agenda - rm of sherwood · 2017. 5. 23. · special council meeting agenda may 24th, 2017 at 5:30...

SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING

AGENDA

May 24th, 2017 at 5:30 p.m.

1.0 Call to Order 2.0 Approval of Agenda 3.0 Public Hearings 4.0 Delegation(s) 5.0 Public Forum 6.0 Adoption of Minutes 7.0 Financial Reports 8.0 Reports of Administration and Committees

8.1. Public Works 8.2. Planning & Development

8.2.1. Write Off – Advertising and Interest Incurred 8.2.2. Explanation of Bylaw 4/14 – Clean Fill Zoning Amendment 8.2.3. DPA 15-041 Rail Yarding Facility/SU 14-010 Community Planning File

R0996-14R 8.2.4. DPA 16-039 Discretionary Use Development Application for a Seed

Cleaning Plant 8.2.5. DPA 17-012 Proposed Second Dwelling and Detached Garage 8.2.6. Interest Incurred on Invoice 2014-00194

8.3. Administration & Finance 8.3.1. Rescind Resolution # 232/2017

9.0 Communications 10.0 Reeve and Councillor’s Forum 11.0 Unfinished Business 12.0 Closed Session (Pursuant to LAFOIP)

12.1. S. 120(2)(b) of The Municipalities Act – Planning and Development Update 13.0 Adjournment

* Order of Business as per R.M. of Sherwood No. 159 Bylaw No. 28/15

Request for Decision

Report No. 2017-022 Prepared by: Pam Malach Presented to Council: May 24, 2017 Agenda Item: Write Off – Advertising and Interest Incurred

Attachments:

Background:

In 2013, the RM incurred on two separate occasions an expense in the amount of $2,667.50 for a total of $5,355.00 for the cost of advertising a public hearing regarding the application for rezoning agricultural land to country residential (Wascana Villiage). The charges have been continually invoices with applied interest to Great Prairie Development Corp.

Summary:

Now with four years of attempts to recover the cost, the Finance and Administrative team continuously issue statements with additional interest applied and no success in receiving payment. Currently the invoice is now at $7,655.12 which includes $2,300.12 in incurred interest.

Reference to Legislation, Policies or Bylaws:

Implications:

a) Governance b) Budget/Financial c) Staff Resources d) Business/Strategic Plan e) Ratepayers (Citizens/Local Businesses)

Other Discussion (Options, Benefits or Disadvantages)

Chief Administrative Officer Comments

___________________________________________________________________________________

Submitted By: Pam Malach Approved By: Title:

Date: May 16, 2017

Recommendation: THAT Council authorize administration to write off invoices numbered 2013-00313 & 2013-00314 and accumulated interest.

of 1

Report for Information

Report No. P&D 17-023 Prepared by: Adam Toth Presented to Council: May 24th, 2017 Attachments: Bylaw 4/14 Subject: Explanation of Bylaw 4/14 – Clean Fill Zoning Amendment

BACKGROUND:

At the May 10th Council Meeting, Council requested an overview of Bylaw 4/14 (zoning bylaw amendment bylaw to Bylaw 7/11) regarding process and rationale.

Bylaw 4/14 was developed in response to complaints of fill being placed on individual’s lands with no regard for drainage impacts on adjacent properties. The bylaw ensures that if an individual wants to add fill to their property to adjust drainage, it will have to be engineered to ensure pre-and post drainage remain unchanged. This is required in any zoning district under our Zoning Bylaw (Bylaw 7/11).

Having this process in place avoids potential impacts to sensitive natural areas, productivity of agricultural and surrounding properties. It is important to note that if the natural drainage is changed a permit is also required from the Water Security Agency. The Bylaw also allows as a discretionary use for fill to be brought on an individual’s land in the Agricultural District (AG1) in cases where they want to engage in a commercial operation of storing and selling fill (aggregate, stone, sand, soil, etc.)

As Administration initiates work on the new zoning bylaw, we will work closely with the Water Security Agency to strengthen/clarify this requirement.

Submitted By: Adam Toth

Approved By: Pam Malach

Title: Manager, Planning and Development

Date: May 18th, 2017

Reason for Report:


Report No. P&D 17-020 Prepared by:

Susan Stevenson

Presented to Council:

May 10th, 2017

Agenda Item: DPA 15-041 Rail Yarding Facility/SU 14-010 Community Planning File R0996-14R

Attachments:

1) Site Plan

2) Drainage and Grading

Recommendation: That Council approve development permit application DPA 15-041 for a Rail Yarding Facility at SE 9-18-19-W2, Ext 6 and direct the Development Officer to issue a development permit with the following conditions:

1. The Rail Yarding facility is developed according to the attached site plan (1). 2. The site is developed in accordance with the attached drainage and grading plan (2) and “as-

builts” are approved by the RM prior to occupancy. 3. All Utilities must be contacted to ensure that facilities are not affected prior to development

and construction. Applicants are required to contact Sask 1st Call if they are planning to dig or excavate: 1-888-828-4888 or www.sask1stcall.com.

4. That a bank draft be submitted to the development officer to cover the cost and installation of the landscaping as shown on the site plan, and that the landscaping must be completed within two (2) years.

5. Any further development will require a separate development permit. 6. Any structure, trailer, or building required auxiliary to this development will require a separate

development and building permit. 7. Pipeline crossing agreement between the applicant and pipeline will be required prior to land

development. 8. Crossing(s) will be constructed of appropriately engineered materials to protect any pipeline. 9. All interventions on subject lands should not adversely affect drainage on CN’s main line, or

create any new overland flow to CN lands in the event of a 100-year flood event. 10. That a minimum 30 metre setback of driveway entrances or curb cuts is required from the

nearest rail of an at-grade railway crossing as per Transport Canada standards and regulations. 11. That a Spill and Monitoring Plan be developed for protection of the underlying Condie aquifer. 12. That any additional Government Agency comments received prior to May 29th, 2017 shall be

implemented if relevant. 13. That Council approves the residual Agricultural parcel in SE-9-18-19-W2 at 115 acres.

http://www.sask1stcall.com/

Background:

To seek Council approval for a Rail Yarding facility at SE 9-18-19-W2, Ext 6.

Summary:

This proposed use will allow the applicant to conduct a rail/truck trans-load operation to

facilitate delivery of bulk goods. Deliveries are local with Consumers’ Cooperative Refinery

Complex being the main customer. Products are transferred between rail and truck using

electric motors. This transfer process uses a vapor recapture system to ensure that no

product is vented to the atmosphere. See images below:

North

Fleet Street

Subject Property:

SE 9-18-19-W2,

Ext 6

Wellings Industrial

Subdivision

of 6


Development Plan – Bylaw 9/91: Background

Agriculture is the most extensive land use in the Sherwood-Regina Planning District.

The agricultural base includes grain farms, Intensive Livestock Operations and

agricultural related businesses.

Objectives:

➢ To encourage the retention of agricultural land for agricultural purposes.

➢ To encourage agricultural business and agriculture sector services in order to

enhance the agricultural base.

➢ To minimize the impact of non-agricultural development on agricultural lands.

Zoning Bylaw – Bylaw 10/91:

The subject site is zoned A-Agriculture. The proposed Rail Yarding Facility is accommodated as a discretionary use under section 7.1.3 (15) Yarding, storage, operation or maintenance of railway rolling stock. As such, Council approval is required.

Implications:

SE 9-18-19-W2 Inland Drive

Subject Site Fleet Street

Hwy #46

a) Governance

n/a

b) Budget/Financial

c) Staff Resources

d) Business/Strategic Plan

e) Ratepayers (Citizens/Local Businesses)

Heibein’s Trucking have no opposition to this proposal.

No other comments were received.

Referral Comments:

SaskTel

SaskTel has no objection to the proposed application.

SaskPower

SaskPower plans to rebuild a portion of 25kV overhead powerline within this property’s

vicinity to upgrade facilities and increase reliability. The power line is planned to be built 0.5

metres within the road allowance and is currently planned to begin summer 2017.

Water Security Agency

Water Security Agency finds no concerns regarding the proposal.

Ministry of Environment

The Ministry of Environment has no concerns with the proposal. If there will be any storage of

hazardous substances at the site (diesel, gasoline, oil, etc.) approval under The Hazardous

Substances Waste Dangerous Good Regulations and/or The Environmental Management and

Protection Act, 2010 may be required from the Environmental Protection Branch.

Ministry of Agriculture

The proponent should be advised to salvage topsoil where feasible, otherwise the Ministry of

Agriculture has no issues with the development.

of 6

Ministry of Highways and Infrastructure

Ministry recommends approval subject to the following:

1. Minimum setbacks measured from the centerline of Provincial Highway No. 46-01-40

are 60 metres for any new homes, 38 metres for granaries, trees, shrubs, dugouts, etc.,

and 55 metres for commercial developments. Any permanent development within 90

metres of the highway right-of-way requires a permit from this office.

2. Any improvement or relocation of the current access points or the construction of a

new approach requires a permit from this office.

SaskWater

SaskWater has no facilities in the area that would be affected.

CN Rail

CN Rail requires a 30 metre setback of driveway entrances or curb cuts from the nearest rail

of an at-grade railway crossing as per Transport Canada standards and regulations.

City of Regina

The City of Regina has the following comments:

• An application un the City of Regina Interim Extra Municipal Servicing Policy is required

if the applicant is looking to connect or haul to any city infrastructure or facilities.

• The subject land is located within the Joint Planning Area; therefore, the policies and

bylaws within the Rural Municipality of Sherwood Official Community Plan (Bylaw

9/91) and RM of Sherwood Zoning Bylaw (Bylaw 10/91) apply.

• It is the City’s understanding that a service agreement will be required for the

corresponding subdivision application and that at the time of the subdivision any

traffic concerns and issues will be addressed.

• It is anticipated that this proposal will meet all Federation of Canadian Municipalities

and Transport Canada guidelines regarding railways.


Pipeline crossing proceedings.

Comments will be received from Government Agencies until May 29th, 2017; however, all

major concerns to date have been addressed and no additional comments received should

impact decision.


_____________________________________________________________________________________

Submitted By:

Susan Stevenson

Approved By:

Pam Malach

Title: Planning


Reviewed By:

Adam Toth


Report No. P&D 17-007 Prepared by: Susan Stevenson and Adam Toth

Presented to Council: May 24th, 2017 Agenda Item: DPA 16-039 Discretionary Use Development Application for a Seed

Cleaning Plant

Attachments:

1. Site Plan

2. Country Residential Concept at SE 27-17-21-W2

Background:

Recommendation:

That Council approves the development permit application DPA 16-039 and directs the Development Officer to issue a development permit with the following conditions:

1. That prior to development an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) be undertaken by a professional and paid for by the applicant to determine location suitability from the perspective of impact (noise, vibration, odor, dust, aesthetics, traffic, etc.) on adjacent future residential development at SE 27-17-21-W2.

2. That the development receives approval from the Ministry of Environment That if supported by the EIA and the Ministry of Environment:

1. The seed plant is developed according to the attached site plan. 2. That all utilities are contacted to locate facilities and confirm with RM that facilities will

not be affected. 3. The development officer requires confirmation of a sewage hauler and approval from

the receiving Municipality prior to occupancy if sewage disposal is by an enclosed holding tank.

4. That sewage servicing is to be approved by the Regulating Health Authority. 5. That any change to the natural drainage pattern would require approval from the Water

Security Agency. 6. That any proposed buildings onsite will require a building permit prior to construction. 7. That plant operations are suspended on Saturdays during the months May through

October, from 12:00 noon – 6:30 p.m. until such a time that the applicant can demonstrate that the decibel levels from the seed cleaning plant will not interfere with outdoor wedding ceremonies at Zadack Holdings.

8. That the City of Regina and the RM approves the Emergency Response Plan and are acceptable to the use from an emergency response capacity prior to development.

9. That architectural design of any new buildings should be compatible finish and color to nearby development, construction of the exterior/façade plan should be approved by the development officer.

10. Any future development will require a separate development and building permit.

To seek Council approval for a proposed seed cleaning plant at NE 27-17-21-W2 Ext 1. If

approved the applicant plans to build a new home adjacent to this proposed site.

Summary:

The applicant proposes to build a processing plant for cleaning and processing seed. The

operation will specifically consist of cleaning lentils and pulses. See attached site plan and

images below:

Subject Site: Pt NE 27-

17-W2M

Proposed Seed

Cleaning Plant

Dewdney Avenue

Range Road 2212

NE 27-17-21-W2M

Site of Proposed Seed

Cleaning Plant

West Regina Bypass

Dewdney Avenue

North

SE 27-17-21-W2M

SE 27-17-W2M Where

Country Residential

Proposal is planned

of 5


Development Plan – Bylaw 6/11

Goal 4: Protect Farm Activities as a Primary Resource

Although the RM does wish to attract new growth and investment, it wants to make sure that agriculture remains the primary land use within the municipality. Objectives:

➢ Retain agricultural land in large parcels

➢ Avoid the fragmentation of productive land for speculative purposes

➢ Allow only limited development in existing agricultural areas.

➢ Adjudicate development proposals for development that would cause unavoidable land

use conflicts with agriculture activities or resources (Part B, Section 2).

➢ Agriculture areas may be subdivided to allow for the creation of agricultural parcels with

a minimum size of a Quarter Section (approximately 160 acres), and the establishment

of a residential dwelling unit in compliance with the policies of this Plan and the RM

Zoning Bylaw; (Part C, Section 2, 2.13.1).

➢ Allow for the creation of residual agricultural parcels less than 120 acres at Councils’

discretion because of a subdivision for a public utility whether permitted or

discretionary.

Zoning Bylaw – 7/11

The subject site is zoned A-Agriculture. The proposed development is a seed cleaning plant

therefore in the Agriculture district it is accommodated as a discretionary use that requires

Council approval to proceed. The proposed development meets all required setbacks.

Circulation to Adjacent Landowners:

As this application is discretionary, a notice was sent to adjacent landowners within 75 metres

of this property for review and comment. 2 concerns were recorded and are addressed in the

table below:

Neighbouring Landowner (land location)

Concern Mitigation

Yvonne Zadorozniak (Par A, Plan 101433406 Ext 0, NE 27-17-21-W2)

Operates a wedding business. Noise from seed cleaning plant could interfere with outdoor ceremonies.

Applicant will not operate plant on Saturdays from noon until 6:30 p.m.

Inder and Sue Rattan (SE 27-17-21-W2)

The seed cleaning plant will negatively affect plans to development a Country Residential proposal at SE 27-17-21-W2.

Applicant will conduct an Environmental Impact Assessment to determine location suitability.

Ministry of Highways and Infrastructure

The Ministry has no concerns.

SaskTel Comments:

SaskTel has no objection to the proposed development.

SaskPower Comments:

Sask 1st Call should be contacted prior to any ground disturbance to ensure SaskPower facilities

are not affected.

SaskEnergy Comments:

Sask 1st Call should be contacted prior to any ground disturbance to ensure SaskEnergy facilities

are not affected.

Regina Airport Authority:

Regina Airport Authority has no concerns.

Access and Traffic:

Access to the proposed development will be by an existing approach on Range Road 2212 via

Dewdney Avenue as shown on site plan (1). R.M. of Sherwood Administration does not consider

this development to have a significant impact on traffic.

Drainage:

Water Security Agency has stated that there are no identifiable natural water bodies posing a

flood threat to this parcel. A 1:500 flood elevation is not required.

Water and Sewage:

Water will be supplied by a truck haul agreement. Sewage disposal is provided by pump out.

Implications:

of 5

a) Governance

N/A

b) Budget/Financial

N/A

c) Staff Resources

N/A


N/A


See Circulation to Adjacent Landowners


Although the development is outside of the Joint Planning Area (JPA) the proposal should be

shared with the City of Regina to ensure emergency response capacity.


Submitted By: Susan Stevenson and Adam Toth

Approved By: Pam Malach

Title: Manager of Planning and Development



Report No. P&D 17-021 Prepared by:

Susan Stevenson

Presented to Council:

May 24th, 2017

Agenda Item: DPA 17-012 Proposed Second Dwelling and detached garage

Attachments:

1. Site Plan

Background:

To seek Council approval for a second dwelling and detached garage at Parcel A, Plan

101363385, Ext 13, NE 16-17-20-W2.

Summary:

The existing yard includes a residence, a 20-stall horse stable, a riding arena and a heated

shop. This proposed use will allow the applicant to move a new RTM home onto the property

for their own personal use, as well as constructing a detached triple car garage. The existing

residence is occupied by their barn manager who oversees the operations of the horse

stables. See images below:

Recommendation: That Council approve development permit application DPA 17-012 for a second dwelling and detached garage at Par A, Plan 101363385, Ext 13, NE 16-17-20-W2 and direct the Development Officer to issue a development permit with the following conditions:

1. That the dwelling is built in accordance with the attached site plan (1). 2. That building permits are obtained prior to construction. 3. That all utilities are contacted to ensure facilities are not affected. 4. Applicants are required to contact SK 1st Call if they are planning to excavate or dig: 1-

866-828-4888 or visit www.sask1stcall.com. 5. That water and sewer servicing is installed to Provincial regulations and standards. 6. Use of garage shall be accessory to the residence. 7. Drainage on site is not to affect adjacent property owners. 8. That any additional Government Agency comments received prior to May 31st, 2017

shall be implemented if relevant. 9. That applicant is made aware that this development falls within the NEF 25-30 Zone,

as indicated in the attached report by Transport Canada. The proponent should consider acoustic insulation features in the building design to reduce aircraft noise.

http://www.sask1stcall.com/

Subject Property: Parcel

A, Plan 101363385, Ext

13, NE 16-17-20-W2

Proposed Dwelling

Proposed detached

garage

North

Township Road 2203

Highway #1 West

North

NE 16-17-20-W2

Subject Site

Future Bypass Highway

Dewdney Avenue

of 5


Development Plan – Bylaw 9/91: Background

Agriculture is the most extensive land use in the Sherwood-Regina Planning District.

The agricultural base includes grain farms, Intensive Livestock Operations and

agricultural related businesses.

Objectives:

➢ To encourage the retention of agricultural land for agricultural purposes.

➢ To encourage agricultural business and agriculture sector services in order to

enhance the agricultural base.

➢ To minimize the impact of non-agricultural development on agricultural lands.

Zoning Bylaw – Bylaw 10/91:

The subject site is zoned A – Agriculture. The proposed second dwelling is accommodated as a

discretionary use under Section 7.1.1(6) One additional dwelling unit accessory to a use which

is permitted or discretionary in the A – Agricultural Zone, provided the dwelling unit is used to

accommodate either full-time workers engaged in the operation on the site and/or joint

owners of the site who participate in the operation. As such Council approval is required.

Implications:

a) Governance

n/a

b) Budget/Financial

c) Staff Resources



No comments were received from Neighbouring properties.

Referral Comments:

Regina Airport Authority

Regina Airport Authority advises that the development is within Airport Zoning Regulations

outer limits, but is not within any runway approach paths. The location is within the NEF 25-30

zone and it is within the Critical Bird Hazard Zone.

The development proponent should be advised that construction may need to reflect

appropriate design considerations for noise conditions within the NEF zone it sits; see

attached document for land use in the vicinity of aerodromes (2).

Construction of improvements that would attract birds to the area would potentially impact

operations at Regina International Airport; therefore, RAA encourages mitigation to

discourage the attraction of birds to this site. Attached is a report (3) regarding Bird Hazard

Risk around airports, and note that use as a ‘Stable’ is “Generally Permitted with Review”, for

lands within the Critical Bird Hazard Zone, such as this site.

Heritage Conservation Branch – Ministry of Parks Culture and Sport

No known archaeological sites are in direct conflict with the proposed subdivision. Land use

remains the same. The land has been previously disturbed by residential and agricultural

activities. The likelihood that intact archaeological sites exist in this area is low. Therefore,

their office has no further concerns with this development proceeding as planned.

City of Regina

The City of Regina has reviewed the application and offers the following comments:

• An application is required if the applicant is looking to connect or haul to any City

infrastructure or facility (water, wastewater, drainage or hauling of septage).

• The subject land is located within the Joint Planning Area; therefore, the policies and

bylaws within the RM of Sherwood Official Community Plan (Bylaw 9/91) and RM of

Sherwood Zoning Bylaw 10/91 apply.

• As indicated in the application, it is our understanding that this proposal is an

extension of the existing use on the 8.094-hectare property that includes a residence,

20 stall horse stable, riding arena and a heated shop; therefore, the City does not have

any concerns.


Comments will be received from Government Agencies until May 31st, 2017; however, all

major concerns to date have been addressed and no additional comments received should

impact decision.

of 5


_____________________________________________________________________________________

Submitted By:

Susan Stevenson

Approved By:

Title: Planning


Reviewed By:

Adam Toth

Transport Transports

Canada Canada

TP1247E

2013/14

AVIATION

Land Use In The Vicinity of Aerodromes

n 1 nt 1. 1 .in,, 1

Canada1

Abstract

This publication describes not only the operational characteristics of aerodromes but also different types

of land uses outside the aerodrome property boundary and recommends, where applicable, guidelines for

those land uses in the vicinity of aerodromes. In addition, the source documents have been linked to

further explain the technical aeronautical requirements.

This publication was prepared by the Flight Standards division of the Standards Branch of the Civil

Aviation Directorate of Transport Canada. Enquiries relating to the document's content and suggested

amendments should be directed to:

Chief

Flight Standards

Standards Branch

Civil Aviation Directorate

Transport Canada

Place de Ville, Tower "C"

330 Sparks Street

Ottawa, Ontario

K1A0N8

Parti -- Introduction

This publication is designed to assist planners and legislators at all levels of government in becoming

familiar with issues related to land use in the vicinity of aerodromes.

Municipal planners and developers must understand that how land is used around an aerodrome will

have an impact on the aerodrome's operations. The land use around aerodromes can have significant

impacts on safety at the aerodrome and can negatively impact the operational viability of the aerodrome

to the detriment of the local community that depends upon it.

The compatible land use planning concept is an outgrowth of the focus of attention on the environmental

relationship between aerodromes and their community neighbours. This planning concept is relatively

simple and the results can be impressive, but the implementation requires careful study and co-ordinated

planning.

Some community/aerodrome situations have reached the point where the effect of land use planning

guidelines may be minimal. However, there are still instances where the use of these guidelines will result

in more compatible aerodrome and community development. Implementation of this guidance may result

in provincial/municipal legislation or bylaws for compatible land uses, easements or land zoning.

As new and non-traditional uses of land become more prevalent (e.g. windfarms) ,the public and aviation

stakeholders have advanced concerns to Transport Canada over items that may be viewed as

impediments to access or as safety items. The ninth edition of TP 1247 has been revised to address

these issues.

Where units of measure are quoted in this document, the metric numbers are to be heeded as the

equivalent imperial units are approximations only.

For the purposes of this document, where the word aerodrome is used, it includes certified aerodromes,

non-certified aerodromes, heliports and water aerodromes; where the word airport is used, it specifically

means certified aerodromes.

Enquiries relating to the application of these guidelines should be directed to the appropriate Regional

Director Civil Aviation. Addresses for the Regional Civil Aviation officials are listed in Appendix A.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Part I ~ Introduction 2

Definitions 6

1.1 General 7

1.2 Slopes and Surfaces 7

1.3 Outer Surface 9

1.3.1 Dimensions of Outer Surface 9

1.4 Take-Off/Approach Areas and Surfaces 9

1.4.1 Delimination 10

1.4.2 Dimensions of the Takeoff/Approach Areas and Surfaces 10

1.5 Transitional Surface 12

1.5.1 Delimination 12

1.6 Width of Strip 12

1.6.1 Dimensions of the Runway Strips 12

Part II - Telecommunications and Electronic Systems 13

2.1 General 13

2.2 Radar Systems 13

2.2.1 Air Traffic Control (ATC), Air Defence or Military Radars 14

2.2.2 Weather Radar 14

2.3 VHF/UHF Radio Communication Systems 14

2.4 Navigational Aids 14

2.4.1 General 14

2.4.2 Non-Directional Beacons (NDB) 15

2.4.3 VHF Direction Finding Systems (VHF/DF) 15

2.4.4 VHF Omni-Directional Range (VOR) 15

2.4.5 Distance Measuring Equipment (DME) 15

2.4.6 Tactical Air Navigation System (TACAN and VORTAC) 16

2.4.7 Instrument Landing Systems (ILS) 16

Part III - Bird Hazards and Wildlife 17

3.1 General 17

3.2 Hazardous Land-use Acceptability 17

Part IV - Aircraft Noise 19

4.1 General 19

4.1.1 Noise Measurement 19

4.1.2 Predicting Annoyance 20

4.1.3 The Noise Exposure Forecast System (NEF) 20

4.2 Production of Noise Contours - Aerodromes That Are Neither Owned Nor Operated and

Managed by Transport Canada 20

4.3 Noise Exposure Contours 21

4.3.1 Noise Exposure Forecast (NEF) 21

4.3.2 Noise Exposure Projection (NEP) 21

4.3.3 Planning Contour 21

4.4 Production of Noise Contours: DND Aerodromes 21

4.5 Noise Contour Maps 22

4.6 Community Response to Noise 22

4.6.1 New Aerodromes and Community Response to Noise 22

4.7 Recommended Noise Control Action 23

4.8 Recommended Practices 23

PART V - Restrictions to Visibility 31

PART VI -Wind Turbines and Wind Farms 32

6.0 General 32

3

6.1 Wind turbine marking and lighting 32

6.2 Wind turbines and airport radar 32

6.3 Navigation aids and communication systems 32

6.4 Weather Radar 33

6.5 Parachute Landing Areas (PLA) 33

6.6 Light Pollution 33

PART VII - Exhaust Plumes 34

PART VIII - Solar Array Installations 35

Appendix A - Regional Offices of Transport Canada - Civil Aviation 37

Transport Canada Land Use Role

From a regulatory perspective, the authority for the designation of and control of the use of lands located

outside of aerodrome property rests with provincial/municipal levels of government. The only exception to

this fact, in the aviation case, occurs where an airport zoning regulation, made pursuant to the

Aeronautics Act, is in force.

The Minister of Transport may exercise authority only over lands that are included in an Airport Zoning

Regulation made pursuant to the Act. An Airport Zoning Regulation contains restrictive clauses that

describe the activities and uses that are restricted or prohibited and contains a legal description of the

lands to which it applies.

Restrictions and or prohibitions contained in a zoning regulation may range from limiting the height of

structures to prohibiting specified land uses or to prohibiting facilities that may interfere with signals or

communications to/from aircraft.

Airport zoning regulations cannot be made for non-certified aerodromes.

Individual zoning regulations are included in a listing of regulations made pursuant to the Aeronautics Act

and may be found at the following internet address:

http://www.tc.qc.ca/enq/acts-requlations/acts-1985ca-2.ritm

Definitions

The following definitions are provided for the purposes of this document only;

Airport: An aerodrome for which, under Part III of the Canadian Aviation Regulations, an airport

certificate has been issued by the Minister.

Aerodrome: Any area of land, water (including the frozen surface thereof) or other supporting surface

used or designed, prepared, equipped or set apart for use either in whole or in part for the arrival,

departure, movement or servicing of aircraft and includes any buildings, installations and equipment

situated thereon or associated therewith.

Note: This definition of "Aerodrome" includes water aerodrome and heliports.

Aerodrome Reference Point: The designated point or points on an aerodrome normally located near

the geometric centre of the runway complex that:

(a) establishes the geographical location of an aerodrome for charting purposes, and

(b) establishes the locus of the radius or radii of the outer surface as defined in a Zoning Regulation.

Graded Area: An area surrounding the runway which is graded to a specified standard to minimize

hazards to aircraft which may accidentally run off the runway surface.

Heliport: An aerodrome or a defined area on a structure intended to be used wholly or in part for the

arrival, departure and surface movement of helicopters.

Obstacle Limitation Surface: A surface that establishes the limit to which objects may project into the

airspace associated with an aerodrome consisting of the following; a takeoff surface, an approach

surface, a transitional surface and an outer surface.

Runway Strip: A defined area including the runway, and stopway if provided, intended to reduce the

risk of damage to aircraft running off a runway and to protect aircraft flying over it during takeoff or landing

operations.

Water Aerodrome: means an aerodrome that uses an area of water, excluding the frozen surface of that

area, for the arrival, departure, movement or servicing of aircraft.

1.1 General

This part will give the reader some insight into those aerodrome operational factors which can affect land

uses outside the aerodrome property boundary. Each factor is considered separately and in enough detail

to allow general planning conclusions to be drawn. It is important that any particular land use under

consideration be judged from the point of view of all relevant factors. The referenced Manual for Part I is:

Aerodrome Standards and Recommended Practices (TP 312E).

Obstacle Limitation Surfaces are established to ensure the required level of safety. These surfaces

normally extend beyond the boundary of the aerodrome and therefore benefit from protection by the

enactment of an Airport Zoning Regulation which will prohibit the erection of structures which would

violate any of the defined plane surfaces.

Where enacted, zoning regulations apply to all the lands, including public road allowances, adjacent to or

in the vicinity of an airport; the specific lands are described in the Schedule of the relevant airport zoning

regulation. Lands within an airport boundary are therefore not included in an airport zoning regulation;

however, all structures within an airport boundary must comply with obstacle limitation surface

requirements, as stated in TP312 Aerodrome Standards and Recommended Practices.

For those airports at which an Airport Zoning Regulation has been enacted under the Aeronautics Act,

details of the registered zoning plans are available from the Land Registry Office for the district within

which the airport is located.

1.2 Slopes and Surfaces

There are three types of surfaces in place at an aerodrome that should be protected to avoid penetration

by objects or structures. Protection of these surfaces is done by limiting the height of structures, including

appurtenances or objects on the ground, to heights that are less than that of the slope surface thereby

avoiding penetration of that surface.

Airports that have an Airport Zoning Regulation have these surfaces protected by law and these zoning

regulations apply to land that is located outside the property boundary of the airport. At aerodromes that

do not have an Airport Zoning Regulation, the cooperation of adjacent communities is sought to obtain

provincial/municipal zoning protection against development that would compromise the operational

airspace, as defined by the description of these surfaces, around the aerodrome facility.

Where the facility is an airport, objects penetrating any of these surfaces may affect the operations of the

airport and the certification status of the airport. Where the facility is a non-certified aerodrome,

penetration of these surfaces may affect the operations at the aerodrome. Where the facility is a non-

certified aerodrome, the standards in TP312 Aerodrome Standards and Recommended Practices can be

used but are not enforceable; however, the operational integrity of the non-certified aerodrome is

enhanced if the designation of the use of land adjacent to the facility is done in line with technical portions

of the standards.

The three types of surfaces in place at an aerodrome are the outer surface, the takeoff /approach slope

surface and the transitional surface as shown in Figure 1.

A complete description of the standards related to these surfaces may be accessed at the following

website:

http://www.tc.qc.ca/enq/civilaviation/publications/tp312-menu-4765.htm

The following figure will assist the reader in developing a visual picture of the surfaces discussed above

PLAN VIEW:

OUTER SURFACE

RADIUSfrom aerodrome reference point

TAKE-OFF /APPROACH SURFACE

PRORLE VIEWS:

TAKE-OFF / APPROACH SURFACE

^ OUTERSURFACE

SECTION A-A

ReferTP312

OUTERSURFACE | TRANSITIONAL SURFACE __J

VSECTION B-B

HIGH GROUND

Figure 1: Obstacle Limitation Surfaces

1.3 Outer Surface

An outer surface shall be established where required for the protection of aircraft conducting a circling

procedure or manoeuvring in the vicinity of an aerodrome. The outer surface establishes the height above

which it may be necessary to rake one or more of the following actions:

(a) restrict the erection of new structures which would constitute an obstruction; or

(b) remove or mark obstacles to ensure a satisfactory level of safety and regularity for aircraft

manoeuvring visually in the vicinity of the airport before commencing the final approach phase

(See Figure 2).

1.3.1 Dimensions of Outer Surface

Where an outer surface is established, it shall be as follows:

(a) a common plane established at a constant elevation of 45 m above the assigned elevation of the

aerodrome reference point; and

(b) when the common plane described in paragraph (a) is less than 9 m above the surface of the

ground, an imaginary surface shall be established at 9 m above the surface of the ground (See

Figures 2 and 3).

Note: When the outer surface elevation cannot be held to 45 m, a semi-circular outer surface may be

established permitting a circling procedure on one side of the runway. If this compromise solution is not

possible, circling as part of an instrument approach procedure should not be recognized, thus eliminating

the need for an outer surface.

The outer surface measured from the designated aerodrome reference point or points, shall extend to a

horizontal distance of at least:

(a) 4000 m is recommended where the code number is 1, 2 or 3.

(b) to be determined by an aeronautical study where the code number is 4, but never less than 4000

m.

**j • ni* i»»*«r&

£3 IU.MO'. y

Figure 2 - Obstacle Limitation Surface - Side View

1.4 Take-Off/Approach Areas and Surfaces

1.4.1 Delimination

They are established for each runway direction intended to be used for the take-off and landing of aircraft.

(a) An inner edge, perpendicular to the runway, begins at the end of the runway strip (normally 60 m

from the runway threshold). The length of the inner edge is dependent on the strip width.

(b) Two sides originate at the ends of the inner edge and diverge uniformly at either 10% or 15%

from the extended runway centre line (Note: See divergence minima information in

paragraph 1.4.2).

(c) Final Width will be the product of the divergence and length of the area, and will be parallel to the

inner edge.

1.4.2 Dimensions of the Takeoff/Approach Areas and Surfaces

The dimensions of the takeoff/approach areas and surfaces shall be:

(a)

Precision Approach Runway - Category I and II

Length of inner edge||As per strip width

Divergence (min)

Length (min.)

*Slope (max.)

[15%

6 000 m

Cat. II Runways, 2% where the code number is 3 or 4.

Cat. I Runways, 2% where the code number is 3 or 4.

Cat. I Runways, 2.5% where the code number is 1 or 2.

* Where applicable, for new runways at major aerodromes the slope should be 1.66% for the first 3000 m

and 2% thereafter for a total length of 15 000 m.

For the purposes of registered zoning, the takeoff approach surfaces of Code 3 and 4 Precision Approach

Runways shall be defined by using slopes appropriate for a glide path extending for a maximum of 6 KM.

If local terrain precludes the use of a glide path, then the lowest usable glide slope should be selected.

(b)

[Non-Precision Approach Runway

[Code Number |[i ||2 ||3 ||4 |

Length of inner edge||As per strip width

|Length (min.) ||2500m|l2500ml|3000mll3000m|

I* Slope (max.) ||3.33% ||3.33% l|2.5% ||2.5%

* Where practicable, the slope should be 2%.

(c)

|Non-lnstrument Runways ~~]

|Code Number ||1 ~\\2 ||3 |[4 I

|Length of inner edge||As per strip width |

[Divergence (min.) H1O% ||1O% [[1O% ||1O% I

Length (min.) ||2 500m||2 500m||3 000m!

Slope (max.)

Note: The lengths given in (a), (b) and (c) above, are measured horizontally, unless otherwise specified.

Regardless of the slope specifications in (a), (b) and (c) above, all objects considered by the certifying

authority to be hazardous shall be marked and/or lighted.

10

§CO

ocrto

sro

o

I-

3

Io3

CO

io

9CO

SLOPE OF TAKEOFF/

APPROACH SURFACE

TOP OF OUTER SURFACE

45 m

RADIUS OF OUTER SURFACE

4000 m

AIRPORT REFERENCE POINT

(Geometric centre of landing area)

RUNWAY

RUNWAY STRIP

INNER EDGE

HIGH

GROUND

1.5 Transitional Surface

1.S.1 Delimination

Transitional surface is a complex surface along the sides of the runway strip and pan of the approach

surface that slopes up to the outer surface. Its purpose is to ensure the safety of aircraft at low altitudesdisplaced from the runway centre line in the approach or missed approach phase. The slope of atransitional surface measured in the vertical, perpendicular to the runway shall be:

14.3% for an Instrument runway and non-Instrument runways, Code 3 and 4

20.0% for non-Instrument runways, Code 1 and 2

Where topographical or natural obstructions make it economically unreasonable and in the opinion of the

Certifying Authority, an equivalent level of safety will be achieved, the transitional surfaces for runways

where the code number is 1 or 2, used in Visual Meteorological Conditions (VMC) may be steepened or

eliminated provided the strip width is widened in accordance with the following:

Strip Width

Code Number ||90 m|

1. Transitional Surfacel|33% HVertical||Vertical|

2. Transitional Surface||33% ||50% |[Vertical|

Note: This is intended to provide relief for small aerodromes in mountainous regions, used in VMC,

where river valleys, etc. are the only sites, available. At other locations an aeronautical study andHeadquarters' approval is required before applying the above criteria.

1.6 Width of Strip

1.6.1 Dimensions of the Runway Strips

1. Width of Strip - Instrument Runways

The runway strip shall extend the following distances each side of the centre line of the runway.

Precision Approach Runway:

1. 150 m where the code number is 3 or 4,

2. 75 m where the code number is 1 or 2.

Non-Precision Approach Runway:

3. 150 m where the code number is 4,



2. Width of Strip - Non-instrument Runways

Runway strips containing a non-instrument approach runway shall extend each side of the centreline as follows:




12

Part II -- Telecommunications and Electronic Systems

2.1 General

The guidance contained in this part is aimed at protecting navigational aids, radars and

telecommunications systems which include systems for civil, military, and environmental applications.

Transport Canada approval of the location and/or construction of structures and facilities considered

incompatible would only be required for structures located on lands to which an airport zoning regulation

applies.

Local land use planners and those wishing to erect structures are encouraged to contact regional

Transport Canada Civil Aviation offices for assistance in locating any nearby aerodromes and

NavCanada for assistance in locating any potentially impacted radars, navigation aids or

telecommunications facilities. Local planners and those wishing to erect structures are encouraged to

consult with identified airport and aerodrome operators and NavCanada. NavCanada can be contacted at

1 -866-577-0247 or by email at landuse(5jnavcanada.ca.

The information contained in this part represents the criteria normally applicable for the protection of

navigational aids, radars and telecommunications systems. More specific guidance on structures

conforming to these values should be available from the owner of the radar, navigational aid or

telecommunications system.

Planners should also be aware that, where airport zoning regulations are in effect, specific structures

which contravene the values contained within said zoning regulations may sometimes be acceptable,

provided that the applicant demonstrates by a technical analysis that such approvals will not cause

harmful interference.

Consultation with the radar, navigational aid or telecommunication system owner should take place at an

early stage in the project in order to avoid costly redesign or undue pressure when seeking building and

site approvals. It is recommended that consultation take place at the building concept stage, before site

approval is sought.

The radar, navigational aid or telecommunication system owner should ensure that full coordination takes

place with aerodrome and local authorities where there is any air navigation system change that may

impact local communities.

Wofe; The development and promulgation of the requirements for the protection of radar, navigational aid

or telecommunication systems are the responsibility of the facility owner.

2.2 Radar Systems

The radar coverage volume for all types of radar systems can be reduced by a structure blocking the

transmit or receive signal path. The severity of this blockage is proportional to the size of the structure

and varies according to its location.

The size and construction material of buildings and other structures can be controlled to ensure that the

radar coverage volume is maintained and that the number of false targets detected is not increased.

False targets are usually a problem only with Air Traffic Control (ATC) Radar Systems (including military

and weather radar systems). They are created by transmitted or received signals being reflected from

structures. The magnitude of the reflection is proportional to the size of the structure and the electrical

behaviour of the material used. Non-metallic materials can reduce the magnitude of the reflection.

The protection criteria presented in this section are provided for general guidance purposes only. For

more precise criteria suitable to the location/structure being proposed, proponents should contact local

aerodrome operators and/or the radar/navigation aid/communication systems owner.

2.2.1 Air Traffic Control (ATC), Air Defence or Military Radars

(a) Primary Surveillance Radar (PSR)

(i) within 300 m of the radar site, no building or other structure should exceed a height of 5 m below

the geodetic height of the antenna platform. The preference is to have no structure at all or to

have trees surrounding the site.

(ii) from 300 to 1,000 m from the radar site, the upper limit on the height of a structure is increased

at a rate of approximately 0.007 m per metre. Thus, at a distance of 1,000 m from the site, the

structure can be as high as the geodetic height of the antenna tower platform.

(iii) beyond 1,000 m from the radar site, no site protection requirement is specified; however, it is

preferable not to have any large structure exceeding 0.25° above the radar horizon. Large

structures are defined as having an azimuth of more than 0.43°. The consequences of building

such structures should be brought to the attention of the local land use authority responsible for

approving the proposal for construction.

(b) Secondary Surveillance Radar (SSR)

The provisions given above for a Primary Radar System apply as well for an ATC Secondary

Surveillance Radar System. In addition, all buildings or other structures within 1,000 m of the radar

should be constructed with non-metallic materials having a low reflectivity at frequencies from 1 0 to

1.1 GHz.

(c) Precision Approach Radar (PAR)

Within 900 m of the approach area to a runway served by a Precision Approach Radar System, no

reflecting objects (trees, buildings or other structures) are allowable.

(d) Airport Surface Detection Equipment Radar (ASDE)

No structure should be built that blocks the line-of-sight from the ASDE radar antenna to any runway,

taxiway, intersection, etc., unless it is approved by the owner of the equipment. Any exception would

have to demonstrate that the blockage would be operationally insignificant.

2.2.2 Weather Radar

No structures exceeding the height of the radar antenna should be built within a radius of 300 m of

weather radars. Environment Canada is the entity responsible for siting weather radars in Canada. The

owner or proponent of the structure is responsible for any coordination with Environment Canada.

2.3 VHF/UHF Radio Communication Systems

Metallic structures may cause reflection of communication signals. In cases where such structures are

proposed to be constructed within 300 m of a VHF/UHF transmitter/receiver installation, consultation with

the owner of the communications systems is recommended.


more precise criteria suitable to the location/structure being proposed, proponents should contact local

aerodrome operators and/or the radar/navigation aid/communication systems owner.

2.4 Navigational Aids

2.4.1 General

Although several different standardized types of navigational aids are used to support air navigation, they

share the common characteristic that the navigation guidance is derived partially as a function of the

direction from which the navigation signals are received. Any structure that causes unwanted reflections

of guidance signals will cause some of those signals to be received from a different direction, altering the

navigation guidance in a potentially hazardous way. For this reason, it is important to screen and assess

any developments in the vicinity of navigational aids.

14


more precise criteria suitable to the location/structure being proposed, proponents should contact localaerodrome operators and/or the navigational aid owner.

2.4.2 Non-Directional Beacons (NDB)

The following types of structures should be assessed prior to construction to determine the potential

impact on navigation signals from an NDB:

(a) All proposed structures within 200 m of an NDB antenna; and

(b) All proposed steel towers, power lines, metal buildings, etc., within 1,000 m of an NDB antenna,

for which the subtended vertical angle measured from the base of the NDB antenna structureexceeds 3°.

2.4.3 VHF Direction Finding Systems (VHF/DF)

Siting requirements for VHF/DF are of major importance. In particular, the equipment requires that:

(a) within 45 m of the antenna: ground to be level ±1° and surface roughness ±30 cm

(b) within 90 m of the antenna: ground to be clear of trees, masts, metal fences and vehicles.

(c) within 180 m of the antenna: ground to be clear of buildings, car parks and small metal structures.

(d) within 365 m of the antenna: ground to be clear of built-up areas, hangars, railways and other

metallic structures.

In general, a clear line-of-sight should be maintained between the antenna system and local flying

aircraft.

The VHF/DF antenna should be separated from any VHF air/ground communication (transmitting)

antenna to the greatest extent practical, but by at least 2 km, and be separated from any antenna

transmitting a high power broadcast by at least 8 km.

2.4.4 VHF Omni-Directional Range (VOR)

For standard VOR facilities, the following constraints should be applied to maintain the required accuracyof navigation signals:

(a) Within 300 m radius of the VOR antenna array, the area should be clear of trees, fences, wire

lines, structures, machinery or buildings;

(b) Within 600 m radius of the VOR antenna array, structures and buildings having large metal

content, wire lines and fences should not subtend a vertical angle of more than 1.2° or extend

above the horizontal plane as measured from the array centre, except that the subtended vertical

angle may be increased by 50% for fences or lines which are essentially radial or which subtend

an angle of not more than 0.2° measured in the horizontal plane;

(c) Within 600 m radius of the VOR antenna array, wooden structures or buildings with negligible

metallic content should not subtend a vertical angle of more than 2.5°; and

(d) Outside of 600 m radius of the VOR antenna, proposed large continuous metallic objects such as

overhead power lines, masts, water towers or large metal-clad buildings which will penetrate

beyond above the horizontal plane as measured from the array centre, or which will subtend a

vertical angle of more than 1.2°, should be assessed prior to construction to determine the

potential impact on VOR navigation signals.

The above criteria for standard VOR also apply to Doppler-type VOR facilities, except that the radius of

300 m may be reduced to 150 m, and the radius of 600 m may be reduced to 300 m.

2.4.5 Distance Measuring Equipment (DME)

DME may be installed as a stand-alone facility, or may be collocated with a VOR or ILS facility.

15

The following types of structures should be assessed prior to construction to determine the potential

impact on navigation signals from a DME:

(a) All proposed structures within 150 m of a DME antenna; and

(b) All proposed steel towers, power lines, metal buildings, etc., within 3,000 m of a DME antenna,

for which the subtended angle of elevation measured from the base of the DME antenna structure

exceeds 1°.

2.4.6 Tactical Air Navigation System (TACAN and VORTAC)

TACAN is a military navigational aid whose functions are similar to those of a combined VOR and DME.

TACAN may be installed as a stand-alone facility, or may be co-located with a VOR (VORTAC). Criteria

outlined above for VOR and DME are applicable to TACAN.

2.4.7 Instrument Landing Systems (ILS)

An ILS supporting operations to a given runway generally consists of two complementary components: a

localizer transmitter installed near the stop end of the runway and a glide path transmitter installed

alongside the runway roughly 300 m from the beginning of the runway.

ILS supports all-weather precision approach and landing operations. To maintain the safety of landing

aircraft, it is critical that the accuracy of ILS navigation signals not be compromised by unwanted

reflections or interference.

The most significant sources of interference for ILS facilities are metallic objects having appreciable

horizontal dimensions such as structural steel towers, metal-clad buildings and power/telephone

transmission lines. These objects may reflect the ILS signals in unwanted directions, distorting the

information provided to aircraft. Planners involved in siting and approval of these sources of interference

should contact the ILS facility owner. For planning purposes, all runways should be considered to be

equipped with an ILS at each end.

Any proposed structure on or in the vicinity of an aerodrome should be subjected to a detailed

assessment for possible interference to ILS facilities unless it falls outside the Building Restricted Area

(BRA) surfaces for ILS as defined in the document, European Guidance Material on Managing Building

Restricted Areas1. (Buildings within the ILS building restricted area are often acceptable after a detailedassessment. In some cases, measures such as appropriate orientation of the building, shape of

reflecting surfaces, etc. can significantly reduce the impact on ILS navigation signals.)

Some ILS localizers provide "back course" approach navigation guidance to the reciprocal end of the

runway. For these localizers, the applicable restrictions apply in both directions from the antenna array.

High voltage power lines and substations radiate Electromagnetic Noise (EMN). In addition, EMN

radiated by Industrial-Scientific-Medical (ISM) apparatus may inhibit reliable reception of ILS signals.

Power lines and substations should be designed, constructed and maintained using state of the art

techniques to minimize radiated EMN in the ILS frequency bands. In general, the following should be

avoided:

(a) power lines with voltages greater than 100 kV that are closer than 1.8 km from the runway centre

line and closer than 3.2 km from the ends of the runway;

(b) AC electrical substations for voltages greater than 100 kV that are closer than 3.2 km from the

centre line of the runway and closer than 16 km from the ends of the runway;

(c) ISM apparatus operating within the rectangular area extending 1.5 km on either side of the centre

line of the runway to the outer markers.

11nternational Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) European and North Atlantic Office:ICAO EUR DOC 015, European Guidance Material on Managing Building Restricted Areas. Second

Edition (2009)

16

Part III - Bird Hazards and Wildlife

3.1 General

In its many civil aviation responsibilities, Transport Canada remains focused sharply on the safety of air

travelers. This focus has led the department to examine numerous potential hazards, including those

found on and in areas around Canadian aerodromes.

Working with industry experts, and based on extensive international scientific research, Transport

Canada has confirmed that these hazards include many forms of wildlife, from birds and deer which are

often struck by aircraft, to smaller prey animals that attract more hazardous species. Wildlife of all types

can be hazardous to aircraft because they can cause structural or engine damage. The hazard is greatest

at and in the vicinity of aerodromes due to the concentration of aircraft activity close to the ground, where

the majority of wildlife lives. In addition, aircraft involved in takeoffs or landings are at low altitudes and in

a critical phase of flight where any disruptions to the operation could be catastrophic.

The presence of birds at or near aerodromes presents particular hazards. Aerodromes are naturally

attractive areas to many species of birds because the wide open, short grass areas provide the basic

elements of security from predators and humans, a place to nest and loaf (just generally sit about) and

access to food and water sources. Wildlife Management programs at aerodromes effectively reduce this

natural attraction of birds to aerodrome lands, primarily through major habitat management and

manipulation projects, as well as through day to day vigilance and the use of bird scaring techniques.

While these on aerodrome activities are effective, they can be neutralized by the presence of attractive

land use or activities outside the aerodrome boundary. Hazardous bird species will be persistent in their

attempts to use the aerodrome as a convenient stop over and resting place before or after feeding at a

nearby location. It is therefore important that land in the surrounding area be used in a manner that is

compatible with the wildlife control measures in use on the aerodrome, to minimize the attraction to birds

and other potentially hazardous species.

Wildlife respects no boundaries, physical or regulatory, and often congregates in and passes through air-

traffic corridors, such as take-off, departure, approach and landing areas. The result is risk to aircraft and

air travelers that can be minimized when aerodrome area stakeholders work together and systematically

integrate their efforts to:

• identify wildlife hazards and risks;

• plan, coordinate and implement management and mitigation measures; and

• measure results.

These activities can prevent lands in the vicinity from being used or developed in a manner that is

incompatible with the safe operation of aircraft due to hazardous wildlife activity.

The following information provides guidance on the acceptability of different land use practices in the

vicinity of aerodromes. General land use practices have been evaluated on their relative attractiveness to

traditionally hazardous bird species.

Note: Where land in the vicinity of aerodromes is targeted for development, local land use authorities

should consult a wildlife/bird hazard specialist to identify and address any issues relative to attractant and

habitat concerns prior to approval of the development.

3.2 Hazardous Land-use Acceptability

Not all potentially hazardous activities possess the same level of potential risk and cannot be treated

equally when planning land uses in the vicinity of an aerodrome. The acceptability of land use activities

can be classified using specific zones created around the aerodrome property, as defined in Safety

Above All - http://www.tc.gc.ca/enq/civilaviation/publications/tp8240-awmb38-appendix-a-5031 htm.

17

Primary Hazard Zones generally enclose airspace in which aircraft are at or below altitudes of 1500 feet

AGL (above ground level). These are the altitudes most populated by hazardous birds, and at which

collisions with birds have the potential to result in the greatest damage.

Secondary Hazard Zones (4km beyond the Primary Hazard Zone) are buffers that account for:

• variables in pilot behaviour and technique;

• variations in departure and arrival paths that are influenced by environmental conditions, ATC (air

traffic control) requirements, IFR versus VFR flight, etc.; and

• unpredictability of bird behaviour, and variations in bird movements around specific land uses.

Special Hazard Zones, though often distant from aerodromes, may regularly attract potentially

hazardous species across primary or secondary zones.

Table 1. Hazardous land-use acceptability by hazard zone

LAND-USE ACCEPTABILITY BY

LEVEL OF RISK LAND USE ZONE

Primary Secondary Special

Potentially High

Putrescible waste landfills

Food waste hog farms

Fish processing/packing plants

Horse racetracks

Wildlife refuges

Waterfowl feeding stations

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

Potentially

Moderate

Open or partially enclosed waste transfer Kl .,

stations No NoCattle paddocks No No

Poultry factory farms No No

Sewage lagoons No No

Marinas/fishing boats/fish cleaning facilities No No

Golf courses No No

Municipal parks No No

Picnic areas No No

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Potentially Low

Dry waste landfills

Enclosed waste transfer facility

Wet/dry recycling facility

Marshes, swamps & mudflats

Stormwater management ponds

Plowing/cultivating/haying

Commercial shopping mall/plazas

Fast food restaurants

Outdoor restaurants

School yards

Community & recreation centers

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Potentially Limited

Vegetative compost facilities

Natural habitats

Inactive agricultural fields

Inactive hay fields

Rural ornamental & farm ponds

Residential areas

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

18

Land-use acceptability is site sensitive, and can be determined only through detailed assessments of

each aerodrome and its surroundings. The table indicates general land-use suitability in primary,

secondary and special hazard zones.

Although the table lists discreet categories, land-use suitability is dynamic and subject to change based

on a variety of factors, including seasonal considerations and the range of activities that may be

associated with a specific site. For example, agricultural fields can be classified as posing limited risk as

long as they remain inactive. The moment cultivation begins; the degree of risk escalates, since the

turning of soil, seeding, etc., increase the attraction to wildlife.

Risk may also escalate incrementally due to concentrations of land uses. For example, a golf course's

attractiveness to birds may increase if the facility is bordered by a storm water management pond, marsh

or agricultural operation.

Finally, it's important to note that risks associated with many land uses can be reduced through

appropriate mitigation and monitoring. The acceptability of a commercial shopping plaza in a primary

hazard zone, for example, would depend on the effectiveness of facility design-or the property owner's

active, calculated interventions-to minimize the operation's attractiveness to potentially hazardous bird

species.

For remedial actions please consult the Wildlife Control Procedures Manual (TP 11500) available at the

following website:

http://www.tc.qc.ca/ena/civilaviation/publications/tp11500-menu-1630.htm

The information contained here provides a brief explanation and appreciation of the compatibility issues

between aerodromes and wildlife. Land use planners are invited to obtain more details by accessing the

following website:

http://www.tc.qc.ca/enQ/civilaviation/publications/tp8240-awmb38-appendix-a-5031.htm

Part IV-Aircraft Noise

4.1 Genera!

An assessment of the annoyance resulting from exposure to aircraft noise is often essential to both

aviation planners and those responsible for directing the nature of development of lands adjacent to

aerodromes. This section will discuss noise measurement, annoyance prediction, the Noise Exposure

Forecast and the Noise Exposure Projection. It also contains an assessment of various land uses in

terms of their compatibility with aircraft noise.

4.1.1 Noise Measurement

The sound pressure level created by an aircraft (or any other noise source) can be measured by means

of a sound level meter. The microphone of the sound level meter senses the pressure fluctuations over a

short period of time. The sound pressure is the root mean square value of the difference between

atmospheric pressure and the instantaneous pressure of the sound, the mean being read over several

periodic cycles. For mathematical convenience, the logarithmic parameter called sound pressure level

(SPL) is used. The unit of sound (noise) measurement is the decibel (dB).

A particular sound signal may comprise several different frequencies to which the human ear may

respond in various ways. In order that noise measurements may relate more closely to loudness as

judged by the average person, sound level meters are equipped with weighting networks which make use

of information related to the frequency response characteristics of the human ear. Some sound level

meters have the capability of reading on A, B, C, and D weighting scales, and decibel values are

correspondingly indicated as dB(A), dB(B), dB(C) or dB(D), according to the weighting network used.

However, the dB(A) is the most common.

19

The noise metric known as Perceived Noise Level (PNL), measured in the unit PNdB, provides a

frequency weighting system which attempts to more closely approximate the subjective reaction of the

human ear to an aircraft noise stimulus. Although weighting networks are available which provide a

means of directly measuring approximate PNL values, i.e., dB(D), true PNL values are determined by the

analysis and treatment of sound pressure levels in various 1/3 octave bands.

A more sophisticated noise metric, the Effective Perceived Noise Level (EPNL), expressed in the unit

EPNdB, was developed specifically for use in the measurement of aircraft noise. The EPNdB is the metric

that forms the basis of noise certification of aircraft. This metric is basically similar to the PNL except that

corrections have been applied to account for the effects of discrete tones and the duration of the noise

event, i.e., factors which contribute to the annoyance of the listener.

4.1.2 Predicting Annoyance

In addition to the annoying characteristics of an individual noise signal, overall subjective reaction to noise

is dependent on the number of times the disturbance occurs as well as the daily distribution of these

events. These factors must be included in any noise forecasting system if it is to be applicable to the

communities located in the vicinity of aerodromes. The Noise Exposure Forecast (NEF) system made

available by Transport Canada takes into consideration all of these factors.

The NEF system provides for the summation of noise from all aircraft types operating at an aerodrome

based on actual or forecast aircraft movements by runways and the time of day or night the events occur.

The large number of mathematical calculations necessary for the construction of NEF contours requires

the use of computer techniques for the practical application of this system.

4.1.3 The Noise Exposure Forecast System (NEF)

The Effective Perceived Noise Level is the basis for estimating noise annoyance in the Noise ExposureForecast system.

The data required for determining NEF contours consist of EPNL versus distance information for various

aircraft types, along with generalized aircraft performance data. In calculating NEF at a specific location,

the EPNL contribution from each aircraft operating from each runway is assessed by considering the

distance from the point in question to the aircraft, and then obtaining EPNL values from the appropriate

EPNL versus distance curve. The noise contributions from all aircraft types operating on all runways are

summed on an anti-logarithmic basis to obtain the total noise exposure at that one location. Thus, the

determination of NEF contours is strictly a numerical calculation procedure. As stated previously, due to

the large number of mathematical calculations involved, computer techniques provide the only practical

means of constructing NEF contours.2

4.2 Production of Noise Contours - Aerodromes That Are Neither Owned Nor Operated and

Managed by Transport Canada

The preparation and approval of noise contours for aerodromes that are neither owned, nor operated and

managed by the Federal Government is not a responsibility of Transport Canada. Transport Canada will

conduct a technical review of an NEF, NEP or Planning Contour if requested by the sponsoring

aerodrome operator or airport authority provided that:

(a) the Aerodrome owner or operator initiates this action;

(b) the Aerodrome owner or operator supplies or approves a projection of aircraft traffic, both as totype and numbers; and

(c) the Aerodrome owner or operator uses the noise impact prediction methods, procedures and

recommended practices relating to aircraft operations as established by Transport Canada.

2 Kingston, Beaton and Rohr, A Description of the CNR and NEF Systems for Estimating Aircraft NoiseAnnoyance (R-71-20), Department of Transport, 1971

20

4.3 Noise Exposure Contours

There are three types of noise exposure contours produced depending on the time element involved.

These are Noise Exposure Forecasts (NEFs), Noise Exposure Projections (NEPs) and Planning

Contours. Transport Canada may provide, upon request from a sponsoring aerodrome operator or airport

authority, a technical review of any contours calculated to determine if the NEF computer model has

performed accurately and has been applied correctly.

4.3.1 Noise Exposure Forecast (NEF)

The Noise Exposure Forecast (NEF) is produced to encourage compatible land use planning in the

vicinity of aerodromes. Traffic volume and aircraft type and mix used in calculating the noise contours are

normally forecast for a period of between five and ten years into the future (See NOTE). Runway

geometry should be the current layout plus any changes forecast to be completed prior to the end of the

forecast period. Noise contours (NEFs, NEPs and Planning Contours) are the property of the sponsoring

aerodrome operator or airport authority which may be make them available to provincial and local

governments. The use of the contours will enable planners to define compatible land use in the vicinity of

aerodromes.

Note: Transport Canada does not retain copies of NEFs and NEPs submitted to it for technical review.

Upon completion of the review, all materials submitted are returned to the sponsoring aerodrome operator

or airport authority. These materials are the property of the sponsoring aerodrome operator or airportauthority.

Transport Canada does not support or advocate incompatible land use (especially residential housing) in

areas affected by aircraft noise. These areas may begin as low as NEF 25. At NEF 30, speech

interference and annoyance caused by aircraft noise are, on average, established and growing. By NEF

35 these effects are very significant. New residential development is therefore not compatible with NEF

30 and above, and recommends that it not be undertaken.

4.3.2 Noise Exposure Projection (NEP)

It is recognized that much land use planning involves projections beyond five years into the future, when

aircraft fleet mixes and runway configurations are most likely to be different from the known conditions of

today. To provide provincial and municipal authorities with long range guidance in land use planning,

Transport Canada introduced the Noise Exposure Projection (NEP). The NEP is based on a projection

(not a forecast) of aircraft movements for more than 10 years into the future, and includes aircraft types

and runway configurations that may materialize within this period. NEPs may be made available in the

same manner as NEFs.

4.3.3 Planning Contour

The third type of noise contour is the Planning Contour which is produced to investigate planning

alternatives and should be labelled as such. In the same manner as NEFs and NEPs, these contours are

the property of the sponsoring aerodrome operator or airport authority.

4.4 Production of Noise Contours: DND Aerodromes

Production of noise contours for aerodromes used solely by the Department of National Defence (DND) is

the responsibility of DND as to data input and production. Production of Noise contours for DND ownedjoint use aerodromes with a civilian airport authority is the responsibility of DND as to data input and

production. When requested, these contours will be published subject to Commander, Canadian Air

Division (1CAD)'s approval of the accuracy of the contours.

21

4.5 Noise Contour Maps

It may be necessary for computer-produced contour lines to be mechanically smoothed to remove

irregularities that arise in the plotting process. This should be done particularly in areas of sharp corners

or tips. The convention used for depicting the NEF and NEP 40, 35 and 30 contours on maps is a solid

line. The printing and any subsequent distribution of contour maps is not the responsibility of Transport

Canada. These functions may be undertaken by the sponsoring aerodrome operator or airport authorityas they are the property of the aerodrome.

4.6 Community Response to Noise

During developmental work on preliminary noise rating systems, it was established that community

response to aircraft noise correlated well with the noise contours then in use. Case histories of noise

complaints at twenty-one aerodromes were analyzed as to severity, frequency of complaint, and

distribution around the aerodromes to establish a relationship with known noise values. The results of this

work, which may be found in Table 1 (see below) have been used for relating land use recommendations

to NEF contour levels.

The analysis of the effect of aircraft noise on various working and living environments is a complex

matter. For each case where there is a note in the Land Use Tables (Table 2) (see below) it is desirable

that a noise climate analysis or a noise reduction requirement analysis be undertaken, since each note

indicates a particular specialized problem. Many of the factors that would be considered in such analyses

are subject to changing technology. Also, the attitudes of those exposed to the noise environment are

subjective and varied. Since these factors evolve, authorities undertaking analyses of noise climates and

noise reduction requirements in buildings should consult using most recent information with agencies

conducting these reviews. The National Research Council has undertaken work in this area and validated

the results of the NEF System and interpretation of noise exposure areas in 1996.

4.6.1 New Aerodromes and Community Response to Noise

For the purposes of this section, "New Aerodrome" means any land designated by the Governor in

Council as an "Airport Site" under the Aeronautics Act after January 1, 2001.

Where an aerodrome is already surrounded by residential or other noise sensitive land uses, the intent of

land use planning guidelines is to prevent any increases in incompatible land use. As urbanization

increases, any new aerodrome would, by necessity, be planned for and built in non-urban areas.

Therefore, where a new aerodrome is planned on land designated as an airport site, an opportunity exists

to establish appropriate land use planning guidelines that recognize the unique noise environment of a

non-urban area and preserve the balance between the integrity of the future aerodrome and the quality of

life of the community that it will serve.

The encroachment of incompatible, sensitive land uses is clearly a vital factor in planning and

establishing appropriate protection criteria for new aerodromes, The best and often only opportunity to

establish a sufficient buffer zone to control noise sensitive development around a new aerodrome is in the

initial planning stage of that new aerodrome. This opportunity diminishes quickly as the aerodrome

develops and community land use patterns become established.

In addition to the traditional approach of defining land use planning guidelines, pertinent factors

considered in a study of land use guidelines for new aerodromes included not only individual activity

interference (speech and sleep) criteria, but also habituation to noise, the type of environment (non-urban

versus urban environment), community attitudes toward the noise source, the extent of prior exposure to

the noise source, and the type of flight operations causing the noise.

For new aerodromes, Transport Canada recommends that no new noise sensitive land uses be permitted

above 25 NEF/NEP. Noise sensitive land uses include residential, schools, day care centres, nursing

homes and hospitals. This approach is the single most practical for reasons of ease of implementation

and administration since below this threshold, all noise-sensitive land uses would be permitted without

restrictions or limitations. The guidelines for all other land uses remain unchanged from Table 2. This

22

buffer would also offer protection against the long term uncertainties inherent in planning for a new

aerodrome.

To implement this NEF 25 criterion, NEF and NEP maps for new aerodromes must depict the 25 contour

as a solid line in addition to the noise contour requirements set out in Section 4.5.

4.7 Recommended Noise Control Action

For a specific noise problem, Table 3 (see below) may be used to select different actions.

4.8 Recommended Practices

NEF/NEP contours should be used in conjunction with these guidelines to encourage compatible land use

in the vicinity of aerodromes. Therefore, it is recommended that contours be distributed by aerodrome

operators or airport authorities to the officials and organizations responsible for land use and municipal

zoning of the affected land. This would normally include both provincial and municipal planners, and

zoning boards.

23

Table 1 - Community Response Prediction

Response Area

1 (over40NEF)

2(35-40NEF)

3(30-35NEF)

4{below30NEF)

Response Prediction *

Repeated and vigorous individual complaints are likely. Concerted group and legal

action might be expected.

Individual complaints may be vigorous. Possible group action and appeals to

authorities.

Sporadic to repeated individual complaints. Group action is possible.

Sporadic complaints may occur. Noise may interfere occasionally with certain

activities of the resident.

" It should be noted that the above community response predictions are generalizations based upon

experience resulting from the evolutionary development of various noise exposure units used by other

countries. For specific locations, the above response areas may vary somewhat in accordance with

existing ambient or background noise levels and prevailing social, economic and political conditions.

Table 2 - Land Use Tables - Aircraft Noise Considerations Only

This land use tabulation should not be considered as an exhaustive listing, but merely as examples of

how various land uses would be assessed in the Noise Exposure Forecast zones in terms of community

response predictions.

NO Indicates that new construction or development of this nature should not be undertaken.

NO Indicates that new construction or development of this nature should not be undertaken. See

Explanatory Note B.

A This particular land use may be acceptable in accordance with the appropriate note and subject

to the limitations indicated therein.

YES The indicated land use is not considered to be adversely affected by aircraft noise and no

special noise insulation should be required for new construction or development of this nature.

The land uses contained in the following tables are included for compatibility purposes from a

noise perspective only. Caution should be exercised as some of the recommended uses may not

be optimal from a safety perspective (i.e bird and wildlife habitat)

Table 2A - Residential

Noise Exposure Forecast Values

Response Areas

Detached, Semi-Detached

Town Houses, Garden Homes

Apartments

>40

1

NO

NO

NO

40-35

2

NO

NO

NO

35-30

3

NO

NO

NO

<30

4

A

A

A

24

Table 2B- Recreational - Outdoor


Response Areas

Athletic Fields

Stadiums

Theatres - Outdoor

Racetracks - Horses

Racetracks - Autos

Fairgrounds

Golf Courses

Beaches and Pools

Tennis Courts

Playgrounds

Marinas

Camping Grounds

Park and Picnic Areas

>40

1

NO

NO

NO

NO

YES

K

YES

YES

NO

K

YES

NO

NO

40-35

2

J

NO

NO

K

YES

K

YES

YES

K

K

YES

NO

K

35-30

3

K

K

NO

K

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

NO

YES

<30

4

YES

YES

H

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

NO

YES

Table 2C - Commercial


Response Areas

Offices

Retail Sales

Restaurants

Indoor Theatres

Hotels and Motels

Parking Lots

Gasoline Stations

Warehouses

Outdoor Sales

>40

1

F

F

F

NO

NO

YES

YES

YES

E

40-35

2

E

D

D

G

F

YES

YES

YES

K

35-30

3

D

YES

D

D

G

YES

YES

YES

YES

<30

4

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

Table 2D-Public


Response Areas

Schools

Churches

Hospitals

Nursing Homes

Auditoriums

Libraries

Community Centres

Cemeteries

>40

1

NO

NO

NO

NO

NO

NO

NO

N

40-35

2

NO

NO

NO

NO

NO

NO

NO

N

35-30

3

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

N

<30

4

C

C

C

C

C

C

C

N

25

Table 2E - Municipal Utilities


Response Areas

Electric Generating Plants

Gas & Oil Storage

Garbage Disposal

Sewage Treatment

Water Treatment

Water Storage

>40

1

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

40-35

2

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

35-30

3

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

<30

4

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

Table 2F - Industrial


Response Areas

Factories

Machine Shops

Rail Yards

Ship Yards

Cement Plants

Quarries

Refineries

Laboratories

Lumber Yards

Saw Mills

>40

1

I

I

YES

YES

I

YES

I

NO

YES

I

40-35

2

I

I

YES

YES

I

YES

I

D

YES

I

35-30

3

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

<30

4

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

Table 2G - Transportation


Response Areas

Highways

Railroads

Shipping Terminals

Passenger Terminals

>40

1

YES

YES

YES

D

40-35

2

YES

YES

YES

YES

35-30

3

YES

YES

YES

YES

<30

4

YES

YES

YES

YES

26

Table 2H - Agriculture


Response Areas

Crop Farms

Market Gardens

Plant Nurseries

Tree Farms

Livestock Pastures

Poultry Farms

Stockyards

Dairy Farms

Feed Lots

Fur Farms

>40

1

YES

YES

YES

D

M

L

M

M

M

K

40-35

2

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

L

YES

YES

YES

K

35-30

3

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

K

<30

4

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

K

27

Explanatory Notes for Table 2

The location of the lines between noise zones cannot be fixed exactly. It will therefore be necessary for

the responsible public authority to make an appropriate interpretation of what regulations are to apply at aspecific location.

In cases where reference is made to a detailed on-site noise analysis, or to peak noise levels, it will be

appreciated that the notes are intended to apply specifically at existing aerodromes, where a field

assessment is possible. For planning with respect to new aerodromes, such zones should be considered

cautionary. Before reaching a final decision with respect to permitting the particular land-use in question,

the authority may wish to consider local topographic effects and ambient noise levels, in conjunction with

generalized peak noise level "footprints" for the predominant aircraft types to be using the newaerodrome.

Annoyance caused by aircraft noise may begin as low as NEF 25. It is recommended that

developers be made aware of this fact and that they undertake to so inform all prospective

tenants or purchasers of residential units. In addition, it is suggested that development should

not proceed until the responsible authority is satisfied that acoustic insulation features, if

required, have been considered in the building design.2B (b) This Note applies to NEF 30 to 35 only. New residential construction or development

should not be undertaken. If the responsible authority chooses to proceed contrary to

Transport Canada's recommendation, residential construction or development between NEF

30 and 35 should not be permitted to proceed until the responsible authority is satisfied that

(1) appropriate acoustic insulation features have been considered in the building and

(2) a noise impact assessment study has been completed and shows that this construction or

development is not incompatible with aircraft noise.

Notwithstanding point 2, the developer should still be required to inform all prospective tenants

or purchasers of residential units that speech interference and annoyance caused by aircraft

noise are, on average, established and growing at NEF 30 and are very significant by NEF 35.

These facilities should not be located close to the 30-NEF contour unless the restrictions

outlined in Note D below are applied.

These uses should not be approved unless a detailed noise analysis is conducted and the

required noise insulation features are considered by the architectural consultant responsiblefor the building design.

When associated with a permitted land use, an office may be located in this zone provided

that all relevant actors are considered and a detailed noise analysis is conducted to establish

the noise reduction features required to provide an indoor environment suited to the specificoffice function.

It is recommended that this specific land use should be permitted only if related directly to

aviation-oriented activities or services. Conventional construction will generally be inadequate

and special noise insulation features should be included in the building design.

Generally, these facilities should not be permitted in this zone. However, where it can be

demonstrated that such a land use is highly desirable in a specific instance, construction may

be permitted to proceed provided that a detailed noise analysis is conducted and the required

noise insulation features are included in the building design.

Facilities of this nature should not be located close to the NEF 30 contour unless a detailednoise analysis has been conducted.

Many of these uses would be acceptable in all NEF zones. However, consideration should be

given to internally generated noise levels, and acceptable noise levels in the working area.

Undesirable if there is spectator involvement.

It is recommended that serious consideration be given to an analysis of peak noise levels andthe effects of these levels on the specific land use under consideration.

28

The construction of covered enclosures should be undertaken if this use is to be newly

introduced to the noise environment. (See Note M below).

Research has shown that animals condition themselves to high noise levels. However, it is

recommended that peak noise levels be assessed before this use is allowed.

This appears to be a compatible land use in all NEF zones.

29

Table 3 - Recommended Matrix of Noise Control Actions

Aerodrome

plan

Aerodrome and

airspace use

Aircraft

operation

Land use

Noise program

management

Consider these actions

Changes in runway location, length or

strength

Displaced thresholds

High-speed exit taxiways

Relocated terminals

Isolating maintenance runups or use of test

stand noise suppressors and barriers

* Preferential or rotational runway use

* Preferential flight track use or modification

to approach and departure procedures

* Restrictions on qround movement of aircraft

Restrictions on engine runups or use of

ground equipment

Limitations on number or types of operations

or types of aircraft

US restrictions, rescheduling move flights to

another aerodrome

Raise glide slope angle or intercept.

Power and flap management

Limited use of reverse thrust

Land or easement acquisition

Joint development of aerodrome property

Compatible use zoning

Building code provisions and sound

insulation of buildings

Real property noise notices

Purchase assurance

Noise related landing fees

Noise monitorinq

Establish citizen complaint mechanism

Establish community participation program

If you have this problem

Noisefromtaxiing■

■

■

■

■

■

■

■

■

■

■

■

Departure■

■

■

i

Approach■

■

■

■

■

■

■

■

■

■

■

■

Landingroll■

■

■

■

■

■

■

■

■

Trainingflights■

■

■

■

■

■

■

■

■

■

■

Maintenance■

■

■

■

■

■

■

■Groundequipment■

■

■

■

■

■

■

■

These are examples of restrictions that involve TC Aviation's responsibility for safe implementation.

30

PART V - Restrictions to Visibility

Restrictions to visibility at an aerodrome which can seriously limit aircraft operations may be caused by

factors other than deteriorating weather conditions. These phenomena are briefly discussed in this Part.

Some industrial/manufacturing/power generation processes may generate smoke, dust or steam in

sufficient volume to potentially affect visibility at or near aerodromes under certain wind conditions and

temperature inversions. Examples of the types of industries which may be prominent in this regard are

pulp mills, steel mills, quarries, municipal or other incinerators, cement plants, sawmills (slash and

sawdust burners), power generating plants and refineries.

During the planning stages for new industrial complexes that will generate smoke, dust or steam, it is

recommended that individual facility plans include an analysis to deal with potential emission dispersion

problems. The results of the analysis should be considered before approving such land uses near an

aerodrome. Prospective industrial sites near an aerodrome should be assessed on an individual basis

due to the many local factors involved. Sufficient evidence is available from aerodromes across the

country to suggest that such industries generating emissions may cause visibility problems near

aerodromes that could pose a potential safety problem.

31

PART VI -- Wind Turbines and Wind Farms

6.0 General

Due to concerns regarding climate change, governments are encouraging the installation of renewable

energy sources such as wind turbines for the generation of electricity. Although a wind turbine can be

considered as just another object that is deemed an obstacle and thus in need marking and lighting, there

are additional issues that should be addressed through consultation in the early stages of planning.

6.1 Wind turbine marking and lighting

Industrial wind turbines are typically more than 90m in height and thus in need of marking and lighting in

accordance with Transport Canada's Standard 621.

(http://www.tc.qc.ca/enq/civilaviationyreqserv/carsypart6-standard-standard621-3868.html

In as much as the wind turbine presents a substantial silhouette, the marking is that of the surface

painting in either a white or off-white colour. In Canada, special paint bands for the blade ends is not

required for reason that the blades are rotating and the display would not be as effective as that of a fixed

object. The lighting is a red medium intensity flashing beacon of 2000 candela nominal output located on

the nacelle. Light units are not mounted on the blades because the technical impracticality of such

installation. In order to reduce the amount of lighting, the required lights are installed at intervals in the

order of 900m such that not all wind turbines of a wind farm need lighting. The lights are provided with

means to make them flash in unison.

The wind farm proponent should complete the Aeronautical Assessment Form for Obstruction Marking

and Lighting and submit to the local regional office of Transport Canada. This form instructs contact with

adjacent aerodromes and information on the planned wind farm.

6.2 Wind turbines and airport radar

Wind turbines can interfere with radar tracking of airplanes. Although the rotational speed of the blades is

relatively slow at 10 to 20 rpm, the blade tip can have an angular speed reaching more than 180km/hr.

The tip speed is then sufficient to mimic aircraft. The result is shadowing of aircraft, false returns and

general cluttering of the radar screen. The wind farm proponent should, therefore, consult with

NavCanada on the issue and to develop means of mitigation.

NavCanada can be contacted at... 1-866-577-0247

or

by email at... [email protected]

6.3 Navigation aids and communication systems

Similarly wind turbines of a wind farm may have adverse impact on navigation aids and communication

systems. Consultation should be again made with NavCanada.

VOR is susceptible to reflection interference from wind turbines; due to the height of wind turbines, they

can cause interference to the VOR even if they are far away. Developments of several wind turbines

together have a cumulative effect on the VOR signal accuracy. Proposed wind turbine developments

must be assessed if within 15 km from the VOR facility. Wind turbines that are [ess than 52 m in height

can be treated like other structures. In most cases, a single wind turbine is acceptable at a distance

greater than 5 km from the VOR facility, and developments of less than six wind turbines are acceptable

at distances greater than 10 km from the VOR facility. However if VOR performance is already marginal

this may not be acceptable.

32

6.4 Weather Radar

Wind farms can also shadow weather affects or return false information to weather radars. The

proponent of a wind farm should contact Environment Canada at (416) 739-4103 or (416) 464-2798.

6.5 Parachute Landing Areas (PLA)

Wind turbines pose a special risk to parachutists, regardless of size, although those over 15m can

additionally present a hazard to aircraft used in the activity of parachuting. Consultation with stakeholders

is necessary as the existence of wind turbines near the PLA may result in restrictions being placed upon

any parachute activity.

6.6 Light Pollution.

Lighting is provided for wind turbines within a wind farm for purpose of warning to aircraft. Extraneous

lighting such as that for support buildings should be minimized. Refer to the Royal Astronomical Society

of Canada "Light-Pollution Abatement (LPA) Program".

http://www.rasc.ca/lpa

33

PART VII -- Exhaust Plumes

The purpose of this section is to provide guidance to aerodrome operators and persons involved in the

design, construction and operation of facilities with exhaust plumes about the information required to

assess the potential hazard from a plume.

The hazard is that both to the aircraft itself in flight and the impact of exhaust upon visibility for

landing/takeoff.

Exhaust plumes, of both visible and invisible emissions may pose a hazard to aviation operations

Exhaust plumes can originate from any number of sources; chimneys; elevated smoke stacks at power

generating stations; smelters; combustion sources; a flare created by an instantaneous release from

pressurised gas systems all create exhaust plumes of one degree or another. High temperature exhaust

plumes may cause significant air disturbances such as turbulence and vertical shear. Other identified

potential hazards include, but are not necessarily limited to, reduced visibility, oxygen depletion, engine

paniculate contamination, exposure to gaseous oxides, and/or icing. These hazards are most critical

during low altitude flight, especially during takeoff and landing.

In the case of a solid object, Standard 621 provides for marking and/or lighting so that the object's shape

is delineated and made visible to pilots. This, however, is not feasible for an exhaust plume and there is

a need to assess the hazards to aviation because the vertical velocity from gas efflux that may cause

airframe damage and/or affect the handling characteristics of an aircraft in flight, as well as visibility

reduction. TCCA may be obliged to consider alternative measures to make sure that pilots are unlikely to

encounter the affects of exhaust plumes.

Away from aerodromes, exhaust plumes may also pose a hazard to low level flying operations such as

that of specialist flying activities for crop dusting, pipeline inspection, power line inspections, fire-fighting,

etc., search and rescue operations and military low-level manoeuvres. The risk posed by an exhaust

plume to an aircraft during low level flight can be managed or reduced if information is available to pilots

so that they can avoid the area of likely air disturbance.

The proponent of a facility that creates an exhaust plume should provide details of the facility to Transport

Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA) so that potential hazards to aircraft safety can be assessed. In determining

the need for a Restricted Area, TCCA will consider the severity and frequency of the risk posed to an

aircraft which might fly through the plume.

34

PART VIII -- Solar Array Installations

The geometry of aerodromes is such that there are relatively large open areas which give opportunity for

installation of solar energy projects These projects, however, need to be evaluated in relation to possible

problems that such installation may pose.

For example, the following concerns could pose problems:

- Glare to pilots of aircraft approaching to or departing from the aerodrome or glare to ATC

(Air Traffic Control) staff.

- Interference with electronic navigational aids.

- Penetration through transitional or approach/departure surfaces.

- Thermal plumes from the central tower of concentrated solar power installations.

There is a variety of solar plants used for production of electrical energy: photovoltaic (PV) panel arrays

and concentrator solar power (CSP) systems. The former converts solar energy directly to electricity by a

photovoltaic effect whereas the latter involves the heating of a fluid (e.g. molten salt} that activates a

turbine coupled to a convention electric generator.

All solar plants involve reflection. In the case of concentrator systems, the reflection necessary to the

system and is controlled by purpose so as to focus solar energy upon a central absorbing tube or tower.

Because the light is focused, the possibility of glare to ATC and pilots is minimal, but should still be

assessed in the preliminary design.

urn

sun

t rctttilor

, i ground mirror

■ —• to jf nercTcr

Figure 1. Parabolic trough reflector Figure 2. Central tower Concentrator

In the case of photovoltaic panels, electrical energy is produced directly and reflection is a loss factor.

For this reason, the panels are designed to have as minimum reflectance as possible. The panels may

be installed in a fixed position facing in a generally southern direction or provided with means to follow the

sun as it moves across the sky.

Figure 3. Photovoltaic Panel

35

Also, when viewed from a distance, the sun reflectance tends to be smeared across the array as might be

the case for a body of water. Thus the impact for glare to the pilot is inherently minimized But again this

is not a certainty and glare to the pilot should be assessed in the preliminary design. In the case of

panels that are automatically rotated with sun movement, a remedy may be to stop the rotation prior to

the point at which glare can occur.

The analysis of glare should involve a review of the position of the aircraft for both landing and take-off aswell as when performing a circling approach.

Figure 4. Mehringer Hone Solar Park I, Germany - www.juwixom

Although for purpose improving efficiency, solar panels are usually provided with a top layer of anti-

reflective coating intended to reduce reflectance, this does not mean that there is no reflected light.

When viewed from a relatively short distance the affect can be significant, especially when the observer is

not moving as would be the case of ATC personnel in the control tower. The designer should review the

positioning and orientation of the panels in relation to the control tower to ensure that adverse reflection

will not be produced. Figure 4 illustrates the occurrence of reflectance as the sun angle is optimized.

Figure 5. Reflection off solar panel

36

Appendix A - Regional Offices of Transport Canada - Civil Aviation

Regional Director, Civil Aviation (TA) - Pacific

Transport Canada

800 Burrard Street

Vancouver, British Columbia

V6Z 2J8

(Telephone: 1-604-666-8317]

Regional Director, Civil Aviation (PA) - Ontario

Transport Canada

4900 Yonge Street

North York, Ontario

M2N 6A5

[Telephone: 1-416-952-0167]

Regional Director, Civil Aviation (NA) - Quebec

Transport Canada

Regional Administration Building

700 Leigh-Capreol Place

Dorval, Quebec

H4Y1G7

[Telephone: 1-514-633-3159]

Regional Director, Civil Aviation (RA) - Prairie and Northern

Transport Canada

344 Edmonton Street

Winnipeg, Manitoba

R3B 2L4

[Telephone: 1-204-983-4373]

Regional Director, Civil Aviation (MA) - Atlantic

Transport Canada

95 Foundry Street

Moncton, New Brunswick

E1C 5H7

[Telephone: 1-506-851-7220]

37

Airport Bird-hazard Risk Analysis Process for Regina International Airport By Gary F. Searing, Airport Wildlife Management International, North Saanich, B.C. March 2010

Introduction Like most airports in Canada, Regina International Airport (YQR) is located in a transition area between urban and rural lands. As such, the airport is influenced by residential, commercial, recreational and agricultural land uses. Many species of birds are also attracted to these varied types of land uses and because of the juxtaposition of the airport and urban/rural land uses, pose serious challenges to maintaining air safety related to bird hazards to aircraft. While Airport Managers have the ability to manage hazardous conditions on airports, their ability to mitigate dangers away from the airport is limited. The regulation of land uses generally rests with municipal or provincial bodies. However, because land uses in the vicinity of airports affects the types of birds present and their movement patterns, air safety is inevitably linked with land uses. Therefore, the responsibility for maintaining air safety rests not only with the airport authority, but also with the zoning agencies, local landowners, developers, and Transport Canada. Generally land-use restrictions near airports with respect to wildlife are not regulated. Therefore, a collaborative approach is required to achieve the desired result of air safety. Because nearly everyone flies today, the motivation for achieving air safety should be universal. However, in order to begin a cooperative process of achieving safe land uses in the vicinity of airports, it is essential to identify specific land uses that are causing the greatest conflict and to assess those land uses in a rigorous manner. The purpose of this report: “is to identify hazardous land uses in the vicinity of the Regina International Airport as the first step in initiating the dialogue with the City of Regina and all other public and private entities that play a role in the maintenance of air safety through appropriate use of land in the broader airport area”.

Aircraft Characteristics Before an assessment of land uses is conducted, it is important to identify the area in which aircraft are at risk of bird strikes. While aircraft are at risk during all phases of flight, during cruise altitudes commercial aircraft are frequently above all but the highest of migrating birds. Thus it is during the take-off, climb, descent and landing phases that aircraft are most at risk of bird strikes. Because the rate of climb during take-off is considerably steeper than the rate of descent during landing, landing aircraft will be in the higher risk zone for a longer period of time. Transport Canada has considered the altitude of 1500’ or less to be the most hazardous zone for bird strikes. Altitudes of 500’ to 1500’ are occupied primarily by migrating waterfowl and cranes, as well as soaring gulls and raptors. Many other hazardous species remain generally below 500’. Therefore, it is useful to understand the requirements for operating aircraft at those altitudes.

While every aircraft has a different angle of rotation and rate of climb, we can generalize, especially for commercial aircraft, that the climb angle is somewhere in the range of 15º. This means that the aircraft clears 500’ AGL at about 0.6 km from the runway and clears 1500’ AGL within 2 km of the airport after take-off. On approach, aircraft will typically descend at a glide slope of 3º. Thus the aircraft will be at 1500’ approximately 9 km from the airport and will reach an altitude of 500’ ASL about 3 km from the runway. Also, while commercial passenger aircraft are required to be lined up on the runway when at 1500’ altitude (or earlier), light aircraft often approach the airport from almost any angle. Therefore, hazardous areas (Bird Hazard Zones or BHZ) are not linear extensions of airport runways. Without going into great detail about the individual models of aircraft used at YQR, it is necessary at a minimum to know the volume of traffic by general class (i.e., commercial, military, and local) and a sampling of how the traffic varies throughout the year. Fortunately, this type of information is readily available on the Transport Canada website. The following tables (Table 1 and Table 2) present movement summary statistics from YQR.

Table 1. Movements of Aircraft by Category 2004-2009.

Year

Civil movements Military movements

Total

Itinerant

Local Total Itinerant Local Commercial

Private and government

2009 61,058 33,746 6,786 20,526 3,005 2,438 567 2008 55,565 33,273 6,944 15,348 4,159 3,340 819 2007 59,804 33,717 8,000 18,087 3,886 3,111 775 2006 54,445 31,995 7,639 14,811 3,565 2,891 674 2005 48,940 30,703 7,541 10,696 3,281 2,579 702 2004 44,879 26,429 7,002 11,448 3,025 2,193 832 During the past 5 years commercial movements have increased by about 13% from 30,000 to 34,000. Commercial traffic varies by about 50% on a monthly basis ranging from a low of 2300 movements during the winter months (December-February) up to 3400 movements during summer (July-September). Commercial movements account for about 55% of all civilian air traffic at YQR. Local traffic has increased considerably during the last 5 years and has almost doubled from about 10,000 movements in 2005 and now accounts for 33% of all civilian air traffic at YQR. By comparison, military movements are only 5% of civilian aircraft movements.

Risk Assessment of Off-Airport Strikes Risk assessment is a very important part of a wildlife hazard assessment, but the methodology for conducting a risk assessment related to bird hazards to aircraft have not been standardized. In fact, risk assessment requirements are poorly described in legislation and Transport Canada guidance material. In my opinion, the best approach to risk assessment has been advanced by Dr. John Allen of the Central Science Laboratory in England. I have used his basic approach, but modified it substantially to be an objective tool and to enable comparison of results among airports. I will use this risk assessment approach to conduct the risk analysis that is core to this assessment.

Table 2. Movements of Aircraft by Category by Month 2009.

Month-Year

Civil movements Military movements

Total

Itinerant

Local Total Itinerant Local Commercial

Private and government

Jan 3,309 2,393 320 596 160 154 6 Feb 3,672 2,308 366 998 276 240 36 Mar 4,741 2,734 488 1,519 285 172 113 Apr 5,328 2,787 534 2,007 268 238 30 May 5,254 2,905 672 1,677 364 302 62 Jun 6,046 2,894 811 2,341 339 292 47 Jul 7,617 3,342 826 3,449 249 191 58

Aug 6,271 3,352 717 2,202 220 171 49 Sep 5,837 3,075 680 2,082 285 227 58 Oct 4,226 2,701 474 1,051 195 161 34 Nov 5,265 2,804 601 1,860 254 204 50 Dec 3,492 2,451 297 744 110 86 24

Risk assessment is based both on the species and abundance of those species present in the vicinity of an airport and on the history of strikes with those species. In the US, wildlife hazard assessments are typically based on a full year of bird surveys to quantify the potential hazards in and around the airport. However, even this level of effort fails to capture the variability inherent in natural systems and the causes for changing exposure of avian hazards at airports. Given the fluctuating climate, increasing rates of urban development and changing farming patterns due to economic realities, surveys from a few years ago likely would not be relevant today. While systematic surveys of birds on a regular and ongoing basis at airports are extremely valuable in interpreting and adapting wildlife management programs, a different approach to bird hazard risk assessment exists in Canada than the US. We tend to focus more on the history of bird strikes (Table 3) and the factors that lead to strikes with hazardous species. Because at many airports the factors that result in the occurrence of birds at the airport actually originate off the airport, risk assessment naturally leads us to look at the airport vicinity – beyond the security fence, oftentimes, well beyond it. Most bird strike analyses rely on counting the number of strikes, in which case the identity of the species struck is relatively unimportant. As long as the sample of identified strikes is sufficiently large and unbiased, then the count of strikes is simple and the identification of the major species being struck is relatively accurate. However, counting bird strikes is nearly meaningless. Consider two strikes, one of a swallow and one of a swan. Both account for “1” strike, but they have extremely different implications as hazards to wildlife. No wonder airport biologists struggled with the comparison of these “apples and oranges” scenarios. The solution is as simple and elegant as is its almost complete lack of use. The mass of birds struck is the truest indicator of hazard that exists today. Granted there is a difference between hitting a 4 kg Canada Goose and hitting 46 European Starlings (also a total of 4 kg), but using mass to assess hazard and risk is the best measure I have found.

Table 3. Bird Species Struck On and Off Regina International Airport since 1995.

Species On Airport Off Airport Unknown Location Total Goose 1 16 0 17 Swan 0 2 0 2 Duck 6 7 2 15 Gull 31 3 12 46 Crane 0 1 0 1 Rock Pigeon 4 1 0 5 Passerine 7 3 0 10 Shorebird 2 0 0 2 Hungarian Partridge 4 0 0 4 Owl 7 0 0 7 Hawk/Falcon 11 0 3 14 Unknown 17 34 13 64 Total 90 67 30 187

Typical problems with bird strike data are: 1) Data has not been rigorously collected and maintained; 2) Either the species involved has not been identified or has been incorrectly identified; 3) Birds that are struck are not found and are thus “unidentified”, which typically occurs

when strikes occur away from the runway and taxiways. This leads us to the assessment of risk for the Regina International Airport. But first it is necessary to define risk. Risk related to bird strikes is the probability of a bird strike times the severity of the strike. In order to avoid the “swallow and swan” problem, I will use the total mass of birds struck per 1000 aircraft movements as the probability of a strike and the average weight of strikes as the severity. We know that there is a relatively straightforward relationship between mass of birds struck and damage to aircraft; therefore, average mass of strikes is a good estimate of severity of each strike. Armed with these figures, it is a relatively simple process to determine the overall risk to aircraft at any single airport (Table 4). This can be done for each runway, month of the year, time of day and any other factor that fits the model. While the above analysis is extremely useful in assessing the degree of risk at an airport, a necessary first step, it is less useful in determining the sources of the risk. Fortunately, that is a relatively easy problem to resolve provided adequate data exist. We can evaluate species by their mass and flocking habits and, by using the total mass of each species struck, the major contributors to risk become readily apparent. Before we move on to assess risk by individual species, it is important to emphasize that the purpose of this report is to examine the risk posed by birds off the aerodrome (i.e., the far right-hand column of Table 4). Therefore, we need to look only at birds struck outside the airport fence (see Table 3). During 3 out of every 4 years aircraft were at high or very high risk due to bird strikes while in airspace around Regina (Table 4).

Table 4. Mass (in grams) of Birds Struck and Risk Assessment for Regina International Airport.

Year Off-

Airport

Off-Airport +

Unknown On

Airport Grand Total Average

Total Movements Total Risk

Off-Airport Risk

1995 560 1239 1799 450 65,000 Low Low 1996 14383 15119 2800 17919 1629 65,136 High High 1997 46420 52757 14072 66829 1630 68,473 Very High Very High 1998 8364 10247 3195 13442 1034 73,168 High High 1999 13358 13358 4657 18015 2002 71,088 Very High Very High 2000 1915 1915 4538 6453 922 61,725 Moderate Low 2001 6514 6514 280 6006 1001 60,036 High High 2002 35 35 2358 2394 479 59,010 Low Low 2003 5654 8258 709 8967 1793 56,718 High High 2004 0 7299 7299 1216 47,904 High Moderate 2005 26533 26813 9175 35988 1440 52,221 Very High Very High 2006 12652 20586 12723 33310 1332 58,010 Very High High 2007 8699 8699 2340 11039 1577 63,690 High High 2008 26070 32173 811 32984 2749 59,724 Very High Very High 2009 18445 18445 6977 25422 2311 64,063 Very High Very High

Grand Total 189041 215478 73172 288650 1539 732,612 High High Red font indicates estimated values due to lack of access to historical data By examining Table 5 it is clear to see that the species that contribute most to off-airport hazards are geese (primarily Canada Geese, but some Snow Geese may also be struck during migration). Geese represent 58% of the biomass of identified species struck off the airfield. There may be some bias in these numbers because geese are readily recognizable species by pilots who are the primary source of reporting of off-airfield strikes. Gulls (primarily Franklin’s Gulls) represent 12.4% of the identified biomass struck off the aerodrome followed by ducks (10%), Tundra Swans (10%) and Sandhill Cranes (6.5%). Combined, these birds account for 97% of the identified biomass struck away from the runways. Most (81%) of the biomass struck by aircraft in the Regina area enroute to or from YQR are struck during the period from July-October. Transport Canada has developed a ranking system for birds that helps to identify the relative hazard levels of the various species ( Table 6). While this system accounts for the mass and the flocking nature of birds, it fails to account for avoidance behavior of species like American Crows that are adept at avoiding collisions with aircraft and the learned behaviors of some species such as adult resident hawks that are struck at much lower levels than their younger and transient counterparts. Nevertheless, it is a very good starting point for hazard assessment. Note that the major hazards at YQR are primarily Hazard Level 1 species. Only Franklin’s Gull, a major hazard at YQR, is a Hazard Level 4 species. Hazard Level 4 species are still quite dangerous and account for the largest loss of life from single bird strike accident in North America.

Table 5. Biomass (g) of Birds Struck Away from the Regina Aerodrome by Month. Species Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Total Goose 12345 24690 12345 4115 53495 Canada Goose 8230 8230 4115 4115 24690 Gull 4960 3993 7742 16695 Tundra Swan 6750 6750 13500 Duck 1171 2341 3815 3512 0 10838 Sandhill Crane 8740 8740 Hawk 1917 959 2876 Mallard 1171 1171 2341 European Starling 876 876 Northern Shoveler 613 613 Rock Pigeon 355 355 Sparrow 35 35 Warbler 11 11 Monthly Total 10582 9401 35 39251 4606 39040 26722 5074 355 135064 In order to leave the risk assessment with a clear picture of the risk posed by birds in the vicinity of YQR, let me summarize the information presented above. In each of the last 5 years, and generally in 3 out of 4 years, birds pose a high to very high risk to aircraft in the Regina area while enroute to or from YQR. Waterfowl, Sandhill Cranes and gulls are responsible for nearly all of the risk associated with bird strikes outside of the YQR aerodrome. The large majority of bird strike biomass occurs during the July to October period. Table 6. Hazard Levels of Birds.

Level of Hazard Characteristics Illustrative Species

Level 1 Very large (>1.8 kg), flocking

Tundra Swan, Canada Goose, Snow Goose, Sandhill Crane

Level 2 Very large (>1.8 kg), solitary, or

Mallard, Redhead, Snowy Owl Large (1-1.8 kg), flocking

Level 3 Large (1-1.8 kg), solitary or Gray Partridge, Northern Goshawk,

Northern Shoveler, Rock Pigeon Medium (300-1000 gm), flocking

Level 4 Medium (300-1000 gm), solitary Franklin's Gull, Swainson's Hawk,

European Starling Small (50-300 gm), flocking

Level 5 Small (50-300 gm), flocking American Kestrel, Sharp-shinned

Hawk, Killdeer, Least Sandpiper, Western Meadowlark Very small (<50 gm), flocking

Level 6 Very small (<50 gm), solitary Sparrows, Warblers

Bird Habitats in the Vicinity of YQR Typically a wide variety of birds contribute to the risk of bird strikes at and around airports. As a result, a wide variety of potentially hazardous land uses need to be examined to determine their attractiveness to birds and the role they may play in contributing to hazardous conditions at and

around the airport. However, because at YQR a relatively few species constitute virtually all of the risk to aircraft, a slightly different approach is warranted. This section will identify land uses attractive to waterfowl and gulls and discuss bird movements between attractive land uses for those bird groups. Before embarking on a discussion of avian uses of lands in the Regina area, I would like to pay a debt of gratitude to Mr. Jared Clarke, naturalist at Wascana Centre, who has a wealth of personal knowledge of birds in the Regina area and was gracious enough to share his lifetime of experience with birds around Regina with me for use in this document. This section could never have been completed during the winter, in a matter of days, or with as much certainty without his contribution.

Sandhill Crane Sandhill Cranes are rarely seen on the ground around Regina. Because they pass by during spring and fall in migration, they are simply following traditional migratory routes and not responding to land uses around the airport. There are no good staging areas in the vicinity of the airport and the closest staging area is the north end of Last Mountain Lake. That said, during bad weather, there may be up to 1000 birds in sloughs around Regina for a day or so until the weather clears. Birds begin passing overhead as early as mid April and are generally through the Regina area by early May. Fall migration in the area lasts from late September to late October.

Tundra Swan Tundra Swans migrate through the Regina area numbering in the low thousands. They are most likely to be found on the ground in the area during their fall migration. They stage north of Pense, at Condee, as well as at Buffalo Pound Lake and the south end of Last Mountain Lake at Regina Beach. Up to 200 use Wascana Lake for a brief period during October.

Snow Goose Snow Geese also pass over Regina in countless thousands. They pass through the area quickly beginning as early as the third week in March. Unlike Sandhill Cranes, Snow Geese land in the Regina area. Several thousand birds can be found in the spring at Buck Lake and the surrounding general area south of Highway 1. The fall migration extends from the end of September until the first snow in November. Again in the fall they are found on the ground around Regina in locations like Buck Lake, north of Pense and Condee where up to 10,000 may stage. Several thousand Snow Geese feed in grain fields around the perimeter of the city during their fall migration stopover there.

Canada Goose Canada Geese also migrate overhead each spring and fall. However, Regina hosts a resident population of Canada Geese numbering in the order of 1000-1200 birds. These birds primarily use Wascana Lake as their home base. Each year 800-1000 Canada Geese are moved to Cumberland House. Many likely return, but the population appears to be slowly declining indicating that this control program is having some success. During July and August about 200-400 birds remain on Wascana Lake and that number builds to 8000-10000 birds by October. These birds move out from the lake daily to feed on farmland crops all around the outskirts of Regina. They also spend time at and around the Regina wastewater treatment plant northwest

of the airport and are notorious for frequenting golf courses to feed on the grass of the fairways and greens. Large numbers of Canada Geese can stay until mid November in years with relatively mild weather. Because Wascana Lake has aerators to oxygenate the water, portions of the lake remains open throughout the winter and about 100 Canada Geese overwinter there. Another thousand or so geese overwinter at the Co-op refinery which uses heated ponds in their refining process – creating a goose “spa” in the process. Because of their movements into and out of the city on a daily basis throughout the snow-free months, Canada Geese pose one of the greatest hazards to aircraft in the YQR area.

Ducks Ducks are abundant during spring and fall migrations. Spring migration begins in early April and many ducks can be found in the numerous sloughs around Regina as well as in Buck Lake and Condee. Although drying and drainage of wetlands has reduced the abundance of water in the area, there is still an abundance of wetlands present for staging and breeding. Ducks breed along Wascana Creek and around Wascana Lake. Most of the breeding ducks are Mallards with occasional pairs of Redheads, Pintails, Wood Ducks, American Wigeon and Canvasbacks. Fall migration begins during late August and continues until mid-October. The major staging area is at the south end of Last Mountain Lake near Regina Beach. Ducks tend to remain more closely associated with marshes than geese and are found in agricultural fields in much smaller numbers than geese.

Gulls The first Ring-billed Gulls begin to arrive in late March. Most gulls present in the area are Ring-billed Gulls, but there are also California Gulls, Herring Gulls and Franklin’s Gulls. By the end of March until the middle of April about 8000 birds are present on Wascana Lake and move back and forth between the lake and the area south of Highway 1. Once the ice leaves the lake in mid-April, most gulls spend the majority of time at the Regina Landfill. Birds use ephemeral ponds south of town to roost. During the summer, gulls will forage on grasshoppers when these insects are abundant. However, the Regina Landfill is the largest source of permanent food for gulls and attracts gulls from a large area surrounding the city.

Bird Hazard Zones A major component of the Bird-Hazard Risk Analysis Process is the definition and mapping of Bird Hazard Zones (BHZ). The Primary BHZ includes the airspace when aircraft are below 1500 feet AGL. With a 3° glideslope on approach to YQR, this equates to a 9 km extending line at both ends of each runway. That line is bounded by 4 km on either side of the line at 9 km from the airport declining to 2 km at the end of the runway. A Secondary BHZ surrounds the Primary BHZ with a 4 km buffer. To this area, the ABRAP includes allowance for Special BHZ to account for high hazard land uses outside of the BHZs. While not part of the ABRAP as described by Transport Canada, I also include a Critical BHZ including the area when aircraft are below 500 feet AGL because this is the primary area in which local movements of birds intersect aircraft movements. The resulting areas are presented in Figure 1.

Figure 1. Bird Hazard Zones and Hazardous Land Uses for Regina International Airport.

Summary of Areas Used By Hazardous Species The land uses listed below are those that are attractants to the hazardous species in the YQR vicinity – namely waterfowl, Sandhill Cranes and gulls. Their locations are noted on Figure 1. Sloughs North of Pense1

: Although about 23 km west of Regina, this area has been included because it is under the glidepath of Runway 8-26. Sloughs are natural features of the prairie landscape and, although gradually disappearing because of drought and drainage, wetland features in a generally dry eco-region are highly attractive to waterbirds. The area is especially noted for fall staging of Tundra Swans and Snow Geese, but accommodates migrating and breeding ducks as well.

1 This area lies outside the borders of the map in Figure 1 and, therefore, is not shown.

Condee is a reservoir and natural area 14 km north of YQR that is also a good staging area for Tundra Swans and Snow Geese. Wascana Lake is one of the major bird habitats in the Regina area. Not only is it a migration stopover for Trumpeter Swans, Canada Geese and Ring-billed Gulls, it is a breeding area for Canada Geese and a number of ducks as well. The lake is located within the Primary BHZ for Runway 08-26. The lake is managed as a natural and recreational urban park. Wascana Creek is the outlet of Wascana Lake and meanders around the perimeter of the airport from northeast to northwest. It is used primarily by breeding ducks, but not in large numbers. However, the creek enters the Critical BHZ elevating the potential hazard posed by this natural area. Buck Lake is located about 10 km southeast of YQR within the Primary BHZ of Runway 13-31. Buck Lake is a spring and fall staging area for Snow Geese and is used by gulls during spring. Regina Wastewater Treatment Plant is located approximately 2 km northwest of the end of Runway 13. The treatment plant is used by significant numbers of Canada Geese which likely reside at Wascana Lake and may overwinter there or at the Co-op Refinery. The treatment plant is located in the Primary BHZ. Agricultural fields lie adjacent to the airport to the southwest, west and northwest. Numerous farms occur within the Critical BHZ as well as the Primary and Secondary BHZs. Cereal and pulse crops are the most attractive to feeding waterfowl. Oilseed crops are somewhat less attractive. Canada Geese are primarily grazers and will feed on succulent green grasses. However, they are very attracted, as are their waterfowl relatives, to high-protein seed crops. Franklin’s and Ring-billed Gulls also feed extensively on grasshoppers which often are abundant during the summer months. Six of the eight golf courses are located within the Primary BHZ (three of them in the Critical BHZ) along a line roughly parallel to Runway 13-31. The Co-op Refinery is considered a Special BHZ because of the heated ponds that provide wintering habitat for Canada Geese. It is located adjacent to the Secondary BHZ in the northeast portion of the city. The Regina Landfill is also a Special BHZ and is located just east of the Co-op Refinery. The landfill is used by many gulls as a feeding area. Many of those gulls move south of Highway 1 to roost on the numerous ponds and sloughs in that region. Other Hazardous Land Uses Transport Canada has itemized a list of land uses that are generally considered hazardous near airports because of their attractiveness to hazardous species of birds. While the list and rankings compiled by Transport Canada are a useful starting point, they are not universally applicable. Some land uses attract species that are either not present or have not presented hazards at YQR and others are not uniformly hazardous due to any number of local conditions and the details of land use. Nevertheless the presence of high and moderate risk land uses

within Primary and Secondary BHZs can be problematic. Without a detailed study of bird use of land uses in the vicinity of YQR, it is not possible to accurately identify the exact hazard level of each land use that occurs within the BHZs. However, for the most part, existing land uses other than those identified in this report do not appear to be contributing significantly to bird hazards to aircraft in the vicinity of YQR. New land uses that are being developed or are proposed for development in the future should be carefully assessed to determine their potential to contribute to bird hazards at YQR. Table 7 will assist the Regina Airport Authority is determining which development proposals might be of concern and may require further assessment. Table 7. Hazardous Land Uses and BHZ Permission Recommendations.

Recommended Zoning Hazard Rating Land Use Season of Hazard Critical BHZ Primary BHZ Secondary BHZ High Grains including

Barley, Oats, Wheat (particularly Durum), Corn, Sunflower

Late Summer & Fall

NP NP PWA High Pulse crops including

lentil, pea, chickpea and beans

Late Summer & Fall

NP NP PWA High Bird Colonies

including Canada Goose nesting areas

Spring & Summer

NA NA NA High Roosting Sites Year-round NA NA NA High Wildlife Refuge Variable NP NP PWA High Putrescible Waste

Landfill Year round

NP NP NP Moder

ate-High

Abattoir Year-round

NP NP NP Moder

ate Freshly Tilled/Ploughed soil

Spring-Fall NP NP PWA

Moderate

Sod Farm Spring-Fall NP NP PWA

Moderate

Stripping of Topsoil Spring-Fall NP NP PWA

Moderate

Fair/Exhibition Ground/Racetrack

Summer NP NP PWA

Moderate

Golf Courses and Parks

Summer NP NP PWA

Moderate

Outdoor (Drive-In) Theaters

Summer NP NP GP

Moderate

Open or Partially Enclosed Waste Transfer Stations

Year-round

NP NP PWA Moder

ate Sewage Lagoon Year-round

NP NP NP Moder

ate Sewage Treatment Plant

Year-round NP NP PWA

Moder Storm Water Year-round NP NP NP

Recommended Zoning Hazard Rating Land Use Season of Hazard Critical BHZ Primary BHZ Secondary BHZ

ate Retention Ponds

Low-Moder

ate

Meat Packing Plants Year round

NP PWA PWA Low-

Moderate

Tannery Year-round

NP PWA PWA Low Water Reservoir Spring-Fall NP NP PWA Low Picnic areas Summer PWA GP P Low Barnyards Year-round PWA GP P Low Commercial

Shopping Malls, Plazas

Year-round

PWA PWA GP Low Community/Recreati

on Centres Year-round

PWA GP P Low Fast Food

Restaurants Year-round

PWA GP P Low Hay crops of Clover Year-round PWA PWA GP Low Industrial Lands Year-round GP GP P Low Livestock Feedlots

for Beef Cattle, or Hog farms

Year-round

NP NP PWA Low Natural Habitats Year-round NA NA NA Low Poultry Factory Farm Year-round NP PWA GP Low Schools Year-round GP GP P Low Stables Year-round GP GP P Low Vegetation

Composting Site Year-round

PWA PWA GP NP Not Permitted PWA May be permitted with professional advice GP Generally Permitted with Review P Permitted NA Not controlled by permit

Mitigation Unlike wildlife control on airport property, the control of wildlife outside of the airport fence can typically only be done by communication with landowners in order to obtain their cooperation towards mutually beneficial ends. The primary tool for controlling hazardous land uses in the vicinity of airports is airport zoning. While this tool is generally used to control building and tower heights and similar obstructions to operational aspects of airport management, there is no reason to limit the zoning to preclude zoning for bird hazard prevention. A secondary tool is municipal zoning. With the cooperation of municipal authorities, which presumes the support of the community at-large, local zoning ordinances can be used to accomplish bird hazard reduction through control of unacceptable

land uses. The primary disadvantage to municipal zoning versus airport zoning is that the latter zoning is federal and less susceptible to change to accommodate local development aspirations. Zoning controls are not always possible or desirable. Often, more can be accomplished through working with municipal permitting departments and developers/landowners to build mitigation measures into the design of new developments. In this way, the majority of the attractiveness of a potentially hazardous land use can be minimized. The end result will hopefully be that instead of having a high hazard land use anywhere in the region, a much less hazardous land use will be permitted. Existing land uses are more difficult to manage. Often the mitigation of hazardous land uses carries with it a substantial cost either in design modification, additional operational costs, or forfeited profits. Nevertheless, appeals to human safety and the potential liability faced by the landowner are often effective in achieving a compromise where the hazard posed by the existing land use is modified sufficiently to ameliorate bird hazards to aircraft concerns without unduly burdening the landowner. Where this is not possible, alternative measures might be required including ultimately purchasing land to end offensive land uses. In order to accomplish any measure of success in managing off-airport land uses, it is essential that the airport authority engage the community to understand the needs and desires of the local population and politicians in order to find common ground as well as to inform neighboring residents and businesses of the operating environment of an airport and the special needs required to achieve air safety. Most everyone these days is a passenger on an aircraft at one time or another. Therefore, everyone has a vested interest in air safety. It needs to be the goal of the airport authority to build community relationships to the point where both the airport and the community recognize the need for and advantage of meeting the common and divergent interests as well as compromising to achieve the ultimate goal of air safety. There are also specific actions that Regina Airport Authority can take to reduce the risks posed by birds using lands outside of the airport. Without delving deeply into any one potential remedy, I will simply provide a brief list. Detailed discussion of these ideas is beyond the scope of this report and should be reserved for the time when action is taken and a more thorough consideration of the options is warranted.

1. The airport might consider providing assistance to Wascana Centre in their efforts to reduce the population of Canada Geese. The current round-up and relocation of birds is far less effective than addling/oiling eggs. This would be a significant undertaking which could be supported in part by RAA.

2. Golf courses all likely have Canada Goose control programs. RAA could attempt to bring the courses together in order to adopt a unified strategy that is more likely to work rather than simply moving birds from one course to another. RAA might undertake the development of the overall strategy once the courses agree to participate.

3. RAA could begin talks with the city to enlist their support in controlling birds at the wastewater treatment plant. Because the plant is located under the approach to Runway 13 and within the Primary Bird Hazard Zone, this is probably the most hazardous land use next to the agricultural practices that provide food for geese and other birds during the fall period.

4. The Co-op Refinery could be encouraged to construct overhead wires or netting above their heated ponds to prevent use of the ponds by Canada Geese during the winter. This would significantly reduce the over-wintering population of geese thereby reducing the number of “goose days” of exposure to aircraft strikes.

5. There are many best practices for landfill operators to reduce use by gulls. RAA could begin consultation with the city and the landfill operator to ensure that best practices are followed. If they are not currently in place, RAA might consider offering to help design the best practices if the city is willing to implement them.

6. The RAA should continue to work with local farmers to influence the types of crops grown. Open houses with farmers may be a good way to encourage greater co-operation. Perhaps a luncheon associated with the open-house would attract more interest and encourage a greater participation. This is likely to be a long-term process. It is difficult to alter patterns that have been established many years ago. It is also difficult to ask farmers who may already be in a marginal economy to grow what might be less profitable crops. However, there are often silver-linings that can be unearthed. RAA might be able to work with provincial agricultural experts to determine crops favorable for bird hazard reduction as well as profitability.

7. Wildlife management at YQR needs to move beyond wildlife control. By the time most birds reach the airport or the vicinity of the airport it is already too late to alleviate the hazard they represent. By taking an ecological approach and attempting to manage wildlife at the source of their distribution, RAA is likely to achieve a greater success at minimizing risk to aircraft and passengers.

8. Because of the large migrations that pass overhead during the spring and fall, YQR could use Avian radar that will identify those movements in time to alert aircraft controllers to the hazard. While avian radars are still in development, they are rapidly reaching the point where accurate altitude information will be provided and systems are being designed to allow aircraft controllers to incorporate bird “alarms” without information overload. In my opinion, radar is not quite ready yet, but should be in the near future. The next step will be to get NavCanada to accept its use in the control tower.


Report No. 2017-025 Prepared by: Pam Malach Presented to Council: May 24, 2017 Agenda Item: Interest Incurred on Invoice 2014-00194

Attachments:

1. Invoice/Statement with Interest 2. 3.

Background:

Council and Administration held a Public Hearing on April 22, 2014 to consider feedback on a proposed amendment to the Zoning Bylaw No. 10/91 which intended to re-zone land part of NE 36-16-20-W2 from Agriculture to Commercial. The land was intended to be used by RMP and Traveland for parking lot storage.

As per The Planning and Development Act, 2007 Council (Administration) had to give notice of the public hearing. The RM had published an ad in the leader-post that had to run for two consecutive weeks prior to the public hearing. In doing so the RM incurred the cost to advertise in the amount of $2,318.40 ($1,159.20 each ad).

Summary:

In recent discussions with RMP I was able to clearly define the purpose of these chargers, RMP expressed that there had been great miscommunication and misunderstanding of these expenses in the past and has agreed to pay their proportional amount.

Due to lack in communication, and a significant amount of time passing this invoice has grown in interest by $804.24.

I recommend that the RM removes the applied interest in order to recover the direct expense the RM incurred.

This information has also been shared with Traveland, I will continue to work with them to obtain their proportional amount of the invoice.

Recommendation: THAT Council authorize administration to remove the interest that has been applied to invoice # 2014-00194.


Implications:

a) Governance b) Budget/Financial c) Staff Resources d) Business/Strategic Plan e) Ratepayers (Citizens/Local Businesses)



_____________________________________________________________________________________

Submitted By: Pam Malach Approved By: Title:

Date: May 17, 2017


Report No. AD0025 Prepared by: Christine Trithardt Presented to Council: May.24.2017 Agenda Item: Rescind Resolution # 232/2017

Attachments:

Background:

At the May 10th, 2017 Regular Council Meeting, the following resolution was passed.

232/2017 PEACE OFFICER/COMMUNITY SAFETY OFFICER

COUNCILLOR CRASSWELLER: THAT the R.M. of Sherwood No. 159 enter into an agreement with the R.M. of Pense and the Town of Grand Coulee for the purpose of hiring a Peace Officer and/or Community Safety; and,

FURTHERMORE, to only appoint the Commissionaires for an as needed purpose only.

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

An amendment was made to the furthermore portion of this resolution and was voted on after the recess.

235/2017 PEACE OFFICER/COMMUNITY SAFETY OFFICER

COUNCILLOR CRASSWELLER: THAT the R.M. of Sherwood No. 159 enter into an agreement with the R.M. of Pense and the Town of Grand Coulee for the purpose of hiring a Peace Officer and/or Community Safety; and,

FURTHERMORE, to adjust the Commissionaires contract to an as needed basis at the discretion of the Chief Administrative Officer and Management.

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

______________________________________________________________________________________

Submitted By: Christine Trithardt

Approved By:

Title: Director of Public Works

Date: May 12, 2017

Recommendation: THAT Council rescind resolution # 232/2017.

agenda - rm of sherwood · 2017. 5. 23. · special council meeting agenda may 24th, 2017 at 5:30...

Documents