Reflections from Crumbly Acres: peer review

The Proposed New Gun Range an update... it's been a journey!

Yes, a gun range in a provincially significant wetland!

SUMMARY – March 5th

The Peer Review of the Noise Survey by WSP Golder is in, and it says exactly what I stated at the Oct. 11th meeting, based on our research. Also, the old gun range needs to be cleaned up since there are years of heavy metals being left here. The OPP have a contract to do so, but the details are secret. The Steering Committee has put in a Freedom of Information application to find the details.

the original gun range

The WSP Golder Peer Review calls for a new Noise Survey, using site-specific protocols, i.e. 'worst case scenario.' BT Engineering did not use the proper Ministry methods. It failed to cite their methodology, nor the weapons used, or how many. WSP Golder calls for the acoustic survey to be redone. Zanderplan consultants will have to rewrite their report. Then another Peer Review will have to occur. We are back to where we were in the fall, basically.

gun range alley with club house

DETAILS

I can summarize all this. They will have to do another noise survey based on predictable worst-case conditions. This is exactly what I said at the October meeting, and it is what the law requires. Worst case scenario is with all 12 shooting range targets used at once, as my audio demonstrates. There is no way to monitor any activity. Once they get a rezoning, they can do what they want when they want.

Also, skeet shooting, trapping, and a variety of weapons that could be fired.

Basically, the Noise Survey failed to comply with the Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks Noise Pollution Control guidelines. Zanderplan is the company consulted by the gun range applicant and they outsourced the acoustic survey to BT Engineering. The study failed to show how the gun range activities would comply with applicable MECP noise limits. [This is the original Zanderplan Consultation Report. This is the acoustic report: BT Engineering Noise Survey.]

Based on this peer review, WSP Golder does not come to the same conclusion as the original Zanderplan report: that the site can operate in compliance with applicable noise limits with maximum 6 shooters. As per the Noise Pollution Control guidelines, the assessment of compliance of site activities should be through the use of the Logarithmic Mean Impulse Sound Level (LLM) descriptor. The applicable compliance noise level limit is directly tied to the expected number of impulsive events in a given hour. The C2 Noise Impact Studies protocols are very clear (Ontario government).

This is our submission on Oct. 11th:

Here is my audio of the OPP doing their recertification from 2017. This was May, when the leaves were not out.

A further study, the Peer Review states, should have these conditions in mind:

The site-specific noise model should consider ‘the Predictable Worst-case Conditions’ and be setup meeting MECP configuration requirements. The site-specific noise model should consider:

The maximum number of impulses in a given hour;
The maximum quantity of firearms being used concurrently;
The type of firearm used;
The calibre and grains of powder per round;
The directional nature of the firearm used;
The activity (i.e., trap versus target);
The consideration of all noise sources on site. Both; steady state and impulsive sources; and
Consider various seasons the range could be operational (i.e., ground cover and existence or non-existence of foliage).