... the point of reception may be located on any of the following... premises: permanent or seasonal residences, hotels/motels, nursing/retirement homes, rental residences, hospitals, camp grounds and noise sensitive buildings such as schools and places of worship." A point of reception located in rural surroundings: ... within 30m of a dwelling or a camping area."4 The closest point of reception within the above definitions will generally be the critical point of reception. However, it may be that the closest point of reception is shielded from firearm noise by intervening buildings, walls or favourable topography. In this situation, sound levels may have to be measured (or predicted) at several points of reception to determine which location is the one with the highest sound levels and thus be designated as the critical point of reception. The typical reduction of noise from shooting ranges with distance is presented in Section 4. This information indicates that points of reception up to at least 1 kilometre away from a shooting range may have to be considered. 4 Ministry of Environment and Energy, "Guide to Applying for Approval (Air): Noise and Vibration," November 1995, section 7. Shooting Ranges and Sound 22 SOUND LEVEL MEASUREMENTS 3 SOUND LEVEL MEASUREMENTS In order to ensure the accurate and repeatable measurement of impulsive sound levels from firearms, the sound level meter, the sound level measurement procedure and the qualifications of the person performing the measurement need to be established. 3.1 SOUND LEVEL METER REQUIREMENTS This section details the requirements for the effective use of sound level meters. 3.1.1 Sound Level Meter Types In Section 1.6, two parameters were established as being suitable for the measurement of firearm -related sounds — that is, either a Leve measurement over a 1 -hour period or a reading with the impulse meter response. Sound level meters with the capability of measuring Leq values over a period of time are generally called Integrating Sound Level Meters. Meters equipped with the impulse meter response are generally called Impulse Sound Level Meters. A meter equipped with both capabilities would be an "Integrating Impulse Sound Level Meter." In order to measure the noise from shooting ranges, one of these three types of sound level meters is required. A major standard defining sound level meter characteristics is IEC 651. Four degrees of precision for sound level meters are established as follows: Type 0 Laboratory (highest) Grade Type 1 Precision Grade Type 2 Survey Grade Type 3 Lowest Grades IEC 651 defines tolerances for Lin, A and C -weighting networks, as well as for slow, fast and impulse meter response times. The components of a sound level meter are described in Section 1.6. It is generally accepted that Type 2, Survey Grade or higher grade sound level meters are suitable for the assessment of community noise. The use of Type 3 instruments is not recommended. 3.1.2 Sound Level Meter Calibration Sound level meters require a calibration adjustment prior to every use. To do this, a sound level calibrator, which fits over the microphone, is often used. It produces a sound of a fixed level and frequency. A sound level calibrator must therefore be available for the measurement of shooting range noise. 3.1.3 Accessories Required for Sound Level Meters Microphones are susceptible to the sound of wind blowing across them. To reduce the effect of wind noise, a windshield or wind screen should be available and used for all outdoor measurements. Weather conditions for meaningful sound level measurements are discussed in Section 3.2.2. 5 IEC Standard 651, 1979, section 7. Shooting Ranges and Sound 23 SOUND LEVEL MEASUREMENTS When Leve measurements or other sound level measurements are being performed over a lengthy time period, the sound level meter should be mounted on a tripod. 3.2 SOUND LEVEL MEASUREMENT PROCEDURES Detailed sound level measurement procedures are included in the Ontario Model Municipal By-law Ministry of the Environment, "Model Municipal Noise Control 8y -Law: Final Report," August 1978 and in the Ministry of Environment and Energy, "Guide to Applying for Approval (Air): Noise and Vibration," November 1995. These, or similar references, should be followed in order to ensure meaningful sound level measurement results. Adequate sound level measurement procedures are discussed in Sections 3.2.1 through 3.2.3. 3.2.1 Calibration The Integrating and/or Impulse Sound Level Meters used for the measurement of shooting range noise must be calibrated with a sound level calibrator before and after the measurements. 3.2.2 Weather Conditions The sound level meter and the sound level calibrator should never be used in weather conditions outside the temperature and humidity ranges, etc. specified by the manufacturer. A windshield or windscreen should be used for all outdoor measurements. Weather conditions for meaningful noise measurements are generally considered to be winds below 15 to 20 km/hr (even with a windscreen) with no precipitation, in addition to the temperature and humidity limitations stated by the manufacturer. 3.2.3 Recording The following information should be recorded for all outdoor sound level measurements: 1. Measurer's name; 2. Date; 3. Time of day for the measurements; 4. Weather conditions: (a) Temperature; (b) Wind speed and direction; (c) Relative humidity; and (d) Cloud cover; 5. Measurement location(s) with drawing or map; 6. Major noises included in the measurement (e.g. firearms, traffic, etc.); 7. Noise excluded from the measurement (e.g. trains, aircraft, dogs barking, etc.); 8. Sound level with description (e.g. dBAI or dBA, Leq — 1 hour); and 9. Any other relevant information or comments. Shooting Ranges and Sound 24 SOUND LEVEL MEASUREMENTS 3.3 SOUND LEVEL MEASUREMENT PERSONNEL Levels of impulsive sound due to firearms should only be measured by personnel trained in outdoor sound level measurement procedures. Personnel can be either at the technical level or at the engineering level. Provincial Ministries of the Environment often list recognized consultants working in the field of acoustics and noise control. Staff of such recognized organizations can be utilized for sound level measurements of firearms. In Ontario, noise issues have been redirected to the municipal level and courses in sound level measurement procedures are provided to train municipal staff, such as by- law officers. Personnel who have successfully completed such courses become qualified to perform sound level measurements of firearms. Relatively few community colleges or universities offer formal training in acoustics and noise control. However, graduates of these institutions having earned credits in relevant courses, and having been under supervision or possessing relevant sound level measurement experience for at least 1 year, are deemed qualified. Industrial hygienists are often trained in sound level measurements in factory surroundings. Any staff members who undergo additional training in outdoor sound level measurement, and/or supervision by personnel who are themselves trained as described above, are also qualified. Shooting Ranges and Sound 25 RANGE CONSTRUCTION PLANNING ADVICE 4 RANGE CONSTRUCTION PLANNING ADVICE This section provides advice on the design, planning and construction of both outdoor and indoor shooting ranges. 4.1 DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS FOR OUTDOOR AND INDOOR RANGES The design considerations for the construction of outdoor and indoor shooting ranges are detailed in Sections 4.1.1 through 4.1.2. 4.1.1 Design Considerations — Outdoor Ranges In this section, we consider only the most general principles of sound propagation in the environment. Sound pressure level, or loudness, decreases as distance from the sound source increases. Yet, the sound pressure level at any distant location is greatly influenced by the terrain between source and receiver. The examples described below show typical relationships between the sound level of a firearm and the distance from the firearm at which it is measured for different kinds of terrain. It is known that noise carries best over water, but this is also true over flat frozen ground. Figure 4 shows the reduction in sound level with distance from a typical rifle firearm, up to a distance of 1000 m. 120 110 Q m = 100 m v J m 90 N N 80 C a S] N 70 60 U TUU ZUU :$UU 4UU 5UU b00 700 800 900 1000 Distance From Source (m) Source aler Fr02 an Ground Frwen Grau ntl Figure 4: Attenuation Over Distance — No Ground Effect Shooting Ranges and Sound 26 RANGE CONSTRUCTION PLANNING ADVICE The sound level is given in units of dBAI. This same figure takes into consideration whether the surface between source and receiver is water, frozen ground or a sloped frozen ground surface — the key characteristic is that the surface is flat. Noise does not carry as well over flat open ground due to the "ground effect." The ground must be essentially flat, level or sloped. Figure 5 shows sound levels as functions of distance for this condition, and it can be seen that they are significantly less than those over water. 124 1110 R., x,100 g4 L 80 0 W 70 0 100 200 300 400 600 600 700 800 9001000 Distance From Source (m) Source Soft Ground . _, MMM 7 • r +� 7 - awl �Y Figure 5: Attenuation over Distance with Ground Effect Although, even at large distances from a firearm source, such as 1000 m, the sound levels can still be on the order of 60 to 70 dBAI. Shooting Ranges and Sound 27 RANGE CONSTRUCTION PLANNING ADVICE A hill, berm or barrier between the source and receiver, particularly one which breaks the line of sight between source and receiver, provides further reduction in sound level. The higher the hill, the greater the reduction despite the law of diminishing returns associated with this "barrier effect." Figure 6 shows an example of a 10 m high hill located 100 m away from a noise source. These data have been calculated in the same way as the previous figures. 120 110 m 100 6 m J 70 ----------------------- -- -- .., -- --' ---------- 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 840 900 1000 Distance (m) — - Without Berm With Berm Source Berm: 10m High 100mi from Source Figure 6: Attenuation Over Distance With and Without Berm In conclusion, sound is reduced by a combination of effects: distance, terrain and barriers. Shooting Ranges and Sound 28 RANGE CONSTRUCTION PLANNING ADVICE 4.1.2 Design Considerations — Indoor Ranges This section considers only the most general principles of noise propagation from the interior of a building to the exterior; it is not concerned with the internal noise levels of the range. Noise is reduced in pressure or loudness as it crosses a wall. This noise reduction, when measured in a laboratory, is called transmission loss. The first rule of transmission loss is called "Mass Law" and indicates that partitions of higher mass (i.e. greater weight per square metre) reduce sound more. Figure 7 shows the noise reduction or transmission loss for three different wall types. 7C 6C m 50 40 30 0 z 20 10 L 1131.0 03 1140 zou ouu 1 UUU zuuu 4UUU buuu Frequency (Hz) - - 16 g Steel Sheet — - 8" Hollow Concrete Blocks Steel Sheet, Steel Stud, RC, GWB Figure 7: Noise Reduction Across the Wall If the wall consists of 16 gauge steel sheets, such as the exterior wall of an ordinary storage shed, noise is reduced about 10 dB at 63 Hz and about 30 dB at 500 Hz. A heavier wall, such as an 8 -inch hollow concrete block, provides about 35 dB of reduction at 63 Hz and about 50 dB at 500 Hz. This is the effect of Mass Law. Shooting Ranges and Sound 29 RANGE CONSTRUCTION PLANNING ADVICE However, a wall made of two leaves, such as a 16 gauge steel sheet and a layer of Gypsum Wall Board (GWB), separated by a distance of approximately 150 mm and which uses a resilient element, such as commercially -available Resilient Channel, provides an entirely different characteristic. At low frequencies, this construction provides about the same transmission loss as any other wall of equal weight/square metres; however, in higher frequencies this wall will outperform a solid partition of much greater weight. Sound -absorbing materials placed interior to the building will reduce the sound level in the building; those on the exterior help to reduce other types of noise, but they have only a small effect on the exterior noise caused by shooting noise. Sound -absorbing materials placed interior to the building reduce the build-up of reverberant noise within the space, but since they are on the surface of the building, they do not affect the initial impulse of noise from a firearm discharge. Holes in a wall are the natural enemy of noise control. Walls, such as those described above, that can reduce sound by 60 dB are, in fact, allowing only one part in one million of the sound energy through the wall. An opening in the wall, such as a window representing just 1 % of the total area of the wall, will allow so much sound through that the overall noise reduction of the wall will only be about 20 dB. Consequently, if a window is to be introduced it needs to be closed and sealed, as well as have a transmission loss characteristic that is essentially the same as the wall in which it is located. Finally, almost any enclosure will actually increase the sound levels that the shooter is exposed to by virtue of the reverberation within the space. In real spaces with plenty of sound -absorbing materials, the actual reverberant sound levels are about 5 dB higher than they would be in the open. 4.2 PLANNING FOR SHOOTING RANGES In this section, various factors affecting sound propagation and which influence the selection of a shooting range site are discussed. 4.2.1 Outdoor Ranges Consider Receivers Up to 3 km Distant Considering the nature of the noise source, directivity, topography and climatic conditions, receivers (particularly residences) as far as 1 to 3 km away may be affected, especially downrange. Natural Barriers Ideally, a range should take advantage of a natural hill, berm or escarpment in the downrange direction. Man-made barriers greater than 5 m in height become very expensive while natural hills are often very much higher, thus being more effective in reducing noise levels downrange. Potential for Berm or Barrier Required berms or barriers may be created in the process of levelling and preparing the shooting range site. Material removed can be used to create the berm. Additionally, excavation at the shooter location increases the height difference between shooter and berm, making the berms more effective. Shooting Ranges and Sound 30 RANGE CONSTRUCTION PLANNING ADVICE Barriers Barriers can be constructed from many materials (e.g. wood, metal and concrete), but they must have a minimum surface density of 20 kg /M2, such as that of 37 mm thick wood. Barriers must be continuous, with no gaps or holes and must touch the ground (i.e. leaving no gap between the barrier and ground). There should be no trees near the barrier or on the top of any berm. Climatic Conditions In many locations, the wind tends to have a preferred direction. For example, the wind might come from a northwest direction 20% of the time and from a southeast direction only 10% of the time. These tendencies also change according to the time of year. Wind rosettes are available from Environment Canada, usually for airport locations. Sound levels are increased at distances during temperature inversions, which commonly occur on summer nights when the wind speed is low, as indicated in Section 1.4.4. All else being equal, the climatic conditions alone can cause sound levels to vary significantly. It is important to advise the surrounding community that shooting noise may be audible during an inversion or when the wind originates from a particular direction, and perhaps not audible at other times. Shooter Enclosure Certain types of ranges lend themselves to the construction of a shooter enclosure, which may be nothing more than a barrier behind the shooter and a roof overhead. However, each shooting station can be separated from each adjacent station by baffles in which the shooter aims through a port, or window, to the target external to the enclosure. Significant sound attenuation can be achieved in all directions, including downrange, provided the enclosure is heavy and well -sealed, and that sound -absorbing material is used extensively in the interior of the enclosure. Existing Noise Sources, Particularly Transportation Transportation noise is generally considered part of the background noise against which the shooting noise may be compared. Average sound levels near highways and superhighways are often in the 60 to 70 dBA range for 16 to 24 hours per day. In such areas, the shooting noise may be buried in the background noise. Therefore, it may be advantageous to locate a shooting range near a major highway. Locations to Avoid Several types of topography should be avoided, as they either help the propagation of sound or make it inherently difficult to provide noise controls. Noise control is particularly difficult when a shooting range is located near water (i.e. water between the source and receiver), bare rocks or large paved surfaces. As previously mentioned, sound propagates very well over a large valley, particularly if the shooter is aimed over the valley. Shooting Ranges and Sound 31 RANGE CONSTRUCTION PLANNING ADVICE 4.2.2 Indoor Ranges In this section, several factors affecting sound propagation and which influence an indoor range site selection and building construction are discussed. Consider All Potential Receivers Up to 1 km Away Considering the relatively light wall and roof construction, the terrain and the climactic conditions of an existing building serving as an indoor range, receivers as far as 1 km away may be affected. Wall and Roof Construction The walls and roof of the indoor range building generally require a heavier and/or double -leaf construction in order to provide adequate transmission loss. Sound -Absorbing Materials Sound -absorbing materials on the inside of the indoor range provide some reduction of noise to the exterior and will reduce interior sound levels, thus making the interior much more comfortable. However, the initial impulse of sound is generally affected very little by sound -absorbing materials. Hearing protection for shooters and staff is advised. Openings to the Exterior All openings to the exterior of the building require about the same degree of transmission loss as the walls and roof. Windows, skylights, doors (especially overhead ones) and loading doors require special treatment. Similarly, openings for air intake and exhaust, ventilation fans, and washroom and kitchen exhaust fans may require special treatment. Shooting Ranges and Sound 32 ABATEMENT TECHNIQUES 5 ABATEMENT TECHNIQUES This section discusses the techniques for reducing the noise produced by outdoor and indoor shooting ranges. 5.1 NOISE ABATEMENT TECHNIQUES FOR OUTDOOR SHOOTING RANGES In this section, we consider an outdoor shooting range on flat ground (either level or sloping). The effects of a natural hill located directly downrange, a combination berm/barrier added to the side, and a barrier behind the shooters are examined. 5.1.1 Natural Hill Figure 8 shows the sound levels downrange for typical rifle noise, without any other noise controls in place. , '711 100 20 V "IVU eVU SVV 4[]V WU 4UV WU WU 800 loan Distance (m) L-71thout Hill— With Hill Hill: 20m high 1 150m from Saurce Receiver 1 i r — Side Barriers + -• Barrier Behind Figure 8: Attenuation Over Distance With and Without Hill Shooting Ranges and Sound 33 ABATEMENT TECHNIQUES The sound levels over flat ground are shown, along with the sound levels that occur at a 20 m high natural hill located 150 m from the shooter's position. The hill provides more than 20 dB attenuation, reducing sound levels from the range of 60 to 70 dBAI to levels in the range of 40 to 50 dBAI. 5.1.2 Barriers at Sides Figure 9 shows the effect of a 5 m barrier located 25 m from the shooter at the side of the range, assuming there is flat ground. 11n 100 a 20 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 Distance (m) Without Barrier — W[th Barrier Sri Hili: 20m High 150m from source t; Receiver Side Barriers • Barrier Behind Figure 9: Attenuation Over Distance With and Without Side Barriers Once again, the barrier provides significant reduction in noise, but since it is only 25% of the height of the hill and half the distance away, it provides less attenuation. Shooting Ranges and Sound 34 - - - - -- - - - -- - ---------------------- --------- 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 Distance (m) Without Barrier — W[th Barrier Sri Hili: 20m High 150m from source t; Receiver Side Barriers • Barrier Behind Figure 9: Attenuation Over Distance With and Without Side Barriers Once again, the barrier provides significant reduction in noise, but since it is only 25% of the height of the hill and half the distance away, it provides less attenuation. Shooting Ranges and Sound 34 ABATEMENT TECHNIQUES 5.1.3 Barrier Behind Shooter Figure 10 (see Appendix G) shows the effect of a barrier behind a shooter. Since the direction is behind the shooter, sound levels are lower due to directivity. 12C —100 a m a (D m' 80 w 60 c coo :L 20 U IUU Z00 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 Distance (m) - -Without Barrier— With Barrier 1 Hill: 20m High 150m from Source I'll Receiver Side Barriers J Barrier Behind Figure 10: Attenuation Over Distance With and Without Barrier Behind Shooter The barrier, 3 m high and 10 m behind the shooter, provides a reduction of about 10 dB. Shooting Ranges and Sound 35 ABATEMENT TECHNIQUES Reviewing the calculated data downrange, to the side of the range and behind the shooter, highlights the requirement for a higher and closer barrier at the sides, in order to achieve the sound levels accomplished with the hill and behind -the -shooter barriers. 5.2 NOISE ABATEMENT TECHNIQUES FOR INDOOR SHOOTING RANGES In this section, we consider an indoor range with and without walls, and various walls constructions. 5.2.1 Walls Table 3 shows the calculated sound levels for various wall constructions. It shows sound levels 100 m from the shooter, assuming the handgun has a sound level of 160 dBA (peak) and that the sound is measured 2 m from the handgun at 900 to the line of fire. Both the double -leaf construction and the concrete -block construction provide sound levels of 42 dBAI at 100 m downrange from the shooter. Again, these calculations are for demonstration purposes only and the actual sound level will vary based on the actual firearm used, the planned construction, construction quality and the exterior terrain. Table 3: Sound Levels, dBAI, 100m from Indoor Range (Sound Pressure of the Handgun Being Measured is 160 dBAI at 600 mm) Construction of Wall SPL (dBAI) at 100 m from Shooter, Downrange No Walls 109 16 gauge sheet steel 73 16 gauge sheet steel, steel studs, resilient 42 channel, 16 mm GWB 8 -inch hollow concrete blocks 42 5.3 PRACTICAL MEASURES OF NOISE CONTROL This section summarizes in point -form the practical measures to take for noise control in outdoor and indoor shooting ranges. 5.3.1 Outdoor Shooting Ranges % Range should be located facing a natural high hill. 3/4 Berms and barriers should be as close and high as possible. 3/4 Barriers should be covered with sound -absorbing, weatherproof material. 3/4 Berms and barriers must be designed for drainage considerations, wind and snow accumulation. 3/4 Shooting range should be oriented so that "downrange" is away from critical receivers. 3/4 There should be a shooter enclosure, with interior surfaces covered with sound - absorbing material where possible. Shooting Ranges and Sound 36 ABATEMENT TECHNIQUES % Locations near lakes, rivers and open ground should be avoided. 3/4 Trees on the tops of berms or near barriers should be avoided. 5.3.2 INDOOR SHOOTING RANGES • Consider noise both through the roof and walls. 3/4 Heavy and/or two -leaf wall and roof construction should be employed. 3/4 Sound -absorbing materials should be applied to the interior of the indoor range. 3/4 All doors and windows require the same transmission loss characteristics as the roof and walls. 3/4 All openings should be acoustically treated, especially air intakes and exhausts (e.g. locate HVAC equipment in the ceiling of any office area's supply and return it ducted to the shooting area). Shooting Ranges and Sound 37 GLOSSARY 6 GLOSSARY The majority of these technical definitions are derived from the Ministry of the Environment, "Model Municipal Noise Control By -Law. Final Report," August 1978. A -Weighted Sound Pressure Level The sound pressure level that is modified by the application of A -weighting. It is measured in A -weighted decibels and denoted dBA. A -Weighting The frequency weighting characteristic as specified in IEC 123 or IEC 179 and intended to approximate the relative sensitivity of the normal human ear to different frequencies (pitches) of sound. Acoustic Calibrator An electro -mechanical or mechanical device intended for the calibration of sound level meters and meeting the specifications of Publication NPC -102 — Instrumentation, for Acoustic Calibrators. Decibel A dimensionless measure of sound level or sound pressure level; see "Sound Pressure Level." Effective Sound Pressure The "effective sound pressure" at a point is the root -mean square value of the instantaneous sound pressure, over a time interval, at the point under consideration as detected with a sound level meter. Equivalent Sound Level Sometimes denoted as Leq. It is the value of the constant sound level that results from exposure to the same total A -weighted energy as does the specified time -varying sound, if the constant sound level persists over an equal time interval. It is measured in dBA. The mathematical definition of Equivalent Sound Level (Leq) for an interval defined as occupying the period between two points in time t, and t2 is: Leq = 10 loo «3 p 2 gb) (iti t2 r, Pr )Ya where p(t) is the time -varying A -weighted sound pressure and p, is the reference pressure of 20 NPa. Fast Response A dynamic characteristic setting of a sound level meter. Frequency The "frequency" of a periodic quantity is the number of times that the quantity repeats itself in a unit interval of time. The unit of measurement is hertz (Hz), which represents the number of cycles per second. Shooting Ranges and Sound 38 GLOSSARY General Purpose Sound Level Meter A sound level meter that meets the specifications of Publication NPC -102 — Instrumentation, for General Purpose Sound Level Meters. Impulse Response A dynamic characteristic setting of a sound level meter meeting the specifications of Publication NPC -102 - Instrumentation, for Impulse Sound Level Meters. Impulse Sound Level The sound level of an impulsive sound as measured with an Impulse Sound Level Meter set to impulse response. It is measured in A -weighted decibels and denoted dBAI. Impulse Sound Level Meter A sound level meter that meets the specifications of any publication for Impulse Sound Level Meters. Impulsive Sound A single pressure pulse or a single burst of pressure pulses. Integrating Sound Level Meter A sound level meter that is capable of being used to derive the Equivalent Sound Level (Leq). rithmic Mean Imaulse Sound Level Sometimes denoted LLM. For N impulsive sounds, LLM is ten times the logarithm to the base 10 of the arithmetic mean often to the power of one tenth the Impulse Sound Level of each impulsive sound. Algebraically, it can be written as follows: LLM = 10 loglo �� IOasAr, iio 1OasAI, iio ... I0dBArN i10 ° ,N '/a where dBAIj, dBA12, ..., dBAIN are the N impulse sound levels. Overpressure The "overpressure" at a point, due to an acoustic disturbance, is the instantaneous difference at that point between the peak pressure during the disturbance and the ambient atmospheric pressure. The unit of measurement is the pascal. One pascal, abbreviated Pa, is the same as one newton per square metre, abbreviated N/m2. Overpressure Level It is twenty times the logarithm to the base 10 of the ratio of the peak pressure to the reference pressure of 20 pPa. Peak Pressure Level Detector A device capable of measuring peak pressure or pressure level perturbations in air which meets the specifications of Publication NPC -102 — Instrumentation, for Peak Pressure Level Detectors. SEL The energy mean value of the single event noise exposure level, which may be calculated from the equation: SEL = NLmax+10 log,otea (dB). Shooting Ranges and Sound 39 GLOSSARY Slow Response A dynamic characteristic setting of a sound level meter meeting the applicable specifications of Publication NPC -102 — Instrumentation. Smund An oscillation in pressure, stress, particle displacement or particle velocity, in a medium with internal forces (e.g. elastic, viscous) or the superposition of such propagated oscillations, which may cause an auditory sensation. Sound Level The A -weighted sound pressure level. Sound Level Meter An instrument that is sensitive to and calibrated for the measurement of sound. Sound Pressure The instantaneous difference between the actual pressure and the average or barometric pressure at a given location. The unit of measurement is the micropascal (NPa), which is the same as a micronewton per square meter (NN/m). Sound Pressure Level It is twenty times the logarithm to the base 10 of the ratio of the effective pressure (p) of a sound to the reference pressure (pr) of 20 NPa. Therefore, the sound pressure level in dB = 20 10910(p/pr)• Shooting Ranges and Sound 40 REFERENCES 7 REFERENCES [1] ANSI S12.7-1986, "Methods for Measurement of Impulse Noise." [2] Arntzen, Eystein, Sorensen, Stefan and Lindblom, Eva, "Annoyance Caused by Noise from Shooting Ranges," FASE, 84, pp. 443-448. [3] Assmann, Jurgen. "Measurement and Assessment of Noise in the Neighbourhood of Shooting Ranges," Internoise, 85, pp.1283-1286. [4] Barman Swallow Associates, "Cold Creek Range Noise Study for Metro Toronto and Region Conservation Authority," October 1987. [5] Bruel, Per V., "Assessment of Noise from Shooting Ranges for Setting Legal Limits," FASE, 84, pp. 455-458. [6] Bullen, R. B. and Hede, A. J., "Assessment of Community Noise Exposure from Rifle Shooting," Journal of Sound and Vibration (1982), 82(1), pp. 29-37. [7] Embleton, T. F. W., "Sound Propagation Outdoors — Improved Prediction Schemes for the 80's," Noise Control Engineering, Volume 18, Number 1, January -February 1982. [8] Falch, Edvard, "Noise from Shooting Ranges, a Nordic Prediction Method for Noise Emitted by Small -Bore Weapons," Nordic Council of Ministers' Noise Group, NBG, May 1984. [9] Federal -Provincial Advisory Committee on Environmental and Occupational Health, Health and Welfare Canada, "National Guidelines for Environmental Noise Control." [10] Groeneveld, Ymte and de Jong, R. G., "CEC Joint Project on Impulse Noise: Overall Results of the Field Survey," Internoise, 85, pp. 905-908. [11] Hamernik, Roger P. and Hsueh, Keng D., "Impulse noise: Some definitions, physical acoustics and other considerations," J. Acoust. Soc. Am., 90(1), July 1991, pp. 189-196. [12] Hofmann, Robert F., Rosenheck, Allan J. and Guggenbuhl, "Prediction and Evaluation of Noise from Rifle Shooting Ranges," Internoise, 85, pp. 883-886. [13] IEC Standard 651, 1979. [14] ISO R1996, "Assessment of Noise with Respect to Community Response," May 1971. [15] ISO 1996/2-1987, "Acoustics — Description and measurement of environmental noise — Part 2: Acquisition of data pertinent to land use." [16] Kurze, U. J. and Schreiber, L., "Shielding of Shooting Noise by Earth Berms and Walls," Internoise, 86, pp. 485-488 [17] Lundquist, Bjorn, "Measurement versus Calculation of the Noise Emission from Weapons," FASE, 84, pp. 467-470 [18] Lundquist, Bjorn, "The Reflected Noise behind a Rifle Shooting Range," FASE, 84, pp. 471-474 [19] Ministry of Environment and Energy, "Guide to Applying for Approval (Air): Noise and Vibration," November 1995. [20] Ministry of the Environment, "Model Municipal Noise Control By -Law: Final Report," August 1978. Shooting Ranges and Sound 41 REFERENCES [21] Niedzielski, Rebecca A., "MPCA Impulse Noise Study: Final Report, May 1991," Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. [22] Paakkbnen, R., "Noise Attenuation of Structures against Impulses from Large Calibre Weapons or Explosions," Applied Acoustics, 45 (1995), pp. 263-278. [23] Paakk6nen, R., Anttonen, H. and Niskanen, J., "Noise Control on Military Shooting Ranges for Rifles," Applied Acoustics, 32 (1991), pp. 49-60. [24] Schomer, Paul D., "A Model to Describe Community Response to Impulse Noise," Noise Control Engineering, Volume 18, Number 1, January - February 1982, pp. 5-15. [25] Schreiber, L. J. and Kurze, U. J., "Sound Propagation from Rifle Shooting Ranges," Internoise, 86, pp.425-430. [26] Schuller, Willem M. and de Zeeuw, Jakob H., "Acoustic Effect of Trees on Barriers," Internoise, 81, pp. 253-256. [27] Seshagiri, B.V., "Measurement of Gun Shot Noise at the Cold Creek Conservation Area," 1976. [28] Seshagiri, B. V., "Measurement of Shotgun Noise at the Cold Creek Conservation Area," 1977. [29] Smoorenburg, Guido F., "Evaluation of impulse noise, in particular shooting noise, with regard to annoyance," Internoise, 81, pp.779-782. 44 [30] Sorensen, S. and Magnusson, J., "Annoyance Caused by Noise from Shooting Ranges," Journal of Sound and Vibration (1979), 62(3), pp. 437-442. [31] Vos, Joos and Geurtsen, Frank W. M., "Leq as a measure of annoyance caused by gunfire consisting of impulse with various proportions of higher and lower sound levels," J. Acoust. Soc. Am., 82(4), October 1987, pp. 1201-1206. [32] Vos, Joos, "A Review of Field Studies on Annoyance due to Impulse and Road - Traffic Sounds," Internoise, 85, pp. 1029-1032. Shooting Ranges and Sound 42 May 12, 2017 Duncan Anderson Manager Municipal Law Enforcement Clerks Municipality of Clarington 40 Temperance Street Bowmanville, ON L1 C 3A6 DAnderson(a)clarington.net Re: Sound Level Measurement Results — Orono Fish and Hunt Club 1. Introduction At the request of the Municipality of Clarington, Swallow Acoustic Consultants Ltd. (SACL) conducted sound level measurements for shooting noise at 4 residences on Leskard Road during an event in the Orono Fish and Hunt Club on October 22, 2016. This report outlines the measurement results and assessment. 2. Noise Criteria Sections related to shooting ranges in the Municipality of Clarington noise bylaws 2007-071 are outlined as follow: Section 3.1 A noise curfew shall apply to the Orono Fish and Hunt Club. The curfew shall be from 9:00 p.m. until 8:00 a.m. the following day (Monday through Saturday), 9:00 p.m. Saturday until 10:00 a.m. Sunday, and 4:00 p.m. Sunday until 8:00 a.m. Monday. Section 3.1.1 During non -curfew times, any noise emanating from the use of a shooting range shall not exceed: (a) 70 dBAI at the point of reception for any shooting range which began operation prior to January 1 st 1980; or (b) 50 dBAI at the point of reception for any shooting range which began operation after January 1 st 1980. It is our understanding that Orono Fish and Hunt Club began operation prior to January 1 st 1980; therefore the 70 dBAI sound level limit is applicable. SWALV)w SWALLOW ACOUSTIC CONSULTANTS LTD. Toronto: 366 Revus Ave., Unit 23 Mississauga, ON, Canada, L5G 4S5, 905-271-7888 � Ottawa: 116 Albert Street, 3rd Floor, Ottawa, ON, Canada, K1 P 5G3, 613-565-1800 ��, haar ��� a To acoustic(aDthorntontomasetti.com www.thorntontomasetti.com �� 4JV!) Orono Fish and Hunt Club Page 2 SACL Project #B6-611 May 12, 2017 3. Measurement Methodology Sound level measurements were conducted in the afternoon on October 22, 2016. The following sections describe the methodology of the measurements. 3.1. Measurement Locations Sound levels were measured at the residential properties on Leskard Road near the shooting range, as listed in Table 1. These locations are shown in Figure 1. Table 1: Measurement Locations Address Measurement Location 7560 Leskard Road Backyard, approximately 50 m from the house. 7685 Leskard Road Front yard by the driveway, approximately 30 m from the house. 7150 Leskard Road Side yard, approximately 24 m north of the house. 7506 Leskard Road Deck at the rear of the house, elevated from backyard. 3.2. Types of Firearms Since the Orono Fish and Hunt Club was not informed about the sound level measurements, the types of firearm discharged during the measurements are not known. 3.3. Measurement Parameters The impulse sound levels of the shooting noise were measured in A -weighted decibels and are denoted dBAI. The impulse sound level is the sound level of an impulsive sound as measured with a sound level meter set to impulse response. The ambient sound levels, expressed in Equivalent Sound Level (Leq) were measured at selected measurement locations over a 30 second period when no shooting noise was generated. 3.4. Instrumentation Sound levels were measured using a Bruel and Kjaer Hand-held Analyzer Type 2250 (serial number 3007997) with a Bruel and Kjaer '/2" Prepolarized Condenser Microphone Type 4189 (serial number 2983426). The sound level meter was field -calibrated with a Bruel and Kjaer Sound Level Calibrator Type 4230 (serial number 1274906). A wind shield over the microphone was used for all outdoor sound level measurements. Calibration documents for the instrumentation are available upon request. SWALV)w SWALLOW ACOUSTIC CONSULTANTS LTD. Toronto: 366 Revus Ave., Unit 23 Mississauga, ON, Canada, L5G 4S5, 905-271-7888 Ottawa: 116 Albert Street, 3rd Floor, Ottawa, ON, Canada, K1 P 5G3, 613-565-1800 `�L� ��� �I'II �'�1Tomasefti acousticCcDthorntontomasetti.com www.thorntontomasetti.com co,�R' i1 4JV!) Orono Fish and Hunt Club Page 3 SACL Project #136-611 May 12, 2017 4. Measurement Results The measurement results are summarised in Table 2. Table 2: Measurement Results Measurement Location Impulse Sound Level (dBAI) Notes 7560 Leskard Road 55 Shooting noise faintly audible. 53 Shooting noise faintly audible. 52 Shooting noise faintly audible. 53 Shooting noise faintly audible. 57 Shooting noise faintly audible. Includes noise from leaves rustling. 7685 Leskard Road 51 Ambient 53 Shooting noise barely audible. 54 Shooting noise barely audible. 55 Shooting noise barely audible. 53 Shooting noise barely audible. 59 Shooting noise barely audible. 54 Shooting noise barely audible. 7150 Leskard Road 50 Ambient 54 Shooting noise barely audible. 51 Shooting noise barely audible. 53 Shooting noise barely audible. 7506 Leskard Road 60 Shooting noise faintly audible. 57 Shooting noise faintly audible. 53 Shooting noise faintly audible. 53 Shooting noise faintly audible. 53 Shooting noise faintly audible. SWALV)w SWALLOW ACOUSTIC CONSULTANTS LTD. Toronto: 366 Revus Ave., Unit 23 Mississauga, ON, Canada, L5G 4S5, 905-271-7888 Ottawa: 116 Albert Street, 3rd Floor, Ottawa, ON, Canada, K1 P 5G3, 613-565-1800 `�L� ��� �I'II �'�1Tomasefti acousticCcDthorntontomasetti.com www.thorntontomasetti.com co,�R' i1 4JV!) Orono Fish and Hunt Club Page 4 SACL Project #B6-611 May 12, 2017 5. Noise Assessments The measured impulsive sound levels are between 51 dBAI and 60 dBAI. Therefore they are below the sound level limit of 70 dBAI in the Municipality of Clarington noise bylaws 2007-071. 6. Concluding Remarks Sound level measurements were conducted at 4 residences on Leskard Road during an event in the Orono Fish and Hunt Club on October 22, 2016. The measured impulsive sound levels are below the sound level limit in the Municipality of Clarington noise bylaws. Please do not hesitate to contact us if there are any questions. Yours Truly, Swallow Acoustic Consultants Ltd. Pearlie Yung, M.Sc., P.Eng. Senior Project Engineer SWALV)w SWALLOW ACOUSTIC CONSULTANTS LTD. Toronto: 366 Revus Ave., Unit 23 Mississauga, ON, Canada, L5G 4S5, 905-271-7888 Ottawa: 116 Albert Street, 3rd Floor, Ottawa, ON, Canada, K1 P 5G3, 613-565-1800 `�L� ��� �I'II �'�1Tomasefti acousticCcDthorntontomasetti.com www.thorntontomasetti.com co,�R' i1 1� rbA Orono Fish and Hunt Club 3292 Concession Road 7, Orono, Ontario Noise Assessment SACL #136-611 April 28, 2017 Submitted to: Duncan Anderson Manager Municipal Law Enforcement Clerks Municipality of Clarington 40 Temperance Street Bowmanville, Ontario, L1C 3A6 Tel: 905-623-3379 ext. 2110 DAnderson(aklarington.net SWALLv)W Thi hon dmn Tomasetti Submitted by: Pearlie Yung, M.Sc., P.Eng. Senior Project Engineer Swallow Acoustic Consultants Ltd. 23-366 Revus Ave. Mississauga, Ontario, L5G 4S5 Tel: 905-271-7888 pyung(a thorntontomasetti.com SWALLOW ACOUSTIC CONSULTANTS LTD. Toronto: 366 Revus Ave., Unit 23 Mississauga, ON, Canada, L5G 4S5, 905-271-7888 Ottawa: 116 Albert Street, 3rd Floor, Ottawa, ON, Canada, K1 P 5G3, 613-565-1800 acoustic(a)thorntontomasetti.com www.thorntontomasetti.com Orono Fish and Hunt Club SACL Project #136-611 April 28, 2017 Table of Contents Page ii 1. Introduction....................................................................................................................................1 2. Noise Criteria.................................................................................................................................1 2.1. Noise Bylaws...........................................................................................................................1 2.2. NPC -205 and NPC-232............................................................................................................2 2.3. NPC-300..................................................................................................................................2 2.4. Discussion................................................................................................................................3 3. Measurement Methodology...........................................................................................................4 3.1. Measurement Locations...........................................................................................................4 3.2. Types of Firearms....................................................................................................................4 3.3. Measurement Parameters........................................................................................................ 5 3.4. Weather Conditions.................................................................................................................. 5 3.5. Instrumentation........................................................................................................................5 4. Measurement Results....................................................................................................................5 5. Noise Assessment.......................................................................................................................10 6. Concluding Comments................................................................................................................11 Figures.................................................................................................................................................12 Appendices..........................................................................................................................................14 LIST OF TABLES Table 1: Measurement Locations..........................................................................................................4 Table 2: Measurement Results..............................................................................................................5 LIST OF APPENDICES APPENDIX A — Weather Conditions APPENDIX B — Measurement Results SWALL.w SWALLOW ACOUSTIC CONSULTANTS LTD. Toronto: 366 Revus Ave., Unit 23 Mississauga, ON, Canada, L5G 4S5, 905-271-7888 Ottawa: 116 Albert Street, 3rd Floor, Ottawa, ON, Canada, K1 P 5G3, 613-565-1800 TA-L, � :+�• ��o, �.�, omasetti acoustic((Dthorntontomasetti.com www.thorntontomasetti.com :�f Orono Fish and Hunt Club SACL Project #B6-611 April 28, 2017 1. Introduction Page 1 At the request of the Municipality of Clarington, Swallow Acoustic Consultants Ltd. (SACL) conducted sound level measurements for shooting noise from the Orono Fish and Hunt Club on March 23, 2017. The report outlines the measurement results and assessment. The Orono Fish and Hunt Club is located at 3292 Concession Road 7 in Orono. Sound level measurements took place at the nearby residential properties when firearms were discharged from the 25 -metre range that is located approximately 660 m north of Concession Road 7, between Leskard Road and Brown Road. At the time of the measurements, the following noise control measures were being implemented: x Berms around the shooting range to the north, east and west. Height of the berms are unknown. x Acoustic panels covered by burlap, which provide sound absorption, have been installed to separate each of the firing positions. x Sound attenuation insulation has been added on the structure at the firing line, including a portion of the wall facing the firing points and an area on the underside of the roof. It is our understanding that implementation of noise control measures is ongoing. The objective of the measurements is to asses the shooting noise with the Municipality of Clarington noise bylaws. In addition, the measurement results are compared with the measurement results in a report prepared by SACL and dated February 14, 2012. The above noise control measures were not implemented at the time of the measurements in 2012. 2. Noise Criteria The municipality noise bylaws and the Ontario Ministry of Environment and Climate Change (MOECC) noise guidelines are compared in the following sections. 2.1. Noise Bylaws Sections related to shooting ranges in the Municipality of Clarington noise bylaws 2007-071 are outlined as follow: Section 3.1 A noise curfew shall apply to the Orono Fish and Hunt Club. The curfew shall be from 9:00 p.m. until 8:00 a.m. the following day (Monday through Saturday), 9:00 p.m. Saturday until 10:00 a.m. Sunday, and 4:00 p.m. Sunday until 8:00 a.m. Monday. Section 3.1.1 During non -curfew times, any noise emanating from the use of a shooting range shall not exceed: SWALL.w SWALLOW ACOUSTIC CONSULTANTS LTD. Toronto: 366 Revus Ave., Unit 23 Mississauga, ON, Canada, L5G 4S5, 905-271-7888 Ottawa: 116 Albert Street, 3rd Floor, Ottawa, ON, Canada, K1 P 5G3, 613-565-1800 TA-L, � :+�• ��o, �.�, omasetti acoustic((Dthorntontomasetti.com www.thorntontomasetti.com :�f Orono Fish and Hunt Club Page 2 SACL Project #B6-611 April 28, 2017 40* (a) 70 dBAI at the point of reception for any shooting range which began operation prior to January 1 sl 1980; or (b) 50 dBAI at the point of reception for any shooting range which began operation after January 1 sl 1980. It is our understanding that Orono Fish and Hunt Club began operation prior to January 1 sl 1980; therefore the 70 dBAI sound level limit is applicable. 2.2. NPC -205 and NPC -232 Both MOECC publication NPC -205 "Sound Level Limits for Stationary Sources in Class 1 & 2 Areas (Urban)" and NPC -232 "Sound Level Limits for Stationary Sources in Class 3 areas (Rural)" have the same sound level limits for impulsive noise, including the sound level limits for impulsive sounds from the discharge of firearms on the premises of a licensed gun club. The sound level limit at a point of reception expressed in terms of the Logarithmic Mean Impulse Sound Level (LLM) is: x 70 dBAI if the gun club were operating before January 1, 1980; or x 50 dBAI if the gun club began to operate after January 1, 1980; or x The LLM prior to expansion, alteration or conversion. The sound level limits in NPC -205 and NPC -232 are similar to those in the Municipality of Clarington noise bylaws except that the sound level limits are expressed in L LM. NPC -205 and NPC -232 were consolidated and replaced by NPC -300 in 2013. 2.3. NPC -300 The MOECC publication NPC -300 dated August 2013 replaced NPC -205 and NPC -232. Sound level limit for impulsive sound from a stationary source at a point of reception, expressed in terms of LLM, is the higher of the applicable exclusion limit value given in Table B-3 or Table B-4, or the background sound level for that point of reception. SWALL.w SWALLOW ACOUSTIC CONSULTANTS LTD. Toronto: 366 Revus Ave., Unit 23 Mississauga, ON, Canada, L5G 4S5, 905-271-7888 Ottawa: 116 Albert Street, 3rd Floor, Ottawa, ON, Canada, K1 P 5G3, 613-565-1800 TA-L, � :+�• ��o, �.�, omasetti acoustic((Dthorntontomasetti.com www.thorntontomasetti.com :�f Orono Fish and Hunt Club SACL Project #B6-611 April 28, 2017 Table B-3 Exclusion Limit Values for Impulsive Sound Leel (L,.,[, dBAI) Outdoor Points of Reception Time of Day Actual Number of Impulses in Period of One -Hour Class I Area Class 2 Area Class 3 Area Class 4 Area 07:00 - 23:00 9 or more 50 50 45 55 7 10 8 7 to 8 55 55 50 60 5106 5 to 6 60 60 55 65 4 4 l 65 65 60 70 3 3 70 70 G5 75 2 2 73 75 70 80 1 1 80 80 75 85 Table B-4 Exclusion Limit Values for Impulsive Sound Leel (L,,,, dBAI) Plane of VVindmv - Poise Sensitive Spaces (Day/Night) Actual Number of Impulses in Period of one -Hour Class 1 Area (07:00-23:00)1 (23:00-07;00) Class 2 Area (07:00-23:00)1 (23:00-07:00) Class 3 Area (07:00-19:00)1 (19:0047:00) Class 4 Area (07:00-23:00)1 {23;00-07:00] 9 or more 50:45 501`45 45140 60'55 7 10 8 55:50 55`50 50:`45 65:0 5106 60:'55 60155 5550 70%65 4 65:60 61:00 60.:S5 7570 3 70:05 70:0 65160 80'75 2 75:70 75`70 70.65 85.80 1 80:75 80175 7570 %85 Page 3 The sound level limits for impulsive noise depend on the frequency of the impulses, time of the impulsive noise occurs and the area in which the noise receptors are located. 2.4. Discussion Currently the applicable sound level limit for the Orono Fish and Hunt Club is 70 dBAI according to the noise bylaws presented above. Under the curfew in the noise bylaws, the Orono Fish and Hunt Club can operate until 9:00 p.m on Mondays through Saturdays and until 4:00 p.m. on Sundays. The frequency of discharging firearms in the gun club likely exceeds 9 times in an hour during normal operations. Therefore, the sound level limit according to NPC -300 can range from 50 dBAI during daytime in Class 2 area to 40 dBAI on the plane of windows in Class 3 area during evening. The sound level limits in NPC -300 are significantly more stringent than the current sound level limit in the noise bylaws. SWALL.w SWALLOW ACOUSTIC CONSULTANTS LTD. Toronto: 366 Revus Ave., Unit 23 Mississauga, ON, Canada, L5G 4S5, 905-271-7888 Ottawa: 116 Albert Street, 3rd Floor, Ottawa, ON, Canada, K1 P 5G3, 613-565-1800 �:I ���o, .omasett� acoustic(a7thorntontomasetti.com www.thorntontomasetti.com ::��� ,,•.�, Orono Fish and Hunt Club Page 4 SACL Project #B6-611 April 28, 2017 40* In addition, the sound level limits for impulsive sound in NPC -300 are expressed in terms of the LLM, which is considered the average of multiple impulsive sounds that occur on site. The noise bylaws do not specifically require the assessment on the L LM of multiple impulsive sounds. 3. Measurement Methodology Sound level measurements were conducted during the daytime period on March 23, 2017. The following sections describe the methodology of the measurements. 3.1. Measurement Locations Sound levels were measured at the residential properties near the shooting range, as listed in Table 1. These locations are shown in Figure 1. Table 1: Measurement Locations Address Measurement Location 3282 Concession Road 7 Backyard, approximately 30 m from the house. 7374 Leskard Road Backyard, approximately 30 m from the house, beside the pond. 7606 Leskard Road Backyard, approximately 30 m from the house. 7615 Leskard Road Front yard, approximately 25 m from the house. 7685 Leskard Road Front yard, approximately 30 m from the house. 7560 Leskard Road Backyard, approximately 30 m from the house. 7506 Leskard Road Backyard, approximately 13 m from the house. 7580 Leskard Road Backyard, approximately 30 m from the house. 3.2. Types of Firearms The discharge of the following firearms was measured: x Sako 6.5x55 x Lee Enfield 303 British x 375 H&H Magnum x Winchester 20 GA x Winchester 12 GA x 9 mm x 0.38 Special SWALL.w SWALLOW ACOUSTIC CONSULTANTS LTD. Toronto: 366 Revus Ave., Unit 23 Mississauga, ON, Canada, L5G 4S5, 905-271-7888 Ottawa: 116 Albert Street, 3rd Floor, Ottawa, ON, Canada, K1 P 5G3, 613-565-1800 TA-L, � :+�• ��o, �.�, omasetti acoustic((Dthorntontomasetti.com www.thorntontomasetti.com :�f Orono Fish and Hunt Club Page 5 SACL Project #136-611 April 28, 2017 40* Some of the firearms were not available during measurement at some of the measurement locations. For each type of firearm fired, two to four shots from the same firearm were measured. Each shot was fired at intervals so that each shot impulse could be measured individually. 3.3. Measurement Parameters The impulse sound levels of the shooting noise were measured in A -weighted decibels and are denoted dBAI. The impulse sound level is the sound level of an impulsive sound as measured with a sound level meter set to impulse response. The ambient sound levels, expressed in Equivalent Sound Level (Leq) were measured at each measurement location over a 5 minute period when no shooting noise was generated. 3.4. Weather Conditions Weather conditions during the sound level measurements are provided in Appendix A. The weather conditions are suitable for outdoor sound level measurements. 3.5. Instrumentation Sound levels were measured using a Bruel and Kjaer Hand-held Analyzer Type 2250 (serial number 3007997) with a Bruel and Kjaer '/2" Prepolarized Condenser Microphone Type 4189 (serial number 2983426). The sound level meter was field -calibrated with a Bruel and Kjaer Sound Level Calibrator Type 4230 (serial number 1274906). A wind shield over the microphone was used for all outdoor sound level measurements. Calibration documents for the instrumentation are available upon request. 4. Measurement Results The measurement results are summarised in Table 2. Detailed measurement results are listed in Appendix B. Table 2: Measurement Results Location Firearm Impulse Sound Level (dBAI) Leq (5 min) (dBA) 3282 Concession Rd 7 Sako 6.5x55 52 - 3282 Concession Rd 7 Sako 6.5x55 51 - 3282 Concession Rd 7 Sako 6.5x55 48 - 3282 Concession Rd 7 Lee Enfield 303 British 49 - 3282 Concession Rd 7 Lee Enfield 303 British 50 - 3282 Concession Rd 7 Lee Enfield 303 British 52 - 3282 Concession Rd 7 375 H&H Magnum 50 - SWALL.w SWALLOW ACOUSTIC CONSULTANTS LTD. Toronto: 366 Revus Ave., Unit 23 Mississauga, ON, Canada, L5G 4S5, 905-271-7888 Ottawa: 116 Albert Street, 3rd Floor, Ottawa, ON, Canada, K1 P 5G3, 613-565-1800 TA-L, � :+�• ��o, �.�, omasetti acoustic((Dthorntontomasetti.com www.thorntontomasetti.com :�f Orono Fish and Hunt Club SACL Project #B6-611 April 28, 2017 Page 6 Location Firearm Impulse Sound Level (dBAI) Leq (5 min) (dBA) 3282 Concession Rd 7 375 H&H Magnum 45 - 3282 Concession Rd 7 375 H&H Magnum 49 - 3282 Concession Rd 7 Winchester 20 GA 54 - 3282 Concession Rd 7 Winchester 20 GA 49 - 3282 Concession Rd 7 Winchester 20 GA 51 - 3282 Concession Rd 7 Winchester 12 GA 50 - 3282 Concession Rd 7 Winchester 12 GA 53 - 3282 Concession Rd 7 Winchester 12 GA 50 - 3282 Concession Rd 7 9 mm 51 - 3282 Concession Rd 7 9 mm 50 - 3282 Concession Rd 7 0.38 Special 54 - 3282 Concession Rd 7 0.38 Special 43 - 3282 Concession Rd 7 0.38 Special 45 - 3282 Concession Rd 7 Ambient - 37 7374 Leskard Rd Sako 6.5x55 52 - 7374 Leskard Rd Sako 6.5x55 52 - 7374 Leskard Rd Sako 6.5x55 54 - 7374 Leskard Rd Lee Enfield 303 British 54 - 7374 Leskard Rd Lee Enfield 303 British 54 - 7374 Leskard Rd Lee Enfield 303 British 54 - 7374 Leskard Rd 375 H&H Magnum 58 - 7374 Leskard Rd 375 H&H Magnum 62 - 7374 Leskard Rd 375 H&H Magnum 59 - 7374 Leskard Rd Winchester 20 GA 46 - 7374 Leskard Rd Winchester 20 GA 54 - 7374 Leskard Rd Winchester 20 GA 45 - 7374 Leskard Rd Winchester 12 GA 50 - SWALLOW T L,az co . Tomasetti SWALLOW ACOUSTIC CONSULTANTS LTD. Toronto: 366 Revus Ave., Unit 23 Mississauga, ON, Canada, L5G 4S5, 905-271-7888 Ottawa: 116 Albert Street, 3rd Floor, Ottawa, ON, Canada, K1 P 5G3, 613-565-1800 acoustic(a)thorntontomasetti.com www.thorntontomasetti.com Orono Fish and Hunt Club SACL Project #B6-611 April 28, 2017 Page 7 Location Firearm Impulse Sound Level (dBAI) Leq (5 min) (dBA) 7374 Leskard Rd Winchester 12 GA 50 - 7374 Leskard Rd Winchester 12 GA 49 - 7374 Leskard Rd 9 mm 51 - 7374 Leskard Rd 9 mm 53 - 7374 Leskard Rd 0.38 Special 48 - 7374 Leskard Rd 0.38 Special 45 - 7374 Leskard Rd Ambient - 44 7606 Leskard Rd Sako 6.5x55 55 - 7606 Leskard Rd Sako 6.5x55 58 - 7606 Leskard Rd Sako 6.5x55 54 - 7606 Leskard Rd Lee Enfield 303 British 53 - 7606 Leskard Rd Lee Enfield 303 British 55 - 7606 Leskard Rd Lee Enfield 303 British 57 - 7606 Leskard Rd Winchester 20 GA 51 - 7606 Leskard Rd Winchester 20 GA 52 - 7606 Leskard Rd Winchester 20 GA 51 - 7606 Leskard Rd Winchester 12 GA 66 - 7606 Leskard Rd Winchester 12 GA 66 - 7606 Leskard Rd Winchester 12 GA 69 - 7606 Leskard Rd 9 mm 63 - 7606 Leskard Rd 9 mm 57 - 7606 Leskard Rd 9 mm 58 - 7606 Leskard Rd 0.38 Special 51 - 7606 Leskard Rd 0.38 Special 51 - 7606 Leskard Rd Ambient - 47 7615 Leskard Rd Sako 6.5x55 69 - 7615 Leskard Rd Sako 6.5x55 68 - SWALLOW T L,az co . Tomasetti SWALLOW ACOUSTIC CONSULTANTS LTD. Toronto: 366 Revus Ave., Unit 23 Mississauga, ON, Canada, L5G 4S5, 905-271-7888 Ottawa: 116 Albert Street, 3rd Floor, Ottawa, ON, Canada, K1 P 5G3, 613-565-1800 acoustic(a)thorntontomasetti.com www.thorntontomasetti.com Orono Fish and Hunt Club SACL Project #B6-611 April 28, 2017 Page 8 Location Firearm Impulse Sound Level (dBAI) Leq (5 min) (dBA) 7615 Leskard Rd Sako 6.5x55 59 - 7615 Leskard Rd Lee Enfield 303 British 62 - 7615 Leskard Rd Lee Enfield 303 British 69 - 7615 Leskard Rd Lee Enfield 303 British 67 - 7615 Leskard Rd 9 mm 62 - 7615 Leskard Rd 9 mm 72 - 7615 Leskard Rd 9 mm 58 - 7615 Leskard Rd 0.38 Special 62 - 7615 Leskard Rd 0.38 Special 52 - 7615 Leskard Rd 0.38 Special 62 - 7615 Leskard Rd Ambient - 42 7685 Leskard Rd Sako 6.5x55 60 - 7685 Leskard Rd Sako 6.5x55 57 - 7685 Leskard Rd Sako 6.5x55 61 - 7685 Leskard Rd Lee Enfield 303 British 68 - 7685 Leskard Rd Lee Enfield 303 British 57 - 7685 Leskard Rd Lee Enfield 303 British 59 - 7685 Leskard Rd Winchester 20 GA 57 - 7685 Leskard Rd Winchester 20 GA 65 - 7685 Leskard Rd Winchester 20 GA 58 - 7685 Leskard Rd Winchester 12 GA 54 - 7685 Leskard Rd Winchester 12 GA 61 - 7685 Leskard Rd Winchester 12 GA 50 - 7685 Leskard Rd Ambient - 39 7560 Leskard Rd Sako 6.5x55 59 - 7560 Leskard Rd Sako 6.5x55 61 - 7560 Leskard Rd Sako 6.5x55 62 - SWALLOW T L,az co . Tomasetti SWALLOW ACOUSTIC CONSULTANTS LTD. Toronto: 366 Revus Ave., Unit 23 Mississauga, ON, Canada, L5G 4S5, 905-271-7888 Ottawa: 116 Albert Street, 3rd Floor, Ottawa, ON, Canada, K1 P 5G3, 613-565-1800 acoustic(a)thorntontomasetti.com www.thorntontomasetti.com Orono Fish and Hunt Club SACL Project #B6-611 April 28, 2017 Page 9 Location Firearm Impulse Sound Level (dBAI) Leq (5 min) (dBA) 7560 Leskard Rd Lee Enfield 303 British 62 - 7560 Leskard Rd Lee Enfield 303 British 55 - 7560 Leskard Rd Lee Enfield 303 British 60 - 7560 Leskard Rd Winchester 20 GA 53 - 7560 Leskard Rd Winchester 20 GA 52 - 7560 Leskard Rd Winchester 20 GA 50 - 7560 Leskard Rd Winchester 12 GA 52 - 7560 Leskard Rd Winchester 12 GA 52 - 7560 Leskard Rd Winchester 12 GA 53 - 7560 Leskard Rd Ambient - 41 7506 Leskard Rd Sako 6.5x55 58 - 7506 Leskard Rd Sako 6.5x55 60 - 7506 Leskard Rd Sako 6.5x55 63 - 7506 Leskard Rd Lee Enfield 303 British 57 - 7506 Leskard Rd Lee Enfield 303 British 61 - 7506 Leskard Rd Lee Enfield 303 British 66 - 7506 Leskard Rd Winchester 20 GA 53 - 7506 Leskard Rd Winchester 20 GA 53 - 7506 Leskard Rd Winchester 20 GA 56 - 7506 Leskard Rd Winchester 12 GA 56 - 7506 Leskard Rd Winchester 12 GA 55 - 7506 Leskard Rd Winchester 12 GA 53 - 7506 Leskard Rd Ambient - 51 7580 Leskard Rd Sako 6.5x55 74 - 7580 Leskard Rd Sako 6.5x55 69 - 7580 Leskard Rd Sako 6.5x55 61 - 7580 Leskard Rd Sako 6.5x55 64 - SWALLOW T L,az co . Tomasetti SWALLOW ACOUSTIC CONSULTANTS LTD. Toronto: 366 Revus Ave., Unit 23 Mississauga, ON, Canada, L5G 4S5, 905-271-7888 Ottawa: 116 Albert Street, 3rd Floor, Ottawa, ON, Canada, K1 P 5G3, 613-565-1800 acoustic(a)thorntontomasetti.com www.thorntontomasetti.com Orono Fish and Hunt Club SACL Project #B6-611 April 28, 2017 Page 10 Location Firearm Impulse Sound Level (dBAI) Leq (5 min) (dBA) 7580 Leskard Rd Lee Enfield 303 British 60 - 7580 Leskard Rd Lee Enfield 303 British 60 - 7580 Leskard Rd Lee Enfield 303 British 61 - 7580 Leskard Rd Winchester 20 GA 61 - 7580 Leskard Rd Winchester 20 GA 53 - 7580 Leskard Rd Winchester 20 GA 54 - 7580 Leskard Rd Winchester 12 GA 61 - 7580 Leskard Rd Winchester 12 GA 70 - 7580 Leskard Rd Winchester 12 GA 64 - 7580 Leskard Rd Ambient - 43 5. Noise Assessment Most of the measured impulsive sound levels are at or below the noise bylaw sound level limit of 70 dBAI except 1 gun shot measured at 72 dBAI at 7615 Leskard Road and one gun shot measured at 74 dBAI at 7580 Leskard Road. 7615 Leskard Road was not a measurement location in 2012. The firing of a Sako 6.5x55 was not measured at 7580 Leskard Road in 2012, However, the discharge of both firearms, Sako 0.458 Magnum rifle and Lee-Endfield 303 British rifle, measured at the same location in 2012 were below 70 dBAI. During the 2012 measurements with the similar types of firearms, the measured sound levels at 7374 Leskard Road and 7606 Leskard Road exceeded 70 dBAI. The measured sound level was as high as 79 dBAI at 7374 Leskard Road and as high as 82 dBAI at 7606 Leskard Road. However, with the implementation of the noise control measures described in Section 1, the measured sound levels are currently below 70 dBAI at these two locations. The measurements were conducted with one firearm fired at a time so that the measurement results in 2012 could be compared directly. The measurements do not reflect the condition of a typical event at the Orono Fish and Hunt Club, when a mixture of several firearms are discharged in an hour, and therefore the LLM of the measured impulsive sounds were not calculated. During an event, the LLM depends on the number of shots with high sound levels and the number of shots with lower sound levels. For example, if only one or two shots that exceed 70 dBAI are fired and many shots that are well below 70 dBAI are fired in an hour, the LLM may meet the 70 dBAI sound level limit. SWALL.w SWALLOW ACOUSTIC CONSULTANTS LTD. Toronto: 366 Revus Ave., Unit 23 Mississauga, ON, Canada, L5G 4S5, 905-271-7888 Ottawa: 116 Albert Street, 3rd Floor, Ottawa, ON, Canada, K1 P 5G3, 613-565-1800 TA-L, � :+�• ��o, �.�, omasetti acoustic((Dthorntontomasetti.com www.thorntontomasetti.com :�f Orono Fish and Hunt Club Page 11 SACL Project #B6-611 April 28, 2017 40* It is our understanding that complaints have been received from residents that multiple discharge of firearms at the same time resulted in significantly higher sound levels. Such a condition was not measured due to the limited number of firearms available at the time of measurement. 6. Concluding Comments Sound level measurements for the Orono Fish Hunt Club were conducted at 8 residential properties on March 23, 2017. The majority of the measured sound levels meet the noise bylaws sound level limit. Only two gun shots at two locations exceed the sound level limit. In addition, the measurement results indicate that the implemented noise control measures attenuate the shooting noise at the two locations to meet the sound level limit that previously exceeded the limit in 2012. Please do not hesitate to contact us if there are any questions. Yours Truly, Swallow Acoustic Consultants Ltd. Pearlie Yung, M.Sc., P.Eng. Senior Project Engineer Reviewed by Galen Wong, M.A.Sc. Senior Project Director SWALL.w SWALLOW ACOUSTIC CONSULTANTS LTD. Toronto: 366 Revus Ave., Unit 23 Mississauga, ON, Canada, L5G 4S5, 905-271-7888 Ottawa: 116 Albert Street, 3rd Floor, Ottawa, ON, Canada, K1 P 5G3, 613-565-1800 TA-L, � :+�• ��o, �.�, omasetti acoustic((Dthorntontomasetti.com www.thorntontomasetti.com :�f Orono Fish and Hunt Club SACL Project #B6-611 April 28, 2017 Figures SWALLOW T L,az co . Tomasetti Page 12 SWALLOW ACOUSTIC CONSULTANTS LTD. Toronto: 366 Revus Ave., Unit 23 Mississauga, ON, Canada, L5G 4S5, 905-271-7888 Ottawa: 116 Albert Street, 3rd Floor, Ottawa, ON, Canada, K1 P 5G3, 613-565-1800 acoustic(a)thorntontomasetti.com www.thorntontomasetti.com 1� rbA Orono Fish and Hunt Club SACL Project #B6-611 April 28, 2017 Appendices SWALLOW T L,az co . Tomasetti Page 14 SWALLOW ACOUSTIC CONSULTANTS LTD. Toronto: 366 Revus Ave., Unit 23 Mississauga, ON, Canada, L5G 4S5, 905-271-7888 Ottawa: 116 Albert Street, 3rd Floor, Ottawa, ON, Canada, K1 P 5G3, 613-565-1800 acoustic(a)thorntontomasetti.com www.thorntontomasetti.com Orono Fish and Hunt Club SACL Project #B6-611 April 28, 2017 APPENDIX A — Weather Conditions SWALLOW T L,az co . Tomasetti Page 15 SWALLOW ACOUSTIC CONSULTANTS LTD. Toronto: 366 Revus Ave., Unit 23 Mississauga, ON, Canada, L5G 4S5, 905-271-7888 Ottawa: 116 Albert Street, 3rd Floor, Ottawa, ON, Canada, K1 P 5G3, 613-565-1800 acoustic(a)thorntontomasetti.com www.thorntontomasetti.com Hourly Data Report for March 23, 2017 - Climate - Environment and Climate Change Ca... Page 1 of 2 1*1 Government Gouvernement of Canada du Canada Home s Environment and natural resources s Weather, Climate and Hazard s Past weather and climate s Historical Data Hourly Data Report for March 23, 2017 All times are specified in Local Standard Time (LST). Add 1 hour to adjust for Daylight Saving Time where and when it is observed. OSHAWA ONTARIO Latitude: 43°55'22.000" N Longitude: 78°53'00.041" W Elevation: 139.90 m Climate ID: 6155875 WMO ID: 71697 TC ID: YOO http://climate.weather.gc. ca/climate_datalhourly_data_e.html?hlyRange=2010-06-03 %7C... 2017/04/28 Dew Point Rel Wind Wind Stn Wind Temp Temp Hum Dir SSd Visibility Press Hmdx Chill Weather °C °C % 10's deg km/h km kPa n n n n n n TIME 00:00 -7.6 -12.9 66 34 17 16.1 101.68 -14 NA 01:00 -7.9 -12.8 68 M 4 16.1 101.70 -10 NA 02:00 -8.6 -13.2 70 0 16.1 101.70 NA 03:00 -8.7 -12.6 73 25 5 16.1 101.74 -11 NA 04:00 -10.2 -12.9 81 0 16.1 101.76 NA 05:00 -11.5 -13.4 86 0 16.1 101.80 NA 06:00 -12.2 -14.0 87 0 16.1 101.85 NA 07:00 -9.9 -11.5 88 0 16.1 101.90 NA http://climate.weather.gc. ca/climate_datalhourly_data_e.html?hlyRange=2010-06-03 %7C... 2017/04/28 Hourly Data Report for March 23, 2017 - Climate - Environment and Climate Change Ca... Page 2 of 2 08:00 Temp °C n -5.9 Dew Point Temp °C n -10.1 Rel Hum % n 73 Wind Dir 10's deg 20 Wind SSd km/h n 5 Visibility km n 16.1 Stn Press Hmdx kPa n 101.92 Wind Chill -8 Weather NA 09:00 -3.3 -9.3 64 22 9 16.1 101.93 -7 NA 10:00 -1.5 -11.2 48 20 11 16.1 101.91 -5 NA 11:00 -1.3 -13.0 41 21 13 16.1 101.88 -6 NA 12:00 -0.5 -10.8 46 20 15 16.1 101.83 -5 NA 13:00 -0.4 -12.0 42 16 17 16.1 101.75 -5 NA 14:00 0.2 -14.2 33 18 17 16.1 101.66 NA 15:00 0.5 -16.6 27 17 13 16.1 101.58 NA 16:00 1.0 -14.7 30 20 13 16.1 101.46 NA 17:00 1.1 -10.8 41 20 15 16.1 101.41 NA 18:00 0.3 -10.1 46 19 9 16.1 101.42 NA 19:00 -0.9 -9.4 53 11 11 16.1 101.34 -5 NA 20:00 -0.7 -8.9 54 11 9 16.1 101.33 -4 NA 21:00 -0.5 -7.3 60 11 15 16.1 101.22 -5 NA 22:00 0.0 -6.0 64 11 18 16.1 101.03 -5 NA 23:00 0.9 -5.0 65 11 18 16.1 100.94 NA Legend • E =Estimated • M =Missing • NA = Not Available • $ = Partner data that is not subject to review by the National Climate Archives Date modified: 2016-08-09 http://climate.weather.gc. ca/climate_datalhourly_data_e.html?hlyRange=2010-06-03 %7C... 2017/04/28 Orono Fish and Hunt Club SACL Project #B6-611 April 28, 2017 APPENDIX B —Measurement Results SWALLOW T L,ar tco . Tomasetti Page 16 SWALLOW ACOUSTIC CONSULTANTS LTD. Toronto: 366 Revus Ave., Unit 23 Mississauga, ON, Canada, L5G 4S5, 905-271-7888 Ottawa: 116 Albert Street, 3rd Floor, Ottawa, ON, Canada, K1 P 5G3, 613-565-1800 acoustic(a)thorntontomasetti.com www.thorntontomasetti.com Attachment 10 to Report CLD -014-17 Measurement Locations Address Measurement Location 2017 2017 2012 2012 Firearm Impulse Firearm Impulse Tested Sound Tested Sound Level Level (dBAI) (dBAI) 3282 Concession Backyard, approximately 30 m Sako 6.5x55 52 Sako 6.5x55 57.2 Road 7 from the house. 3282 Concession Backyard, approximately 30 m Sako 6.5x55 51 Sako 6.5x55 62.7 Road 7 from the house. 3282 Concession Backyard, approximately 30 m Sako 6.5x55 48 Sako 6.5x55 63.0 Road 7 from the house. 3282 Concession Backyard, approximately 30 m Lee Enfield 303 49 Lee -Enfield 303 48.7 Road 7 from the house. British British Rifle 3282 Concession Backyard, approximately 30 m Lee Enfield 303 50 Lee -Enfield 303 50.1 Road 7 from the house. British British Rifle 3282 Concession Backyard, approximately 30 m Lee Enfield 303 52 Lee -Enfield 303 55.4 Road 7 from the house. British British Rifle 3282 Concession Backyard, approximately 30 m 375 H&H 50 Sako .458 59.0 Road 7 from the house. Magnum Magnum Rifle 3282 Concession Backyard, approximately 30 m 375 H&H 45 Sako .458 56.8 Road 7 from the house. Magnum Magnum Rifle 3282 Concession Backyard, approximately 30 m 375 H&H 49 Sako .458 52.0 Road 7 from the house. Magnum Magnum Rifle 3282 Concession Backyard, approximately 30 m Sako .458 51.4 Road 7 from the house. Not tested in 2017 Magnum Rifle 3282 Concession Backyard, approximately 30 m Sako .458 51.4 Road 7 from the house. Magnum Rifle 3282 Concession Backyard, approximately 30 m Sako .458 51.1 Road 7 from the house. Magnum Rifle Attachment 10 to Report CLD -014-17 Address Measurement Location 2017 2017 2012 2012 Firearm Impulse Firearm Impulse Tested Sound Tested Sound Level Level (dBAI) (dBAI) 3282 Concession Backyard, approximately 30 m Winchester 20 54 Winchester 20 42.6 Road 7 from the house. GA GA 3282 Concession Backyard, approximately 30 m Winchester 20 49 Winchester 20 51.1 Road 7 from the house. GA GA 3282 Concession Backyard, approximately 30 m Winchester 20 51 Winchester 20 43.0 Road 7 from the house. GA GA 3282 Concession Backyard, approximately 30 m Winchester 12 50 Winchester 12 52.9 Road 7 from the house. GA GA 3282 Concession Backyard, approximately 30 m Winchester 12 53 Winchester 12 42.6 Road 7 from the house. GA GA 3282 Concession Backyard, approximately 30 m Winchester 12 50 Winchester 12 60.3 Road 7 from the house. GA GA 3282 Concession Backyard, approximately 30 m 9 mm 51 Road 7 from the house. 3282 Concession Backyard, approximately 30 m 9 mm 50 Road 7 from the house. 3282 Concession Backyard, approximately 30 m 0.38 Special 54 Road 7 from the house. Not tested in 2012 3282 Concession Backyard, approximately 30 m 0.38 Special 43 Road 7 from the house. 3282 Concession Backyard, approximately 30 m 0.38 Special 45 Road 7 from the house. 3282 Concession Backyard, approximately 30 m Ambient - Road 7 from the house. Attachment 10 to Report CLD -014-17 Address Measurement Location 2017 2017 2012 2012 Firearm Impulse Firearm Impulse Tested Sound Tested Sound Level Level (dBAI) (dBAI) 7374 Leskard Road Backyard, approximately 30 m Sako 6.5x55 52 Guns Fired out of from the house, beside the Order 79.3 pond. 7374 Leskard Road Backyard, approximately 30 m Sako 6.5x55 52 from the house, beside the 77 pond. 7374 Leskard Road Backyard, approximately 30 m Sako 6.5x55 54 from the house, beside the 74.8 pond. 7374 Leskard Road Backyard, approximately 30 m Lee Enfield 303 54 from the house, beside the British 74.6 pond. Guns Fired out of 7374 Leskard Road Backyard, approximately 30 m Lee Enfield 303 54 from the house, beside the British Order 71.9 pond. 7374 Leskard Road Backyard, approximately 30 m Lee Enfield 303 54 from the house, beside the British 71.2 pond. 7374 Leskard Road Backyard, approximately 30 m 375 H&H 58 from the house, beside the Magnum 71.1 pond. 7374 Leskard Road Backyard, approximately 30 m 375 H&H 62 from the house, beside the Magnum 71.1 pond. Attachment 10 to Report CLD -014-17 Address Measurement Location 2017 2017 2012 2012 Firearm Impulse Firearm Impulse Tested Sound Tested Sound Level Level (dBAI) (dBAI) 7374 Leskard Road Backyard, approximately 30 m 375 H&H 59 from the house, beside the Magnum 70.2 pond. 7374 Leskard Road Backyard, approximately 30 m Winchester 20 46 from the house, beside the GA 69.9 pond. 7374 Leskard Road Backyard, approximately 30 m Winchester 20 54 from the house, beside the GA 66.8 pond. 7374 Leskard Road Backyard, approximately 30 m Winchester 20 45 from the house, beside the GA 63.8 pond. 7374 Leskard Road Backyard, approximately 30 m Winchester 12 50 from the house, beside the GA 63.5 pond. Guns Fired out of Order 7374 Leskard Road Backyard, approximately 30 m Winchester 12 50 from the house, beside the GA 61.4 pond. 7374 Leskard Road Backyard, approximately 30 m Winchester 12 49 from the house, beside the GA 59.5 pond. 7374 Leskard Road Backyard, approximately 30 m from the house, beside the 59.2 pond. Attachment 10 to Report CLD -014-17 Address Measurement Location 2017 2017 2012 2012 Firearm Impulse Firearm Impulse Tested Sound Tested Sound Level Level (dBAI) (dBAI) 7374 Leskard Road Backyard, approximately 30 m 9 mm 51 from the house, beside the pond. 7374 Leskard Road Backyard, approximately 30 m 9 mm from the house, beside the 53 Not tested in 2012 pond. 7374 Leskard Road Backyard, approximately 30 m 0.38 Special 48 from the house, beside the pond. 7374 Leskard Road Backyard, approximately 30 m 0.38 Special 45 from the house, beside the pond. Not tested in 2012 7374 Leskard Road Backyard, approximately 30 m Ambient - from the house, beside the pond. 7606 Leskard Road Backyard, approximately 30 m Sako 6.5x55 55 Sako 6.5x55 Rifle 74.6 from the house. 7606 Leskard Road Backyard, approximately 30 m Sako 6.5x55 58 Sako 6.5x55 Rifle 74.6 from the house. 7606 Leskard Road Backyard, approximately 30 m Sako 6.5x55 54 Sako 6.5x55 Rifle 75.4 from the house. 7606 Leskard Road Backyard, approximately 30 m Lee Enfield 303 53 Lee Enfield 303 76.9 from the house. British British Rifle 7606 Leskard Road Backyard, approximately 30 m Lee Enfield 303 55 Lee Enfield 303 73.8 from the house. British British Rifle Attachment 10 to Report CLD -014-17 Address Measurement Location 2017 2017 2012 2012 Firearm Impulse Firearm Impulse Tested Sound Tested Sound Level Level (dBAI) (dBAI) 7606 Leskard Road Backyard, approximately 30 m Lee Enfield 303 57 Lee Enfield 303 76.1 from the house. British British Rifle 7606 Leskard Road Backyard, approximately 30 m Winchester 20 51 Winchester 20 69.9 from the house. GA GA 7606 Leskard Road Backyard, approximately 30 m Winchester 20 52 Winchester 20 63.5 from the house. GA GA 7606 Leskard Road Backyard, approximately 30 m Winchester 20 51 Winchester 20 70.0 from the house. GA GA 7606 Leskard Road Backyard, approximately 30 m Winchester 12 66 Winchester 12 67.8 from the house. GA GA 7606 Leskard Road Backyard, approximately 30 m Winchester 12 66 Winchester 12 66.5 from the house. GA GA 7606 Leskard Road Backyard, approximately 30 m Winchester 12 69 Winchester 12 67.7 from the house. GA GA 7606 Leskard Road Backyard, approximately 30 m SAKO .458 79.9 from the house. Not tested in 2017 Magnum Rifle 7606 Leskard Road Backyard, approximately 30 m SAKO .458 81.7 from the house. Magnum Rifle 7606 Leskard Road Backyard, approximately 30 m SAKO .458 80.5 from the house. Magnum Rifle 7606 Leskard Road Backyard, approximately 30 m 9 mm 63 from the house. Not tested in 2012 7606 Leskard Road Backyard, approximately 30 m 9 mm 57 from the house. 7606 Leskard Road Backyard, approximately 30 m 9 mm 58 from the house. Attachment 10 to Report CLD -014-17 Address Measurement Location 2017 2017 2012 2012 Firearm Impulse Firearm Impulse Tested Sound Tested Sound Level Level (dBAI) (dBAI) 7606 Leskard Road Backyard, approximately 30 m 0.38 Special 51 from the house. 7606 Leskard Road Backyard, approximately 30 m 0.38 Special 51 from the house. 7606 Leskard Road Backyard, approximately 30 m Ambient - from the house. 7615 Leskard Road Front yard, approximately 25 Sako 6.5x55 69 m from the house. Not Tested in 2012 7615 Leskard Road Front yard, approximately 25 Sako 6.5x55 68 m from the house. 7615 Leskard Road Front yard, approximately 25 Sako 6.5x55 59 m from the house. 7615 Leskard Road Front yard, approximately 25 Lee Enfield 303 62 m from the house. British 7615 Leskard Road Front yard, approximately 25 Lee Enfield 303 69 m from the house. British Not tested in 2012 7615 Leskard Road Front yard, approximately 25 Lee Enfield 303 67 m from the house. British 7615 Leskard Road Front yard, approximately 25 9 mm 62 m from the house. 7615 Leskard Road Front yard, approximately 25 9 mm 72 m from the house. 7615 Leskard Road Front yard, approximately 25 9 mm 58 m from the house. Attachment 10 to Report CLD -014-17 Address Measurement Location 2017 2017 2012 2012 Firearm Impulse Firearm Impulse Tested Sound Tested Sound Level Level (dBAI) (dBAI) 7615 Leskard Road Front yard, approximately 25 0.38 Special 62 m from the house. 7615 Leskard Road Front yard, approximately 25 0.38 Special 52 m from the house. 7615 Leskard Road Front yard, approximately 25 0.38 Special 62 m from the house. 7615 Leskard Road Front yard, approximately 25 Ambient - m from the house. 7685 Leskard Road Front yard, approximately 30 Sako 6.5x55 60 m from the house. Not tested in 2012 7685 Leskard Road Front yard, approximately 30 Sako 6.5x55 57 m from the house. 7685 Leskard Road Front yard, approximately 30 Sako 6.5x55 61 Not tested in 2012 m from the house. 7685 Leskard Road Front yard, approximately 30 Lee Enfield 303 68 Lee Enfield 303 62.2 m from the house. British British Rifle (traffic noise audible) 7685 Leskard Road Front yard, approximately 30 Lee Enfield 303 57 Lee Enfield 303 56.0 m from the house. British British Rifle 7685 Leskard Road Front yard, approximately 30 Lee Enfield 303 59 Lee Enfield 303 52.6 m from the house. British British Rifle 7685 Leskard Road Front yard, approximately 30 Not tested in 2017 SAKO .458 57.8 m from the house. Magnum Rifle Attachment 10 to Report CLD -014-17 Address Measurement Location 2017 2017 2012 2012 Firearm Impulse Firearm Impulse Tested Sound Tested Sound Level Level (dBAI) (dBAI) 7685 Leskard Road Front yard, approximately 30 SAKO .458 57.5 m from the house. Magnum Rifle 7685 Leskard Road Front yard, approximately 30 SAKO .458 57.6 m from the house. Magnum Rifle 7685 Leskard Road Front yard, approximately 30 Winchester 20 57 m from the house. GA 7685 Leskard Road Front yard, approximately 30 Winchester 20 65 m from the house. GA 7685 Leskard Road Front yard, approximately 30 Winchester 20 58 m from the house. GA Not tested in 2012 7685 Leskard Road Front yard, approximately 30 Winchester 12 54 m from the house. GA 7685 Leskard Road Front yard, approximately 30 Winchester 12 61 m from the house. GA 7685 Leskard Road Front yard, approximately 30 Winchester 12 50 m from the house. GA 7685 Leskard Road Front yard, approximately 30 Ambient - Not tested in 2012 m from the house. 7560 Leskard Road Backyard, approximately 30 m Sako 6.5x55 59 from the house. Not tested in 2012 7560 Leskard Road Backyard, approximately 30 m Sako 6.5x55 61 from the house. 7560 Leskard Road Backyard, approximately 30 m Sako 6.5x55 62 Not Tested in 2012 from the house. Attachment 10 to Report CLD -014-17 Address Measurement Location 2017 2017 2012 2012 Firearm Impulse Firearm Impulse Tested Sound Tested Sound Level Level (dBAI) (dBAI) 7560 Leskard Road Backyard, approximately 30 m Lee Enfield 303 62 Lee Enfield 303 59.5 from the house. British British Rifle 7560 Leskard Road Backyard, approximately 30 m Lee Enfield 303 55 Lee Enfield 303 64.0 from the house. British British Rifle 7560 Leskard Road Backyard, approximately 30 m Lee Enfield 303 60 Lee Enfield 303 62.8 from the house. British British Rifle 7560 Leskard Road Backyard, approximately 30 m Lee Enfield 303 64.2 * top from the house. British Rifle of slope 7560 Leskard Road Backyard, approximately 30 m SAKO .458 66.6 from the house. Not tested in 2017 Magnum Rifle 7560 Leskard Road Backyard, approximately 30 m SAKO .458 62.3 from the house. Magnum Rifle 7560 Leskard Road Backyard, approximately 30 m SAKO .458 66.6 from the house. Magnum Rifle 7560 Leskard Road Backyard, approximately 30 m SAKO .458 67.9 * top from the house. Magnum Rifle of slope 7560 Leskard Road Backyard, approximately 30 m Winchester 20 53 Not tested in 2012 from the house. GA 7560 Leskard Road Backyard, approximately 30 m Winchester 20 52 from the house. GA 7560 Leskard Road Backyard, approximately 30 m Winchester 20 50 from the house. GA Not tested in 2012 7560 Leskard Road Backyard, approximately 30 m Winchester 12 52 from the house. GA 7560 Leskard Road Backyard, approximately 30 m Winchester 12 52 from the house. GA Attachment 10 to Report CLD -014-17 Address Measurement Location 2017 2017 2012 2012 Firearm Impulse Firearm Impulse Tested Sound Tested Sound Level Level (dBAI) (dBAI) 7560 Leskard Road Backyard, approximately 30 m Winchester 12 53 from the house. GA 7506 Leskard Road Backyard, approximately 13 m Sako 6.5x55 58 SAKO .458 60.0 from the house. Magnum Rifle 7506 Leskard Road Backyard, approximately 13 m Sako 6.5x55 60 SAKO .458 59.7 from the house. Magnum Rifle 7506 Leskard Road Backyard, approximately 13 m Sako 6.5x55 63 SAKO .458 59.5 from the house. Magnum Rifle 7506 Leskard Road Backyard, approximately 13 m SAKO .458 67.7* top from the house. Not tested in 2017 Magnum Rifle of slope 7506 Leskard Road Backyard, approximately 13 m SAKO .458 68.3* top from the house. Magnum Rifle of slope 7506 Leskard Road Backyard, approximately 13 m SAKO .458 66.3* top from the house. Magnum Rifle of slope 7506 Leskard Road Backyard, approximately 13 m Lee Enfield 303 57 Not tested in 2012 from the house. British 7506 Leskard Road Backyard, approximately 13 m from the house. 7506 Leskard Road Backyard, approximately 13 m from the house. 7506 Leskard Road Backyard, approximately 13 m from the house. 7506 Leskard Road Backyard, approximately 13 m from the house. Lee Enfield 303 61 British Lee Enfield 303 66 British Winchester 20 53 GA Winchester 20 53 GA Not tested in 2012 Attachment 10 to Report CLD -014-17 Address Measurement Location 2017 2017 2012 2012 Firearm Impulse Firearm Impulse Tested Sound Tested Sound Level Level (dBAI) (dBAI) 7506 Leskard Road Backyard, approximately 13 m Winchester 20 56 from the house. GA 7506 Leskard Road Backyard, approximately 13 m Winchester 12 56 from the house. GA 7506 Leskard Road Backyard, approximately 13 m Winchester 12 55 from the house. GA 7506 Leskard Road Backyard, approximately 13 m Winchester 12 53 from the house. GA 7506 Leskard Road Backyard, approximately 13 m Ambient - from the house. 7580 Leskard Road Backyard, approximately 30 m Sako 6.5x55 74 Not tested in 2012 from the house. 7580 Leskard Road Backyard, approximately 30 m SAKO .458 63.2 from the house. Magnum Rifle 7580 Leskard Road Backyard, approximately 30 m SAKO .458 66.4 from the house. Magnum Rifle 7580 Leskard Road Backyard, approximately 30 m SAKO .458 64.0 from the house. Magnum Rifle 7580 Leskard Road Backyard, approximately 30 m Sako 6.5x55 69 from the house. 7580 Leskard Road Backyard, approximately 30 m Sako 6.5x55 61 from the house. 7580 Leskard Road Backyard, approximately 30 m Sako 6.5x55 64 from the house. Attachment 10 to Report CLD -014-17 Address Measurement Location 2017 2017 2012 2012 Firearm Impulse Firearm Impulse Tested Sound Tested Sound Level Level (dBAI) (dBAI) 7580 Leskard Road Backyard, approximately 30 m Lee Enfield 303 60 Lee Enfield 303 55.4 from the house. British British Rifle 7580 Leskard Road Backyard, approximately 30 m Lee Enfield 303 60 Lee Enfield 303 56.0 from the house. British British Rifle 7580 Leskard Road Backyard, approximately 30 m Lee Enfield 303 61 Lee Enfield 303 55.3 from the house. British British Rifle 7580 Leskard Road Backyard, approximately 30 m Winchester 20 61 from the house. GA 7580 Leskard Road Backyard, approximately 30 m Winchester 20 53 from the house. GA 7580 Leskard Road Backyard, approximately 30 m Winchester 20 54 from the house. GA Not tested in 2012 7580 Leskard Road Backyard, approximately 30 m Winchester 12 61 from the house. GA 7580 Leskard Road Backyard, approximately 30 m Winchester 12 70 from the house. GA 7580 Leskard Road Backyard, approximately 30 m Winchester 12 64 from the house. GA 7580 Leskard Road Backyard, approximately 30 m Ambient - from the house. Attachment 11 to Report CLD -014-17 October 22, 2016 Test Results Summarized in Logarithmic Mean Summar Measurement Location LLM 3282 Concession Rd 7 51 dBAI 7374 Leskard Rd 51 dBAI 7606 Leskard Rd 54 dBAI 7615 Leskard Rd 66 dBAI 7685 Leskard Rd 61 dBAI 7560 Leskard Rd 58 dBAI 7506 Leskard Rd 60 dBAI 7580 Leskard Rd 66 dBAI Clarington Emergency Services Report If this information is required in an alternate accessible format, please contact the Accessibility Coordinator at 905-623-3379 ext. 2131. Report To: General Government Committee Date of Meeting: May 29, 2017 Report Number: ESD -003-17 Resolution: File Number: By-law Number: Report Subject: Emergency Services Activity Report ❑ 4t" Quarter 2016 Recommendations: That Report ESD -003-17 be received for information. Municipality of Clarington Report ESD -003-17 Report Overview Page 2 The Emergency Services Department is responsible for delivering fire suppression and emergency response, fire prevention and public education programs in accordance with the Fire Protection and Prevention Act. This report provides Council with an overview of the activities associated with the DHSDLW HCM CSSNA RQDQG1 P F-19 HvSRQM:DQGI) WH Prevention Division in the fourth quarter of 2016. 1. Fire Suppression and Emergency Response 1.1 Fire Suppression and Emergency Response Core Services Fire suppression services are delivered in both an offensive and defensive mode and include search and rescue operations, forcible entry, ventilation, protecting exposures, salvage and overhaul as appropriate. Emergency pre -hospital care is provided through medical acts such as defibrillation, standard first aid and cardio pulmonary resuscitation. Special rescue services includes performing extrication using hand tools, air bags and heavy hydraulic tools as required. Fulltime firefighters are trained in Level 1 Basic Rope Rescue Techniques as determined by the Fire Chief. Water/Ice Rescue services are provided by those firefighters who are competently trained to perform the requested level of service as determined by the Fire Chief (up to Level III if so trained). Highly technical and specialized rescue services such as Trench Rescue, Confined Space, HUSAR and Structural Collapse are provided to the Awareness Level. Defensive hazardous material emergency response is conducted to the Operations Level by the fulltime firefighters and Awareness Level by the volunteer firefighters. 1.2 4t" Quarter Call Volume Fire Suppression staff responded to 914 calls in the 4th quarter of 2016, compared to 923 calls in the 3rd quarter. Of the 914 calls for service, 9 were fires with dollar loss, 12 were outdoor fires with no loss and 893 were non -fire calls. In comparison, of the 923 calls for service in the 3rd quarter, 17 were fires with dollar loss, 21 were outdoor fires with no loss and 885 were non -fire calls. The dollar loss in the 4th quarter totalled $1,642,050. Municipality of Clarington Report ESD --1 7 Page 3 1.3 Call Volume by Response Type Class for Q4 Response Type Call Volume 911 Unknown 49 Accidents 119 Alarms Commercial 13 Alarms Industrial 24 Alarms Residential 31 Fires / Explosions (may have been downgraded en route or upon arrival) 62 Medical Emergencies 505 Other Responses (not classified) 7 Public Hazards 101 Rescue Entrapment 1 Rescue Lockout 2 1.4 Call Volume by Geographical Area for Q4 (Generated by first vehicle dispatched according to geography) Geographical Area Call Volume Bowmanville and surrounding area 497 Newcastle and surrounding area 117 Orono and surrounding area 55 Courtice and surrounding area 207 Enniskillen and surrounding area 38 Municipality of Clarington Report ESD --1 7 Page 4 1.5 Annual Totals for Comparison at a Glance ❑ Final Figures Event Type 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Call Volume 3,411 3,405 3,483 3,636 3,736 Civilian Injuries 2 5 2 3 4 Firefighter Injuries 0 0 4 1 0 Fatalities 0 0 0 1 0 Dollar Loss $3,685,813 $2,995,046 $5,661,800 $4,563,251 $6,148,757 2. Fire Prevention Division 2.1 Fire Prevention, Inspection, Investigation and Public Education Activities Fire Prevention Activity ❑ Q4 Volume Inspections initiated by complaint 27 Inspections initiated by request 47 Inspections due to retrofit requirements 4 Inspections new construction 28 Inspections initiated by staff judgement 61 Fire investigations (additional assistance requested by an Incident Commander) 2 Plans Review new buildings 49 Plans Review fire safety 21 2.2 Distribution of Fire and Life Safety Information and Public Education Programs Public Education Activity ❑ Q4 Volume Station Tours 4 School Visit 1 Public Events 3 Safety Lectures 15 Municipality of Clarington Report ESD --1 7 Page 5 3. Concurrence Not Applicable 4. Conclusion It is respectfully recommended that this Report be received for information. 5. Strategic Plan Application Not applicable. Submitted by. Reviewed by: Gord Weir, Curry Clifford, MPA, CMO Director of Emergency & Fire Services Interim CAO Staff Contact: Gord Weir, Director of Emergency & Fire Services, 905-623-5126 ext. 2802 or gweir@clarington.net There are no interested parties to be notified of Council's decision. Attachments ❑ N/A National Access Awareness Week 2017 Andre O'Bumsawin Clarington Accessibility Advisory Committee �jClarcn What is National Access Awareness Week.? RICKHMSEN Man in MotionWorld Tour Photo Courtesy of The Rick Hansen Foundation �ess jClarcn Looking 2016 f OL ~.r _ '�-�'i.��� tom. f.tiL:_ ••�_-__�� �_�}i_� �`_ w • _ a • 1�, f- �,`'' ' -jam " • . t j• _ �• + i 7YL_ ti_ "r F- r'~ rt i �i _+•' �r. .• tip•~ .�•, �_ti' :_f }_- qb IC _tom f -NFL FL .• -J:`•-_ - - .}� � y •` � •_ � 'ate �' T �- Making aur beaches accessible to everyone! ccess fari►wn Contact Us Questions, comments and feedback about accessibility in Clarington can be directed to: Accessibility Co-ordinator 40 Temperance St. Bomanville, ON Ll C 3A6 905-623-3379 ext. 2131 ac:ressibi°,14•'.�:cJJ{1rir�a`<_.r.��et :ty nrw,c_Ia r•:Qto�,-.r-:eb:lity Additional Accessibility Information Accessibility Directorate of Ontario 777 Bay Street Suite 641 A&B Toronto, ON M7A 2J4 1-866-515-2425 5•n;'V'r•n,',t,r, -�r`o.cs:sr•.1C:C�eSs� i; y NoACCCSS �11�flarington v��Clarcn Clarington Accessibility Advisory Committee Who We Are We are a group of Clarington residents who are passionate about helping Clarington become a barrier -free community. We were appointed by Clarington Council and work with one Council representative over a four-year period Our Vision We. envision Clarington as a barrier - free community for residents, employees and visitors. We believe in inclusive communities for everyone to enjoy, regardless of age, ability, language or any other factor. What We Do We work to identify, prevent and remove barriers faced by people with disabilities We meet monthly and provide feedback on the following: • Clarin( ton's Accessibility policies and multi-yearaccessibility plan • Site plans and renovations at Municipal facilifles • Municipal programs and services • Public education and awareness • Compliance with provincial accessibility standards and legisiafiion Cour (goal is to make sure people with disabilities have the same opportunities as everyone else in Clarington. { a k w 4 ++ 1 ip��Clarcn On -Going Priorities *Accessible housing *Cross jurisdiction snow removal *Advocating for accessible businesses •Transportation — sidewalk connections & bus pads 9�Clarcn 2017 Activities *Update the Multi -Year Accessibility Plan *Work with the Clarington Board of Trade *Attend community festivals and events is Review site plan applications and Municipal projects OlvAccess �C arn Celebrating Access in the Community 9�Clarcn Thank you Clarington Council! 9��Clarc01W n a901r:0:11116■loll $1019rollIKmel1111r0 M.1 Institute for Hospitality & Tourism Research AirKnb: Why Tourists Choose qP It and How They Use It ,olk MFINT M;F1WIGH SNhpSHoTs HOME ABOUT US - RESEARCH - NEWS & tn' INSTITUTE FOR HOSPITALITY AND TOURISM RESEARCH Established to connect with industry and enhance our reputation beyond education and skill focused training, ourfocus has been to work with industry partners to conduct applied research projects that provide our students with opportunities to learn and grow. Tourism as an export 1+1 The product moves to consumer 0 Money stays in Canada s x, Tourism as an export 1+1 M� The product stays in Canada, consumer must move to the product and takes money with them Foreign money still enters Canada • 400. t.`ire1 a t:44KOl a 101 1 a 1 [M:. �■■KM o J t 7 fil 1. Mal -rrrTi AnAul / PRI mUltd oil I fill pop , ilIaI■L ����;_• .'v . ■�� lKf=� y � 01 � 06RA ■ @ ■ @ ■ ■l . @ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ \ ^ ���■■■■� � . , . tee. �@ � � � ■ � � � | ||| | & ����;_• .'v . ■�� lKf=� y � 01 � 06RA ■ @ ■ @ ■ ■l . @ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ \ ^ ���■■■■� � . , . tee. �@ � � � ■ � � • 4 � 1 imp w i qk JC ' yl ,+ 4 Tourism product Object, service, experience being sold • Transport, accommodation, restaurants, culture, markets, environment, entertainment, theatre, festivals... Tourism businesses "are in a relationship that on the one hand consists of competition due to conflicting interests and on the other hand consists of cooperation due to common interests" (Wang & Krakover, 2008. p. 130). An overall destination with a combined mix of products... TED ROGERS SCHOOL Hospitality Tourism Management Info and distribution Me Too! ! Like It! M Access tripadvis RESTAURANT ►unity 4 _, Nhat was good/ bad? Will we return? TO our friends? Write a review? 177CS Yf.:1 • ;,i:: _, Nhat was good/ bad? Will we return? TO our friends? Write a review? Info and distribution Access Operators Community Nhat was good/ bad? Will we return? Tell our friends? Write a review? Info and distribution Me Too! I Like It! M 41TIll- 1 f� 1, -1-111 Access Operators Community 'hat was good/ bad? Will we return.? Tell our friends? Write a review? 177CS 'hat was good/ bad? Will we return.? Tell our friends? Write a review? u 1 x, V1 9c v i 4 \ �s } I mftlq�; ff, rip YL ' ice} y } � Ar To visit Toronto Whether it's your first or hundredth time, these are must -do's for your vis *Toronto, like eating the best baron sandwich ever at St. Lawrence Marts ritp:irnit, yN pQ8^i6 via Oantas -SeeTarontoNow First -timer's Guidc to Toronto Toro't:o, the city:hat brought you Drake a'td Dearassi H qh, somewhat flies under ane radar when is comes to tourism but i' delivers big t me in the areas of food, shoopi'tq. sport, culture. nightlife and nat-re. Exolore the _rban woodla'tds, eat... Top co'i' ,3.%!sI �5 4 ! .k'.±tea^i.;•.r•1 n tripadvisor° r f • *rrr�rx» *rrrrrrr, .s 1 WrrP1l fJrrX jr EJJJ 01 OF JJ TORONTOLA1311D l77 7 } + #; s� a :tf"�Ft1�lCllyii "•"u Customers Engaging Residents in Tourism • Visiting Friends and Relatives (VFR) • Residents bring visitors • Influence what they do • Participate in tourism when they host • Raise profile and awareness of place through authentic experiences • VFR visitors become `tourists' in other places • And hosts join them TED ROGERS SCHOOL Hospitality Tourism Management 79.1% 0to4 92.5% Have you hosted in the last... ? 79.5% 77.7% 79.8% 80.3% 74.4% m 61.1% 56.0% 5 to 10 11 to 20 20+ 3 yrs 12 mths 62.0% Born in Canada 61.8% Tota I 14% 0to4 I spent effort encouraging my guest to visit 13% 5 to 10 3% 6% 6% Strongly Agree Agree 11 to 20 20+ Born in Canada Total 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% In the last 3 years have you joined a guest on a visit to... ? (% of Total Population) 38.3% 32.9% 23.6% 20.6% 18.8% Eaton CN Tow Aqu ROM Zoo 17.0% 16.8% 15.4% Wndlnd City Hall AGO 15.4% Oth 70% 60 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% W In the last 3 years have you joined a guest on a visit to... ? (% of Total Population) Eaton CN Tow Aqu ■Oto4 ■5to 10 ROM Zoo Wndlnd City Hall AGO Oth 11 to 20 20+ Others 0 Total 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 5% 0% In the last 3 years have you visited another destination outside of the GTA (excluding Niagara) with a visitor and... ? (% of Total Population) 27.1% 22.0%22.2% 14.1% 8.3% ...stayed in paid acc ■Oto4 ■5to10 11.4% 11 to 20 24.7% 29.5% 13.5% 16.4% 14.2% � ...did not stay in paid acc 20+ Others ■ Total 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40 30% 20% 10% 0% Yes No a good place to be In general, as a place to live, the GTA is... Yes No thriving M Yes No improving 0 Yes No prosperous 0 ■ Yes No exciting Agree ■ Strongly agree ■ Yes No a place with a strong sense of community M Yes No supportive Census Profile, 2016 Census Clal`II`1g on, Municipality SUbdiviSioill. Oi?tario and Ontario [Pro=Jinkc-el Characteristic Population and dwellings Population, 2016 Population, 2011 Population percentage change, 2011 to 2016 Clarington, MU Ontario [Census Subdivision] Map Change geography Total Male Female Download Hierarchies Related data Ontario [Province] Data quality Map Change geography Total Male 92,013 13,448,494 ... 8 48 12,851 1 ... 8.8 4.6 Female . Key points... Tourism brings outside money in • Tourism can benefit residents But where does it go after...? Tourism isn't just hotels... Product is the whole experience Leverage the good, improve the bad . • But not always... Residents are connected to tourism TED ROGERS SCHOOL Hospitality Tourism Management NI- Bowmanville Underground Expansion Project General Government Committee Meeting May 29, 2017 41 CBM Aggregates � t i m. . Golder ST MARYS -- �it Agenda 1 . Introductions 2. Project Overview and Status Update 3. Key Areas of Interest 4. Environmental Assessment Process 5. Engagement Program 6. Next Steps 2 CBMAggregates Golder , . , - a f :, Associates J Project Overview CBM is proposing to build and operate a mine under the bed of Lake Ontario, adjacent to SMC's existing quarry. The Project proposes the: Construction a portal (access) from within the third bench of the existing quarry; „ Development of underground workings; Extraction and crushing of a maximum of 4M tonnes of limestone products per year using room and pillar mining methods common in Ontario (including under Lake Huron); Completion of secondary processing in the existing licensed quarry area; Shipment of limestone products to market, using existing infrastructure; and Closure of the underground mine after —100 years of operation. K AGGREGATE RESOURCE ■j, jjj!/ r +. + LICENCEAREA --� Si. YARYS CEA1ENi PROPERTY &4UNDAR'l f ' �� , . f"' � r COWC€PTl1AL UIiGERGRCI�WG MINE MUN!O PALITY D< GLx RINGTV N lILQJN:IPALIfY , Cc CLARWDipN S 5 k fi.T.Y wi "rila— 3 CBMAggregartes WAAssocialesolde- f �-�ta�SI,,:,I:,, J Update on Project Status 1. Material . CBM is still testing the quality of the rock at the proposed Site Exploration to ensure it is sufficient to move forward with the Project. and Testing 2. Baseline ' The first stage of the EA (describing existing conditions) is Studies complete. The effects assessment will be based on the results of the baseline studies. 3. Effects Detailed effects assessment studies will take several months Assessment to complete, following the results of quality testing. Studies CBMAggregates Golder , . , - a f :, Associates J Material Exploration and Testing ,, On -shore exploration and testing activities have extended through 2016 and 2017. ,, The quality of the resource is still being tested, and will be confirmed in 2017. �F4� -a mupa -'-[=P - -Alp j�nk"Tl' tE .}IF Ff%.; LC'.'r-P MFVEF= -=P=.^ - iVzTF ' 4 `. -L I twat Golder CBMAggregates Associates Baseline Studies Completed f Noise and Vibrations fAir Quality f Ground Stability and Subsidence f Soils, Contaminants, Sediment and Erosion f Climate Change f Groundwater Quality and Quantity f Surface Water Quality and Quantity f Source Water Protection f Wells and Drinking Water Sources f Natural or Human -made Hazards f Public Health and Safety fAreas of Ecological Importance fAquatic Species and Habitat f Terrestrial Species and Habitat f Endangered Species / Species at Risk f Migratory Bird Species f Recreation, Tourism and Navigation f Infrastructure, Industrial, Agriculture and Forestry Uses fSeasonal or Permanent Residences fArcheological, Cultural and Built Heritage Resources f First Nations and Metis Communities and Sites of Aboriginal Cultural Significance CBMAggregates Golder , . , - a f :, Associates J Key Areas of Interest „ Key areas of interest for residents, local industrial operations and government identified through the engagement program to date include: „ Noise, vibration and dust effects „ Surface water and groundwater „ Aquatic and terrestrial species and habitats „ Traffic and transportation, including the Waterfront Trail „ Outdoor recreation and tourism „ Project safety and interaction with local operations „ Consideration of cumulative effects „ EA process and schedule CBMAggregates Golder , . , - a f :, Associates J Addressing Key Areas of Interest The effects assessment studies will address all of the key areas of interest identified in detail. March 28, 2017 „ Potential changes in environmental and social conditions will be identified; Mitigation measures to avoid or reduce potential effects will be established; and Effects will be assessed based on their magnitude, duration, geographic extent, frequency and reversibility. „ The results of environmental studies (e.g., air quality, noise, vibrations, etc.) will be communicated to the social impact assessment team to consider potential indirect effects on residents, recreational users and other land users as applicable. „ The detailed mine design, construction and operational plans will be adjusted based on the results of the effects assessment. -a f CBMAggregates Golder :, WAAssociales J Safety - A Paramount Concern Concern Response from Geotechnical Specialists Seismic Activity / f Area is not highly seismically active or at risk for a major geological Earthquake earthquake, based on OPG structural hazard analysis for the nearby nuclear power plant. f Careful monitoring and the installation of additional rock support will assist in safeguarding the mine. Future mine design work would incorporate considerations related to seismic activity. Mine Collapse f Room and pillar mining is a very common mining method used successfully for many years. The size of the rooms and the pillars are carefully designed and monitored to ensure stability of the roof of the underground workings. f Stability of mined openings would be carefully monitored and additional rock support would be installed if needed. CBMAggregates Golder , . , - a f :, Associates J Environmental Assessment Milestones Ongoing Exploration Activities and Quality Testing Project Description Baseline Studies Effects Assessment (Project and cumulative) Project Document - action Environmental Permitting and Closure Planning/ Application CBMAggregates Golder , . , - a f :, Associates J Engagement Program ................................................................................................................................................ Ongoing Exploration ............................................................................................................................................... Notice o Notice of Opportunity to Commencemen * 01IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII Provide Input + 30 -day (MNDM Comment Period Open House #1 Baseline Results Open House #2 Assessment Results Notice o tatement of Completion + 30 -da Y SCompletion Comment Perio Open House #3 Project Documentation .................................................................................................................................. Permitting and Closure Planning/Application ..................................................................................................................................• CBMAggregates Golder lap, J Engagement Program „ Engagement activities that meet and exceed the requirements of the Class EA are ongoing: Meetings/ correspondence with provincial and municipal representatives Meetings / Open Houses with First Nations Meetings/ Development of correspondence with the CRC the Project - and individual specific website residents Offers to host a Site Tour Informational presentations and handouts posted to f CBMAggregates Golder :, WAAssociales J The Integration of Community Feedback Community feedback has been communicated and integrated into current and proposed EA studies and engagement program, such as: f EA schedule has been extended to provide additional time for consultation f Inclusion of a detailed traffic impact study in the effects assessment workplan f Modifications to the terrestrial and aquatic species and habitat baseline and effects assessment workplan f Modifications to the land use planning baseline f Additional communications with OPG due to f Modifications to the terrestrial species and safety concerns identified in -community habitat baseline and effects assessment (OPG has confirmed they have no concerns workplan; regarding the proposed Project to date) f Direct involvement of noise and vibration lead f Modifications to the terrestrial and aquatic in all community events to date species and habitat baseline and effects assessment workplan March 28, 2017# CBMAggregates Golder C; � , , = to f :, Associates J What Happens Following the EA? „ Should an EA be approved, it does not mean that the Project would move forward to construction immediately. „ Detailed Project design: establish a design that creates confidence that the Project will not have any significant effects „ Ongoing consultation: consultation with neighboring residents, industrial/business operations, Clarington Fire and EMS, MTO, etc. „ Extensive environmental and social permitting to be applied for and approved prior to the Project moving forward „ Result: 8-12 year time horizon to Project construction CBMAggregates Golder , . , - a f :, Associates J Permitting Requirements Exploration: The Project must comply with various Acts, permits, by-laws or other approvals to protect environmental and social conditions were obtained / are expected to be required from federal, provincial and municipal authorities, including: 11Transport Canada Approval of Works ' Canad,! 51DFO Fish Habitat Authorization � Ontario „ MNRF Well Licence and Land Use Permit „ Municipality of Clarington Noise By-law compliance or exemption Construction/Operation: The Project must comply with various Acts, permits, by-laws and other approvals, including: „ ECCC Species at Risk Act Permit „ Transport Canada Permit of Equivalent Level of Safety „ MOECC Permit to Take Water; Environmental Compliance Approval (Air, Noise, Water, etc.); and Effluent Monitoring and Effluent Limits; „ Municipality of Clarington Noise by-law compliance or exemption CBMAggregates Golder , . , - a f :, Associates J Next Steps • Confirm quality of limestone and Project definition • Complete the effects assessment for all biophysical and socio- economic potential effects • Host Site Tour (Summer - Fall 2017) • Meet with stakeholders to share this new information, or upon request CBMAggregates Golder , . , - a f :, Associates J Contact Us We want to hear from you! f Talk to our team members today f Contact us by phone /email David. Han ratty(a vcimentos.com (416) 696-4459 Alyson Beal(@golder.com Brian. Laine(@-ontario.ca (905) 567-6100 x1359 (705) 670-5859 „ Join us at future events (invitations through notices and emails to Project neighbors and interested persons; advertisements in local news outlet and on the Project website) „ Visit the Project website (bowmanvilleexpansion.ca) CBMAggregates Golder , . , - a f :, Associates J Ministry of Northern Development & Mines (MNDM) Clays Environmental Assessment St Marys Cement Inc. (SMC) Underground Aggregate Mining Proposal Municipality of Clarington General Government Committee May 29, 2017 Table of Contents >> MNDM's Class Environmental Assessment Categories &the Category C rationale for the St Mary s Project 2) MNDM Class EA process and Provincial Ministry roles in the process 3) The Public and Municipalities role in the Class EA process 4) Roles and responsibilities of the proponent in the Class EA s) Overall regulatory process MNDM's Class Environmental Assessment Categories Class EA process provides a decision-making structure that enables the requirements of the Environmental Assessment Act to be met. MNDM is responsible for: x screening proposed projects in accordance the Class EA; x assigning projects to the appropriate category; and x fulfilling the terms and conditions of the Class EA. There are four categories (Class "A" to "D") ranging from administrative matters with no anticipated environmental effects to major projects that are likely to have significant environment impacts. x "A" - no potential environmental effects, x "B" - being low potential, x "C" - being moderate potential; and x "D" - being significant potential. Category C rationale for the SMC Project SMC is applying for a discretionary grant from the Crown in the form of a mining lease under Section 176 of the Mining Act. x subject to MNDM Class EA screening The screening of project description resulted in a Category C designation based on: x Information available at the time of application; x Project anticipated to have low to moderate potential environmental effects and a moderate level of localized public interest x Lease application area is solely underground (mining rights only) x No surface activities or impacts upon the lease land (bed of Lake Ontario) x All material will be raised andprocessed through St Mary's current licenced quarry and within current operational and production limits and capacities x Under MNDM's Class EA, MNDM may reassign the proposed project to a higher category, as the assessment is conducted and if new information is brou ht forward that changes the project category. g g p J Category C Clays EA process The mandatory contact points for Category C projects are: x Notice of Opportunity to Provide Input (min. 30 -day consultation period); and x Notice of Completion (min. 30 -day review period). Notice provided to the appropriate government ministries and agencies (MOECC, MNRF), local municipal government, members of the public, Aboriginal communities and other interested persons. MNDM, if necessary, can address concerns by imposing additional conditions on the discretionary approval. If mitigation measures cannot address the concerns, MNDM will consider providing additional consultation opportunities and undertaking appropriate studies. Category C Class EA process Notice of Completion All parties that submitted comments will be notified by M N DM of the result the Class EA planning process (the decision) Statement of Completion Will be posted as an Information Notice on the Environmental Registry and on MNDM's Class EA web page. Completion of the Class EA is a requirement of, but is not the final decision to grant a lease. The Minister of Northern Development and Mines will make the final decision regarding a lease, based upon all inputs to the decision, including the Class EA. Public and Municipalities rale in the Class EA process Integral part of MNDM's of consultation) Class EA process (record Significant role in determining the outcome of a project by providing input and information and raising concerns about the proposed project. Will assist MNDM in considering all issues while making decisions. Are equal contributors to overall process Thank You Brian Laine Sr. Lands Technician Ministry of Northern Development & Mines 933 Ramsey Lk Rd, 3rd Floor, Sudbury, ON P3E 5B5 Telephone: +l (705) 670--5859 Email: brian.lai ne@ontario.ca Additional Information Roles and responsibilities of the proponent in the Clasp EA MNDM is responsible for implementation, overseeing, monitoring and assuring compliance with the Class EA. SMC, as the proponent is responsible for completing the environmental assessment in accordance with the Class EA requirements. These EA requirements include: x Public, community, and stakeholder engagement, including public notices, open houses, and opportunities for public input, comments, and submissions; x Intergovernmental and agency input and review; x Baseline studies & effects assessment including ecological, terrestrial, groundwater, geological, and geotechnical investigation and report; and x Management and mitigation plans if or where potential environmental effects are identified SMC Approvals Required in Mineral C��p�orr�doo� DevelODment Se CEedadooIM Well licence. MNRF O. Reg. 245/97 Oil, Gas and Salt Resources Act issued by for onshore exploration drilling on Oct. 30, 2014 (Provincial) **Mining Rights Only Lease. MNDM, MNDM has advised SMC that application s. 176(3) of Mining Act standards for Category 2, Class "A" Licence (Provincial). requirements under the Aggregate Resources Subject to Act are to be followed in order to address the requirements of the MNDM Class EA process. MNDM Class EA Permit/Agreement. MNRF S.22 of O. Reg. 242/08 s.16 to 20 of Endangered Species Act. Part VI of Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act (Provincial) "Approvals administered by MNDM 0&W(MopMdq uence Species at Risk Permit. Environment Canada, Species at Risk Act, s.73 (Federal) Noise by-law Compliance. Municipality of Clarington. By-law 2007- 071, Noise (Municipal) Category 2, Aggregate Class A License/Rehabilitation Plan (Amendment). MNRF, O. Reg 244/97 of Aggregate Resources Act (Provincial) **Closure Plan (+NPS/NMC). MNDM O.Reg. 240/00 of Mining Act (Provincial) Permit to Take Water (Amendment). MOECC, O. Reg. 387/04 S. 34 of Ontario Water Resources Act (Provincial) ECA (Amendments, air/noise/waste), & Effluent Monitoring and Effluent Limits. MOECC, Environmental Protection Act, pt.1.1 & s.53of Ontario Water Resources Act., O. Reg. 561/94, s. 18, O. Reg. 347 (Provincial) Pre -Development Review of Mine Design & Notice of Project. Ministry of Labour, Occupational Health and Safety Act, s. 29 O. Reg. 854/90 & s.23 O. Reg. 213/91 (Provincial) p[FOdad00n d0o'('5U[n Permit of Equivalent Level of Safety. Transport Canada, Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act, s.31, Transportation of Dangerous Goods Regulations (Federal) Blasting Explosives Purchase and Possession Permit & Licence for Explosives Magazine. Natural Resources Canada Explosives Act, s.7. Explosives Regulations 2013, Pt. 6 (Federal) Expect regular updates and engagement with local community and Aboriginal groups throughout Environmental Permitting Requirements MNDM: lease application/ project description, MNDM Class EA, Order in Council, Notice of Project Status, Mine Closure Plan. MNRF: Amendments to ARA licence & existing rehabilitation plan. Well licences under the Oil, Gas and Salt Resources Act. MOECC: permitting under the Ontario Water Resources Act and Environmental Protection Act. MOL: Pre -development review process & Notice of Project. Municipality of Clarington: Noise by-law compliance Environment Canada: Species at Risk Act permit. Natural Resources Canada: Explosives Act (during construction). Md At f EFFECTS OF CLUB ON LIFE SEEING IS BELIEVING, TESTS DO NOT END THE EFFECTS • • :, TEL13 I• : 311 PM .1 26%S —? f • '• TEL15 a a 3:11 PM f 26%9^11-•...."TELUS v 3:05 PM - - ..: TEL3' ,• 3-11 PM 1 23%!t— 5 ? ! 2E%Zr---• -+•" • TF I.l15 T 3,05 PM S 23%23%f • -:"Tr I. U 5'a 3:06 PM LJ 1 23%LJf Back Sleep # + Back 51eep * + Back Sleep * + Bark Sleep * + Back Sleep * + Back steep * + Aug 14- 20, 2016 7 hr 11 min avg Aug 21 - 27, 241$ Sep 25 -Oct 1, 2016 7 hr 1 min avg 6 hr 49 min avg Aug 28- Sep 3, 2016 7 hr 28 min avg Opt 9 -15, 2016 6 hr 58 min avg Sep 18 - 24, 2016 6 hr 50 min avg Oct 2 - 8, 2016 fi hr 48 min avg 5ep 11 -17, 2 01f 6 hr 54 min avg ,...,, Tf�115 '� 3;05 PM A.... nn 7A '^"� �_ - •TF1 515 T 3:05 PM -'J'3%k NEWEN •+• : 3:11 PM 4 ?FV.h • BBCk Sleep TF1 US •S' BT1�k Sleep � + B aCk Sleep } Nav 6 -12, 2016 Feb 5 -11 6 hr 59 min avg Sep 18 - 24. 2016 6 hr 50 min avg Sep 11 - 17, 2016 6 hr 54 min avg Oct 30 - Nov 5, 2016 No -v 20 -26, 2016 7 hr 30 min avg 61 31. Nov6-12,2016 7hr7rninavg Oct 23 - 29, 2015 Sep 4 - 10, 2016 6 hr 11 min avq }. 23%i *;.:. TFI_US m 3;05 PM + Back Sleep 7hr7min avg 0�;t30-N❑v5,2016 Ott 23-29 t2.2.2016 Oct 16- .t 6- 03min vg 6 hr 2a min Oct9 - 15, 2016 i 15 23% ' f -� ...:..Tn 50 3;11 PM t Pi%tri 7 hr 3 min avg Back Sleep + p11-17,2016 6hr54minavg 6hr28minavg Se 5ep4-14,2016 15hr 11 min avg 7 hr 4 min ev❑ 6hr58min Aug 28 -Sep 3, 2016 7hr28min 6 hr11 mIn ADVERSE IMPACTS AND THE LAW I personally have a diagnosis of Dysthymia and have receipts to a specialist which solved little since the shooting continues. My diagnosis came when I complained to my doctor about excessive irritability, not sleeping soundly, and feeling severely depressed with no way to find relief. Another resident is experiencing similar results as mine with extreme head pain and other debilitating symptoms. Noxious affects memory, nervous system, blood pressure and causes headaches. These symptoms in humans may or may not be visible daily or continually, but are perfectly visible in the videos of my dog reacting to the shootings. ri 40 0-0 . dbff, - - �*'_ . i� ! ;_ M � � t � Y - - _ F}�� - � - - - • �� _ _ _ � - z _+ � � 4_ 1 j � { _ � �� _ t � - - ti � � - _- _ � -_-� r - - � J- ` -'� � - ' - - _ �� - .r _ �t� _ � - F - -_ - +.� ' s. 4 r "r '0616� 7 4 tiF� LISTEN TO OUR ANIMALS... THEIR SENSES ARE SO MUCH GREATER THAN OU RS,,,TH EY ARE HURTING T00 ! !! ! MOE AND EPA While the gun clubs do not fall under the MOE Compliance Approvals or ECAs, clubs are not absolved of their obligations under the EPA of Ontario Section 14 of the EPA of Ontario refers specifically to adverse effect clause. "a person shall not discharge a contaminant such as noise, or cause or permit the discharge of a contaminant into the natural environment, if the discharge causes or may cause an adverse effect". EPA defines and adverse effect as the "impairment of the quality of the natural environment for any use that can be made of it, and loss of enjoyment of normal use of property" to name a few. MOE protocol assesses their compliance based on "worst case impact" not averages lessening the impact level, or most frequent. Another opinion prudent before passing bylaws. Noise is Logarithmic and sensed by humans as double for every increase of 10 dba so a noise of 70dba will equate to 10(2), 20(4), 30(8), 40(16), 50(32), 60(64), 70(128)dba WHO CAME FIRST MATTERS NOT The Gun Club may be older than some homes and residents, but not all The Municipality controls what is built where and when through permits and should know if a gun club will adversely effect residents before permitting the building of multiple residents creating a community. Municipalities approving building permits and communities, have a responsibility to the residents of the community. Neither the club, nor the Municipality can or should avoid complete responsibility to enable peace of mind and quiet use of each and every home permitted to be built and taxes paid for. A club doing special events is not really doing a good thing in retrospect as children, family members attending are subjected to levels of noise and lead not different than putting paint chips in their mouths which we all know to be a banned use in our modern age. RECOMMENDATIONS Municipality should have testers AND equipment to monitor club actions regularly Strict process in place to follow for monitoring clubs and penalties to clubs in contravention Regulations office not unlike fishing and hunting officers on call 7 days a week for testing and contravention charges Club licensing to be dependent on abatement plans in place Producing record keeping of guns being shot, who, when and what is shot prior to shooting to prevent contravention Violations penalized through revoking or rejecting applications until clear records are produced. Follow Uxbridge lead Test results from Two sources not just Swallow. (Pinchin Environmental Ltd) Establish abatement plan that will be effective and quickly enforced (we have suffered 6 more years) Municipality to strictly monitor abatement progress and halt activity if not on track. Control the shooting times and days to minimize the effects we feel. mxm,., VVCHA Calling For An End To Whistle Noise Pollution In Wilmot Creek Report to Clarington Municipal Council calling for a "Train Whistle Cessation Bylaw" covering the Bennett Road and Cobbledick Road CN Rail crossings. Submitted by Wilmot Creek Homeowners Association, 1 Wheelhouse Drive, Newcastle, ON. UB 1B9 Current Situation in Wilmot Creek • Average of 28 VIA trains + 10 freight trains per day • Each blow whistles four times at Bennett Rd. and Cobbledick Rd. crossings • Adds up to over 300 whistle blasts per day Locations Where We Measured Whistle Blasts The two whistle zones are shown with red lines; Sites where decibel readings were taken: 1. Cobbledick Rd. crossing, 2. Bennett Rd. crossing, 3. 12 Park Place Lane, 4. 206 Wilmot Trail, 5. 234 Wilmot Trail, 6.42 Heatherlea Drive. Decibel Readings at Wilmot Creek Location Time Train Distance Decibel Readings 1. Cobbledick Rd. crossing Nov. 16 Via westbound 30 m 97 db 2. Bennett Rd. crossing Nov. 17 Freight westbound 30 m 97 db 3. 12 Park Place Lane Nov. 16 Via westbound 233 m 89 db 4. 206 Wilmot Trail Nov. 17 Via eastbound 240 m 87 db 5. 234 Wilmot Trail Nov. 23 Via eastbound 466 m 80 db 6. 42 Heatherlea Drive, Nov. 23 Via westbound 53 m 84 db (behind berm) What it Sounds Like To Us - Outdoors Noise Source Whistle readings at Wilmot Creek Jet taking off at 600 m Electric lawn mower at 1 metre Hedge clippers at 1 metre Sound Level (decibels) 80-97 db 100 db What it Sounds Like To Us - Indoors Noise Source Train Whistles Readings (EPA equivalent levels at night in Wilmot) Loud singing at 1 metre Sewing machine at 1 metre Passenger car 60 km/h at 20 metres Hair dryer at 1 metre Sound level (decibels) 75-84 db (windows open) 63-72 db (windows closed) 75 db 70-74 db •_L7 •A X171 Increasing Rail Traffic VIA is promising to triple the number of trains from the current 28 trains per day Via Rail's $413 plan for Quebec -Ontario route opts for 'frequency' over speed Proposal refined to focus on building electrified tracks under Liberal government By erry Pedwe.l. The Ccnad a Press Fos -zed Apr 1 F. 201. 7 21 Ah.I ET I Last J,ldated: Apr 15 2Y'; 7:33 .AM ET 'ia ;:resijcr-t and. CEG Yves D esia dims-Sic!lia+ia says the ,:ro,ect v i' be readv a year from revs. iFile Riatcl 882 shares Via Rail will ask the federal government by year's end to ©Faceh-ok climb aboard a plan to run new "high - frequency," electric -hybrid trains in the busy Windsor - Twitter Quebec City corridor, says the head of the Crown Stay Connected with CBC News f --='e=2C9----_-cCasty T:% IG 49.- 1:!:s et!.r CBC.ca April 15, 2016 Whistle Cessation in Other Communities Clarington is in the minority • 2/3 of Ontarians live where routine train whistles are banned... • Windsor, Sarnia, Oakville, Toronto, Pickering, Oshawa, Cobourg, Sudbury, London, Ottawa, Hamilton... 9 and most major cities in Canada Rail Crossing Safety and Whistles Whistle Cessation does not mean a total ban on whistles... • It ends routine whistle blowing at every crossing • Engineer shall always blow the whistle for a potential emergency to alert vehicles or pedestrians • Since 1994 many major Canadian cities have instituted whistle cessation • In the same period, rail crossing safety has improved dramatically Accidents Down After Whistle Bans Accidents 391 237 185 Fatalities 54 25 21 Serious Injuries 64 50 29 Transportation Safety Board of Canada statistics http://operationlifesaver.ca/facts-and-stats/statistics/ Accidents, fatalities &serious injuries are all less than half the numbers than before whistle bans enacted (possibly due to the installation of improved safety measures at the crossings). From the Canada Transport Study... "... It was argued that much of this whistling is a result of an attitude rooted in railway culture and tradition and is today both unnecessary and ineffective. It was suggested that a better approach might be to treat train whistling the same way as a car horn, using it only when necessary to give adequate warning." Our Two Crossings... Not in the top 500 Crossings by Risk A B C C E F G Controls hidden. Press ESC to show controls. Dismiss L ki N 0 P LOC ID TC Number RWY Region Province Access FED or PROV Subdivision—Name Spur Mile Spur Name Location Latitude Longitude HWY No Municipality Road Authority 2 10987 7940 CN ONT ON PUBLIC F KINGSTON BOUNDARY RD 45.0512 -74.6807 CORNWALL (City] CORNWALL (City) n 3 10480 16819 CN PNR S" P'JQLIC ."!,TF,C- IS MIJU KOVsEKAIAN R R 51_,3199 -'04.C'11 2351 h: OWCK VI-KWAN 851RE MUSKOWEKWAN 8 4 9947 13953 CN QUE '> 'i; l: ': r.:Jj.`:.'f'�T;IILAIRE MONTSAINTHILA! Transport Canada listed the 500 6 284811 1,4DLISEX 2 12014 riskie-JtAXD(Toun)COUNT 7 4779 8 7838 13392 CN 102611eve I crossings in Canada ROBERVAL Quebec MTQ 9 6125 5381 CN } SPRUCE GROVE (To 10 15915 17177 CN ALBERTA TRANSPO 11 5851 5379 CN P } SPRUCE GROVE (To 12 9736 13 4478 229 VIA: -,,,Ii THE NATION jMuni 9122Rased on traffic volumes, vehicle speeds, traiRICHMOND DM 14 16366 860 CN C] ± ty GREATER SUDBURY 1e -=F`EirNEWTICUMSTH 22902 2499 eds, sightlines, number of tracks and 17 15765 16 7644 34033 CN 1- 1166wair ning devices present .:E�EI SAGUENAY (JONQL BURLINGTON(City) 15 16011 17187 CN P1 BEAVER COUNTY 20 26438 30951 CP CP:- ESSEX COUNTY 21 11125 761 CN 0i,- DURHAM RM 22 8018 23 14860 15186 CN 7P;- 13249Ne Cher Bennett Road crossing nor Cobbledick WARWICK TWP Manitoba HighwaY- 24 16372 861 CN OPi = t'r GREATER SUDBURY 26 13667 2i 10489 139618(_�",d ::crossing appears on th.e list, ._ ` Manitoba Highway, -:-GR.ANDSAINT-BA5ILE-LE-GI 27 9372 741 CN DNT ON PJBLIC "r E.4 LA RA': ENS-�CE RD - P.t-E 41.2322 9.2892 GEOP.GII;H iT�.;tr,'i YORK RM v S ) Most Drivers Do Not Notice Whistles • Drivers usually have their windows closed • Often a radio or other sound system is on • External noise has been largely engineered out of modern cars • Train whistles are not noticed by drivers ".... It has been documented that a train's whistle ... has been measured at higher decibel levels within the homes of nearby residents than within the cab of a vehicle sitting at the grade crossing." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Train whistle 7r - - ��a 4 ,.� Yet 00 rn IF West Area I 0,_ �fx M"ORIMM9,61 M. re 600 m - --._ 480 m 700 m a! Area East Area . Ir. r 4 wi a ,. Qtr. 6► •'# y F nn : y -�� �F{ Pit i 1 `•�4 �. S9 �` f .L V. ti`.. �t, �f Ct:• z 1^< � 048 * ❑o r_ _ - - - -" . jbgle Earth 0 ❑U m • East Village 125 m ° 1gD m Whistle Bans Improve Everyone's Quality of Life Whistle noise pollution is a quality of life issue. In their extensive study of crossing regulations in 2012, a federal panel pointed out the following: "...train whistling is seen to be very disruptive. It was suggested that frequent train whistling can have adverse health impacts on nearby residents primarily due to sleep interruption/deprivation." Conclusion " ...The use of 90 decibel train whistles to protect crossings can simply become alate-night auditory assault on the local community. It is further ineffective and outmoded that only a fraction of those hearing the whistle are actually those attempting to use the crossing. The majority haven't been warned —they've been woken:' https://raiIandreason.com/resources/ Motion We ask that Council endorse the following Motion: • Whereas we call upon our Councillors to invest in the future quality of life for Wilmot Creek residents and many more who will soon occupy the area in two new planned developments to be built near the CN Rail crossings; • And Whereas the loud and excessive sounding of train whistles is an infringement upon the quiet enjoyment of the community by citizens of Wilmot Creek; • And Whereas the Wilmot Creek Homeowners Association believes that routine train whistles are no longer necessary for the Bennett Road and Cobbledick Road crossings, since both crossings likely meet the safety requirements for whistle cessation with flashing lights, bells and gates already operational and sight- lines to both crossings are clear; • And Whereas a site safety study is the only way to determine if it is safe to stop the train whistles and only safety engineers can determine the safety of the crossings. Now therefore be it resolved that; 1. Municipal staff initiate discussions immediately with Transport Canada and CN Rail to confirm the necessary safety measures for implementation of train whistle cessation at the Bennett Road and Cobbledick Road level crossings; 2. A consultant be retained to prepare a safety study for implementation of whistle cessation at the Bennett Road and Cobbledick Road level crossings. Costs of the study are to be apportioned among the following parties in an equal ratio, Wilmot Creek Homeowners' Association, Rice Developments, CAPREIT and Kaitlin Corporation, with no costs being borne by the Municipality of Clarington; 3. The results of the safety study shall be presented to Committee on or before January, 2018 for a determination on the implementation of train whistle cessation at the Bennett Road and Cobbledick Road level crossings. Orono Fish And Hunt Club Incorporated 1968, Ontario 208150 P.O. Box 374, Orono, Ontario, LOB 1M0 (905) 983-6089 admin@oronofishhuntclub.com Orono Fish and Hunt Club 0 Ll is A non-profit organization Promote ethical and sustainable fishing and hunting practices Provide a safe environment for members and their guests to learn and maintain safe shooting practices Origins Orono Fish And Hunt Club Incorporated 1968, Ontario 208150 P.O. Box 374, Orono, Ontario, LOB 1M0 (905) 983-6089 admin@oronofishhuntclub.com • Variations of the club date back to 1899 • Formally organized in 1943 to protect and increase fish and wildlife in the local area • 1St shooting range constructed in 1958 • Moved to current location in 1964 • Incorporated as anon-profit corporation in 1968 Currently Orono Fish And Hunt Club Incorporated 1968, Ontario 208150 P.O. Box 374, Orono, Ontario, LOB 1M0 (905) 983-6089 admin@oronofishhuntclub.com • Sits on approximately 23 acres of land • Club consists of modest clubhouse, storage sheds and outdoor shooting range, with covered shelters, (25m, 50m and 1 00m) • Licenced shooting range under the Firearms Act • Shooting range operates 2 days a week Membership Orono Fish And Hunt Club Incorporated 1968, Ontario 208150 P.O. Box 374, Orono, Ontario, LOB 1M0 (905) 983-6089 admin@oronofishhuntclub.com • Approximately 300 members • Majority are residents of Clarington • Ethnically diverse • Variety of occupations and backgrounds • Socially and family oriented Communi Orono Fish And Hunt Club Incorporated 1968, Ontario 208150 P.O. Box 374, Orono, Ontario, LOB 1M0 (905) 983-6089 admin@oronofishhuntclub.com Involvement • Huntington Society of Canada • War Amps • Lions Club - Guide Dog Program • Clarington East Food Bank • Orono Horticultural Society • Fleming College • Orono Santa Clause Parade • Orono Fair •Remembrance Day Participant •Sea Cadets •Orono Chapter of the Rebekah's •Orono Cenotaph •Ontario Federation of Anglers & Hunters - Youth Education Program •Local fund raising Orono Fish And Hunt Club Incorporated 1968, Ontario 208150 P.O. Box 374, Orono, Ontario, LOB 1M0 (905) 983-6089 admin@oronofishhuntclub.com Questions / Comments? Orono Fish And Hunt Club Incorporated 1968, Ontario 208150 P.O. Box 374, Orono, Ontario, LOB 1M0 (905) 983-6089 admin@oronofishhuntclub.com Thank you! F� � r 1 in- i r , -IM- .s AF r t � '" - �•..-.. fir" G: �.e y "• 5:; •:y��'! � sa'=.r ..y ^��Y :-moi-- .�iG'•� _� a" � � - .. ' ��r�,r. - �'� :�.• � Yid ": ': "',h �f ; .. --'�'' - .M .:,6� .. y�.'." ._. EMERGENCY y EXIT ONLY tit >s - • it i i i z 6 ,. . - , f' . 1, .._ � R . � .. ,, . � I :t 31 jp do 20, :.7� •=t� ,` - - - � max' _ - .? f{ y` �L.,-1 ma y'-}'' '•i. �•. ��t. =J Y � I� � � . . � 1'i� .l s.'2�0'E _ � - ' J,Z• - - -: Sr; ' .�, Jath , A. .1:. ..�`•.'�Tykes rC,r'�- - r.- ��.-: _�.r -. '. .. + � C�� � `� .I .. - •�" -� _- - .. -TSR-���'�i��f-�N 4k1 rr-�T ••-��t^y��� S- 'sir_ •/yam- , � -T ��—�� 'moi .� ' ^`.'°:. %Sim' •� F-�, i - :;ate i'•=, y � r •i. irk ~' ��•' *'. N Z - _-mss r• � r 1 _ yr�. d�iJ' S' _ I- : �n •• ..3 . •A . � - - - �. '•••fijjjr��e lay!Fx3"•- -- s:IF- •. .. • �v"-�: � _ „-:.� ��� � ' ' -�• ��r - _ �• �••��y„rf.. �,SSn�--g- ..'��..� y I•�w�.i rF ._ rj .� r- �� Y �'i' .. r_ +' 1p �'�► L,3"'' : ice- - ! ;,ov rrr� Y •'.i -'ti ,j• �17 ` _r'" '� i• r__ �--7' :tib:•_ • - lwt.l�., 7- n �d - _ -,j, aa -J'' . _ 7S''a' . - n .r,'• _-.r`-al:�, Y. ..-,*-' IL jo 014 ACME i+ s -n � '�. �_ ;• Y� Yom- r40 ft - ' .. y Y.�: .._i", _ .� k- r, ":fir -16 r•s til�[t; f �:�.,ti - +e - � ti.-� � '�14 -� - - .- , , '��,,, . . 1, _ +r'" - r � ,. � , - _ - • _ . "•r�+ � r '�7J1 �"t ti - •.� 4'. =>>- •?mss.: wi: `+ .. -.s I - h , ■ _ Y �' * I + v 9P.- r.- +"a � -r F A or r I * •� � 'ate. +• I � F ' � - I dr i = + ' �7W. r , ` • k_d i ti dF 4r lbk { _� _ - I +'7 �• Y _ i i y I Or , �• _ + , � ,r ' it + '� R-,� y F - + - T � � - _ t ' , b - 1. It f- JL r+� # - a r+ + W , , 1� , i 1r',� F—!LopdP6 _ 4+'_ + rt+_ , �• k # J -RL. ell + 111 + - - r - # r _ -1P 41 GOP r+ _ W-ow _ Iwm r / l � s _ • _ y 1 + �._ � J NJ IL ir 1 F +. Y } , S r F Y •,y I �=may - ; - J %P46 qgr r! wit I■ y ti L ; F + * r Y ■ I+ ;�# #. ■'+.+#+*�f +i,� # iYr'ITR f+1 �* J # r F �� � * i +*�.� Y. PL I 1 �'' • { Y ,� • ■ ' k + r +lam f+i �. 7 +5 •� r, ZJ I �r ; # #. 1' f 1 �y I + r I + M' I 15 ■- 1 ■ # i I I r, r t JY * +. + • ' # +. a Ile + # ';' - - -III J# { JIY• r, + �J •+ I % , r •' a L + - Y F .J A 11 F r '4,� *r + * la y } I- 4# �+ '#� F�.� u■. r I �, * }� Y i Lh # +1 + �� # �� ~ r _ r r ,LFti f +F J\. �. � + Y 11 1 " L''r r 4. Y # 4 ��` �Ty , OPLi;lr ''� , I �i. r� J M 7' ' IJ ' i�� "1 1■ '�' + i + -�1'• +; J Y Y Y 1 ' 1 Y +Ci6A�i i +• 1 4■-, +� r } •I'�- - 4 'F' ' +- i '� �* ' It Y r,�,R+, f71 �' _ ) *5T ��',i �f y _ * y- `*�• r �� y� �.�+y 'rl r {` }fir I + 3 f�` I, + k .1 ' •'S i R ~ ` ` 1' 'fig i } a rt+_ l T,+r �F�- y y{L y r' y fir■ ' , �,f 5+t + ' ~ r I '! *., ++ # F { •+ •+ i' �+ •� �' ' i ` +0."1 F . '� Ff •J* r 'i * - z Y * ,, i y + 7 1 , yYr } f J,I rY ■ Y Y {7 `'#+I • #or � t ,y� ■ ,+ . 5 •r _ y •i - Fai I + '•F F , I+ i j } � � _ � F ' � . ■.� # F I ' r � � � T +j � r i Y # y _ +�,7' I 4 'I * 1 y■ + '�r X1 1 Y �R Y '` � M ' i M Y _+ ' + I t ■�� i it /� F-i J ` -14F rk [+''� 'r it� F f # I'� {■ ■1i1 ■ tib`*L ate, {I# E 1 r ■A. �, r I- t • i I _ '� ■i y _ tii` y f 7 t T* *I 7 k J y �� i , +i I+ r y t 1 r �� t r y% -��� + . '# i T r• �� - I r 4 ' ,r 1 i' ~ +} # r ■4 r yI ti ' a• i `k�, - 1 +or k +h a R J + k r + Y f 4 + In ;--� 4 �1� 1 i 5 , ITI _ + + * * , ; + ti.� I ' * # I. ■ + + + r �+ Y 10 'M it f `` + ! J+.T h I 5 f • r r1f; oyy .,I 1 ' ' p 14 ■� �' _ �+ -I - T 1 +•' f ''i' T T4 , r ' ' {� + +- t 3Y� + y` 1 �1 ; y� I ■ �, - ' ' Y i� .3■ ;' ,yam; r r� r ■ F TTSi } + 11, } + - - # - I * - �' + - R I 40 '�Wr+ - Y{' ' r� I r i Y �ti L+� 't ; FI * i OL 4 i• IF` r I * r 1+f T'k` I YT;y�l _ +�.;,+,+J�I _ yl yr yj ' � 1 y ' 11. IP I-dt+� ' � h � +�■ Y 1�• t 1 #' F * i + i+# +• , �''.{ ' � ' { ' I t+' •1 ` i { �', ICY q1 'RJ.,�! • F F F I /� + / F _ L' + { k # •,'• + TTF ti+ ''i { Y 1� }. * Is■ ,+ { 'y F '71 +#i( T r�- Ti'#F �fJ +� ` �' ■ ti *'#f +� ++ qp rcp ' `;r . , I + _ {{ s r �IF 1� T ' I F + r I T . , r ■ 1 1 _ , T� Ty + I r 1 1 1 01 t 7N �d + w 3' 7 Pr 0 66 4j y j ' 1 f .I I + F. i` r �' , J• 1 Y + _ 1 + Y ■ �'+ + y Y 7 + 'r1 �' . 5 � r i pop, y I I LL P %m �' � r J �' -�! - * � �, � � � ► ��•■ f*`'I.t * � .��■ � � F ,� � ��' X� y 7 .40 •1M W r� r ' ry+16# • •` ; ■ 5 r i, - I r�r .'� # M1 ,� t Fr k 1 y. i 1 . I ti # r i ' ' OP �# i�C� Z *a irr _ ■i� 3 +sr� rt �;� I y Y y'� 'a `T + ■t I� 1 ti - ' a - 7 - * _ MAa - W. % , IP6 Vol P" whda Or' - __ - 1 _ J T _ +r i # —Ahk. 11 or— Th. 4L4 ■ RP IF M rl _ I X N •fT flie +>• - rte` -'r • ri _ r 1_• hr y` 1 , ■ i bm F •r, }L *I - 'If 'A �� ' +.+ } - - I + 76 i } ■ = , ! -. �t y • _ i ��' t1 "+ i r �� r I + F , `� +t Op L or ti .F . IF +� *A RL i { R _i �' * 5 I +;moi F - '44 r��{ ,I 4 }� ` . - ' �Y , "� _ ti 1 ,f' �' - - Y. I , a t I ■ i ' i f 1 _ a �_ J f ' r ■ i r# • r i ■a'�, ��.� �� k +,j�y Ir # t■Y .5�. z IL � - ' I 'S t ff + '� f =~ ti}{• 'Re • k 1 I f J •' � j r r — + + + � — _ �� J ' r �• r 'y M Ir I■• F ; �-: S ar --.. - _ y, Iti y y r • i ir '� ;• t LL Adi ILL il r ■ r — _ y} ell � r 1 ��.16 WL d Al y + + _ lid Rp 7 �3 Mr.. Fla 'IFJ. { r■ ■ ■■ + , •� - , ,•,1'*A 4j� r IF . _r r r r. �±1 I, i f 4 J + I *� I + ■r FSF.4 ' r JL y 4 i F % 1 tilk IP F � R I a t' . 1 L I• ■4 mp j',��, * JJ a� ti s +i+ T r P. I ti ar #'llr-; ti M t' . *�■���f* r L k3{, 1 -� �R�� y� L k k F _ Lib ■ J L' 1.4 4 4l, IV TFC' �} 'y�is�.1 a� �� Tri 4 f�� ' '�'+r- �M , I 1 �� } _ �, � .# 7{1. fir■ �. C_..44 �• �+ # y r 4 � F F eL , {* I � ' * a * + �.'I• * I �: i 7 r: �' ��;y� � r} r # ++ 1 W. + IA i �• � Ir 4t S J + T - I a 'L F �J ` Y. .r + +T�= a �� ■. ' i • . Jt� ' - + _� } a■..�i a .i -r J f� M-7 ' '�m ira • 4 L .f ■ ' k �9Fd in. R a ■ i U. +' + 1 i I ' k �•J' . NM+ �� S :� ■_ — 'Pb bmmm' Pei 7 L 741 L - �1- dF 41 -k LL %i EWSP 11. ■ } ,i T T +# IL r 1 + r% + ' * ; . * L� 511 ti ,"'�+S ` !,'i ■,fi Y . - )L I11 1 *1 r f J. Adfim _40& TJ- sv� ' 4 I Y• �i . - y ti 41 —. �— — yT, 14} • F fa � �t - at � ! ,� } , L aja f{ 1p 4�� owl y 1p 4� y y r � a I. ~'L i' ' r f ARP�t _ 916 bL ■i J A ' 4' 40 Rip 4p iL l + I Jrr I IL ■ #' lqm� .�. �pF 4P_ IF I 0 WA Vi -7 + I t ~ f L• i_. 'r w 5 R i'' rte- k �� ~. ` •_ _ i •� , •i r * ,�' # �'rF ■' f Alf h .*� . r I # ■. ! ra,* a�=�' Ii•tiyr*y .%+��, L'a *5y a ti 1i 1 +rr "■'�:1 r,+ i� I����� IN, ' r.l '�Y� + ' f r`yW� F_ F��� I+ r' :r 4 r ti i 1 ti ;`r 51" �.J+ i -. }�j +3� * . . t Yom' i 1 _jam''*i�r ,!-{! 14 1 a 1 i # — y am' Fk y rte, 5 a• _ t.�, r. �,� _ �tl �'i .� y rt X rr fir.' , � # Y `f � * ANK ' = f 4 r time t ,I Y • `L r -'o a L' ~} om 1 ]7 �t r- _ R }tiKk y r �_ k; 'r• #� Y F may+ r ' r }� f - ■ -* ■r Y j , Y y.74 F '+Y Y . - -• F rt + i NA Lot 91 k` _ f_ ~� F L �iR �• 1 y J'' _ , _✓' `` ' + i �'ti1 TT a 'Y{I ' a ' r�• � ` .' +f : P OL a� yy_ , }� {#+}�Y�_�{•ti.%r•, .l +-■a y k 'k �r .0.ti■'� -�r � +��•+ ' +�. 'i+y' L � 'I�i•: ' � + + rk ir•qL r '•� �� , yam' �4.�r`'t 1riT r 1 1' I. 'i _ R. t 4k+ _ - 7�•i',.� it �_ '� },' ~� i ;. ,ai' 1 .w "ti f • ' 'r'. •, _ ■ iF ' ,.'l r •� i� ■y..��r i r �' * { �1' �,� i` �`a `+'� f ` j r + * r 5 4� s� _ r x _ y f * 1 • M1 _ r ti #_'*' • •L i r r ` +1 ' y *� Y i �� 1 4 'r f,� Y y s S • _ .. F - ' "7 r R 'r■ T i' �J j� ti 1 � i !� a # +.i ti - 1Y' .. y r k�:i' . YY a M1 #k1�t • . .14 - * k #r ri,1 r •' f , y =.4 fr,'; - �' - F 4 - f- �� • ! ! • _ Wit`• ��F ' } Lti T��� _ •� r .•� .' -J r" r ' + ' J • r �• , 1 , �'�'• '`' y �.'• .1 ''R_ T; w 7_.`�r'_'� ir''' �t �- - +�-*' �-* * _ }'4 �ifL ■ i �ti 5 *y 16LL� [ "� !■`YL x y� 5 1_ - '*._ 'r' :. �+ a' + F I'; '� } 1 7 ' ~ , 71 L �` , .+,r r k } r �, - �� + +'� r j'kFr r r r f. :� R� +� r C- r, F ti 1 +�,� �� t ��'- - "t Y ■ 1. •3 Y' ` ; X T . r' r r ` ' r ` .r '}L r i 4 * i t y ■ 'k• . 3 • y � `' L~ r rr� F j a_'� R- '4_ V•,r� �- : �.'4 i 1 r ' z� Y 41'_;6 i. i _ - ', 'a1 ti f 7 * f ' i `� + r 1 ; ' 'y. 1' r T' - J * ` y y .1 r 'r _ v - r ' �h 4 ' : f �{ , F i t k" *� yi f f r yy i i# ��ti# ..�y� y� I �� r X i.� '3 1'_,■�-'# y k •'� �' 4}'tip + `r TY�1; - y ti �'' r.. '�Lr �� �_f ,kY 4��r nF'• JR. -- J� . Y -1J' r•'' '+,.�+ }• +-� { '� X1.7 r 4 I� { r'` + �; + • ` r. , r -a 1 ' L. V •p % 4r r {� \ may -- Y. -*"' t + Lf, r� 3 ♦F'`f - �� r� '■`� _ fir. +' �' y ■ dr t �1 4N L {� 1 4 , +�r1 4F ` YJ 4' , F ' ■ ' y'� . r {• y } �i , _ ,■ 1 '' iL �.--r� ; r - A •_�� _ 1' ; '+` �' � Y �L���ti,*• � � � a -11'� ��.� +,_ � �• '� �.ai +� � •F. y A•� � =_5�r 'Xi.�iY; J 5 .41 4 �L•1 Y # �`{Y r— ~' ' 1' 1 ~� r', F �� k`fti' ~- ��':M1 a `i■{ i J * �� -• + =� f• w,' f Y• qr� F Ir ti_� Y •••�5. k, lk �� 4 t ' �.1 #F `+ , ■ ' y _ •-• L�' ,' ��'Rr rt Y'k+ ,h ti *``k + r y 4 ice* ' ' al y +• a� i-. + * _ ti� •+�`+ �—� ■ _. 97L. �� k '� r'k ' .. 1 .. ■ r r� � .■ VA * •��i 1 �� � � . i a �'r r .{yam � �. �. r '.� . F � i i Jam. _. � ��r'•. Akti � � �t N.� Mi'1 �. It![ .� +i�• _.� � .�. _ I�.��r. " fi L 1 _ -- 44 jj f r t f j I _ — —Rka.4L I r �� �� _ �■ kf IIF ;lp E�� T 4L l A .. 'POT a - I I M-7 ' '�m ira • 4 L .f ■ ' k �9Fd in. R a ■ i U. +' + 1 i I ' k �•J' . NM+ �� S :� ■_ — 'Pb bmmm' Pei 7 L 741 L - �1- dF 41 -k LL %i EWSP 11. ■ } ,i T T +# IL r 1 + r% + ' * ; . * L� 511 ti ,"'�+S ` !,'i ■,fi Y . - )L I11 1 *1 r f J. Adfim _40& TJ- sv� ' 4 I Y• �i . - y ti 41 —. �— — yT, 14} • F fa � �t - at � ! ,� } , L aja f{ 1p 4�� owl y 1p 4� y y r � a I. ~'L i' ' r f ARP�t _ 916 bL ■i J A ' 4' 40 Rip 4p iL l + I Jrr I IL ■ #' lqm� .�. �pF 4P_ IF I 0 WA Vi -7 + I t ~ f L• i_. 'r w 5 R i'' rte- k �� ~. ` •_ _ i •� , •i r * ,�' # �'rF ■' f Alf h .*� . r I # ■. ! ra,* a�=�' Ii•tiyr*y .%+��, L'a *5y a ti 1i 1 +rr "■'�:1 r,+ i� I����� IN, ' r.l '�Y� + ' f r`yW� F_ F��� I+ r' :r 4 r ti i 1 ti ;`r 51" �.J+ i -. }�j +3� * . . t Yom' i 1 _jam''*i�r ,!-{! 14 1 a 1 i # — y am' Fk y rte, 5 a• _ t.�, r. �,� _ �tl �'i .� y rt X rr fir.' , � # Y `f � * ANK ' = f 4 r time t ,I Y • `L r -'o a L' ~} om 1 ]7 �t r- _ R }tiKk y r �_ k; 'r• #� Y F may+ r ' r }� f - ■ -* ■r Y j , Y y.74 F '+Y Y . - -• F rt + i NA Lot 91 k` _ f_ ~� F L �iR �• 1 y J'' _ , _✓' `` ' + i �'ti1 TT a 'Y{I ' a ' r�• � ` .' +f : P OL a� yy_ , }� {#+}�Y�_�{•ti.%r•, .l +-■a y k 'k �r .0.ti■'� -�r � +��•+ ' +�. 'i+y' L � 'I�i•: ' � + + rk ir•qL r '•� �� , yam' �4.�r`'t 1riT r 1 1' I. 'i _ R. t 4k+ _ - 7�•i',.� it �_ '� },' ~� i ;. ,ai' 1 .w "ti f • ' 'r'. •, _ ■ iF ' ,.'l r •� i� ■y..��r i r �' * { �1' �,� i` �`a `+'� f ` j r + * r 5 4� s� _ r x _ y f * 1 • M1 _ r ti #_'*' • •L i r r ` +1 ' y *� Y i �� 1 4 'r f,� Y y s S • _ .. F - ' "7 r R 'r■ T i' �J j� ti 1 � i !� a # +.i ti - 1Y' .. y r k�:i' . YY a M1 #k1�t • . .14 - * k #r ri,1 r •' f , y =.4 fr,'; - �' - F 4 - f- �� • ! ! • _ Wit`• ��F ' } Lti T��� _ •� r .•� .' -J r" r ' + ' J • r �• , 1 , �'�'• '`' y �.'• .1 ''R_ T; w 7_.`�r'_'� ir''' �t �- - +�-*' �-* * _ }'4 �ifL ■ i �ti 5 *y 16LL� [ "� !■`YL x y� 5 1_ - '*._ 'r' :. �+ a' + F I'; '� } 1 7 ' ~ , 71 L �` , .+,r r k } r �, - �� + +'� r j'kFr r r r f. :� R� +� r C- r, F ti 1 +�,� �� t ��'- - "t Y ■ 1. •3 Y' ` ; X T . r' r r ` ' r ` .r '}L r i 4 * i t y ■ 'k• . 3 • y � `' L~ r rr� F j a_'� R- '4_ V•,r� �- : �.'4 i 1 r ' z� Y 41'_;6 i. i _ - ', 'a1 ti f 7 * f ' i `� + r 1 ; ' 'y. 1' r T' - J * ` y y .1 r 'r _ v - r ' �h 4 ' : f �{ , F i t k" *� yi f f r yy i i# ��ti# ..�y� y� I �� r X i.� '3 1'_,■�-'# y k •'� �' 4}'tip + `r TY�1; - y ti �'' r.. '�Lr �� �_f ,kY 4��r nF'• JR. -- J� . Y -1J' r•'' '+,.�+ }• +-� { '� X1.7 r 4 I� { r'` + �; + • ` r. , r -a 1 ' L. V •p % 4r r {� \ may -- Y. -*"' t + Lf, r� 3 ♦F'`f - �� r� '■`� _ fir. +' �' y ■ dr t �1 4N L {� 1 4 , +�r1 4F ` YJ 4' , F ' ■ ' y'� . r {• y } �i , _ ,■ 1 '' iL �.--r� ; r - A •_�� _ 1' ; '+` �' � Y �L���ti,*• � � � a -11'� ��.� +,_ � �• '� �.ai +� � •F. y A•� � =_5�r 'Xi.�iY; J 5 .41 4 �L•1 Y # �`{Y r— ~' ' 1' 1 ~� r', F �� k`fti' ~- ��':M1 a `i■{ i J * �� -• + =� f• w,' f Y• qr� F Ir ti_� Y •••�5. k, lk �� 4 t ' �.1 #F `+ , ■ ' y _ •-• L�' ,' ��'Rr rt Y'k+ ,h ti *``k + r y 4 ice* ' ' al y +• a� i-. + * _ ti� •+�`+ �—� ■ _. 97L. �� k '� r'k ' .. 1 .. ■ r r� � .■ VA * •��i 1 �� � � . i a �'r r .{yam � �. �. r '.� . F � i i Jam. _. � ��r'•. Akti � � �t N.� Mi'1 �. It![ .� +i�• _.� � .�. _ I�.��r. " fi L gill 1110 1 ISL 0"41 mdu Miriam Ila. 1 I �4L r • r w�i i s I � • F �1■r a LL ■ - ' 'i 1p sell 'tY i '# t 7' ,r J4iR� rF w _ r - f ■ i V 61 .. F ,. .. - + L' rl. F� - �7L � • , • � �'*x 'e �' 4 r ■ f TIS. • 14 ' It L } f Ill A,*v pro IF 06 r{' V :1 {SIT• 0 -1 ' 1lk k. ++ ++ L -T i 4 yrs y * }��•^ r �'• * ,7 +}L+'� �+�3' :L�.4 -+ f ` ` i ry1 dill1+�` , # +,still+ l` -'r • ■. # �_ •i _ i 'I i '''• =1�•}I,+ } F ��i , � r • -t.r +* lo r t 1 1 yF�r •� ',l .� �-L ' �y�}7 �4 t . :rt• 1 , f y ' i 1 i • * } ~�f Ty �r; x 4i r r �_ ■!"'yD r i`f w+� no, Alir r� L r Y I i •r J � ► II � ' jr� �'� j4 ■��L.ri y,j' _A 'pl.+� �''��-s r' yF f y■'f1 Y I L �a� _ I� ,.Z+ L T �� ,� ! +� Y` #- r r. z T ter ` f " � ; y J + � T� � y��lk• } -I A - � � ji � 55r� L '� ti _ a7x _ ti r F - ■ * �. - %.� ` 'i r •I # Wirt ', ,+ `� _ •r k��rY,r yL ■,'+ _ 1r} if-=�" Cii'17r#y f i 'ice T `} { F ■ + +�� t' I• f'' F.. Pill -iff JIV r x. ._ If r 9911 ' '+_4i{i' w � } L� �• t F s r• y - r. �j■.� ' h ' _ ti tr • 4 . # _F + , `, �•L~' 1'K , •�f-r+; y,_•'KLI i•� r• k�spi. �� F #: , _ f + . �■, t J ' ,rt r i ' `_ 1C + z =' _ - ' T - _ t 1' , r f x�� y f �, I I y 4 _ • t'� + L� ��� � •F k 2 L M� .�' �•_ •'_ti''ti ��,,,� '� ��'k-4 ''''�'r•i�� t�� '� _ - ,f r'�_,_, tea' �1■ '�# �'`� - y- �•�• ' % •''4�Al llli rC_ y - ll r r`- _ # �F f 'J �� + r .' •# +ti F e J lam, iy. jib L1•r k r+ * •,�, r - F k+ = •r .' 4 +,.`' Ar ;-A9l• r allp `r' rlrl 1 .'F ,may+.' f +i'� + -'' �,r.�i` _i' 4t�r ��i L .. �, r * Yr 1l J -.i 4 . F. 7- .l ,'* ._ i f'4J � '� ; F `fi� 2 Ak F`T•ti E _..i-'- fY kL .•'' i �- iY df Av r�- • * t� ` *_� F •• y _�' }r'F�� l J ti -•M, 1 a 'L"�: s R' 1 -fir �. �.� .. F+.� • , APIA i . All. 6. '111- ' r. 1 r • i�F # + • r {�� '`� 1 J '� rte•`• ±F• r _�••� P •� f � h n * _ MAa - W. % , IP6 Vol P" whda Or' - __ - 1 _ J T _ +r i # —Ahk. 11 or— Th. 4L4 ■ RP IF M rl _ I X N •fT flie +>• - rte` -'r • ri _ r 1_• hr y` 1 , ■ i bm F •r, }L *I - 'If 'A �� ' +.+ } - - I + 76 i } ■ = , ! -. �t y • _ i ��' t1 "+ i r �� r I + F , `� +t Op L or ti .F . IF +� *A RL i { R _i �' * 5 I +;moi F - '44 r��{ ,I 4 }� ` . - ' �Y , "� _ ti 1 ,f' �' - - Y. I , a t I ■ i ' i f 1 _ a �_ J f ' r ■ i r# • r i ■a'�, ��.� �� k +,j�y Ir # t■Y .5�. z IL � - ' I 'S t ff + '� f =~ ti}{• 'Re • k 1 I f J •' � j r r — + + + � — _ �� J ' r �• r 'y M Ir I■• F ; �-: S ar --.. - _ y, Iti y y r • i ir '� ;• t LL Adi ILL il r ■ r — _ y} ell � r 1 ��.16 WL d Al y + + _ lid Rp 7 �3 Mr.. Fla 'IFJ. { r■ ■ ■■ + , •� - , ,•,1'*A 4j� r IF . _r r r r. �±1 I, i f 4 J + I *� I + ■r FSF.4 ' r JL y 4 i F % 1 tilk IP F � R I a t' . 1 L I• ■4 mp j',��, * JJ a� ti s +i+ T r P. I ti ar #'llr-; ti M t' . *�■���f* r L k3{, 1 -� �R�� y� L k k F _ Lib ■ J L' 1.4 4 4l, IV TFC' �} 'y�is�.1 a� �� Tri 4 f�� ' '�'+r- �M , I 1 �� } _ �, � .# 7{1. fir■ �. C_..44 �• �+ # y r 4 � F F eL , {* I � ' * a * + �.'I• * I �: i 7 r: �' ��;y� � r} r # ++ 1 W. + IA i �• � Ir 4t S J + T - I a 'L F �J ` Y. .r + +T�= a �� ■. ' i • . Jt� ' - + _� } a■..�i a .i -r J f� ec%a and 4-k_An� Club + pemkys I %co id J6 1 i ke t,-�, A hanl - VOLti Gr award i n� me the oroc o FSS, and liunt 0 L b 4wcAvd b I t was tyxAl \/ cAn honour -o reciew Ahi % avard1. 1 is cAeciicatM cIUbs I►ke ya((-S, 41nci� Prov ide oPpof-'nuni Vi (-S COC youno� ?eop1e +0 TA-Invowed in tlrre 04A dooms and 4)e -;r naA-urct) We,OIQ& , 'TV\e work -k- n, yaUr CkQb does m y©�� Cprnmvhl iS 1-han K ycju, , President Orono Fish & Hunt Club 3336 7th Concession Orono, ON LOB 1M0 May 26, 2017 Dear W On behalf of the students in the Aquaculture and Conservation & Environmental Law Enforcement Programs at Fleming College, we would like to take this opportunity to thank you for your generous support of our Academic Awards program. Your annual gift of $1,000 since 2015 is directed towards the Orono Fish and Hunt Club Aquaculture Award as well as the Orono Fish and Hunt Club Conservation and Environmental Law Enforcement Award, and is greatly appreciated. Your awards recognize students who have high academic achievement and also contribute to their communities in a volunteer capacity. Each June the awards are presented at our Academic Awards Ceremony. The event is filled with celebration as family, friends, faculty, recipients and donors gather to recognize the outstanding achievements of our most diligent students during their time at the College. Sound 2017 2012 Difference Reduction Avg dBAI Avg dBAI (+/ I N 3282 Concession 7 50 53 -3 -6% 7374 Leskard Rd 52 70 -18 -25% 7606 Leskard Rd 57 73 -17 -22% 7782 Leskard Rd N/A 48 N/A N/A 7685 Leskard Rd 59 57 +2 3% 7580 Leskard Rd 62 60 +2 4% 7560 Leskard Rd 56 64 -8 -13% 7535 Leskard Rd N/A 57 N/A N/A 7506 Leskard Rd 58 64 -6 -10% 7615 Leskard Rd 64 N/A N/A N/A Noise Level Chart A noise level chart showing examples of sounds with d8 levels ranging from 0 to 180 decibels. 70 shower 75 toilet flushing 80 alarm clock 0 healthy hearing threshold 10 a pin dropping 20 rustling leaves 30 whisper 40 babbling brook 50 light traffic 60 conversational speech 70 shower 75 toilet flushing 80 alarm clock 85 passing diesel truck 90 squeeze toy 95 inside subway car 100 motorcycle (riding) 105 sporting event 110 rock band 115 emergency vehicle siren 120 thunderclap 125 balloon popping 130 peak stadium crowd noise 135 air raid siren ■ jet engine at takeoff ■ firecracker ■ fighter jet launch ■ cap gun ■ shotgun computer refrigerator air conditioner dishwasher vacuum cleaner garbage disposal snow blower lawn mower food processor arc welder belt sander handheld drill table saw jackhammer riveter oxygen torch Decibel Exposure Time Guidelines Exposure Time Guidelines Continuous dB Permissible Exposure Time 5 dB 8 Hours 88 dB 4hours "?