ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT WIND · PDF fileENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT ......

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT WIND ENERGY R&D PARK AND STORAGE SYSTEM

FOR INNOVATION IN GRID INTEGRATION

DRAFT REPORT

Submitted to: Wind Energy Institute of Canada North Cape, Prince Edward Island

Submitted by: AMEC Earth & Environmental,

A Division of AMEC Americas Limited Fredericton, New Brunswick

November 2010

TE91077

TE91077_WEICan_WindProject_DraftReport_Nov15_2010_jb_cjy.doc AMEC Earth & Environmental, a division of AMEC Americas Limited 25 Waggoners Lane Fredericton, New Brunswick E3B 2L2 Tel + 1 (506) 458-1000 Fax + 1 (506) 450-0829 www.amec.com

November 16, 2010

TE91077

Mr. Scott Harper CEO, Wind Energy Institute of Canada 21741 Route 12 North Cape, PE C0B 2B0 Dear Mr. Harper:

Re: Draft Report Environmental Impact Assessment for the Wind Energy R&D Park and Storage System for Innovation in Grid Integration

AMEC Earth & Environmental, a division of AMEC Americas Limited is pleased to provide 6 hardcopies and 1 electronic copy on CD of the above-mentioned report. We have enjoyed working on this project with you and we look forward to providing services to your department in the future. Sincerely,

Janet Blackadar, M.Sc.F, EP Project Manager Direct Tel.: 1.506.450.8855 Direct Fax: 1.506.450.0829 E-mail: [email protected]

Wind Energy Institue of Canada Environmental Impact Assessment – Draft Report Wind Energy R&D Park and Storage System for Innovation in Grid Integration North Cape, PE November, 2010

TE91077_WEICan_WindProject_DraftReport_Nov15_2010_jb_cjy.doc Page (ii)

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Wind Energy Institute of Canada (“WEICan”) proposes to develop and operate a 10 megawatt (MW) Wind Energy Research & Development (R&D) Park and Energy Storage System. The Wind Energy Research & Development (R&D) Park and Energy Storage System, hereafter referred to as the “Project” would be located at Norway, on the northwestern tip of the province of Prince Edward Island (PEI). This area will hereafter be referred to as the “Study Area”. The Study Area has been used in the past and currently for the purpose of growing crops as well as conservation (wetlands). The Study Area has minimal residential development around its perimeter and can meet the provincial requirements of a setback four times the height of the turbine from any residential development. Within five kilometres (km) of the Project Site perimeter there is one Aeolus prototype V90 wind turbine operated by a subsidiary of Vestas, the WEICan Site with up to 15 wind turbines in operation, the Suez Wind Farm (Norway) with three wind turbines and the North Cape Wind Farm of 16 wind turbines developed by the Prince Edward Island Energy Corporation (PEIEC). The proposed Project implementation will take place between winter 2010/2011 and early summer 2012. The Project will consist of erecting five wind turbines, each capable of producing 2 MW for a total nameplate production of 10MW, a meteorological mast, a buried electrical collector system, access roads to each turbine, a building to house an energy storage unit and a sub-station. Key environmental features include the Black Marsh conservation area and identified Species-at-Risk. The operational life of this project’s assets is expected to be twenty-five (25) years, at which time the assets will have to be replaced or decommissioned. The goal of the Project is to allow WEICan to expand its research role into energy storage, wind and power forecasting methodologies, grid integration issues, and other areas of research. The project will provide innovative new approaches and collaboration with key industry stakeholders with respect to grid integration of wind energy, which are not currently available on PEI. Direct, measurable benefits of the Project to WEICan, the Province, the Canadian wind energy sector, and Canada will be:

• expanding research into energy storage, wind and power forecasting methodologies, grid integration issues, and other areas;

• reduced emissions thereby aiding to attain Canada’s objective of reducing Canada's total green house gas (GHG) emissions by 17 percent from 2005 levels by the year 2020;

• compliance with PEI’s Renewable Energy Act; • aiding PEI reach their goal of producing 500 MW of wind energy by 2013 as per the

“Island Wind Energy – Securing Our Future: The 10 Point Plan”


TE91077_WEICan_WindProject_DraftReport_Nov15_2010_jb_cjy.doc Page (iii)

• lowered dependence on imports of electricity to the Province; • to help stabilize electricity costs within the Province; and • economic development benefits to the local area.

This report addresses the environmental effects of the construction, operation and decommissioning project phases. The information to date has shown that no significant adverse residual impacts on the VECs are likely. The generation of electricity from renewable resources such as wind is in accordance with federal and provincial strategies, since it contributes to the reduction of GHG emissions and air pollutants. The WEICan R&D Wind Park, once approved, would contribute to the reduction of GHG emissions required to meet Canada’s and the Province of PEI’s targets.


TE91077_WEICan_WindProject_DraftReport_Nov15_2010_jb_cjy.doc Page (iv)

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PAGE

1.0 PROJECT SUMMARY ............................................................................................ 1 1.1 STRUCTURE OF THE DOCUMENT .......................................................................... 1 1.2 PROJECT PROPONENT ............................................................................................ 1 1.3 TITLE OF PROJECT ................................................................................................... 2 1.4 PROJECT LOCATION ................................................................................................ 3 1.5 ESTIMATED CAPACITY OF WIND FARM ................................................................. 3 1.6 CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE ................................................................................... 3 1.7 AGENCIES INVOLVED IN ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT ................................ 5

1.7.1 Municipal Agency Involvement in the Project .................................................. 5 1.7.2 Provincial Agency Involvement in the Project .................................................. 5 1.7.3 Federal Agency Involvement in the Project ..................................................... 5

1.8 REGULATORY FRAMEWORK ................................................................................... 6 1.9 AUTHOR OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT .......................................... 6

2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION .................................................................................... 11 2.1 THE PROJECT PROPONENT .................................................................................. 11 2.2 PROJECT BACKGROUND ....................................................................................... 11

2.2.1 National and Regional Political Considerations ............................................. 11 2.3 PURPOSE OF PROJECT ......................................................................................... 12

2.3.1 Justification for the Project ............................................................................ 12 2.3.2 Project Objectives .......................................................................................... 13

2.4 SUMMARY OF PROJECT ........................................................................................ 13 2.5 LOCATION OF PROJECT ........................................................................................ 14

2.5.1 Land Ownership ............................................................................................ 14 2.5.2 Key Environmental and Cultural Features ..................................................... 16

2.6 DETAILED PROJECT ACTIVITIES .......................................................................... 16 2.6.1 Construction Phase ....................................................................................... 16

2.6.1.1 Surveying Activities .................................................................................... 18 2.6.1.2 Site Preparation .......................................................................................... 18 2.6.1.3 New and Existing Access Roads ............................................................... 18 2.6.1.4 Delivery of Equipment ................................................................................ 20 2.6.1.5 Wind Turbine Assembly ............................................................................. 20 2.6.1.6 Meteorological Mast ................................................................................... 27


TE91077_WEICan_WindProject_DraftReport_Nov15_2010_jb_cjy.doc Page (v)

2.6.1.7 Interconnection Cabling ............................................................................. 27 2.6.1.8 On-site Sub-station/Energy Storage Facility .............................................. 27 2.6.1.9 Gates and Fencing ..................................................................................... 28 2.6.1.10 Parking Lots ............................................................................................... 28 2.6.1.11 Turbine Commissioning ............................................................................. 28

2.6.2 Operation Phase ............................................................................................ 28 2.6.2.1 Road Maintenance ..................................................................................... 28 2.6.2.2 Turbine Operations .................................................................................... 29

2.6.3 Decommissioning Phase ............................................................................... 29

3.0 SCOPE OF THE ASSESSMENT .......................................................................... 31 3.1 SCOPE OF THE PROJECT AND ITS ASSESSMENT ............................................. 31 3.2 METHODOLOGY OF ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT ...................................... 31 3.3 TEMPORAL AND SPATIAL BOUNDARIES OF THE PROJECT ............................. 33 3.4 CONSULTATION PROGRAM ................................................................................... 34

3.4.1 Public Consultation ........................................................................................ 34 3.4.2 Consultations with Stakeholders and Interest Groups ................................... 34 3.4.3 Consultations with Stakeholders and Interest Groups ................................... 35

3.5 REGULATORY CONSULTATION ............................................................................ 35 3.6 ISSUES SCOPING AND VEC SELECTION (SCOPE OF THE ASSESSMENT) ..... 35

3.6.1 Issues Scoping .............................................................................................. 44 3.7 APPROACH TO DETERMINATION OF SIGNIFICANCE ......................................... 46

4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIO-ECONOMIC SETTING .................................... 48 4.1 GEOPHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT ............................................................................. 48

4.1.1 Soil and Soil Quality ...................................................................................... 48 4.1.2 Geology (Acid Rock Drainage) ...................................................................... 49 4.1.3 Seismicity ...................................................................................................... 49 4.1.4 Hydrogeology/Groundwater ........................................................................... 49 4.1.5 Sub-surface Resources ................................................................................. 50

4.2 AQUATIC ENVIRONMENT ....................................................................................... 50 4.2.1 Aquatic Habitat and Fauna ............................................................................ 50 4.2.2 Surface Hydrology ......................................................................................... 50

4.3 TERRESTRIAL ENVIRONMENT .............................................................................. 51 4.3.1 Flora .............................................................................................................. 51

4.3.1.1 Crop Land ................................................................................................... 52 4.3.1.2 Dune ........................................................................................................... 52 4.3.1.3 Meadow ...................................................................................................... 52 4.3.1.4 Shrub Swamp (wetland) ............................................................................. 52


TE91077_WEICan_WindProject_DraftReport_Nov15_2010_jb_cjy.doc Page (vi)

4.3.1.5 Forested Wetland ....................................................................................... 53 4.3.1.6 Forest ......................................................................................................... 53

4.3.2 Fauna ............................................................................................................ 53 4.3.2.1 Local and Migratory Birds .......................................................................... 53 4.3.2.2 Bats ............................................................................................................ 55

4.3.3 Species-at-Risk ............................................................................................. 60 4.3.3.1 Flora Species-at-Risk ................................................................................. 61 4.3.3.2 Fauna Species-at-Risk ............................................................................... 64

4.3.4 Designated Areas and Other Critical Habitat Features ................................. 66 4.3.5 Wetland ......................................................................................................... 67

4.3.5.1 Wetland Resources .................................................................................... 67 4.3.5.2 Wetland Identification ................................................................................. 69 4.3.5.3 Wetland Functional Assessment ................................................................ 69

4.4 ATMOSPHERIC ENVIRONMENT ............................................................................ 73 4.4.1 Climatology .................................................................................................... 73 4.4.2 Ambient Air Quality ........................................................................................ 73

4.5 SOCIO-ECONOMIC SETTING ................................................................................. 77 4.5.1 Population Demographics ............................................................................. 77 4.5.2 Local Economy .............................................................................................. 78 4.5.3 Land Use ....................................................................................................... 79

4.5.3.1 Industrial ..................................................................................................... 79 4.5.3.2 Commercial ................................................................................................ 80 4.5.3.3 Residential .................................................................................................. 80 4.5.3.4 Fisheries ..................................................................................................... 80 4.5.3.5 Agricultural ................................................................................................. 80 4.5.3.6 Forestry ...................................................................................................... 81

4.5.4 Community Services and Infrastructure ........................................................ 81 4.5.4.1 Transportation Infrastructure ...................................................................... 81 4.5.4.2 Electricity .................................................................................................... 81 4.5.4.3 Cultural/Institutional .................................................................................... 82 4.5.4.4 Communication and Radar Systems .......................................................... 82 4.5.4.5 Emergency Services .................................................................................. 84

4.5.5 Existing Noise Level ...................................................................................... 84 4.5.6 Heritage and Archaeological Resources ....................................................... 85

4.5.6.1 Phase 1 Background Desktop Review ....................................................... 85 4.5.6.2 Phase 2 Field Examination ........................................................................ 87

4.5.7 Recreation Areas and Tourism ...................................................................... 90 4.5.8 Land and Resources Used for Traditional Purposes by Aboriginal Persons . 91

4.5.8.1 Aboriginal Fisheries .................................................................................... 92 4.5.9 Safety Issues ................................................................................................. 92 4.5.10 Visual Landscape .......................................................................................... 92


TE91077_WEICan_WindProject_DraftReport_Nov15_2010_jb_cjy.doc Page (vii)

5.0 IMPACT ASSESSMENT, MITIGATION AND RESIDUAL EFFECTS ASSESSMENT ............................................................................................................. 93

5.1 GEOPHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT ............................................................................. 94 5.1.1 Soil Quality .................................................................................................... 94

5.1.1.1 Pathways and Activities ............................................................................. 94 5.1.1.2 Boundaries ................................................................................................. 94 5.1.1.3 Impact Assessment .................................................................................... 94 5.1.1.4 Mitigation .................................................................................................... 95 5.1.1.5 Residual Impacts ........................................................................................ 95

5.2 TERRESTRIAL ENVIRONMENT .............................................................................. 96 5.2.1 Fauna ............................................................................................................ 96

5.2.1.1 Local and Migratory Birds .......................................................................... 96 5.2.1.2 Impact Assessment – Disturbance and Avoidance .................................. 100 5.2.1.3 Bats .......................................................................................................... 101

5.2.2 Species-at-Risk ........................................................................................... 106 5.2.2.1 Flora Species-at-Risk ............................................................................... 106 5.2.2.2 Recommended Mitigation ........................................................................ 107 5.2.2.3 Significance of Residual Effects ............................................................... 107 5.2.2.4 Faunal Species-at-Risk ............................................................................ 107 5.2.2.5 Potential Effects on Species-at-Risk ........................................................ 108 5.2.2.6 Clearing, Grubbing, and Excavation Activities ......................................... 108

5.2.3 Wetlands ...................................................................................................... 110 5.2.3.1 Pathways and Activities ........................................................................... 111 5.2.3.2 Boundaries ............................................................................................... 111 5.2.3.3 Impact Assessment .................................................................................. 111 5.2.3.4 Mitigation .................................................................................................. 113 5.2.3.5 Compensation .......................................................................................... 114 5.2.3.6 Significance of Residual Effects ............................................................... 116

5.3 ATMOSPHERIC ENVIRONMENT .......................................................................... 117 5.3.1 Air Quality .................................................................................................... 117

5.3.1.1 Pathways and Activities ........................................................................... 117 5.3.1.2 Boundaries ............................................................................................... 117 5.3.1.3 Impact Assessment .................................................................................. 117 5.3.1.4 Mitigation .................................................................................................. 118 5.3.1.5 Residual Impacts ...................................................................................... 118

5.4 SOCIO-ECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT .................................................................... 119 5.4.1 Local Economy ............................................................................................ 119

5.4.1.1 Pathways and Activities ........................................................................... 119 5.4.1.2 Boundaries ............................................................................................... 119 5.4.1.3 Impact Assessment .................................................................................. 119 5.4.1.4 Residual Impacts ...................................................................................... 120

5.4.2 Land Use ..................................................................................................... 121


TE91077_WEICan_WindProject_DraftReport_Nov15_2010_jb_cjy.doc Page (viii)

5.4.2.1 Agricultural ............................................................................................... 121 5.4.2.2 Transportation Infrastructure .................................................................... 121

5.5 ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND HERITAGE RESOURCES ........................................... 122 5.6 HUMAN HEALTH AND SAFETY ............................................................................ 123

5.6.1 Pathways and Activities ............................................................................... 124 5.6.1.1 Construction and Decommissioning ......................................................... 124 5.6.1.2 Operation .................................................................................................. 124

5.6.2 Boundaries .................................................................................................. 125 5.6.3 Impact Assessment ..................................................................................... 125

5.6.3.1 Occupational Safety ................................................................................. 125 5.6.3.2 Noise ........................................................................................................ 127

5.7 AESTHETICS: VISUAL RESOURCES ................................................................... 130 5.7.1 Pathways and Activities ............................................................................... 131 5.7.2 Boundaries .................................................................................................. 131 5.7.3 Impact Assessment ..................................................................................... 131 5.7.4 Mitigation ..................................................................................................... 132 5.7.5 Residual Impacts ......................................................................................... 132

5.8 ACCIDENTS AND MALFUNCTIONS ...................................................................... 133 5.8.1 Pathways and Activities ............................................................................... 133 5.8.2 Boundaries .................................................................................................. 133 5.8.3 Impact Assessment ..................................................................................... 133

5.8.3.1 Accidental Spills and Leaks ..................................................................... 133 5.8.3.2 Icing .......................................................................................................... 135 5.8.3.3 Breakage .................................................................................................. 137 5.8.3.4 Traffic Accidents ....................................................................................... 138

6.0 EFFECTS OF THE ENVIRONMENT ON THE PROJECT .................................. 140 6.1 EXTREME WEATHER ............................................................................................ 140 6.2 GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE ................................................................................. 141

7.0 CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ASSESSMENT .......................................................... 142 7.1 BOUNDARIES ......................................................................................................... 142 7.2 OTHER PROJECTS IN THE AREA ........................................................................ 142

7.2.1 Existing ........................................................................................................ 142 7.2.2 Future .......................................................................................................... 143

7.3 IMPACT ASSESSMENT ......................................................................................... 144 7.3.1 Potential Cumulative Effects ........................................................................ 144 7.3.2 Birds ............................................................................................................ 144


TE91077_WEICan_WindProject_DraftReport_Nov15_2010_jb_cjy.doc Page (ix)

7.3.3 Bats ............................................................................................................. 146 7.3.4 Floral Species-at-Risk ................................................................................. 146 7.3.5 Faunal Species-at-Risk ............................................................................... 147 7.3.6 Wetlands ...................................................................................................... 147

8.0 POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND CUMULATIVE EFFECTS .... 148

9.0 ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS MONITORING ................................................... 162

10.0 CONCLUSION .................................................................................................... 163

11.0 LIST OF SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS .............................................................. 164

12.0 GLOSSARY ........................................................................................................ 176

13.0 ACRONYMS ....................................................................................................... 177


TE91077_WEICan_WindProject_DraftReport_Nov15_2010_jb_cjy.doc Page (x)

LIST OF TABLES Table 1.1 UTM Geographical Coordinates ............................................................................ 3 Table 1.2 Proposed Construction Schedule .......................................................................... 3 Table 1.3 Environmental Legislation and Guidelines which may be Applicable to the

Proposed Project ................................................................................................... 7 Table 2.1 Property Identification Numbers, Tenure and Zoning within the Project

Area ..................................................................................................................... 14 Table 2.2 Surveys Conducted, Personnel Qualifications and Survey Periods .................... 18 Table 3.1 Non-Governmental Organizations and Local Resource Representatives

Contacted, their Affiliation and Topics Discussed ............................................... 35 Table 3.2 Regulatory Representatives from Federal, Provincial and Municipal

Organizations Contacted, their Affiliation and Topics Discussed ........................ 36 Table 3.3 Issues Scoping: Summary of VEC Selection and Pathway Analysis .................. 37 Table 3.4 Criteria to be Considered in the Assessment of Potential Environmental

Effects ................................................................................................................. 47 Table 4.1 Habitat at / Adjacent to each Site ........................................................................ 52 Table 4.2 Plant Species of Concern Potentially in the Study Area ...................................... 62 Table 4.3 Floral Species-at-Risk Observed During the August 11th to 13th, 2010

Vegetation Survey ............................................................................................... 64 Table 4.4 Faunal Species of Concern in the Study Area (ACCDC) .................................... 65 Table 4.5 Air Quality Guidelines in PEI ............................................................................... 74 Table 4.6 Population Profile ................................................................................................ 77 Table 4.7 Heritage Resources Contacts.............................................................................. 90 Table 5.1 Definitions of Level of Impact after Mitigation Measures ..................................... 93 Table 5.2 Potential Impacts on Birds ................................................................................... 97 Table 5.3 Noise Levels at Various Distances from Typical Construction Equipment ........ 109 Table 5.4 Noise Levels Associated with Common Environments and Sources ................ 128 Table 7.1 Potential Cumulative Effects for VECs and Rationale for Inclusion ................... 145 Table 8.1 Summary of Environmental Impacts .................................................................. 149 Table 8.2 Summary of Cumulative Effects ........................................................................ 161


TE91077_WEICan_WindProject_DraftReport_Nov15_2010_jb_cjy.doc Page (xi)

LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1.1 Map Identifying Location of the Wind Energy Research & Development

Park and Storage System for Innovation in Grid Integration in the Province of Prince Edward Island.......................................................................... 4

Figure 2.1 Overhead Aerial Photo Showing the Location of Turbines, Lay Down Areas, Access Roads, Connection Cables, Substation and Property Boundaries .......................................................................................................... 15

Figure 2.2 Geographic Context of Project Site Identifying Key Environmental and Cultural Features ................................................................................................. 17

Figure 2.3 Typical Access Road Construction ...................................................................... 19 Figure 2.4 Proposed Option A Access road R&D Wind Park Layout ................................... 21 Figure 2.5 Proposed Option B Access road R&D Wind Park Layout ................................... 22 Figure 2.6 Typical Wind Turbine Site Layout for Option A .................................................... 24 Figure 2.7 Typical Wind Turbine Site Layout for Option B .................................................... 25 Figure 2.8 Typical Reinforced Crane Pad Design ................................................................ 26 Figure 3.1 Approach to Environmental Impact (Effects) Assessment .................................. 32 Figure 4.1 Canada Warbler Territory .................................................................................... 56 Figure 4.2 Bat Survey Locations .......................................................................................... 59 Figure 4.3 Wetland Area as Depicted by Provincial Data (PEIDEEF) and Field

Surveys ............................................................................................................... 70 Figure 4.4 Archaeology Site Observed During 2009 Field Surveys ..................................... 88

LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix A Bird Survey Results - Brian Dalzell Report Appendix B Radio Interference Assessment – Frontier Power Systems Report Appendix C Noise Modelling – Frontier Power Systems Report


TE91077_WEICan_WindProject_DraftReport_Nov15_2010_jb_cjy.doc Page 1

1.0 PROJECT SUMMARY 1.1 STRUCTURE OF THE DOCUMENT

This report documents the assessment of the environmental effects of the proposed construction, operation and decommissioning of the Wind Energy Research and Development (R&D) Park and Storage System for Innovation in Grid Integration (“the Project”). This assessment was conducted in accordance with the requirements of the Prince Edward Island (PEI) Environmental Protection Act and the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act (CEAA). The report utilizes the “Environmental Impact Statement Guidelines for Screenings of Inland Wind Farms Under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act”. The report is divided into the following sections:

Section 1.0 Provides basic information on project’s proponent, location, schedule and regulatory environment.

Section 2.0 Provides the need and justification for the project as well as a description of the Project activities.

Section 3.0 Describes the scope of the environmental assessment (EA), consultations undertaken and the temporal and spatial boundaries.

Section 4.0 Describes the environmental and socio-economic setting of the study. Section 5.0 Describes the assessment of all the environmental and socio-economic

issues identified as relevant for the proposed project. Section 6.0 Describes the effects of the environment on the project. Section 7.0 Presents the assessment of cumulative effects. Section 8.0 Presents tables which summarize potential environmental impacts and

cumulative effects. Section 9.0 Describes environmental effects monitoring recommended. Section 10.0 Conclusion. Section 11.0 List of Supporting Documents. Section 12.0 Personal Communications. Section 13.0 Glossary of Terms. Section 14.0 Acronyms.

1.2 PROJECT PROPONENT

The Wind Energy Institute of Canada (“WEICan”) is a leader in wind energy research and development in Canada and has enjoyed this role for more than 25 years since beginning operations in the early 80s as the Atlantic Wind Test Site (AWTS). WEICan plays a key role nationwide in advancing the development of wind energy through research, testing, innovation and collaboration. WEICan focuses on four strategic areas:



• Testing Leading to Certification; • Research, Development and Demonstration; • Training, Outreach and Public Education; and • Technical Consultation and Assistance.

Currently, WEICan’s 38 acre site in North Cape, PEI, can accommodate a number and variety of wind turbines for testing. In order to continue its expansion in research and development, WEICan is proposing to develop and operate a 10 megawatt (MW) Wind Energy R&D Park and energy storage system on PEI. The availability of the proposed wind park for research purposes will allow WEICan to expand its research role into wind and power forecasting methodologies, grid integration issues, energy storage and other areas of research. The project will provide innovative new approaches and collaboration with key industry stakeholders with respect to grid integration of wind energy, which are not currently available on PEI. The storage system will also provide opportunities to study storage performance with respect to reliability and economics which is of major interest to the project’s system operator and utility. The project will provide infrastructure that will enable data collection and assessment capabilities that are not currently available for real time wind farm operations. The real time power data collected from wind farms can also be used in the optimization of wind forecasting. The local utility has advised the project’s new infrastructure would be extremely valuable with respect to grid integration, ‘Smart Grid’ development and future development projects. R&D capabilities would be further enhanced as well through the introduction of storage capabilities and the 10MW Wind Energy R&D Park; thereby enhancing the institute’s innovation capacity and innovative testing capabilities to allow WEICan to continue to develop their mandate and programs in support of the industry. WEICan contact person and contact information is below:

Mr. Scott Harper CEO, Wind Energy Institute of Canada 21741 Route 12 North Cape, PE C0B 2B0 Tel: (902) 882-2746 Fax: (902) 882-3823 Email: [email protected] Website: www.weican.ca

1.3 TITLE OF PROJECT

Wind Energy Research & Development Park and Storage System for Innovation in Grid Integration.

http://www.weican.ca/�



1.4 PROJECT LOCATION

The project is located near North Cape, on the northwestern tip of the province of PEI, in the Norway area (47.04°N x 64.015°W) (Figure 1.1). The location is noted for exceptional wind regimes with direct and continuous exposure to the prevailing westerly winds. Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM) geographical coordinates for the turbine locations are provided in Table 1.1.

Table 1.1 UTM Geographical Coordinates

Turbine Name UTM Easting Northing

T1 423140 5210290 T2 422988 5209895 T3 422860 5209663 T4 422602 5209401 T5 422893 5208782

Sub-station/Storage 422768 5209306 Note: UTM Zone 20, in NAD 83 datum

The entire Project Area represents 2.13 to 2.70 hectares (ha) on the four properties depending on the access routing option selected. The general land use and vegetative communities on the site are approximately 50% wetlands (meadow, wet shrub lands and forested bog) and 50% agriculture or open upland areas using Option A or approximately 60% wetlands and 40% agriculture or open upland areas using Option B.

1.5 ESTIMATED CAPACITY OF WIND FARM

The Project will be implemented in one stage. This stage will consist of the installation of five wind turbines (T1, T2, T3, T4 and T5) with a capacity of 2 MW each, generating a total of 10 MW of electrical wind power.

1.6 CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE

The estimated construction schedule is depicted in Table 1.2. Table 1.2 Proposed Construction Schedule

10.0 MWs of Wind Power Date

EA Completed Fall/Winter 2010 Geotechnical Engineering Information for Wind Turbine Site Winter 2010 Site surveying, Clearing and Grubbing of Project Area Winter 2010/2011 Wind Turbine Site Earthworks Construction Begin Spring 2011 Wind Turbine Erection Begins Summer 2011 Wind Turbine Site Earthworks Construction Ends Late Fall 2011 Sub-station Site Earthworks Construction Begins Summer 2011 Sub-station Site Earthworks Construction Ends Late Fall 2012 Commissioning of Wind Turbines and Sub-station Spring/Summer 2012



Figure 1.1 Map Identifying Location of the Wind Energy Research & Development Park and Storage System for Innovation in Grid Integration in the Province of Prince Edward Island



1.7 AGENCIES INVOLVED IN ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

The project will be carried out on four parcels of land in the Norway area of Prince County, PEI. Three parcels are provincially owned crown land. Two of these are managed by the PEI Department of Environment, Energy and Forestry (PEIDEEF), and one is managed by the PEI Energy Corporation (PEIEC). The other parcel of land is under private ownership. There are no federal lands being used for the project.

1.7.1 Municipal Agency Involvement in the Project

There are no municipal permits required for the project as the location is not within any municipal boundaries.

1.7.2 Provincial Agency Involvement in the Project

An EA approval under the PEI Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Regulations for wind power generation is required for the Project as stipulated under Section 9 of the PEI Environmental Protection Act. The PEIDEEF has the mandate to oversee the Provincial EIA Approval process. In addition, the project will likely require Watercourse and Wetland Alteration Permits (WWAP) during the construction phase. The project must also comply with requirements under the Planning Act Subdivision and Development Regulations for setbacks from buildings and other structures.

1.7.3 Federal Agency Involvement in the Project

The proponent has secured partial funding by the Government of Canada for the project through the Clean Energy Fund. The Clean Energy Fund, administered by Natural Resources Canada (NRCan) was established as part of Canada’s Economic Action Plan to provide support for the advancement of Canadian leadership in clean energy technologies. The Clean Energy Fund is investing in large-scale carbon capture and storage demonstration projects and smaller-scale demonstration projects of renewable and alternative energy technologies. In January 2010, 19 successful projects were announced in response to a call for proposals under the Renewable and Clean Energy portion of the Fund. This initiative, WEICan’s Wind Energy R&D Park and Storage System for Innovation in Grid Integration, was selected as one of those successful projects and WEICan has successfully negotiated a Contribution Agreement with NRCan to financially support this project. Further, a formal announcement of funding support from both the Federal and Provincial governments was made by Prime Minister Harper and Premier Ghiz on August 20, 2010 (http://www.weican.ca/news/2010/100820-WEICan-Receives-Funding-Through-Canadas-Economic-Action-Plan-Clean%20Energy-Fund.php). Federal funding provided through the Clean Energy Fund thus triggers the requirement for an EA of the project to be carried out under CEAA legislation. To date, no other federal agencies have indicated that they may be a “Responsible Authority” with respect to this project.



1.8 REGULATORY FRAMEWORK

The construction, operation, and maintenance of the Project will be undertaken in accordance with all applicable legislation, regulatory approvals, and relevant guidelines. Table 1.3 provides a list of environmental legislation, approvals, and guidelines that may be applicable to the proposed Project.

1.9 AUTHOR OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Information: AMEC Earth & Environmental, a division of AMEC Americas Limited 25 Waggoners Lane Fredericton, New Brunswick E3B 2L2 Janet Blackadar Office: 1-506-450-8855 Fax: 1-506-450-0829 Email: [email protected]


TE91077_WEICan_WindProject_DraftReport_Nov15_2010_jb_cjy.doc Page (7)

Table 1.3 Environmental Legislation and Guidelines which may be Applicable to the Proposed Project

Acts/Regulations/Guidelines Section/Regulations Requirement Department or Agency

1. Provincial Acts and Regulations Archaeological Sites Protection Act

S. 4(1) Permit required to conduct an archaeological investigation.

PEI Department of Community and Cultural Affairs (DCCA)

Electrical Inspection Act

S. 2

PEI DCCA

General Regulations Licensing of installations Permit to Supply Energy

Canadian Electrical Code Regulations Compliance with Regulations Environmental Protection Act S. 9-11 incl Approval of EA

Watercourses, Buffer Zones, Forested Buffer Zones

PEIDEEF

Air Quality Regulations Schedule A: Ambient Air Contaminant Ground Level Concentration Standards

Excavation Pits Regulations Permit required for excavation Sewage Disposal Systems Regulations Permit required for construction

Fire Prevention Act S.31 Control of fires during forest clearing PEI DCCA Highway Traffic Act Special permit required if vehicle

configuration not authorized PEI Department of Transportation and Public Works (DTPW)

Occupational Health and Safety Act

General Regulations General PEI DCCA Fall Protection Regulations Fall Arrest System Scaffolding Regulations If utilized Workplace Hazardous Materials Information System Regulations General

Planning Act Subdivision and Development Regulations S. 31 Permit required for construction PEI DCCA Subdivision and Development Regulations S. 54.1 Wind turbine to be located at a distance

greater than four times the total height of the wind turbine tower from any existing habitable building. Wind turbine to be located at a distance greater than one time the total height of the wind turbine tower from any property line or public road, private road or right-of-way except for any access road to the turbine.





Renewable Energy Act General PEIDEEF Minimum Purchase Price Regulations

Compliance with regulation

Net-Metering System Regulations Compliance with regulation Roads Act S. 4.1

Section 46 Granting of Easements along Public Roads Overweight Vehicle Permit

PEIDTPW

Highway Access Regulations Entrance way Permit Public Utility Easement (Fees) Regulations Easement Fees

Wildlife Conservation Act S. 7 Endangered, Threatened, and Species of Special Concern

PEIDEEF

2. Provincial Policies and Guidelines PEI Wetland Conservation Policy

General Compliance to “No Net Loss” of wetlands or wetland function through avoidance, minimization or compensation

PEIDEEF

PEI Watercourse and Wetlands Alteration Guidelines

General Permit required for all alterations made within 20 metres (65 feet) of any watercourse or wetland boundary

PEIDEEF

PEI Environmental Impact Assessment Guidelines

PEIDEEF

3. Federal Statutes

CEAA 5.5(1) Ensure environmental consideration incorporated into planning process (federal, money, lands, or jurisdiction).

Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency (The Agency)

Federal Wetlands Policy No net loss of wetland function. Environment Canada (EC) Fisheries Act S.32 Prohibition of destruction of fish except as

authorized. Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO)

S.35 Prohibition of work or undertaking that causes Harmful Alteration, Disruption or Destruction (HADD) of fisheries habitat unless authorized.

DFO

S. 36 Prohibition of deposit of a deleterious EC (on behalf of DFO)





substance into waters frequented by fish. S.37(1) Requires submission of Plans to DFO. DFO Migratory Birds Convention Act (MBCA)

S. 6

Prohibits activities that will result in negative effects on migratory birds (listed under the MBCA) or their eggs, nests and young.

EC

S 5.1

Prohibition of deposit of a deleterious substance into migratory bird habitat.

EC

Species-At-Risk Act (SARA) Prohibits activities that will result in negative effects on Species-at-Risk (listed in Schedule 1 of SARA) or their Critical Habitat (as identified in a species Recovery Plan).

EC

Aeronautics Act Aviation Regulations Approval by Transport Canada (TC) for aeronautical obstruction clearance.

TC

4. Guidelines and Standards Environmental Impact Statement Guidelines for Screenings of Inland Wind Farms under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act

EC

Wind Turbines and Birds – A Guidance Document for Environmental Assessment

General Canadian Wildlife Service (CWS) - EC

Technical Information and Guidelines on the Assessment of the Potential Impact of Wind Turbines on Radiocommunication, Radar and Seismoacoustic Systems

Radio Advisory Board of Canada (RABC) and the Canadian Wind Energy Association (CanWEA)

Recommended Protocols for Monitoring Impacts of Wind Turbines on Birds

General CWS – EC

Canadian Environmental Canada-Wide Standards Canada – Wide Standards for Particulate Health Canada





Protection Act Matter (PM) and Ozone, Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (CCME), June 2000;

National Ambient Air Quality Objectives (NAAQOs) National Advisory Committee Working Group on Air Quality Objectives and Guidelines



2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 2.1 THE PROJECT PROPONENT

The project proponent is WEICan:

Scott Harper CEO, Wind Energy Institute of Canada 21741 Route 12 North Cape, PE C0B 2B0 Office Line: 902-882-2746 Facsimile: 902-882-3823 E-mail: [email protected] Website: www.weican.ca

2.2 PROJECT BACKGROUND

2.2.1 National and Regional Political Considerations

Due to continued and increased reliance on fossil fuels in Canada and around the world there is growing economic and environmental concern with regard to a continued and increasing reliance on fossil fuels. Per capita, Canada is one of the highest producers, contributing about 2% of the global total of GHG. In Canada, approximately 74% of total GHG emissions in 2003 resulted from the combustion of fossil fuels and over 81% of emissions were from the Energy Sector (EC, 2005a). To address the potential effects of increasing atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide (CO2), the Canadian Government is committed to reducing Canada’s total greenhouse gas emissions by 17% from 2005 levels by 2020, and that 90 per cent of Canada's electricity be provided by non-emitting sources. In order to achieve this target, the Canadian Government has and continues to implement measures to increase the share of renewable energy in the overall energy mix and promote as well as accelerate technology development and deployment. Since 2008, Canada has spent and committed, at both federal and provincial levels, approximately $11 billion to support clean energy and technology investments. At the Copenhagen Conference on Climate Change, Canada worked with other Parties towards the Copenhagen Accord which is an agreement that marked a significant breakthrough in the global effort to address climate change. Canada plans to implement the Copenhagen Accord and to complete the negotiations with the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change for a comprehensive, legally binding post-2012 agreement (Government of Canada, 2010). Coinciding with the National abatement efforts the Province of PEI legislated, in the fall of 2004, the Renewable Energy Act. This Act requires all electric utilities to have at least 15% of their electrical energy requirements be supplied from renewable energy sources by 2010 and 30% by 2016. In 2007, 63% of PEI’s electricity is generated from fossil fuels, another 19% from nuclear



and 18% from wind (PEIDEEF, 2008). Combustion of fossil fuels generates harmful pollutants such as sulfur dioxide (SO2), oxides of nitrogen (NOx), mercury, volatile organic compounds (VOCs) as well as GHG emissions. These contribute to climate change and directly impact human and environmental health.

2.3 PURPOSE OF PROJECT

2.3.1 Justification for the Project

According to the PEIDEEF, renewable energy is in great demand within PEI. The article “Energy Framework and Renewable Energy Strategy, PEI Department of Environment and Energy, June 2004” describes the provincial energy strategy and the role that renewable energy sources will play in PEI’s future. The government of PEI wants “to ensure that residents of PEI have access to secure competitively priced energy supplies, which are acquired and consumed in an efficient and environmentally responsible manner…”. Progress began in June of 2003, when the PEIEC hosted six separate public consultation sessions gathering community members from across the Island. The meetings explained the current energy situation. At that time, PEI relied on imported oil supplies (80%), imported and oil fired electricity (13%), biomass (6.5%) and electricity from on-island wind power (0.5%) to satisfy energy requirements. Questions were posed to gain input from Islanders as to how the Province should incorporate renewable sources into the future energy approach. Based on the information sessions and participation from residents of PEI, the Province proceeded with a Renewable Energy Strategy. The province was committed to a “Renewable Portfolio Standard” for electricity of at least 15% by 2010. The Government is now committed to doubling the “Renewable Portfolio Standard” to 30% by 2013. In order to do so, the Government of PEI has developed the “Island Wind Energy – Securing Our Future: The 10 Point Plan”. This plan was developed to ensure that wind energy on the island is developed in a careful, thoughtful and focused manner. By 2013, PEI’s goal is to produce 500 MW of wind energy. Replacing fossil fuels with 500 MW of wind energy will reduce annual greenhouse gas emissions by 750,000 tonnes. In addition, this is considered to be a $1 billion development project with ongoing economic benefits estimated at $40 million annually (PEIDEEF, 2008). Wind energy is a proven technology. For every kilowatt-hour (kWh) of electricity generated by wind turbines, the potential exists to displace one kWh of fossil fuel generated electricity and its corresponding polluting emissions. In addition, a reduction on the reliance of fossil fuels lowers the environmental impact and risk associated with their extraction, processing, transportation and use, as well as reducing PEI’s dependency on imports of electricity. For PEI, it is the technology with the greatest promise as a renewable energy resource. The purpose of the Project is to allow WEICan to expand its research role into energy storage, wind and power forecasting methodologies, grid integration issues, and other areas of research. The project will provide innovative new approaches and collaboration with key industry stakeholders with respect to grid integration of wind energy, which are not currently available on PEI.



The storage system will also provide opportunities to study storage performance with respect to reliability and economics which is of major interest to the project’s system operator, utility and other project collaborators. The project will provide infrastructure that will enable data collection and assessment capabilities that are not currently available for real time power data. The real time power data collected from wind farms can also be used in the optimization of wind forecasting. The local utility has advised the project’s new infrastructure would be extremely valuable with respect to grid integration, ‘Smart Grid’ development and future development projects. R&D capabilities would be further enhanced as well through the introduction of storage capabilities and the 10MW Wind Energy R&D Park; thereby enhancing the institute’s innovation capacity and innovative testing capabilities to allow WEICan to make the most appropriate decisions in support of the industry. In addition, the wind park will provide a secure and stable revenue stream to support the project through a power purchase agreement with Maritime Electric Company Limited.

2.3.2 Project Objectives

Direct, measurable benefits of the Project to WEICan, the Province, and Canada will be: • expanding research into energy storage, wind and power forecasting methodologies,

grid integration issues, and other areas; • reduced emissions thereby aiding to attain Canada’s objective of reducing Canada's

total GHG emissions by 17 percent from 2005 levels by the year 2020; • compliance with PEI’s Renewable Energy Act; • aiding PEI reach their goal of producing 500 MW of wind energy by 2013 as per the

“Island Wind Energy – Securing Our Future: The 10 Point Plan” • lowered dependence on imports of electricity to the Province; • to help stabilize electricity costs within the Province; and • economic development benefits to the local area.

2.4 SUMMARY OF PROJECT

The site selected for the R&D Wind Park is located at North Cape, on the northwestern tip of the province of PEI, in the Norway area (47.04°N x 64.015°W). An exposed site, it is adjacent to the Northumberland Strait in the Gulf of St. Lawrence. The location is noted for exceptional wind regimes with direct and continuous exposure to the prevailing westerly winds. The project will occupy a total footprint of approximately 2.13 to 2.70 ha on the four properties depending on the access routing option selected. The shoreline is in the form of a steep bank ranging from 10 to 15 metres (m) in height. An extensive marsh area, known as Black Marsh, is a predominant environmental feature in the northern portion of the area. The southern portion



of the R&D Wind Park is primarily in agricultural production. Some of it is permanent pasture, whereas other portions are in a three year potato, grain, forage rotation. The Project Area has minimal residential development around its perimeter and can meet the provincial requirements of a setback four times the height of the turbine from any residential or industrial development. The Project will consist of erecting five wind turbines, each capable of producing 2MW for a total nameplate production of 10MW, a meteorological mast, access roads to each turbine, a building to house an energy storage unit and a sub-station. Underground, 250 MCM (thousand circular mils) collector cables with three conductors will connect each turbine to the on-site sub-station. The sub-station will then be connected to an existing transmission line that is located approximately 30 m away from the proposed sub-station along Waterview Road. The line used to connect the sub-station to the existing power line will be 4/0 ACSR (aluminum conductor steel reinforced cables) overhead; the same as the existing power line. Depending on the routing option selected, approximately 0.5 to 1.2 km of new, private access road will be constructed in order to gain access to turbine location T1, T2 and T3. Access to the site will be gained by the existing Waterview Road. The scope of the project includes the construction, operation, modification, and decommissioning of the proposed R&D wind park, including associated components and activities such as: access roads, turbine transportation and assembly, and substation installation.

2.5 LOCATION OF PROJECT

Figure 2.1 presents an overhead aerial photo showing the detailed location of all Project components and activities. These include turbine locations, connection cables, access roads, the on-site building housing the energy storage unit and sub-station and property delineations.

2.5.1 Land Ownership

The project will be carried out on four parcels of land in the Norway area of Prince County, PEI. Three parcels are provincially owned crown land. Two of these are managed by the PEIDEEF, and one is managed by the PEIEC. The other parcel of land is under private ownership. Table 2.1 identifies the properties by Property Identification Number (PID), tenure and zoning category. Table 2.1 Property Identification Numbers, Tenure and Zoning within the Project Area

PID Tenure Zone 3004 PEI Government Conservation

914564 PEIEC Wind Energy 3012 PEI Government Conservation/Agriculture

409136 Private Owner Agriculture



Figure 2.1 Overhead Aerial Photo Showing the Location of Turbines, Lay Down Areas, Access Roads, Connection Cables, Substation and Property Boundaries



Access to and permission to use all properties that carry project components (turbines, access road, substation), will be obtained from the respective owners prior to commencement of project activities.

2.5.2 Key Environmental and Cultural Features

There are several environmental and cultural features in the general area of the Project that potentially could be affected by the Project. These are presented in Figure 2.2 showing the geographical context of the site. These include:

• Environmental Features o Black Marsh – extensive wetland area. o Species-at-Risk Habitat.

• Land Use Features o Agriculture. o Residential development around its perimeter.

2.6 DETAILED PROJECT ACTIVITIES

Figure 2.1 depicts the infrastructure locations within the Project Area upon completion of the Project.

2.6.1 Construction Phase

The construction component of the WEICan R&D Wind Park Project will begin in early 2011. Work through the winter will primarily involve final site surveying, clearing and grubbing as possible subject to weather conditions. Final engineering and design will take place during the winter of 2010/2011. Major construction will begin in spring 2011 and carry on to completion in June 2012. The construction process will be:

• Road and access construction and upgrade (Waterview Road reinforcement and strengthening as required).

• Turbine site (5) development. Establishment of crane pad, lay down areas and turbine foundations.

• Sub-station/energy storage facility construction to take place concurrently with the above two steps.

• Placement of transmission lines from turbines to sub-station/energy storage facility. • Erection of meteorological mast, towers and placement of turbines. • Testing, connection and integration with grid. • Construction and start-up of storage facility.



Figure 2.2 Geographic Context of Project Site Identifying Key Environmental and Cultural Features



All construction activities outlined below will be addressed in the Project Environmental Management Plan (EMP), a draft of which will be provided. Site-specific Environmental Protection Plans (SSEPPs) will be developed for each turbine construction site.

2.6.1.1 Surveying Activities

Prior to construction activities, several environmental and engineering surveys are required. Preliminary environmental field surveys have been conducted at the Project Area for wetlands, vegetation, baseline avian populations and behaviour, baseline bat presence/absence, in addition to heritage resources. These surveys were carried out by the following personnel over the periods indicated in Table 2.2. Results of these surveys are provided in Section 4 Existing Environment.

Table 2.2 Surveys Conducted, Personnel Qualifications and Survey Periods Survey Personnel and Qualifications Survey Period

Wetlands Christina LaFlamme, M.Sc. August 11 to August 12, 2010 Vegetation Christina LaFlamme, M.Sc. August 12 to August 13, 2010 Avian Species Inventory and Behaviour Assessment

Brian Dalzell June 2008 and Spring/Summer/Fall/Winter 2009

Bat Species Inventory Beth Cameron, M.Sc. Fall 2010 Heritage Resources Darcy Dignam, LPA NB, NS, PE Fall 2009 and Fall 2010 A preliminary geotechnical investigation was conducted by Stantec for four proposed wind turbines in the project area in May 2009. A review of this investigation was conducted by an AMEC geological engineer in June 2010. As a result of the review, additional pre-construction geotechnical surveys need to be conducted at each of the final locations of the wind turbines and proposed access roads.

2.6.1.2 Site Preparation

The first physical construction activities to be undertaken will involve clearing; grubbing and compacting access roads, power cable alignments, the on-site building housing the energy storage unit and sub-station, turbine foundation sites and any temporary work areas.

2.6.1.3 New and Existing Access Roads

All access roads and underground cables will be located with a view to minimizing impact on the environment. All season, un-paved access roads will be required to access each turbine location and the the on-site building housing the energy storage unit and sub-station from existing public roads during the construction, operation and decommissioning phases of the Project. The Waterview Road, already in existence, will provide an infrastructural “backbone” for access to the Project. Access roads will be built from the Waterview Road to each turbine location. Access roads will be approximately 5 m wide with a 1 m shoulder on each side (Figure 2.3). Transmission lines from the turbines to the sub-station/storage facility will be buried. There are no known watercourses to be crossed however ditching and cross drainage will likely be required.



Figure 2.3 Typical Access Road Construction



Two options, Option A and Option B, are being considered for routing access to the northernmost turbines 1, 2 and 3 (Figure 2.4 and Figure 2.5). For Option A, some strengthening and re-alignment of parts of the Waterview Road may be required in the area adjacent to turbine sites 1, 2 and 3 as a result of erosion concerns along the coast. Access roads will be built from the Waterview Road to each turbine location (Figure 2.4). It is estimated that approximately 525 m of access road will be required for Project activities and will occupy a footprint of 3,675 square metres (m2). Option B will also use Waterview Road, but at a point directly south of turbine 3, a single access road will leave the Waterview Road and proceed northerly through turbine sites 3, 2 and 1, where it will terminate (Figure 2.5). It is estimated that approximately 1,190 m of access road will be required for Project activities and will occupy a footprint of 8,330 m2. The following steps are involved in the construction of access roads:

• Tree clearing will be conducted by qualified contractors. Merchantable timber will be salvaged. All non-merchantable fibre will be mulched and spread on-site.

• Land will be grubbed by a qualified contractor using typical construction equipment such as excavators, bulldozers and trucks.

• Borrow material will be used to build the roads to grade. • In agriculture sites, topsoil/over burden will be removed from the road surface, kept

separate from sub-soils, and reused during site rehabilitation. • The road surface will be compacted to provide a smooth, erosion resistant, safe surface. • Left over grubbed material will be used to restore borrow pits.

2.6.1.4 Delivery of Equipment

Turbine parts will be delivered by specialized, heavy transport trailer trucks, and a heavy lifting crane will be brought in to erect the turbines. All turbine parts and the machinery will be delivered using public roadways from the Port of Summerside. As a result of previous wind turbine development in PEI systems and processes have been developed to accommodate movement of these components. It will be the responsibility of the turbine supplier to schedule, delivery and obtain appropriate transportation and safety permits as per the Province’s Highway Traffic Act.

2.6.1.5 Wind Turbine Assembly

Based on the proposed locations of the turbines, it is recognized by the Proponent that this typical installation will require site-specific modifications to accommodate environmental constraints such as populations of identified floral Species-at-Risk. Prior to any site work, a WWAP will be obtained.



Figure 2.4 Proposed Option A Access road R&D Wind Park Layout



Figure 2.5 Proposed Option B Access road R&D Wind Park Layout



At each turbine location a lay-down area for blades will be constructed in addition to an assembly location for tower components. A reinforced crane pad will also be built adjacent to each turbine site. Figure 2.6 and Figure 2.7 shows a typical site clearing and lay-down area configuration for the installation of the 2 MW turbines for both Option A and Option B access road designs. Figure 2.8 show typical reinforced crane pad designs. Crane Pads, Unloading and Lay-down Areas

The total area of temporary work space required for each turbine is 55 m x 55 m (0.3 ha) therefore ultimately requiring a total of 1.5 ha. All lay down areas will be rehabilitated. Construction equipment for the project will consist primarily of standard heavy construction machines (tracked and/or tired excavators, bulldozers, graders, double and single axle dump trucks, etc.). Some specialized de-watering equipment may be required in locations 1, 2, and 3. Tower and turbine erection will require a specialized heavy lift crane. All turbine locations will have a hub height of 80 m. Rotor diameters for turbines 1, 2, 3, and 4 are 80 m. Rotor diameter for turbine 5 is 93 m. Blades will be constructed of a composite material, a high percentage of which will be carbon fibre. An area (approximately 15 m X 20 m) adjacent to each wind turbine will be prepared to support the heavy lift crane. The crane pads and unloading areas have the same construction requirements as the access roads. There will be two additional areas adjacent to the foundation measuring approximately 25 m X 30 m and 10 m X 50 m each, required for the tower, turbine and blade components to be unloaded and stored prior to installation. The turbine and blade lay-down areas require specific grades to allow the components to be unloaded and stored. Once the turbine has been installed, the lay down area land will be returned to its original use. Turbines 1, 2, and 3 are located in a wooded area of wetland near a few identified floral species listed by the General Status for PEI as “May Be At Risk” or “Undetermined” (refer to Section 4.3.3.2 for more details). None of the identified floral species are legislatively protected and the populations observed were found to be scattered throughout the Study Area in their respective habitat. Consequently, the area at the turbine site to be cleared, grubbed, graded and compacted will only need to be restricted and modified to minimize impact to the wetland. The location of wind turbines 4 and 5 are located in the open fields and lay-down areas will not be constrained compared to the dimensions shown in Figure 2.6 and 2.7. Foundations

The excavated hole for each turbine base will be approximately 20 m by 20 m. They will be excavated to a depth of 3 m. Each turbine base will require an estimated 350 cubic metres (m3) of concrete. The actual base will be approximately 16 m in diameter.



Figure 2.6 Typical Wind Turbine Site Layout for Option A



Figure 2.7 Typical Wind Turbine Site Layout for Option B



Figure 2.8 Typical Reinforced Crane Pad Design



Foundations for the turbine towers will be fabricated using steel reinforced concrete. The following steps are involved in construction of turbine foundations:

• Excavation of area (approximately 20 to 30 m2). • Compacting perimeter of the excavation. • Installation of form work, rebar, backfilling and placement of concrete for tower base. • Disposal of excess material.

A backhoe will be used to excavate the foundation. Subsoil will be moved and used to in-fill any hollows on-site and or be removed from the site. The foundation itself will then be backfilled and compacted with selected fill and subsoil. The foundations will be left for a minimum period of one month to set before tower erection. Following the erection of the towers, any disturbed areas adjacent to the work area will be re-seeded with existing crops as appropriate. The final foundation design will be subject to the results of the pre-construction geotechnical survey, however; generally the depth of foundation is typically approximately 3 m. No blasting will be required as the underlying bedrock is rippable.

2.6.1.6 Meteorological Mast

The meteorological mast will be at hub height of the turbines, 80 m. It will be constructed of open, triangular lattice and will be guyed. It will be strategically located between turbines four and five to assist with research activities (Figure 2.1).

2.6.1.7 Interconnection Cabling

Each turbine will be connected to the future on-site substation by a combination of underground 250 MCM cables. The underground cable will be installed, along with fibre-optic communication cable in a trench. A self-propelled trencher or backhoe will dig a trench measuring approximately 1.0 m wide and 1.5 m deep (below the frost line). The bottom of the trench will then be covered with a layer of sand before laying the cable. The cable is protected by covering it with planks prior to backfilling. Metal signage will be used to mark the location of the buried cables.

2.6.1.8 On-site Sub-station/Energy Storage Facility

In order to connect the collector cables to the existing power line, a sub-station is necessary to step up the 13.8 kilovolt (kV) power coming from the wind park’s collector system to 69 kV. In addition, an energy storage facility will be built in the same location. The energy storage component will likely be composed of battery storage, providing opportunities to manage energy flow into the grid in a more effective and efficient manner. This storage system will provide opportunities to study storage performance with respect to reliability and economics which is of



major interest to the project’s system operator, utility and project collaborators. The construction activities associated with this Project component are:

• clearing of land and sub-grade preparation, requiring a footprint of approximately 3,500 m2;

• installation of grounding network; • installation of surface fill and fencing; • construction of concrete bases for sub-station and energy storage facility components; • delivery and installation of sub-station unit and energy storage facility; • use of cranes to receive the transformer and large equipment; and • connection of sub-station to transmission line.

2.6.1.9 Gates and Fencing

Chain-link security fencing will enclose the sub-station and energy storage facility with one locked access gate for maintenance purposes. Fencing will be a minimum of 3 m tall with access restricting wire at the top. A motion activated alarm and lighting system will be installed to detect unauthorized entrance. A monitoring company will alert Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) and the fire department depending on the alarm type. In addition, WEICan staff will be alerted.

2.6.1.10 Parking Lots

A parking lot capable of accommodating up to five (5) service vehicles at the sub-station will require approximately 0.10 ha of area. The parking lot will be composed of a gravelled surface.

2.6.1.11 Turbine Commissioning

The final activity of the construction Phase is testing prior to start-up and physical adjustments to the turbines (eg. blade pitch).

2.6.2 Operation Phase

The operational life span of the turbines is rated as 25 years. Approaching that time, decisions will be made with regard to continuing operations of the wind park with new or refurbished turbines and/or other equipment, or dismantling the operation and returning the site to its original condition using modern technologies to accomplish this objective.

2.6.2.1 Road Maintenance

During the operation of the wind farm, the access roadways will be maintained at a level suitable to boom truck-sized vehicles, but on a level below that required for heavy cranes. Re-grading and rolling of the access road may periodically be required to maintain it for heavy lifting equipment (in case of major repairs). Ditches along the road will have to be regularly maintained as well.



2.6.2.2 Turbine Operations

Operation of the R&D wind park will commence when the required approvals and authorizations are in place to supply energy into the grid. Research and development projects using the wind park as a research tool will commence immediately upon commissioning and will commence through the life of the project. Examples of such research include but are not limited to:

• turbine performance; • turbine farm control systems; • icing / extreme weather performance; • forecasting techniques; • turbulence impact on turbine performance; and • advanced accessories to improve wind turbine performance and reliability.

Research Specific to the storage medium:

• storage for time shifting; • voltage support; and • other ancillary services.

The wind turbines selected for this project operate within a range of wind speeds from 4 metres per second (m/s) to 30 m/s. During periods that wind conditions are below the minimum or exceed the maximum (25 m/s for an average of 10 minutes), the turbines cut-out and do not produce energy until speeds are reduced to 20 m/s for an average of 10 minutes. Windmills will not operate in cases of mechanical breakdown, extreme weather, grid outages and during periods of regular maintenance.

2.6.3 Decommissioning Phase

The operational life span of the turbines is rated as 25 years. At that time decisions will be made with regard to continuing operations of the wind park with new or refurbished turbines and/or other equipment, or dismantling the operation and returning the site to its original condition using modern technologies to accomplish this objective. Decommissioning of the wind farm would require de-installation and removal of all physical components and machinery from the site. The access roads would remain, if the landowners so desired. The collector lines, sub-station and control building would be removed. Concrete turbine pads and building foundations will be removed to a reasonable depth and re-claimed, unless the landowner wishes to use them as they are. The equipment used for the de-construction would be essentially the same as for the construction (e.g. heavy lifting and transport equipment, earth moving equipment and trucks to transport waste materials).



If the turbines are refurbished to increase the project lifetime, heavy transport vehicles and a heavy lifting crane would also be necessary to transport turbine parts and to de-construct and re-construct the turbines. All transformer and turbine liquids will be carefully collected, removed off-site and deposited in a licensed facility. Any areas disturbed by project activities will be re-vegetated to prevent erosion. This includes the access roads, unless the landowner wants to retain them.



3.0 SCOPE OF THE ASSESSMENT 3.1 SCOPE OF THE PROJECT AND ITS ASSESSMENT

As this project will be partially funded by Natural Resources of Canada (NRCan) and the project is not on the CEAA Exclusion List Regulations, the scope of the EA is to be carried out in accordance with the CEAA (NRCan, 2009). The scope of the project is determined by the responsible authorities (RAs).

3.2 METHODOLOGY OF ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

To facilitate the review of identified issues, an understanding and description of the environment within which the activities will occur, or potentially have an influence on, was developed from a review of existing information. Potential positive and negative interactions between Project activities and the environment were identified. Where negative interactions were anticipated and potential effects were a concern, methods for mitigating the effects were proposed. An EA is a complete process, which should begin at the earliest stages of planning and remain in force throughout the life of a project, moving through a series of stages listed below and as shown in Figure 3.1.

• Step 1: Describing the project and establishing environmental baseline conditions. • Step 2: Scoping the issues and establishing the boundaries of the assessment. • Step 3: Assessing the potential environmental effects of the project, including residual

and cumulative effects. • Step 4: Identifying potential mitigative measures to eliminate or minimize potential

adverse effects. • Step 5: Environmental effects monitoring and follow-up programs.

The technique of Beanlands and Duinker (1983) and the guidance provided by various federal and provincial documents were employed to assist in the design and conduct of the EA. This approach emphasizes the use of Valued Environmental Components (VECs) as the focal points for impact assessment. Generally, VECs are defined as those aspects of the ecosystem or associated socio-economic systems that are important to humans. The EA focused on the evaluation of potential interactions between project components and activities on the one side, and VECs that were identified through an issues scoping process on the other side. Two approaches were taken to identify the potential VECs. First, those parameters for which provincial or federal regulations are in place were identified. The second approach used for the identification of VECs involved a scoping exercise based on experience gained during other comparable environmental assessments; consultation with the public and the scientific



Figure 3.1 Approach to Environmental Impact (Effects) Assessment



community, supplemented by available information on the environment surrounding the proposed project; and the technical and professional expertise of AMEC. For the purpose of this EA, the interactions (effects) between Project activities and Environmental Components of Concern (ECCs) are examined to select a defined set of VECs that will be assessed. The significance of potential interactions and the likelihood of the interactions are also considered. Possible measures to mitigate impacts are identified, and where residual impacts are identified, measures to compensate have been considered. Impact of malfunctions and accidents, as well as cumulative effects, are to be included in the evaluation of the environmental effects. The assessment of the potential effects of the environment on the Project, including extreme weather events, was conducted during the Project design phase. Extreme events that apply include storms and icing as well as coastal erosion. Storms and icing are referenced with regard to the ability to shut down the turbines, if required, and also the design of the turbines to accommodate high winds. Coastal erosion is referenced with regard to recent survey work performed on Waterview road and the need to perhaps realign sections of Option A away from the cliffs. In addition, the placement of the wind turbines are set back sufficiently from the shoreline and cliffs. Any mitigative Project design modifications that may have been required were incorporated in the final Project design that is described in this document.

3.3 TEMPORAL AND SPATIAL BOUNDARIES OF THE PROJECT

The traditional approach to project bounding involves assessing changes to the environment within the physical boundaries of development. Beanlands and Duinker (1983) determined that in order to properly evaluate impacts, physical and biological properties must be determined temporally and spatially. This approach has been taken for the determination of bounds for the assessment of the proposed project. The effects of a specific project activity on a VEC may differ in both space and time from the effect of any other activity. Some project activities may have long-term consequences, while others will be of short duration. Temporal project bounding for the proposed Project includes the short-term clearing and construction activities (Winter 2010/2011 to June 2012) as well as the long-term operation of the wind energy facility (turbine lifetime 25 years) and its decommissioning including site remediation. There is some temporal variability, since a refurbishment of the turbines at the end of their regular lifetime is likely. This refurbishment will likely double the lifetime of the wind generator facility. Also, the duration of the effects is likely to vary with the VEC and the project activity. Therefore, different temporal boundaries may be used to reflect:

• the nature and duration of the effect; • the characteristics of the indicator; and • the types of actions and projects that will need to be considered within the cumulative

effects assessment.



For the purposes of this Study, the temporal bounds for each Stage of the Project have been categorized into three phases:

• Phase 1: Construction Period. • Phase 2: Operations and Maintenance. • Phase 3. Decommissioning/Refurbishment.

The spatial boundaries for assessing potential effects will typically be established by determining the spatial extent of an effect of a project component or a project activity. The physical boundaries of the site are as shown on Figure 2.1. The physical (spatial) boundaries of the project may vary depending on the individual VEC. For example, for endangered plant species, the project boundaries will be restricted to the lay-down areas, access roads and ancillary structures. However, for socio-economic impacts, the boundary extends the project footprint to include the West Prince area at a minimum. Scientific and technical knowledge, input from the public, professional experience and traditional knowledge will be used to develop the temporal and spatial boundaries.

3.4 CONSULTATION PROGRAM

Consultation with provincial agencies (PEIDEEF, PEIEC, Department of Transportation and Infrastructure Renewal (PEIDTIR)) has been regular since the inception of the project and is ongoing as it evolves. The provincial EIA process also requires involved consultation with any and all interested stakeholders. WEICan will be an integral part of that process.

3.4.1 Public Consultation

The provincial EIA process also requires consultation with the public in an open house format which is well advertised. For this scale of project a Level II Notification will be required. This will involve a public information session and a newspaper advertisement that will run for 6 consecutive days in the Guardian as well as local newspaper. Currently, the project has received significant media coverage and WEICan staff has been in communication with many community members in the area for the past year or so. A formal process required by the EIA will be on or about November 17, 2010. Residents from the West Prince area of the province will be invited to attend through a public notification process.

3.4.2 Consultations with Stakeholders and Interest Groups

A few environmental Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) and local resource people with local historical knowledge were consulted during the preparation of the EA. In certain circumstances, these NGOs and persons provided baseline environmental and social information. In other circumstances, their professional opinions and perspectives were obtained. Table 3.1 provides the list of persons contacted, their affiliation and information discussed.



Table 3.1 Non-Governmental Organizations and Local Resource Representatives Contacted, their Affiliation and Topics Discussed

Contact Affiliation Topics Discussed

Sean Blaney Atlantic Canada Conservation Data Centre (AC CDC)

Species-at-Risk

Morley Pinsent AMEC E&E contact Local Environmental and Social Setting Ron Estabrook PEIEC North Cape Wind Farm, Energy Corp.

properties, and previous Wind Farm studies

Don MacKenzie Mi’kmaq Confederacy of PEI Traditional First Nations activities in area Anne Arsenault Tignish Initiatives Corporation Tourism statistics in area David Anderson Resources West Inc. Socio-economic aspects and Community

development components

3.4.3 Consultations with Stakeholders and Interest Groups

As part of the Heritage Resources Component of the Preliminary Environmental Constraints Report prepared for WEICan by AMEC (December 09, 2009), an informal interview was conducted with a representative of the Mi’kmaq Confederacy of PEI. Since provincial crown lands are included in the project, the PEIDTIR are in the process of conducting an Aboriginal consultation and review with respect to the lands in question. It is ongoing at present. Further consultations will take place with the aboriginal community as part of the Environmental Impact Assessment process. The closest First Nation’s reserve to the project is Lennox Island, situated in Malpeque Bay, some 45 km from the project site.

3.5 REGULATORY CONSULTATION

AMEC and the Proponent have consulted with representatives from several federal and provincial regulatory agencies, local government representatives, and resource managers in order to identify any issues specific to the proposed project and identify appropriate mitigation strategies. The agencies/individuals consulted, and the topics of these consultations are noted in Table 3.2.

3.6 ISSUES SCOPING AND VEC SELECTION (SCOPE OF THE ASSESSMENT)

Issues scoping is an important part in the VEC identification process. The issues scoping process for this assessment included: review of past, relevant environmental and scientific reports; review of public concerns; regulatory agency consultation; and the study team’s professional judgment.



Table 3.2 Regulatory Representatives from Federal, Provincial and Municipal Organizations Contacted, their Affiliation and Topics Discussed

Contact Affiliation Topics Discussed Dr. Helen E. Kristmanson

PEI DCCA Director, • Heritage Resource Impact Assessment

Rosemary Curley PEIDEEF, Natural Areas Biologist

• Project Description

• Avian Baseline Data

• Effect on Birds

• Migratory Birds Convention Act and Associated Regulations

• Wetlands

• Bats

• Wildlife at Risk

Kate MacQuarrie PEIDEEF, Director, Forests, Fish & Wildlife


• Access to sites

• Wetland Delineation

• Site Characteristics

Dale Thomson PEIDEEF, Supervisor, Watercourse and Wetland Alteration


• Wetlands

Greg Wilson PEIDEEF, Manager, Environmental Permitting and Legislation


• Environmental Impact Statement Process

• Early stage planning process

Jay Carr PEIDEEF, Environmental Assessment Officer



Meagan Ferguson Natural Resources Canada, Environmental Assessment Officer


Based on this information, a preliminary list of ECCs was developed, and the Project VECs were selected (Table 3.3). This part of the EA serves to identify those environmental components that are likely to be affected by the Project. ECCs with existing federal or provincial environmental regulations, such as endangered species and migratory species, are all of concern and were selected as VECs. Issues that regulators were concerned about were also selected as VECs, e.g. most birds were of concern for CWS due to the coastal location of the project. In addition, any issues raised by the public, as well as most ECCs with an existing pathway, have been selected as VEC. If not, the exclusion is explained.



Table 3.3 Issues Scoping: Summary of VEC Selection and Pathway Analysis

Environment/ Resources

Environmental/Socio-Economic Components of

Concern (ECC)

Pathway ECC

Avoided During Site Selection

VEC

Interactions with Project Activities/Components and

Possible Pathways

Rationale for Inclusion/Exclusion as Valued Environmental/Socio-Economic

Component (VEC)

Yes No Yes No Yes No Geophysical Environment

Soil and Soil Quality X X X Construction: clearing and grubbing, excavation, spills, compaction, erosion Operations: spills, land removed from production for duration of the project

Included as VEC: potential for spills during construction, land removed from future production

Geology (Acid Rock Drainage)

X X X Excluded: Bedrock is calcareous sandstone, not considered to possess acid generating materials.

Seismicity X X X Operations: Seismic activity could affect structural integrity of turbine towers

Excluded: PEI not an active seismic region

Hydrogeology/Groundwater X X X Construction: excavation of foundations, spills,

Excluded as VEC: no blasting is required, nearest well is over 600 m from site. Encompassed with other VEC - Wetlands

Sub-surface Resources X X X Excluded as VEC: Project will not interact with subsurface resources nor restrict potential development.

Aquatic Environment Fish Habitat X X X Excluded as a VEC – No pathway identified Fish X X X Excluded as a VEC – No pathway identified Surface Hydrology X X X Construction: clearing, grubbing and

excavation, Excluded as VEC: no water courses identified, surface water quality is addressed as part of Wetlands

Surface Water Quality X X X Construction: clearing and grubbing, excavation, spills, erosion

Excluded as VEC: no human receptors, surface water quality is addressed as part of Wetlands

Contaminated Sediment X X X Excluded as VEC– No pathway identified






Concern (ECC)

Pathway ECC


VEC


Possible Pathways


Component (VEC)

Yes No Yes No Yes No Terrestrial Environment

Flora • Agriculture

• Forest

• Wetland

X X X Construction: clearing and grubbing, excavation,

Excluded as VEC: Floral issues are encompassed within Wetlands and Floral Species-at-Risk

Fauna • Mammals

• Local and Migratory Birds

• Bats

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

Construction/decom: noise, visual impacts and the presence of humans (workers in the area), habitat loss by clearing and grubbing, excavation, equipment: silt run-off, infilling; fuel spills. Operations: collisions with turbines, lights, barrier effect, toxic leaks and spills, habitat destruction

Included as VEC: protected by regulation. Bats also considered. No project interaction with terrestrial mammals.

Species-at-Risk • Flora Species-at-Risk

• Fauna Species-at-Risk

X

X

X

X

X

X


Included as a VEC – Protected by statute/regulation. If a species is endangered, effects on individuals may be considered significant.






Concern (ECC)

Pathway ECC


VEC


Possible Pathways


Component (VEC)

Yes No Yes No Yes No Designated Areas and Other Critical Habitat Areas • Demonstration Woodlots,

• Wildlife Management/Protection Areas

• National Wildlife Areas/Migratory Bird Sanctuaries

• Designated Wetlands/Eastern Habitat Joint Venture Areas (EHJVs)

• Critical Natural Areas

• Nature Reserves

• National and Provincial Parks

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X


Excluded as VEC – Critical Natural Areas addressed in other VECs, Birds, Wetlands and Species-at-Risk

Wetland Environment X X X Construction/decom: direct destruction, fragmentation and erosion during clearing and grubbing, excavation, fuel spills. Operations: transformer and equipment: toxic leaks and spills;

Included as a VEC – Protected by regulatory authorities (Federal and Provincial no net loss in wetland function policy). Turbine 1, 2 and 3 within or adjacent to buffer of freshwater wetland.






Concern (ECC)

Pathway ECC


VEC


Possible Pathways


Component (VEC)

Yes No Yes No Yes No Atmospheric Environment

Air Quality • Ambient air (Human

Health and Safety)

X X X Construction/decom: Dust from construction and transport equipment, construction of turbines, transformers: air emissions (exhaust fumes, leaks, vapour), dust.

Included as a VEC - protected by statute/regulation (SO2, NOx, PM etc). Minor quantities will be produced for short time during construction of project.

• Climatology X X X Construction/decom: Emissions (exhaust fumes, leaks, vapour) from construction and transport equipment

Excluded as VEC – will be addressed as part of Air Quality

Socio-Economic Environment Local Economy and Community

• Population Demographics

• Local Economy (expenditures, local business and employment)

• Industry and Commerce

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

Construction/decom.: Employment opportunities for local population, operational expenditures, heavy lift crane could interfere with airport operations Operations & Maintenance: new permanent employment opportunities.

Included as a VEC – Potential to increase beneficial effects of local construction, operational expenditures and employment

• Recreation and Tourism X X X Construction: delivery of turbine components, Operations: Visual appearance

Excluded as VEC: Addressed in Visual Landscape and Transportation

Land Use • Industry/Commercial X X X Construction: large construction equipment (tall cranes) Operations: new permanent employment opportunities.

Excluded as VEC – Potential to increase beneficial effects of local construction, operational expenditures and employment addressed as Local Economy

• Planned Development X X X Excluded as a VEC - no new land use developments planned in Study Area

• Residential X X X Construction/decom: clearing and grubbing, excavation, equipment: noise, air emissions, dust Operations: turbines, rotor noise, toxic leaks/spills; shadow flicker

Excluded as a VEC – Included with other VECs (Air Quality, Human Health and Safety; Accidents and Malfunctions, Visual Landscape)






Concern (ECC)

Pathway ECC


VEC


Possible Pathways


Component (VEC)

Yes No Yes No Yes No • Cultural/Institutional X X X Excluded as VEC: Project activities will not

interact with cultural or institutional resources. • Communications and

Radar Systems X X X Excluded as VEC – Project activities will not

interact with communications and radar systems

• Fisheries X X X Excluded as VEC: Project activities will not interact will recreational or commercial fisheries.

• Agricultural X X X Construction: clearing and grubbing of agriculture land for foundations and lay down areas, Operations: areas of foundations and road, and sub-station/energy storage removed from agriculture production

Included as VEC: potential interruption to agriculture operations, areas removed from production.

• Forestry X X X No commercial forestry activities in Project Area

• Transportation Infrastructure

X X X Construction: transportation of turbine components to Project Site.

Included as VEC: Construction requires large cranes and the delivery of turbines by highway during tourist season, this could cause traffic delays, aggravation and damage to roads.

Community Emergency Services

• Medical Services

• Fire Protection Services

• Police Protection Services

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

Construction: potential for accidents and malfunctions during all construction activities. Operations: potential for accidents and malfunctions during all maintenance activities.

Excluded as VEC: addressed within Accident and Malfunctions

Heritage and Archaeological Resources

• Pre-historic Heritage Resources

• Historic Heritage Resources

X

X

X

X

X

X

Construction/decom. clearing and grubbing, excavation, surface disruption.

Included as a VEC: field surveys to date have shown no such resources in the project foot print, on-site monitoring will be required during construction.

First Nation/Aboriginal Communities

• Aboriginal Fisheries

• Traditional Land uses

X

X

X

X

X

X

Excluded as VEC – no project interaction with Aboriginal fisheries. No traditional land use has been identified to the proponent






Concern (ECC)

Pathway ECC


VEC


Possible Pathways


Component (VEC)

Yes No Yes No Yes No Human Health and Safety

• Noise X X X Construction: clearing, grubbing and installation of towers Operations: noise from rotors

Included as VEC: noise from construction activities is temporary and not expected to disturb residents, noise from rotors has been modelled and turbines located to mitigate potential affects.

• Shadow Flicker X X X Operations: sunlight shining at certain low angles through the rotating rotors can cause a periodic flickering of light.

Excluded as VEC: shadow flicker modelling results depict that no dwellings will potentially experience over 30 hours per year.

• Occupation Heath and Safety

X X X Construction: during all construction activities there is the potential for workplace injuries, whether by accidents or equipment malfunctions. Operation: during maintenance of wind turbines and on-going operation of sub-station and storage facility there is the potential for workplace injuries, whether by accidents or equipment malfunctions.

Included as VEC: potential workplace accidents and mechanical failures

Aesthetics and Visual Landscape

• ViewScape X X X Excluded as VEC: wind turbines currently present in North Cape






Concern (ECC)

Pathway ECC


VEC


Possible Pathways


Component (VEC)

Yes No Yes No Yes No Accidents and Malfunctions

• Soils and Soil Quality

• Wetlands

• Hydrogeology/Groundwater

• Water resources

• Air Quality

• Human and Occupational Health and Safety

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

Construction: Spills, accidental release of hazardous substances, traffic accidents Operations: spills and accidental release of hazardous substances, traffic accidents, icing and breakage

All potential effects due to accidents and malfunctions



The potential interactions between project components or project activities and ECCs, specifically VECs, are identified during an issues scoping process. Environmental components include the biological, physical and socio-economic environment. As a result of this process, the actual assessment will focus (only) on issues/components of concern. Environmental and social components protected by federal statute are:

• Fish and Fish Habitat (Fisheries Act). • Migratory Birds (MBCA). • Species-at-Risk (SARA). • Structures or historic sites of national interest (Historic Sites and Monuments Act). • Air Traffic Safety (Aeronautics Act).

In addition, there are both the Federal and Provincial Policies on Wetland Conservation, protecting wetlands.

3.6.1 Issues Scoping

The first step in the selection of VECs involved issues scoping to identify ECCs, and was based on:

• Concerns expressed by various stakeholders, including the scientific community, as well as comments from the public, government departments and agencies.

• Review of applicable statutes and regulations. • Review of similar projects such as Summerside Wind Farm, East Point Wind Farm, and

Suez Farms. • Consideration of available literature and reference materials. • Previous assessment experience, including landfill development experience.

Perceived public concerns related to social, cultural, economic, or aesthetic values, as suggested by Beanlands and Duinker (1983). The approach to the selection of VECs involves an initial evaluation to determine the likelihood of an interaction or linkage (pathway) between ECCs and project activities, including all the components of the Project. Where linkages between ECCs and project activities exist and potential effects are of concern, these components are selected as VECs and subject to further analyses. ECCs with existing federal or provincial environmental regulations, such as endangered species and migratory species, are all of concern and were selected as VECs. Other potential VECs were identified during the scoping exercise. Issues that regulators were concerned about were also selected as VECs, e.g. most birds were of concern for CWS due to the coastal location of the project. In addition, any issues raised by the public, as well as most ECC with an existing pathway, have been selected as VEC. If not, the exclusion is explained.



The existing environment baseline description and the impact assessment focus on the selected VECs. Where a linkage between proposed project activities and the ECCs is absent, or is deemed unlikely to result in an effect, no further analysis is required. The evaluation of the ECCs resulted in the following Project VECs:

• Geophysical Environment o Soil and Soil Quality

• Terrestrial Environment o Fauna

o Local and Migratory Birds o Bats

Wetlands

• Species-at-Risk

o Flora Species-at-Risk o Fauna Species-at-Risk

• Designated Areas and Other Critical Habitat Areas o Critical Natural Areas

• Atmospheric Environment

o Air quality

• Socio-Economic Environment

o Local Economy o Land Use

o Agricultural o Transportation Infrastructure

• Heritage and Archaeological Resources • Human Health and Safety

o Noise o Shadow Flicker o Occupational Health and Safety

• Accidents and Malfunctions

o Soil and Soil Quality o Wetlands o Hydrogeology/Groundwater o Water Resources



o Air Quality o Human and Occupational Health and Safety

3.7 APPROACH TO DETERMINATION OF SIGNIFICANCE

The assessment or determination of the significance of potential effects will be based on the framework/criteria provided in the CEAA, with consideration of other relevant Federal and Provincial regulatory requirements. The Responsible Authority’s Guide summarizes the requirements of CEAA, which has been successfully applied to similar projects in the past, and has been widely accepted by government and regulatory agencies within Canada, as the standard for the completion of EAs. The Reference Guide entitled "Determining Whether A Project Is Likely To Cause Significant Adverse Environmental Effects" included in the Responsible Authority’s Guide (The Agency, 1994) will be used as the basis for determining the significance of identified potential effects. This determination consists of the following steps:

• determine whether the environmental effect is adverse; • determine whether the adverse environmental effect is significant; and • determine whether the significant environmental effect is likely.

Although the terms "adverse," "significant" and "likely" are not directly defined, The Agency (1994) provides criteria to facilitate interpretation (Table 3.4). Significance of adverse effects will be directly related to regulatory guidelines and statute requirements where applicable. The assessment will determine whether the residual environmental effects of the Project are significant or non-significant after application of mitigative measures. For the purposes of the EA, an effect will be defined as the change effected on a VEC(s) as a result of Project activities. A Project induced change may affect specific groups, populations, or species, resulting in modification of the VEC(s) in terms of an increase or decrease in its nature (characteristics), abundance, or distribution. Effects will be categorized as either negative (adverse) or positive. Any adverse effects will be determined to be significant or non-significant in consideration of assessment criteria discussed above. The Assessment will focus on those interactions between the VECs and Project activities, which are likely. Table 3.4 presents the criteria to be considered in the assessment of potential environmental effects – According to the Reference Guide: Determining Whether A Project is Likely to Cause Significant Adverse Environmental Effects, (The Agency, 1994).



Table 3.4 Criteria to be Considered in the Assessment of Potential Environmental Effects

Key Terms Criteria

Adverse • loss of species of special status (i.e., Species-at-Risk);

• reductions in species diversity;

• loss of critical/productive habitat;

• transformation of natural landscapes;

• negative effects on human health, well-being, or quality of life;;

• reductions in the capacity of renewable resources to meet the needs of present and future generations;

• loss of current use of lands and resources for traditional purposes by Aboriginal persons; and

• foreclosure of future resource use or production.

Significant • magnitude;

• geographic extent;

• duration and frequency;

• reversibility; and

• ecological context.

Likely • probability of occurrence; and

• scientific uncertainty.

Source: The Responsible Authority's Guide (The Agency, 1994). ECCs protected by statute are:

• Fish and fish habitat (Fisheries Act). • Migratory birds (MBCA). • Species-at-Risk (PEI Wildlife Conservation Act, SARA). • Structures or historic sites of national interest (Historic Sites and Monuments Act). • Air Traffic Safety (Aeronautics Act).

In addition, there is the Federal Policy on Wetland Conservation and the Province of PEI’s Wetland Conservation Policy.



4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIO-ECONOMIC SETTING This section provides a description of the environmental and the socio-economic setting for the Study Area (Figure 2.1), and includes those components of the environment potentially affected by the proposed Project, or which may influence or place constraints on the execution of Project-related activities. The environmental setting is presented to allow assessment of the impact of the proposed Project. Description of the setting includes an overview of regional and local atmospheric, geological, aquatic and terrestrial characteristics in addition to designated areas and other critical habitat features of the proposed Project.

4.1 GEOPHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT

PEI is in the Gulf of St. Lawrence, off the Atlantic coast of the Canadian mainland. It is separated from New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Cape Breton Island by Northumberland Strait. PEI is approximately 250 km long and 6.5 to 50 km wide with a maximum surface elevation of 127 m above sea level (van de Poll, 1983). The land within the Study Area is level and flat with a shoreline that is in the form of a steep bank ranging from 10 to 15 m in height. The Study Area is between the 10 and 14 m contour lines (PEIDEEF, 2009).

4.1.1 Soil and Soil Quality

Based on the Canadian Land Inventory (CLI), soils in the Study Area are rated as Class O and Class 5 in terms of agriculture productivity. Class O soils are considered to be organic soils and not placed in capability classes. Class 5 soil is described as having very severe limitations that restrict their capability to producing perennial forage crops. For commercial forest production, the CLI rates the soils as Class 7, lands having severe limitations which preclude the growth of commercial forests. A preliminary geotechnical investigation was conducted by Stantec in 2009 to determine the general subsurface condition of the area in which the turbines are to be placed. The subsurface conditions near the locations of wind turbines 1, 2 and 3 consist of peat directly underlain by native, undisturbed silt with sand, overlying glacial till. Sandstone bedrock was inferred directly underlying the glacial till. The subsurface conditions near the locations of wind turbines 4 and 5 consist of rootmat and topsoil directly underlain by native, undisturbed competent soils, overlying glacial till and inferred bedrock. Soils in the vicinity of turbines 1, 2, and 3 are classified as peat. Soils in the vicinity of turbines 4 and 5 are Armdale series orthic podzols characterized as having good to imperfect drainage and subject to erosion. Fractured sandstone bedrock underlays the soil. Slopes in the area are minimal, generally from 0 to 1%. The Study Area is located in a primarily agricultural area with active and abandoned agriculture fields, forest and wetlands. Wind turbines 1 and 2 are located in a black spruce bog wetland with the location for turbine 3 in a mixed wood forested wetland. Turbine 4 and the sub-



station/energy storage facility are in an active potato field with turbine 5 located on pasture land. Each turbine will remove approximately 30 m2 of soil productivity in their respective sites and the sub-station/energy storage facility will remove an additional 3,500 m2 for the duration of the Project. New access roads and the underground cable the road requirements will result in the removal of approximately 1.1 ha of agriculture production for the duration of the Project.

4.1.2 Geology (Acid Rock Drainage)

The bedrock underlying the Study Area is composed predominantly of sandstone with some calcareous claystone breccia and claystone, siltstone and mudstone (George Somers, pers. comm., PEIDEEF 2007). The primary issue pertaining to the geological substrate is any potential exposure of sulphide-containing rocks to oxygen (atmospheric conditions), e.g. through construction activities. This exposure can lead to ARD (Howells and Fox, 1997). ARD is characterized by low pH (pH 2-4) and a high content of dissolved metals (Howells and Fox, 1997), in particular aluminum, manganese and iron, as well as trace elements such as copper, nickel and cobalt, from the rock (Zentilli and Fox, 1997). Often, bacteria are involved in the oxidation, but the reaction also occurs abiotically. The rate of acid formation is dependent on the type of sulphide mineral and environmental conditions such as ambient temperature, the amount of rainfall, the presence or absence of bacteria, and the availability of oxidants (Fox et al., 1997). The sulphide concentrations in the “redbeds” of PEI are low and there is no potential for ARD in the Study Area (George Somers, pers. comm., PEIDEEF 2007).

4.1.3 Seismicity

PEI is not in an earthquake zone (InfoPEI, 2010). The potential for an earthquake of sufficient magnitude to disrupt the operation of the wind park is remote and not likely to occur in the project’s temporal boundaries (25 years).

4.1.4 Hydrogeology/Groundwater

Groundwater provides 100 per cent of PEI's drinking water. There are currently 13 groundwater level observation wells across PEI. The nearest ground water monitoring well is located in Bloomfield PEI. Near the Study Area there is historic surface water data taken in Nail Pond (Station Number MSC 53) and active ground water data taken at the fishway outlet of Arsenult’s Pond (Station Number MSC 54). Surface water data taken in 2001 at Station Number MSC 53 indicated pH levels at 7.4 with an average total alkalinity level at 164.4 milligrams per litre (mg/L), average total nitrogen of 8.4 mg/L and total phosphorus of 29.5 micrograms per litre (ug/L). At Station Number MSC 54 only nitrogen and phosphorus levels are currently monitored. Average total nitrogen and average total phosphorus are 2.4 mg/L and 60.4 ug/L, respectively (PEIDEEF, 2010). There are no known existing ground or groundwater contamination in the project area.



Based on the anticipated evacuation depth of approximately 3 m and the rippable nature of red sandstone, blasting will not be required.

4.1.5 Sub-surface Resources

PEI has no current commercially developed mineral resources however interest exists in oil and gas exploration. According to InfoPEI, “PEI's hydrocarbon potential has yet to be fully assessed as, to date, only eighteen exploratory wells and one re-entry well have been drilled on and around the province”. Much of PEI is underlain by seams of coal of various thicknesses. Located too deep for economic extraction, these coal formations may provide the Province with energy in the form of coalbed methane. The presence of the wind park will not interfere with any future exploration or ultimate development of mining activities.

4.2 AQUATIC ENVIRONMENT

4.2.1 Aquatic Habitat and Fauna

The major water feature in the general area of the R&D wind park is the Northumberland Strait. The five turbines are located from 115 m to 475 m of that water body. The Northumberland Strait in the area supports extensive shellfish, ground fish, and pelagic commercial fisheries. In addition there is near-shore and on-shore harvesting of marine plants (Irish moss). There is minimal recreational fishing activity in the marine area. There is not an aboriginal fishery in the area. There is a mapped watercourse in the area of the R&D wind park. It is a small, non-navigable intermittent stream with a headwater area immediately to the south of turbine 3. It is not navigable. The stream intermittently flows in an easterly to its mouth at Seacow Pond, a small craft harbour. There is no record of any fish population in the upper reaches of this stream or the headwater area. No activity relating to the wind park will take place within 30m of this watercourse. To the extent possible, the Project works have been sited to avoid and therefore not interact with the shoreline, watercourse and watercourse buffers.

4.2.2 Surface Hydrology

The Study Area falls within the hydrometric subdivision 1CA as defined by EC (EC, 1986). All surface runoff from this portion of the watershed drains into Seacow Pond which drains into the Gulf of Saint Lawrence. The wind park site is situated on top of a vertical cliff in excess of 10 m above the marine shoreline. There is some seasonal and short-term weather event related drainage over the cliffs via temporary run-off channels. The access road requirements of the Project are located in areas that will have minimal if any interaction with surface flows. Proper cross drainage will be

http://www.gov.pe.ca/enveng/gas/index.php3?number=17950�



installed and standard siltation control measures will be instituted in any areas disturbed as a result of construction to ensure no siltation results to the marine environment. Erosion control measures employed to protect wetlands will address potential surface water issues.

4.3 TERRESTRIAL ENVIRONMENT

4.3.1 Flora

PEI has been heavily impacted by humans, the majority of which has been transformed into farmland. Loucks (1962) identifies most of the west and along the northern shore of PEI, where the Study Area is located, as being within the Prince Edward Shore (Maritime Lowlands Ecoregion). According to Rowe (1972), conifers are prominent with forest stands of white spruce, black spruce (Picea mariana), balsam fir (Abies balsamea), and tamarack (Larix laricina). Red maple (Acer rubrum), and occasional eastern white pine (Pinus strobus), red spruce (Picea rubens), eastern white cedar (Thuja occidentalis), and eastern hemlock (Tsuga canadensis) can also be found. The Study Area (see Figure 2.1) encompasses 102 ha of which, one half (50 %) is open fields for agriculture and one third (31 %) wetlands. Forested areas cover the remaining 19%. From August 11th to 13th, 2010, a vegetation survey was conducted at the Study Area to provide a more detailed description and accounting for vegetative conditions. At that time, most flowering plants including asters and goldenrods were in bloom. Early spring ephemerals that typically bloom between May and early July could not be identified to species, particularly early blooming orchids. During the survey, several AC CDC listed floral Species-at-Risk were observed (see Section 4.3.3), nonetheless, due to the late season at the site it was not possible to identify all plants present (particularly early blooming orchids). Of those identified, none of the floral species are legislatively protected and the populations observed were found well established and scattered throughout the Study Area in their respective habitat. Consequently, with appropriate mitigation measures as stated in Section 5.2 it is anticipated that the project’s ecological impact will be relatively small for an undertaking of its size. Based on the field survey, the Study Area was divided into 6 terrestrial vegetative habitats as follows:

• Crop Land (Open Field); • Dune; • Meadow (Wetland); • Shrub Swamp (Wetland); • Forested Wetland (Wetland); and • Forest.



The proposed wind turbine and sub-station/energy storage facility sites are located within and adjacent to the vegetative habitats listed above as indicated in Table 4.1. A description of each vegetative habitat is provided below.

Table 4.1 Habitat at / Adjacent to each Site

Site Name Habitat Type Within Adjacent (0-30 m)

T1 Forested Wetland Shrub Swamp and Meadow T2 Forested Wetland Shrub Swamp and Meadow T3 Forested Wetland Shrub Swamp and Meadow T4 Crop Land Crop Land T5 Crop Land Crop Land

Sub-station / Energy Storage Crop Land Forest

4.3.1.1 Crop Land

These areas are fields presently in agricultural production. In the Project Area, wind turbine site 4, wind turbine site 5 and the sub-station/storage facility are in a potato - small grain - forage rotation. Currently, wind turbine site 4 and the sub-station/storage are in the potato phase of the crop rotation and wind turbine site 5 is in a forage field phase of the crop rotation for 2010.

4.3.1.2 Dune

Dunes are areas formed as the wind carries sediment from the beach in a landward direction and deposits it wherever an obstruction hinders further transport. These dune areas are stabilized by the presence of grasses such as sea lyme grass (Leymus mollis). None of the project footprints are located within dunes however dunes are present along the coast of the Study Area.

4.3.1.3 Meadow

Meadows are generally located in low lying terrain and support leafy aquatic vegetation such as sedges, rushes and water tolerant grass species. They do not always have surface water present but generally the water table is usually just below the land surface. Vegetation identified in the meadow area of the wetland include: Canada blue-joint grass (Calamagrostis canadensis), marsh-straw sedge (Carex hormathodes), rough-stemmed goldenrod (Solidago rugosa), purple-stemmed aster (Aster puniceus), marsh cinquefoil (Comarum palustre), Joe-pye weed (Eupatorium maculatum), and cut-leaved bugleweed (Lycopus americanus). This meadow portion of the wetland was typically found between the existing access road and the shrub swamp portion of the wetland. The access roads based upon Option A for wind turbine sites 1, 2 and 3 would traverse a portion of this wetland area.

4.3.1.4 Shrub Swamp (wetland)

Shrub wetlands are dominated by woody plants and are seasonally or periodically flooded. Vegetation identified in the shrub swamp area of the wetland include: common winterberry (Ilex verticillata), Northern bayberry (Myrica pensylvanica), mountain holly (Nemopanthus



mucronatus), black chokeberry (Photinia melanocarpa), and shining rose (Rosa nitida). This shrub swamp portion of the wetland was typically found between the meadow wetland and the forested wetland. The access roads based upon Option A for wind turbine sites 1, 2 and 3 would traverse a portion of this wetland area.

4.3.1.5 Forested Wetland

Forested wetlands develop where the water table is very close to the surface. Generally these wetland areas are found in low-lying areas and support a variety of tree species including black spruce (Picea mariana), larch (Larix laricina) and red maple (Acer rubrum). Wind turbine sites 1 and 2 were dominated by black spruce with an understory of cinnamon fern (Osmunda cinnamomea) and three-seeded sedge (Carex trisperma) on a thick sphagnum moss floor. Wind turbine site 3 is a semi-shaded mixed forested wetland of black spruce and red maple with an understory dominated by royal fern (Osmunda regalis).

4.3.1.6 Forest

The forests present within the Study Area are typical boreal forest of the coastal maritime region, dominated by dense coniferous trees with a sparse herb layer. Forest species observed include balsam fir (Abies balsamea), white pine (Pinus strobus), white birch (Betula papyrifera) with an understorey dominated by bunch berry (Cornus canadensis), starflower (Trientalis borealis), sarsaparilla (Smilax regelii), and wood ferns (Dryopteris sp.).

4.3.2 Fauna

The terrestrial fauna of interest in context of the proposed wind park are avian (bird and bat) populations. These faunal species have the potential to interact with the towers, rotors and guylines. PEI does have resident populations of other terrestrial fauna such as furbearers (fox, coyotes, rabbits etc.) that are of public interest but are not likely to have adverse interactions with the project.

4.3.2.1 Local and Migratory Birds

According to the CLI the Black Marsh wetland is considered to be a Class 3SB for waterfowl. Class 3 sites are lands that have slight limitations to the production of waterfowl. Capability on these lands is moderately high, but productivity may be reduced in some years because of occasional droughts. Slight limitations are due to climate or to characteristics of the land that affect the quality and quantity of habitat. These lands have a high proportion of both temporary and semi-permanent shallow marshes poorly interspersed with deep marshes and bodies of open water. The S in the Class signifies that these areas serve as important migration stops. The B subclass refers to the fact that this area has poor quality habitat due to a lack of flow through the low-lying land. Based on the online Maritime Breeding Bird Atlas (2010), there are 76 species of birds that may breed (i.e., confirmed or probable breeding) in the area surrounding the proposed site for breeding (Block 20MT10). Furthermore, the ACCDC database was consulted to obtain records of rare avian species occurrences within a 5 km radius of the Project Area. Results are presented in Section 4.3.3.2 below within Fauna Species-at-Risk.



All migrating birds are protected under the federal MBCA. Since both breeding and migrating birds have the potential to be impacted by the wind turbines, a comprehensive field inventory of breeding and migrating birds was developed. In June 2008, Avitech conducted a bird point study count in the Study Area. Subsequent to that survey, a baseline breeding bird survey was conducted in 2009 and 2010 by Brian Dalzell (Brian Dalzell, 2010). The study methodology of both surveys was developed following discussions with EC scientist John Chardine in April 2008. The bird surveys conducted in 2009 and 2010 were conducted over a 12-month period from April 2009 to March 2010 and consisted of four seasonal components: Spring migration (April-June 2009), peak breeding season (June-July 2009), autumn migration (August-November 2009), and winter residency (January-March 2010). Migrating spring and fall birds were sampled utilizing a 1.8 km 10-stop (driven) roadside transect. Breeding birds were sampled using a combination of a one-kilometer (walked) transect through the centre of the study area, a one-hour sea watch, plus three point counts centered on each of the planned turbine locations. Point counts were conducted thrice between early and late June. The objectives of the study were to determine: 1) what species migrate through, and breed at the proposed wind farm site; 2) which species present at the site may be at risk of collision with turbines based on flight height and behaviour; 3) the peak spring and fall migration periods at the site based on bird abundance and species diversity; and 4) whether any rare species use the proposed site during migration or for breeding. Results of the study indicated that during the spring migration, 1949 birds of 64 species were detected during 13 roadside counts. The highest number of migrant/resident birds and highest diversity occurred (as would be expected) in early June, with 200 individuals of 41species on 5 June. No threatened or endangered species were found. During the breeding surveys (point counts and transect), a total of 968 birds representing 59 species were observed. Only a single species listed as “Threatened” in Canada by SARA under Schedule 1 and Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC) (Canada warbler (Wilsonia canadensis)) was confirmed breeding in the immediate study area, with two pairs detected. In the fall migration, 965 birds of 70 species were detected during 19 roadside transect counts. The highest number of birds and the greatest diversity occurred on 24 September, when 63 individuals of 29 species were detected. The number and variety of migrants during the fall was lower than expected, likely due to the paucity of suitable stopover habitat in the study area. No truly rare or unusual species were found. During winter surveys, 82 individual birds of 12 species were found during three roadside transect counts. The report concluded that there is little risk to bird mortality caused by collisions with the wind turbines. In addition, due to the type of species present in majority in the Study Area, it is unlikely the wind park at this site will pose a barrier to the majority of birds crossing from west to east (and vice-versa) across the island. As well, given the limited number of turbines proposed it is unlikely that habitat loss due to construction of roads, turbines and other associated structures will have an appreciable negative impact on species diversity or numbers. However,



the report could not conclude how the presence of wind turbines would affect the displacement and disturbance of birds breeding in the area. The main recommendation from this study is that care should be taken during any construction activities to avoid the single Canada Warbler territory (Figure 4.1).

4.3.2.2 Bats

Four species of bats have been reported to occur within the Province, including the little brown bat (Myotis lucifugus, formerly M. keeni), the northern long-eared bat (Myotis septentrionalis), and the hoary bat (Lasiurus cinereus), and red bat (Lasiurus borealis), (ACCDC website, 2010). The distribution, abundance, and status of bats in PEI are poorly known, though a recent study indicated that little brown bats and northern long-eared bats are the most abundant and widespread species in PEI, while hoary bats are likely rare migrants to the province (Henderson et al. 2009). A single sight report of a suspected red bat (Lasiurus borealis) in PEI exists (Cameron, 1958, cited in Sobey 2007). The ACCDC lists the red bat as SNA in PEI, meaning their status in the province is poorly known and has not been assessed. This species is not discussed in depth in this document. Brief overviews of the behaviour and life histories of the little brown bat, northern long-eared bat, and hoary bat are provided in the following subsections Little brown bat

The Little Brown Bat is probably the most common bat species in North America, ranging from Alaska to California (Barbour and Davis, 1969). In PEI, the ACCDC lists them as S5, meaning their status in the province is secure. This small non-migratory species is abundant in forested areas, and is often associated with human settlement. In summer, reproductive females may form nursery colonies containing hundreds, sometimes thousands of individuals in buildings, attics, and other man-made structures. Females generally give birth to single young. Males and non-reproductive females roost alone or in smaller groups and may be found in buildings, caves, trees, under rocks, behind shutters, in crevices, and under tree bark (Barbour and Davis, 1969, Fenton and Barclay 1980). Broders and Forbes (2004) noted that little brown bat roost selection appears highly dependent on the number of snags (dead trees) in the area. Little brown bats often forage over water (Fenton and Bell 1979), but have also been seen foraging in woodlands and developed areas (van Zyll de Jong 1985). They eat a wide variety of insects, including flies, beetles, butterflies, moths, caddis flies, cicadas, leafhoppers, aphids, scales, ants, bees, and wasps (Whitaker 1972, Anthony and Kunz 1977, Whitaker 2004). A single little brown bat can catch up to 1,200 insects in just one hour during peak feeding activity (BatCon, 2006).



Figure 4.1 Canada Warbler Territory



While many bat species mainly hunt flying insects (a behavior known as hawking), little brown bats and northern long-eared bats can also take prey off foliage, other surfaces or the ground, a behavior known as gleaning (Ratcliffe and Dawson 2003). Their large ears, characteristically short, high frequency, soft echolocation call (Faure et al. 1993), and ability to hover in flight make this gleaning behavior possible (Ratcliffe and Dawson 2003). In late summer, Little Brown Bats may travel hundreds of kilometers to swarm around caves and abandoned mines (Fenton and Barclay 1980). Their hibernation sites tend to be extremely humid (>90%) and to maintain temperatures above-freezing (i.e., 1-5°C) (Fenton et al., 1983; Fenton and Barclay 1980). Brown et al. (2007) recently reported over 600 little brown bats overwintering in a basement in Queens County in PEI, however this was atypical behaviour for this species and the unnatural hibernaculum no longer exists. Northern long-eared bat

The northern long-eared bat is also widely distributed across North America, with a range from Newfoundland and the eastern United States to coastal British Columbia (Barbour and Davis, 1969). The ACCDC lists them as S1S2 in PEI, meaning their status in the province is rare to extremely rare. This small non-migratory species is considered a forest-interior species (Broders et al. 2006; Caceres and Barclay, 2000) and occurs in both hardwood and softwood forests (Foster and Kurta, 1999). Maternity colonies appear to occur most often in mature, shade tolerant deciduous tree stands (Broders and Forbes, 2004) where females generally give birth to single young. Males and non-reproductive females typically roost in tree cavities and beneath peeling bark. Such individuals may switch roosts every two days and have roosts up to two km apart (Foster and Kurta, 1999; Jung et al. 2004).This species is generally more solitary than the little brown bat and is most often found singly or in very small groups. Northern long-eared bats have been observed foraging along forest edges, over forest clearings, at tree-top level, and occasionally over ponds (BatCon, 2006). Similar to little brown bats, northern long-eared bats eat a variety of insects, including Coleoptera (beetles), Diptera (true flies), Lepidoptera (butterflies and moths) and Trichoptera (caddisflies) (Brack and Whitaker 2001, Carter et al. 2003, Whitaker 2004). Also like little brown bats, northern long-eared bats exhibit hawking behavior in addition to gleaning (Ratcliffe and Dawson 2003). Little is known about the population dynamics and reproductive biology of this species. They swarm in mines and caves in the fall, and hibernate in many of these same spaces, although not in large numbers. Northern Long-eared Bats are said to prefer cooler hibernation temperatures than Little Brown Bats (van Zyll de Jong 1985). Brown et al. (2007) published the first report of this species’ occurrence and evidence of over wintering in PEI. This report was based on the capture of two specimens by a domestic cat and on the presence of 136 specimens found in an atypical hibernaculum in Queens County, which also supported hibernating little brown bats (see previous subsection on little brown bats).



Hoary bat

The hoary bat is a widespread species, ranging throughout North America from Alaska south into Brazil and Guatemala. They are also found in Hawaii and in the Galapagos (Barbour and Davis 1969). PEI appears to be on the far eastern edge of their range, as they are considered rare migrants in the province (Henderson et al. 2009). This species was first observed in PEI in 1999 (McAlpine et al. 2002). The ACCDC lists them as SNA in PEI, meaning their status in the province is poorly known and has not been assessed. These large migratory bats are high and fast fliers, averaging 7.7 m/s while foraging (Salcedo et al. 1995). Adult females roost alone or with their dependent young, usually 3-12 m above the ground (van Zyll de Jong 1985). During the summer, there is often some segregation based on sex, with females concentrated in eastern North America and males concentrated in the western North America (Findley and Jones 1964, Cryan 2003). Females give birth in spring (i.e., mid-May to late June); usually litters of two, but may have up to four pups (Bogan 1972, Koehler and Barclay 2000). Hoary bats often forage in open spaces over glades or lakes in forested areas (Banfield 1974, van Zyll de Jong 1985). Menzel et al. (2005) reported significantly greater activity levels above the forest canopy than within or below it. Hoary Bats primarily feed on Lepidoptera (butterflies and moths) (Black 1974, Whitaker 1972, Carter et al. 2003), although they may consume a wide variety of insects. Most Hoary Bats migrate south for the winter, although individuals have been found in Michigan, New York and Ontario during the winter (Shump and Shump 1982, Bouchard et al. 2001). Hoary bats may travel as far as Mexico (Barbour and Davis 1969, Cryan 2003). Migrants often travel in groups while moving south in the fall (Shump and Shump 1982). In the spring, a northern migration occurs and Findley and Jones (1964) reported females preceding males during this migration. Bat Surveys on the WEICan Project Site

Passive acoustic survey methods were used to record bat calls to determine the occurrence of bats on the Project site, Anabat II and SD2 compact flash bat detectors (Titley Electronics Pty. Ltd, Ballina, New South Wales, Australia) were deployed in areas likely to support bats and set to record all ultrasonic sounds between 7 pm and 7 am. An Anabat II detector was set up on the Project site on Sept 14, 2010. The location (Southern monitoring site) is depicted in Figure 4.2. The detector was set up on the ground in a waterproof housing fitted with a microphone tube, which allowed sampling of a section of the sky approximately 45 degrees from horizontal. The setup was placed within 5m of the tree line on the site, with the microphone tube pointing parallel to the tree line (northeast) to allow sampling of the forest edge.



Figure 4.2 Bat Survey Locations



Technical difficulties resulted in little data being recorded (with the exception of Sept 22) until Sept 24, when the device was replaced with a newer Anabat SD2 bat detector. A second Anabat SD2 bat detector was deployed in a similar fashion at the Northern location depicted in Figure 4.2, also within 5m of and parallel to the tree line (facing south). Recorded data were then interpreted via Analook W software (version 3.7w) using zero-crossing analysis. Data identified as bat calls were then identified based on the minimum, maximum, and characteristics frequencies, in addition to the slope of the calls (O’Farrell et al. 1999) Calls were identified to species using the Analook W software and published information on the calls of bat species native to eastern North America (Barclay 1989, Barclay et al 1999, Betts 1998, Broders et al 2001, Fenton and Bell 1981, Fenton et al 1983, MacDonald et al 1994). It should be noted that bats of the genus Myotis (little brown bat and northern long-eared bat) cannot be distinguished using acoustic survey methods. The initial Anabat II detector was operational on the night of Sept 22, however no bats were detected. The two Anabat S2 detectors were operational when deployed on Sept 24, however the memory card on the North unit became corrupted and did not record any data after that date. The other unit (South) collected data until Oct 14, when both systems were retrieved from the field. In total, 20 nights of data were recorded by the Anabat system at the South location, while the North Anabat system recorded 6 nights of data. Preliminary results indicate that both systems recorded bat calls on the night of Sept 29. The North detector recorded a single bat call, while the South unit recorded two calls. The characteristics of the recorded bat calls on both detectors indicate they were made by a Myotis species (either little brown or northern long-eared bat). Given the distribution and abundance of these bat species on PEI, the calls were likely made by little brown bats, which are more common. The detector at the southern location recorded a large amount of interference on some nights, likely due to interference from the electrical substation nearby, which was observed to emit crackling and hissing noises on rainy days. An attempt was made to deploy the system so that it was not facing the substation, however the alignment of the forest edge at the site required that the system be set up directed within 90 degrees of the substation.

4.3.3 Species-at-Risk

Available information on the known occurrence of floral and faunal Species-at-Risk in the Study Area was compiled and reviewed to determine their presence relative to construction of the WEICan R&D Wind Park. Sources included published listings of occurrences of such species (e.g., SARA, COSEWIC, as well as consultations with provincial government agencies and researchers (e.g., ACCDC). COSEWIC and SARA categorize rare species into three main groups according to their status within the province:

• Endangered (E): A wildlife species facing imminent extirpation or extinction. • Threatened (T): A wildlife species likely to become endangered if limiting factors are not

reversed.



• Special Concern (SC): A wildlife species that may become a threatened or an endangered species because of a combination of biological characteristics and identified threats.

An information request (September 2009) was submitted to the AC CDC for a list of occurrences of Species-at-Risk within and near the proposed Study Area (within 5 km of proposed wind park). The paragraphs below detail Species-at-Risk that could potentially occur in the vicinity of the proposed project. S1, S2, and S3 ranked Species-at-Risk are considered to be extremely rare to uncommon and are discussed in the following sections. S rankings and their qualifiers are described below.

S1 Extremely rare throughout its range in the province (typically 5 or fewer occurrences or very few remaining individuals). May be especially vulnerable to extirpation.

S2 Rare throughout its range in the province (6 to 20 occurrences or few remaining individuals). May be vulnerable to extirpation due to rarity or other factors.

S3 Uncommon throughout its range in the province, or found only in a restricted range, even if abundant in at some locations. (21 to 100 occurrences).

S4 Usually widespread, fairly common throughout its range in the province, and apparently secure with many occurrences, but the Element is of long-term concern (e.g. watch list). (100+ occurrences).

? Inexact or uncertain: for numeric ranks, denotes inexactness, e.g., SE? denotes uncertainty of exotic status. (The “?” qualifies the character immediately preceding it in the SRANK)

S* B Breeding.

S* N Non-breeding.

SH Historical: Element occurred historically throughout its range in the province (with expectation that it may be rediscovered), perhaps having not been verified in the past 20 - 70 years (depending on the species), and suspected to be still extant.

The 5 km buffer around the Study Area contains 73 records of 56 vascular plants in addition to 69 records of 13 vertebrate fauna and 1 record of 1 invertebrate fauna.

4.3.3.1 Flora Species-at-Risk

COSEWIC and SARA list the Gulf of Saint Lawrence aster (Symphyotrichum laurentianum) as threatened and beach pinweed (Lechea maritima) as a Species of Special Concern within the province of PEI. The following plant species of concern are identified in Table 4.2 as known to occur within 5 km of the Project Site and therefore potentially occurring within the Project Area (AC CDC, 2009).



Table 4.2 Plant Species of Concern Potentially in the Study Area

Scientific Name Common Name S-Rank Habitat* Andromeda polifolia var. glaucophylla Bog Rosemary S2 Peat bogs and along boggy

shores.

Bidens heterodoxa Connecticut Beggar-Ticks S2 Freshwater, brackish or saline marshes.

Botrychium matricariifolium Chamomile Grape-Fern S2 Clearings and rich hardwoods. Botrychium simplex Least Grape-Fern S1 Rocky slopes.

Calopogon tuberosus Tuberous Grass-Pink S3 Open sphagnous boggy areas and fens.

Carex aquatilis Water Sedge S2? Wet open areas.

Carex aurea Golden-Fruited Sedge S2S3 Damp, often calcareous meadows and along shores.

Carex flava Yellow Sedge S1S2 Shores and in wet meadows. Carex folliculata Long Sedge S1 Swampy woods.

Carex gynocrates Northern Bog Sedge S1 Sphagnum bogs and cedar swamps in calcareous areas.

Carex hystericina Porcupine Sedge S1S2 Muddy shores and in swamps.

Carex limosa Mud Sedge S1S2 Sphagnum bogs, often surrounding bog ponds.

Carex rariflora Loose-Flowered Sedge S1 Sphagnum bogs.

Carex tonsa Shaved Sedge S2S3 Dry, sandy areas, dunes, railways and open, sandy woods.

Carex viridula Little Green Sedge S3S4 Rocky calcareous shores and marly areas

Chamaesyce polygonifolia Seaside Spurge S2 Coastal sandy and gravelly shores and dune hollows.

Corallorhiza trifida Early Coralroot S2S3

Seepage areas and close to streams in rich coniferous, mid or deciduous woods, and in calcareous cedar swamps.

Draba incana Hoary Whitlow-Grass S1 Dry sands.

Eleocharis quinqueflora Few-Flower Spikerush S1 Calcareous shores, ledges and in fens.

Empetrum eamesii Rock Crowberry S2? Coastal on exposed headlands, on windswept peaty and rocky barrens.

Empetrum eamesii ssp. atropurpureum Purple Crowberry S2?

Coastal on exposed headlands, on windswept peaty and rocky barrens.

Galium labradoricum Bog Bedstraw S1S2 Cool moist woods and calcareous fends.

Gaylussacia dumosa Dwarf Huckleberry S3? Coastal in sphagnous bogs and wet barrens.

Hippuris vulgaris Common Mare's-Tail S3 Damp shores and shallow waters.

Juncus greenei Greene's Rush S1 Wet meadows.




Scientific Name Common Name S-Rank Habitat*

Juncus pelocarpus Brown-Fruited Rush S3S4 Bog margins and muddy or peaty shores.

Juniperus communis var. montana Dwarf Juniper S2?

Dry, exposed ledges, old pastures, rocky slopes and calcareous bogs.

Juniperus horizontalis Creeping Juniper S3S4 Rocky, sandy or boggy open areas.

Lactuca canadensis Canada Lettuce S3? Moist clearings and thickets.

Liparis loeselii Loesel's Twayblade S2

Damp alder thickets, meadows, roadside ditches, calcareous fens, abandoned gravel pits and low sandy areas.

Lycopodium complanatum Trailing Clubmoss S2S3 Dry, open woods, thickets, and clearings

Lycopodium tristachyum Deep-Root Clubmoss S3? Dry barrens, open hardwoods, and clearings in softwood plantations

Maianthemum stellatum Starflower Solomon's-Plume S3 Sandy soil of open woods,

shores and headlands.

Muhlenbergia glomerata Marsh Muhly S1S2 Rocky shores and in meadows and bogs.

Osmunda regalis var. spectabilis Royal Fern S3 Wet, rocky woods, stream

banks and shores.

Packera aurea Golden Groundsel S2 Damp meadows, tickets, ditches and open woods.

Parnassia palustris var. parviflora

a Marsh Grass-of-Parnassus S1 Grassy hollows in sand dunes,

and on tussocks in swamps.

Phragmites australis Common Reed S3S4 Marshes (often brackish), shores and wet ditches.

Platanthera aquilonis Leafy Northern Green Orchis S2

Calcareous sedge meadows, bogs, fens and roadside ditches. Also in deciduous, mixed or coniferous woods.

Pogonia ophioglossoides Rose Pogonia S2 Open sphagnous bogs and along boggy shores.

Pyrola asarifolia Pink Wintergreen S2 Mostly coniferous woods.

Ranunculus gmelinii Small Yellow Water-Crowfoot S2 Lime-rich wet meadows,

ponds, and streams.

Rhamnus alnifolia Alderleaf Buckthorn S3 Swamps and bog margins especially in calcareous areas.

Rubus chamaemorus Cloudberry S2 Acid bogs.

Sagina nodosa ssp. borealis Knotted Pearlwort S1S2 Moist, rocky, gravelly or peaty ground.

Salix candida Hoary Willow S1 Calcareous or alkaline bogs and springy areas.

Solidago gigantea Smooth Goldenrod S3S4 Alluvial meadows.




Scientific Name Common Name S-Rank Habitat*

Sparganium americanum American Bur-Reed S2? Muddy shores of lakes and slow-moving streams.

Symphyotrichum boreale Boreal American-Aster S2 Calcareous bogs, cedar swamps and along shores.

Trichophorum alpinum Alpine Cotton-Grass S1 Marly or springy shores and in fens.

Trichophorum caespitosum Tufted Leafless-Bulrush S2 Coastal in peat bogs and on wet, calcareous ledges.

Triglochin gaspensis Gaspe Peninsula Arrow-Grass S2S3 Around small lagoons in salt

marshes.

Vaccinium vitis-idaea Mountain Cranberry S3 Rocky barrens and peaty headlands and clearings.

Viola labradorica Labrador Violet S2S3 Cool moist rocky shores or ledge crevices.

Viola lanceolata Lance-Leaf Violet S1 Moist shores, woods and roadways.

Note: * Habitat as described in Hinds, 2000 Flora of New Brunswick; Crow and Hellquist, 2000 Aquatic and Wetland Plants of Northeastern North America; and Roland et al., 1998 Roland’s Flora of Nova Scotia.

The majority of the above noted at-risk species are not anticipated to be found within the Study Area, however during a vegetation survey conducted in mid-August some of the species were observed (see Table 4.3). Recommendations have been made in Section 5.0 to ensure that essential habitat and the species themselves are not harmed.

Table 4.3 Floral Species-at-Risk Observed During the August 11th to 13th, 2010 Vegetation Survey

Scientific Name Common Name AC CDC Rank

General Status of Species in PEI Location

Mitchella repens Partridge Berry S1S2 May be at Risk Wind Turbine 1, 2 and 3

Osmunda regalis Royal Fern S3 Undetermined Wind Turbine 3 Eriophorum viridicarinatum

Green-keeled Cottongrass S2 May be at Risk Wind Turbine 3

Calamagrostis stricta Slim-stemmed Reed Grass S4? Sensitive Wind Turbine 3

Alisma subcordatum Southern Water Plantain Not Ranked Not Present Cattail Pond Hippuris vulgaris Common Mare's-Tail S3 Secure Cattail Pond

4.3.3.2 Fauna Species-at-Risk

For the province of PEI SARA lists two faunal species as Endangered under Schedule 1: the piping plover (Charadrius melodus melodus) and eskimo curlew (Numenius borealis). SARA further lists the Canada warbler, common nighthawk (Chordeiles minor) (Threatened), and olive-sided flycatcher (Contopus cooperi) as Threatened with the rusty blackbird (Euphagus carolinus), Barrow’s goldeneye (Bucephala islandica), and Monarch butterfly (Danaus



plexippus) as listed as Species of Special Concern under Schedule 1. SARA also lists the short-eared owl (Asio flammeus) as a Species of Special Concern under Schedule 3. COSEWIC lists three bird species as Endangered within the province of PEI. These are the piping plover, eskimo curlew, and red knot rufa subspecies (Calidris canutus rufa). COSEWIC also includes the bobolink (Dolichonyx oryzivorus), Canada warbler, common nighthawk and striped bass (Morone saxatilis) as Threatened. The American eel (Anguilla rostrata), short-eared owl, rusty blackbird, Barrow’s goldeneye, Atlantic walrus (Odobenus rosmarus rosmarus) and the Monarch butterfly are listed as Species of Special Concern within the province. The following faunal species of concern are identified in Table 4.4 as occurring within 5 km of the Project Area (ACCDC, 2009):

Table 4.4 Faunal Species of Concern in the Study Area (ACCDC) Scientific Name Common Name S-Rank Habitat*

Accipiter striatus Sharp-shinned Hawk S3S4B Mixed deciduous and coniferous woods.

Ammodramus nelson Nelson’s Sharp-tailed Sparrow S3B Salt and fresh-water marshes,

wet meadows, and lakeshores.

Carduelis pinus Pine Siskin S2B, S3S4N

Coniferous or mixed woods, shrub thickets and suburban yards.

Charadrius melodus melodus Piping Plover S1B Sandy beaches and lakeshores.

Cepphus grylle Black Guillemot S2B Coastal.

Dolichonyx oryzivorus Bobolink S3B Frequents open habitats & grasslands

Empidonax traillii Willow Flycatcher S1B Alder thickets at edge of lakes or swamps. Shrubby willow swamps.

Hirundo rustica Barn Swallow S3B Nests communally in mud nests under bridges, in barns & caves

Loxia leucoptera White-winged Crossbill S3S4 Coniferous woods that include spruce and pines.

Mergus serrator Red-breasted Merganser S2B,S5N Saltwater habitats Phalacrocorax carbo Great Cormorant S3B Coastal.

Pooecetes gramineus Vesper Sparrow S1S2B

Dry fields with sparse vegetation, occasionally beach grass, sagebrush, forest clearings, or agricultural fields.

Wilsonia canadensis Canada Warbler S4B

Dense understory of mature deciduous or mixed woodlands, shrubby areas near streams and swamps.



Table 4.4 Faunal Species of Concern in the Study Area (ACCDC) Scientific Name Common Name S-Rank Habitat*

Ancyloxypha numitor Common Least Skipper (Butterfly) S3

Adaptable to a variety of temporary and permanent open or brushy wetlands from fens to ditches to temporarily drought impacted ponds. In wooded areas only along grassy stream corridors.

Note: * Habitat as described in Stokes and Stokes, 1996 Field Guide to Birds – Eastern Region; NatureServe, 2010 As mentioned in Section 4.3.2.1, the only SARA listed Species-at-Risk observed within the Study Area is the Canada warbler. The Great cormorant, black guillemot, and white-wing crossbill were also observed during the 2008-2009 bird surveys (Dalzell, 2010). However it is not anticipated that project activities will affect the Great cormorant or black guillemot as these are coastal birds. With respect to the Canada warbler and white-wing crossbill, clearing is anticipated to be conducted outside the migratory breeding bird season and the identified breeding sites of the Canada warbler will be avoided.

4.3.4 Designated Areas and Other Critical Habitat Features

Available information on designated areas and other habitat features identified as sensitive or critical was compiled and reviewed to determine their location in relation to the Study Area. A number of natural areas within the Province of PEI have been either formally protected or inventoried as sites of potential significance and are recommended for protection as Conservation Areas or Significant Natural Areas. According to the Natural Areas Protection Act (2004), a natural area:

• contains natural ecosystems or constitutes the habitat of rare, endangered or uncommon plant or animal species;

• contains unusual botanical, zoological, geological, morphological or palaeontological features;

• exhibits exceptional and diversified scenery; • provides haven for seasonal concentrations of birds and animals; or • provides opportunities for scientific and educational programs in aspects of the natural

environment. The areas identified below are referred to as Designated Areas in this report. Conservation Areas are federally or provincially managed areas and are identified by EC (Protecting Our Natural Heritage: Conservation Areas in Atlantic Canada, EC, Undated).



Categories under the heading of Conservation Areas include: • Demonstration Woodlots. • Wildlife Management/Protection Areas. • National Wildlife Areas/Migratory Bird Sanctuaries. • Eastern Habitat Joint Venture (EHJV).

Categories under the heading Significant Natural Areas include:

• Critical Natural Areas. • Nature Reserves. • National and Provincial Parks.

All of the Conservation Areas and Significant Natural Areas listed above have been identified by Federal and/or Provincial regulatory authorities as areas for consideration and protection. The Black Marsh is the only Conservation Area located within the Study Area. This is a large wetland that is predominantly ericaceous open bog. It is currently being used for hiking, hunting, trapping, bird-watching and nature exploration. The Black Marsh is the only bilingual coastal trail on PEI. This trail is approximately 2.7 km in length that winds through an open bog area and along the coastline. There are interpretive displays along the trail that describe local fishing, erosion issues, natural growth of plants, birds as well as a write up on the legendary story of the Phantom Ghost Ship and local history including the former Elephant Rock attraction. This area has been considered for inclusion as a Natural Area under the Natural Areas Protection Act (Rosemary Curley pers. comm., 2009). Biologically, the open bog is considered unique due to the extent of crowberry (Empetrum sp.) cover (Rosemary Curley pers. comm., 2009) and presence of Carex rariflora (Sean Blaney pers. comm., 2009). This species is very rare in PEI and the Maritimes (Sean Blaney pers. comm., 2009).

4.3.5 Wetland

4.3.5.1 Wetland Resources

Wetlands are defined by the PEI Environmental Protection Act (2005) as “lands commonly referred to as marshes, salt marshes, swamps, bogs, flats and shallow water areas that are saturated with water long enough to promote wetland or aquatic biological processes which are indicated by poorly drained soil, water-tolerant vegetation, and biological activities adapted to a wet environment.” The Federal government has established a “no net loss of wetland function” policy in co-operation with the Provinces (EC, 1991). In addition to the provincial Watercourse/Wetland Alteration Guidelines, the Province in 2003 has also created a Wetland Conservation Policy with commitments to the “no net loss of wetland function” objective and identifying specific wetlands and wetland types as Provincially Significant. Activities proposed within Provincially Significant Wetlands are usually subject to severe restrictions (InfoPEI, 2010). Under the Watercourse and



Wetlands Alteration Guidelines any disturbance of the ground within 10 m of a watercourse or wetland boundary needs a permit. The focal purpose of the Federal Policy on Wetland Conservation policy is the sustainable management of wetland resources (both for wildlife and humans) and is underpinned by a commitment to “no net loss of wetland function”. This policy has been strongly applied and several specific guidance documents are available to federal employees including:

• The Federal Policy on Wetland Conservation (EC, 1991); • NO NET LOSS. Implementing “No Net Loss” Goals To Conserve Wetlands In Canada

(North American Wetlands Conservation Council (NAWCC), 1992); • Wetland Evaluation Guide (Bond et al., 1992); • The Federal Policy on Wetland Conservation; Implementation Guide for Federal Land

Managers (EC, 1996); • Wetlands Environmental Assessment Guideline (Milko, 1998); • Wetlands And Government (NAWCC, 1999); and • Wetland Mitigation in Canada (NAWCC, 2000).

Two main concepts in federal guidance include the wetland “mitigation sequence” and the principal of “no net loss of wetland function”. These are briefly described below. Mitigation Sequence When developing mitigation for potential effects on wetlands, a hierarchical sequence of “mitigation” alternatives must be applied, which include:

• avoidance of impacts; • minimization of unavoidable impacts; and • compensation for residual impacts that cannot be minimized (i.e., net loss).

No Net Loss The “no net loss” principal requires any such loss to be compensated, ideally through provision of similar wetland function at the same location. This may be accomplished by restoration or enhancement of degraded or low function wetland or outright creation of wetland habitat. There are also other compensatory options that may be acceptable (as a last resort) including support of wetland research activities or securing wetland areas that are currently under stress from private land use.



The assessment of potential impacts on wetland resources at a site must be conducted through several sequential steps including:

• identification of potential wetland area; • field verification of actual wetlands; • delineation of wetland boundaries; • assessment of wetland functionality; and • assessment of potential impacts from Project activities.

4.3.5.2 Wetland Identification

Wetlands were located within the Study Area based on a field reconnaissance and assessment by Christina LaFlamme, M.Sc. with AMEC August 11th to 13th, 2010. The results of this field assessment characterize one wetland complex. The determination of wetland habitat in the field was based largely on the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual (Environmental Laboratory, 1987) and the Interim Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual (US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), 2009). A wetland delineation report will be provided. Wetland areas within the property were identified and mapped at selective locations using wetland indicators and definitions from the Standard Methodology developed by the New Brunswick Department of Environment (NBDENV). Mapping provided by the PEIDEEF department indicated that the forested area in PID 3004, PID523019 and PID 914564 were not wetland. However, the field surveys indicate that these areas are wetland. The delineated wetland boundary is shown on Figure 4.3. As can be seen from the figure, wind turbines 1, 2, and 3 are located within wetland habitat. No wetland area was observed in close proximity to either wind turbines 4, 5 or the proposed substation.

4.3.5.3 Wetland Functional Assessment

As a result of the presence of wetlands within the proposed Project footprint a wetland functional assessment will need to be conducted. A wetland functional assessment will be provided as part of the wetland delineation report. The functional assessment method chosen for this project is based on the USACE “Highway Methodology” supplement (USACE, 1999)); which describes how to identify wetland functions and values acceptable for the Corps New England District Regulatory Program. The "Descriptive Approach" presented in this booklet, however, can be used for any project for the characterization of wetland resources, and is considered regionally applicable to the Maritimes. In this approach, wetland functions and values are defined as follows:



Figure 4.3 Wetland Area as Depicted by Provincial Data (PEIDEEF) and Field Surveys



Functions are self-sustaining properties of a wetland ecosystem that exist in the absence of society. Functions result from both living and non-living components of a specific wetland. These include all processes necessary for the self-maintenance of the wetland ecosystem such as primary production and nutrient cycling. Therefore, functions relate to the ecological significance of wetland properties without regard to subjective human values. Values are benefits that derive from either one or more functions and the physical characteristics associated with a wetland. Most wetlands have corresponding societal value. The value of a particular wetland function, or combination thereof, is based on human judgment of the worth, merit, quality, or importance attributed to those functions.

The evaluation is a qualitative description of the physical characteristics of the wetlands, including a determination of the principal functions and values exhibited, and the bases for the conclusions. Generally, readily available information from site visits and existing literature is used. The evaluator first determines if a wetland is suitable for particular functions and values and why. A simple yes or no column is checked and documentation supporting the presence or absence of a function and/or value is recorded. A standard, but flexible, list of rationale factors is used to indicate the presence of each function and value, numbered for easy reference. Based on these factors, a Wetland Function/Value Evaluation Form is completed for each wetland associated with the project; which is then used to develop narrative descriptions of the functionality. The functions and values considered in this assessment are defined below.

Groundwater Recharge/Discharge — This function considers the potential for a wetland to serve as a groundwater recharge and/or discharge area. Recharge should relate to the potential for the wetland to contribute water to an aquifer. Discharge should relate to the potential for the wetland to serve as an area where groundwater can be discharged to the surface. Floodflow Alteration — This function considers the effectiveness of the wetland in reducing flood damage by attenuation of floodwaters for prolonged periods following precipitation events. Coastal Stormsurge Detention — This function considers the effectiveness of the wetland in protection of natural shorelines, properties, structures, and valued resources from stormsurge flooding. Fish and Shellfish Habitat — This function considers the effectiveness of seasonal or permanent waterbodies associated with the wetland in question for fish and shellfish habitat.



Sediments/Toxicant/Pathogen Retention — This function reduces or prevents degradation of water quality. It relates to the effectiveness of the wetland as a trap for sediments, toxicants, or pathogens. Nutrient Removal/Transportation — This function relates to the effectiveness of the wetland to prevent adverse effects of excess nutrients entering aquifers or surface waters such as ponds, lakes, streams, rivers, or estuaries. Production Export (Nutrient) — This function relates to the effectiveness of the wetland to produce food or usable products for humans or other living organisms. Sediment/Shoreline Stabilization — This function relates to the effectiveness of a wetland to stabilize streambanks and shorelines against erosion. Wildlife Habitat — This function considers the effectiveness of the wetland to provide habitat for various types and populations of animals typically associated with wetlands and the wetland edge. Both resident and/ or migrating species must be considered. Species lists of observed and potential animals should be included in the wetland assessment report. Recreation Value — This value considers the effectiveness of the wetland and associated watercourses to provide recreational opportunities such as canoeing, boating, fishing, hunting, and other active or passive recreational activities. Consumptive activities consume or diminish the plants, animals, or other resources that are intrinsic to the wetland, whereas non-consumptive activities do not. Educational/Scientific Value — This value considers the effectiveness of the wetland as a site for an “outdoor classroom” or as a location for scientific study or research. Uniqueness/Heritage Value — This value relates to the effectiveness of the wetland or its associated waterbodies to produce certain special values. Special values may include such things as archaeological sites, unusual aesthetic quality, historical events, or unique plants, animals, or geologic features. Visual Quality/Aesthetic Value — This value relates to the visual and aesthetic qualities of the wetland. Endangered Species Habitat (a Value) — This value relates to the effectiveness of the wetland or associated waterbodies to support endangered species.

Finally a determination is made of what functions and values are principal. Since wetlands are apt to contain most functions and values to some degree, it is helpful to identify those few that are most important. Functions and values can be principal if they are an important physical component of a wetland ecosystem (function only) and/or are considered of special value to



society, from a local, regional, and/or national perspective. These principal functions should also be the primary focus of mitigation and compensation effort. Any measurable impact on a wetland function would require development of mitigation and possibly compensation. Section 5.2 discusses in greater detail mitigation and compensation.

4.4 ATMOSPHERIC ENVIRONMENT

4.4.1 Climatology

The climate of the Study Area is described below. The information is based upon climate normals from the following EC weather station over the time periods specified: Tignish, PEI (71-2000) and data collected by WEICan at their research facility. The climate of PEI is strongly influenced by the ocean which subsequently delays the onset of the seasons. Generally the winters are milder than the rest of the provinces in Canada, spring is late and cool, summers are modest and breezy and autumn is mild. The ocean acts as a giant heat pump drawing heat from the waters in the autumnal and early winter months and then cooling the air for the greater part of the spring and summer seasons. From January to early April, when the Gulf and straits become ice covered, the Island becomes as continental as the interior of New Brunswick (EC, 2002). The Canadian Climate Normals (1971 - 2000) recorded from the climate station in Tignish indicate the mean annual temperature is 5.1ºC with a mean annual maximum of 9.4ºC and a mean annual minimum of 0.8 ºC. The daily mean temperature remains below 0ºC for the months of December through March. The extreme maximum and minimum temperatures recorded are 36.1 and -30.0oC respectively (Environment Canada, 2005b). The WEICan facility observed a mean annual temperature is 8.3ºC with a mean annual maximum of 11.0ºC and a mean annual minimum of 5.6ºC. Of the total of 1105.6 mm annual precipitation, (total water equivalent of snowfall plus rainfall), 804.6 millimetres (mm) (approximately 75 %) falls as rain. The precipitation is well distributed throughout the year, both in terms of amount and the number of days with precipitation. The largest amounts of precipitation occur in the months of November, December and January (EC, 2005b). The lowest visibility occurs most frequently during the winter months (Kingsley and Whittam, 2001). With regards to lightning, according to a flash density map, PEI experiences on average 42 lightning flashes per one hundred square kilometre per year in the period from 1998 to 2002, cloud-to-cloud and cloud-to-ground counts combined (EC, 2010).

4.4.2 Ambient Air Quality

Air quality is influenced by the concentrations of air contaminants in the atmosphere. Air contaminants are emitted by both natural and anthropogenic sources and are transported, dispersed, or concentrated by meteorological and topographical conditions.



Due to continued and increasing reliance on fossil fuels in Canada and around the world there is growing economical and environmental concern. Currently, Canada is one of the highest producers, contributing about 2% of the global total of GHG. Approximately 50 % of Canada’s total GHG emissions and air pollutants result from industrial sources (EC, 2008a). Between 2003 and 2006, Canada has seen a reduction of 2.8 % in GHG. Consequently, in October 2006, the government published a Notice of Intent to regulate air emissions, which provides the basis for the Clean Air Regulatory Agenda. National emission caps will be set for each pollutant of concern. The national emission caps represent the following percentage reductions from 2006 levels: 40% for NOx, 55% for sulphur oxides (SOx), 45% for VOCs, and 20% for PM (EC, 2007). Studies conducted in the 1970s have shown that the Atlantic Provinces have been identified as a region susceptible to elevated smog conditions. The majority of the air pollution is a result of long-range transport (LRT) of air pollution generated from the industrialized regions of eastern United States, southern Ontario and Quebec. Poor air quality negatively impacts human health resulting in an increased number of respiratory infections (EC, 2003). The Study Area is predominantly agricultural and fisheries with some research/utility usage. Since 2006, air quality in PEI is routinely monitored by the Provincial and Federal Governments at stations located in Wellington, Southampton, and Charlottetown. The Wellington station is the most proximal to the Study Area and is approximately 75 km from Norway, PEI. Data for Ground Level Ozone and PM2.5 are measured – the two main components of smog. Table 4.5 lists the air quality standards under the Environmental Protection Act, Air Quality Regulations established by the province of PEI.

Table 4.5 Air Quality Guidelines in PEI

Pollutant Averaging Period

1 Hour 8 Hour 24 Hour 1 Year

Carbon monoxide 35 mg/m3 15 mg/m3

Hydrogen sulphide 15 μg/m3 5 μg/m3

Nitrogen dioxide 400 μg/m3 100 μg/m3

Sulphur dioxide* 900 μg/m3 300 μg/m3 60 μg/m3

Total Suspended Particulate 120 μg/m3 70 μg/m3



Particulate Matter (PM)

The term PM refers to those particulates in the air, such as smoke, soot, and dust that remain suspended in the air and do not settle out readily. PM is a broad class of chemically and physically diverse substances that can either be in a solid or liquid state, or in a combination of these two states. PM greater than 10 micrometres (μm) in size create problems such as visibility reduction, soiling, material damage, and vegetation damage. PM becomes a potential hazard to health when the particle size is less than 10 μm in diameter (PM10). In 2005, open sources (paved and unpaved roads, construction, agriculture, forest fires, etc) made up 95% of total PM, 91% of total PM10 emissions and 65% of total PM2.5 (the particle size is less than 2.5 μm in diameter) emissions in Canada (EC, 2008b). In 2000, the CCME developed the Canada-Wide Standards for PM and Ozone. The CCME established a Canada Wide Standard PM2.5 on a 24 hour average of 30 micrograms per cubic metre (µg/m3), based on the 98th percentile annual ambient measurements, averaged over three consecutive years. In 2006, the average fine particulate level (PM2.5) at the Wellington monitoring station was 10 μg/m3. To the end of September 2007, it was 11 μg/m3. PM10 data for the Study Area is not currently available.

Carbon Monoxide (CO)

Carbon monoxide (CO) is formed from the incomplete combustion of carbon compounds. CO can affect healthy individuals, impairing exercise capacity, visual perception, manual dexterity, learning functions, and ability to perform complex tasks. The main source of CO emissions are from the transportation sources (i.e., on-road and off-road motor vehicles and engines (EC, 2008c)). There are no monitoring stations recording CO concentrations in or near the Study Area. The PEI Air Quality regulations has set an air quality guideline for CO of 35 milligrams per cubic metre (mg/m3), for a 1 hour averaging period and 15 mg/m3 for an 8 hour averaging period.

Nitrogen Oxides (NO and NO2)

Nitric oxide (NO) is released in the exhaust of internal combustion engines and furnaces. NO is an unstable compound and is readily converted to nitrogen dioxide (NO2). NO2 contributes to the formation of acid rain by dissolving in water vapour. NO2 also interacts with other gases and particles in the air to form nitrates and other harmful products. These compounds can have adverse effects on human health and the environment by negatively impacting respiratory systems and causing damage to vegetation, buildings, and materials (EC, 2008c). The PEI Air Quality regulations has set an air quality guideline for NO2 of 400 μg/m3, for a 1-hour averaging period and 100 μg/m3 for a yearly averaging period.

Sulphur Dioxide (SO2)

SO2 is formed from the sulphur contained in oil, coal, and metal-containing ores during combustion and refining process. Like NO2, SO2 contributes to the formation of acid rain by dissolving in water vapour. It also interacts with other gases and particles in the air to form sulphates and other harmful products. SO2 can cause adverse effects on respiratory systems of



humans and animals, and damage to vegetation (EC, 2008c). Currently, PEI relies heavily on imported oil and imported energy production and space heating; each containing sulphur as an impurity in various concentrations. Ambient SO2 data for the Study Area are not currently available.

Ground Level Ozone

PEI sources do not contribute significant emissions which result in the creation of ground-level ozone. However, PEI experiences elevated concentrations of ground-level ozone, since it lies downwind of major urban and industrialized centres in the United States and central Canada. Ground-level ozone is formed as a result of a photochemical reaction between nitrogen oxides and hydrocarbons. It is mostly generated during daylight hours, with levels highest between late spring and early fall (Washburn & Gillis Associates Ltd, 1996). NAAQOs (Health Canada, 1999) provide a guideline for ground level ozone of 82 parts per billion (ppb) over a 1 hour averaging period. The Canada Wide Standard for ground-level ozone over an 8 hour averaging period is 65 ppb which is based on 4th highest annual ambient measurement, averaged over three consecutive years. In 2006, the average ground level ozone level recorded at the Wellington monitoring location was 58 ppb.

Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs)

VOCs all contain the element carbon, and are emitted as vapours readily at room-temperature and normal atmospheric pressure. Consequently there are thousands of organic compounds in the natural and polluted world that fit the definition of a VOC. However, most measurement programs have concentrated on the 50 to 150 most abundant hydrocarbons. VOCs are emitted from fuels, solvents, paints, glues, etc. Natural sources of VOCs include vegetation, forest fires, and animals. VOCs are primary precursors to the formation of PM and ground level ozone in the atmosphere which are the main ingredients in the formation of smog (EC, 2008c). VOCs are not currently monitored in the Study Area.

Carbon Dioxide (CO2)

CO2 is a significant and best known greenhouse gas. It is projected to account for approximately half of the anticipated world temperature increase. Major anthropogenic contributors of CO2 are stationary sources (such as power plants), mobile sources (particularly vehicles that burn fossil fuels, specifically oil, gasoline, and diesel), deforestation (resulting in permanent land use change), and industrial processes such as cement production. A global CO2 emission rate of approximately 23.9 giga tonnes (Gt) has recently been estimated by the Carbon Dioxide Information and Analysis Centre (CDIAC). Approximately 80 percent of the anthropogenic CO2 emissions are generated from fossil fuel burning and cement production. The remainder stems from deforestation (EC 2008b). Ambient CO2 values are not currently available for the Study Area. However CO2 becomes well-distributed through the global atmosphere, so ambient concentrations of this parameter at one place are not likely to be a concern with respect to this Project. Global levels in 2006 are at



380 parts per million by volume (ppmv) and growing at slightly less than 3 ppmv per year (Keeling and Whorf, 2005).

4.5 SOCIO-ECONOMIC SETTING

The proposed wind farm is located in the Lot 1 township 10 km north of the Village of Tignish in Prince County on the northernmost tip of PEI. The Project Area includes Tignish and the rural communities of Lot 1. The following sections describe the socio-economic setting of the area.

4.5.1 Population Demographics

The statistical region for this study is the Lot 1 Township and Royalty Census Agglomeration. Lot 1 includes the incorporated communities of Tignish and Tignish Shore, and several smaller unincorporated areas. Between 2001 and 2006, the population of the Lot 1 area experienced a slight decline of 1.0 percent from 1900 to 1881 (Table 4.6). During the same period the population Prince County remained essentially static. In contrast, the overall population of PEI increased by 0.4 percent during the same time period (Statistics Canada, 2008).

Table 4.6 Population Profile

Location 2001 2006 % Change

Lot 1 Township 1900 1881 -1.0

Prince County 44,495 44,499 0.0

PEI 135,294 135,294 +0.4

Population density for the Lot 1 area is 19.5 people per square kilometre, slightly less than the provincial average of 23.9 people per square kilometre (Statistics Canada, 2008). Approximately 40% of the population of Lot 1 is concentrated in the Community of Tignish with a density of 129.3 people per square km. The total number of occupied dwellings in the area was 665 in 2006. The number of owned dwellings accounted for approximately 93.2 percent of total dwellings and the number of rented dwellings is 6.7 percent. The average number of persons per household in 2006 was 2.8 which is slightly higher than the Provincial average of 2.5 (Statistics Canada, 2008). In 2006, the Lot 1 area had a working age population (those 15 years and over) of 1,495. The participation rate was 67.2 percent with an employment rate of 48.2 percent and an unemployment rate of 28.4 percent. The unemployment rate in PEI is lower, averaging 11.1 percent during 2006. In 2006 the average earnings for full time employees in the Lot 1 area was $30,029, 0.14 percent lower than the Provincial average (Statistics Canada, 2008).



Based on the 2006 Census, 46.5 percent of the population ages 15 to 64 have less than high school education (compared to 26.5 percent provincially). University degrees are held by 4.0 percent of the working age population (compared to 14.1 percent provincially).

4.5.2 Local Economy

The Study Area is located near the communities of North Cape, Norway and Seacow Pond in West Prince. West Prince refers to the western part of Prince County, which is also the western most county on PEI. North Cape houses the WEICan facilities formerly known as the Atlantic Wind Test Site. This site attracts a large number of tourists (over 75,000 visitors per year (Anne Arsenault, pers. comm., Tignish Initiatives Corporation 2010) which visit the wind energy interpretive centre and Black Marsh Trail. The restaurant and gift shop make approximately $500,000 in annual sales and employ 20 workers from mid-May to the end of October (Anne Arsenault, pers. comm., Tignish Initiatives Corporation, 2010). Norway is a small predominantly agricultural community whereas Seacow Pond is predominantly a fishing community with a small craft harbor. The closest towns to the Study Area are Tignish and Alberton located approximately 10 km and 30 km to the south, respectively. Tignish has a population size of approximately 800 people. It is essentially a fishing community with our fishers using nearby fishing ports of Tignish Run, Judes Point, Seacow Pond and Skinner’s Pond. Also, there is the opportunity for recreational fishing from many ponds, brooks and rivers that surround Tignish (www.tignish.com). The Town of Alberton has a population of approximately 1,100 people. Alberton is essentially a farming area as most of the land surrounding Alberton is farm land. Alberton also has a strong fishing community and is home to the Northport Harbour. There are over 90 businesses in the town of Alberton (www.townofalberton.ca) A review of the Lot 1 labour force by industry reveals that agriculture and resource-based occupations accounted for 33.5 percent of the workforce. Manufacturing accounted for 15.0 percent of jobs, followed closely by other services at 12.5 percent (Statistics Canada, 2008). Other industries include construction, retail, health care and social services. The closest city is Summerside located approximately 90 km to the south. Summerside has a rich history of shipbuilding and farming and a once thriving silver fox-farming industry. It was a stop on the inter-provincial railway and thus became a center for business and trade in western PEI. Royal Canadian Air Force (RCAF) Station Summerside was constructed between 1940 and 1941. It was renamed Canadian Forces Base (CFB) Summerside in 1968 and remained open until 1989. Following the closure of CFB Summerside the property was acquired by a private company, SPC. The area was renamed Slemon Park and is now home to companies in aviation, aerospace, diversified manufacturing, commercial and light industries. SPC owns and operates the Summerside Airport, Slemon Park Hotel, Anson's Restaurant and Pub and a residential housing operation.



4.5.3 Land Use

4.5.3.1 Industrial

Aeolus prototype V90 Approximately 1 km to the east of the project footprint is a V90 prototype which is owned by a subsidiary of Vestas Inc. and is located on provincial land (PEIEC property). This turbine was established in 2004 and is rated at 3 MW. WEICan Site WEICan’s turbine test area is located within 2 km of the project location. The focus at this facility is on research, testing and evaluating small wind turbines. Numbers of turbines and levels of operation vary from a few turbines to 15. Maximum output capacity is in the range of 600 kW but as a rule, functional output is about half of that. The PEI Wind-Hydrogen Village Project is also located at the WEICan site. It includes a hydrogen production station, a hydrogen storage depot, a hydrogen fuelled generator, and a wind-hydrogen integrated control system. Wind energy from the turbines at the WEICan Site is used to meet ongoing electricity needs and to provide power to electrolysis equipment which makes hydrogen from water.

North Cape Wind Farm

Located within 5 km to the north of the proposed project footprint is an existing wind farm. This wind farm was developed by the PEIEC and currently consists of 16 Vestas wind turbines, each rated at 660 kilowatt (kW), for a total capacity of 10.56 MW. The wind farm was developed in two phases with the first phase completed in 2001 and a second phase completed in 2003. The project is sited on land that is 70% public and 30% private with a total area of less than 1 square kilometer. The private landowners are paid $20,000 annually for the lease of their land. (CanWEA, 2006). Norway Wind Park (Suez site) To the southeast of the proposed project footprint is the Norway Wind Park. The wind farm is composed of 3 Vestas wind turbines, each rated at 3 MW, for a total capacity of rated at a capacity of 9 MW. The project is sited on private land. It is unknown what the private landowners are paid annually for the lease of their land. West Cape Wind Farm The West Cape Wind Farm is located approximately 35 to 40 km southeast of the proposed R&D Wind Park. This wind farm is composed of 55 wind turbines with a total capacity of 99 MW. In summary, there are five existing wind farm developments in Western PEI within 45 km of each other: WEICan site, North Cape Wind Park, Norway Wind Park, Aeolus Prototype Project, West Cape Wind Farm. The R&D Wind Park will be number six. These sites may have a potential for regional impacts on the environment.



Irish Moss Industry

The Irish moss industry was initially developed in the 1930’s and quickly grew into a multi-million dollar industry. This growth was largely due to the demand for the carrageenan that is extracted from this marine algae species. Irish moss was initially harvested using horse-drawn rakes to gather windswept moss after a storm. Since that time, the majority of the harvesting is done by boat (Community Museums Association of PEI, 2005). Within the project footprint is a road that is still being used for the Irish moss industry (DFO, 2010). Should WEICan select Option A, the road that was initially developed as shore access for Irish Moss Harvesting will be improved which would likely prove beneficial to the Irish moss industry. If Option B is selected, it is not anticipated with proper mitigation measures that the construction and operation of the wind park will negatively impact this industry.

4.5.3.2 Commercial

No commercial land uses have been identified as occurring within or adjacent to the Project footprint. The nearest commercial centre is the towns of Tignish and Alberton, which contains several retail and service businesses.

4.5.3.3 Residential

The Project Area is located in the extreme northern boundary West Prince in Prince County, PEI. The immediate environs of the Study Area are sparsely populated with the nearest residential homes are approximately 600, 700 and 775 m to the southwest of wind turbine 5.

4.5.3.4 Fisheries

Recreational Fisheries

There are no watercourses in or near the Study Area. The only recreational fisheries in the area would occur offshore in the Northumberland Strait. Consequently it is not anticipated that any of the project activities will impact this fisheries.

Commercial Fisheries

Commercial fisheries along the coast are predominantly for lobster, rock crab and Atlantic herring with the potential for commercial fishing of Atlantic herring and shark since their distribution is in the area. The lobster fishery along this section of the Northumberland Strait is conducted between mid-August to early October. The north shore fishery is conducted in early May to June whereas lobster fishing within the Gulf of Saint Lawrence occurs all season. Other miscellaneous harvesting that occurs offshore include harvesting of irish moss and kelp (DFO, 2010).

4.5.3.5 Agricultural

The proposed wind farm is located in an area of agriculture. The fields are primarily for growing potatoes in a three-year crop rotation along with barley and hay/clover. The area has been in agricultural production in excess of a century.



4.5.3.6 Forestry

There is no commercial forestry activity in the Project Area. The forested area in the Project Area and the environs is limited to portions of Black Marsh and isolated mixed forest stands.

4.5.4 Community Services and Infrastructure

4.5.4.1 Transportation Infrastructure

Roads

Highway 2 is the main highway that enters the region where the project is located. This highway terminates in Tignish. Travel northwest of Tignish can be on either Route 12 or Route 14. Route 12 goes toward Nelligan Road and then to Waterview Road whereas Route 14 goes to Norway Road and then to Waterview Road.

Rail

The railway transportation system ceased service on PEI on December 31, 1989 after 114 years of service. The railway beds have been converted into a multi-use trail system.

Air

The nearest airport to the Project Area is the Summerside Airport, located approximately 90 km away in Slemon Park. It features an 8000 foot runway, heated hangars, de-icing capabilities, landing/navigational equipment and re-fuelling capabilities. There are currently no commercial aircraft using this airport but it is open to service private, corporate, charter and military domestic and international flights. The Charlottetown Airport, approximately 150 km from the Project Area, services the commercial airline traffic to and from PEI. It features two runways (7000 and 5000 feet), landing/navigational equipment and a full service terminal building.

4.5.4.2 Electricity

PEI purchases electrical power from the Province of New Brunswick (NB). Maritime Electric Company Limited (MECL) operates two plants in PEI, one in Charlottetown and one in Borden to supplement the supply. The major development activity in the immediate project area is the development of wind energy. The project area lies within Zone 1 (Western Prince County) of the PEI Zone of Inclusion for the development of renewable energy and it is quite possible that future wind farm development will take place within the zone. The area has a wind regime which is highly desirable to developers. Currently, there are five existing wind farm developments in Western PEI within 45 km of each other: WEICan Site, North Cape Wind Park, Norway Wind Park, Aeolus Prototype Project, West Cape Wind Farm. The R&D Wind Park will be number six. In addition, the WEICan has in the past and will continue in the future to undertake research and evaluation of small scale wind turbines as a significant portion of its mandate.



At the project site there is a power line that runs along Waterview Road from an existing sub-station that is used as part of the North Cape Wind Farm. A 30 m line will be installed from the proposed sub-station to the existing power line.

4.5.4.3 Cultural/Institutional

The main towns in close proximity to the proposed project site are Tignish and Alberton. In Tignish, residents have access to the Community Library located in the Tignish Cultural Centre, can attend the St. Simon & St. Jude Catholic church as well as visit the Parochial House. There are several other community groups such as the Knights of Columbus and Royal Canadian Legion. With respect to education there is the Tignish elementary school from grades K–6, followed by Merritt E. Callaghan Intermediate and Westisle Composite High schools for grades 7–12. In addition, there is the Holland College, Dalton Centre community college where students can receive a post-secondary education in a variety of fields (www.tignish.com). In Alberton, residents have access to the Alberton Public Library as well as attend eight denominational churches. With respect to education, Alberton is serviced by both English language and French language school boards. For English language students the Alberton Elementary school from grades K–6, followed by Merritt E. Callaghan Intermediate and Westisle Composite High schools for grades 7–12. In addition, in 2011 Holland College will be opening a campus in Alberton. The programs will include small sport and leisure management, welding, outdoor power equipment, administrative assistant and small business management (www.townofalberton.ca).

4.5.4.4 Communication and Radar Systems

Aliant Inc. is the principal communications provider in PEI, and should be contacted prior to construction to identify any potentially affected infrastructure. Eastlink as well as Route 2 located in Summerside, PEI also provides telephone and cable television services to homes in the Western half of PEI. Wind turbines, like any tall structure, have the potential to affect the transmission of nearby radio frequency (RF) electromagnetic radiation (EMR) emitters, which are often located in the same open, elevated areas used for wind farms. The effects become serious when the turbine lies within the primary path of transmission to the receiver (Salema, 2001). Communication systems which use RF EMR include:

• amplitude modulated (AM) and frequency modulated (FM) radio broadcasting; • television (TV) broadcasting; • satellite based internet; • radar (weather, defense and air traffic); • Coast Guard and vessel traffic communications and radar systems; • cellular phones; and • mobile radios.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merritt_E._Callaghan_Intermediate�

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westisle_Composite_High_School�

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merritt_E._Callaghan_Intermediate�





TV interference is the most common problem associated with wind turbines. TV signals travel at the speed of light and antennae can receive signals from a number of paths. If one signal reflects from a tall structure, the signal delay can appear as a “ghost” image, which is a duplicate image that appears onscreen slightly right of the original. Digital and satellite systems are not affected by nearby tall structures (BBC, 2006). Approximately 10% of Canadians still use rabbit-ear antennae for television reception, though the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) has ordered that all analogue transmissions are to end August 31, 2011 (CBC, 2007). Reflection and diffraction delays are too short to be detected by audio or low-speed digital signals, such as radios and cellular phones (Salema, 2001). There are two cell phone towers located just south of Tignish, which are approximately 10 km from the Project Area (Nikkel, 2010). Studies have shown that, even with metallic turbines, FM radio interference is negligible outside a few tens of meters from the turbines, and only detectible in this range if the FM signal is particularly weak (Sengupta, 1984). For these reasons, interference is not expected outside the Project Area. RABC recommends that wind turbines be at least 80 km from EC Weather Radars (RABC, 2007). The nearest of these are located in Chipman, NB and Halifax, NS, which are both well outside this radius (EC, 2008d). The RABC also recommends that consultation with the Department of National Defence (DND) and TC take place early in the development of a wind farm. Wind farms which lie within the direct “line of site” to radar systems can create various forms of interference. Though all tall structures can interfere with radar, wind turbines are of unique concern as their rotating blades can mimic that of an aircraft, creating radar clutter. These effects are difficult to predict as DND radar and Air Traffic Control (ATC) radar have various coverage footprints and sensitivities. In addition, wind turbines can rotate 360° in order to accommodate wind direction, changing the radar cross section (RCS) accordingly (RABC, 2007). The International Energy Agency (IEA), however, concluded in their 2003 Wind Energy Annual Report that past concerns about radar interferences have been “overestimated” (IEA, 2004). The Project is located far from any private or public airport and therefore should not potentially affect air traffic systems as a 10 km consultation radius is recommended (RABC, 2007). Unlike the wind turbines used in the past, the wind turbine being proposed for the Project uses non-metallic blades. The blades will be constructed of a composite material, a high percentage of which will be carbon fibre. These materials significantly minimize any effects to EMR signals that occurred with metal blades in the past as these modern materials are “virtually transparent” to EMR signals, including radio, television and microwave transmissions (AusWEA, 2004; Swisher, 2006; Manwell, 2004). In addition, an assessment of the potential impact of the R&D wind park on radio communication, radar, and seismoacoustic systems is currently underway. It is being conducted according to the Radio Advisory Board of Canada and the Canadian Wind Energy



Association guideline (Technical Information Guidelines on the Assessment of Potential Impact of Wind Turbines on Radiocommunication, Radar and Seismoacoustic Systems). At this point the results are preliminary, and will require responses from a number of appropriate agencies. The preliminary results would indicate that the proposed wind park is not expected to have any significant impact on nearby radiocommunication, radar, and seismoacoustic systems. (WEICan Wind Farm – Radio Interference Assessment. Frontier Power Systems, 2010a (Appendix B)). A final assessment of the potential impact on these systems will be made when the appropriate agencies have responded.

4.5.4.5 Emergency Services

The Study area is covered by a province-wide 911 service. Medical Services

Medical services in the area are provided by the Western Hospital in Alberton. Western Hospital is a 27 bed acute care facility providing 24-hour emergency services, palliative care, laboratory and x-ray services, pharmacy, physiotherapy, occupational therapy, and nutrition counselling. Island emergency medical service (EMS) is the provincial ambulance provider and serve the study area from a depot based in Alberton. (PEI Department of Health, 2010). Fire Protection Services

There are three volunteer fire departments serving the area which are located in the communities of Tignish, Miminegash and Alberton. Police Protection Services

The area is patrolled by the West Prince RCMP detachment based in Alberton, located 20 km south of Tignish along the Western Road.

4.5.5 Existing Noise Level

No existing ambient noise level monitoring data are available for the Project Area. The Government of PEI has regulations for siting wind turbines at least four times their height from any residential area (Planning Act, Section 54.1 of the Subdivision and Development Regulations). Health Canada also has guidelines for noise and wind turbines. The Health Canada guidelines have been used as part of the assessment process for this Project. The predominant source of noise at North Cape is generated by the wind and surf. Other existing sources of noise in the project area would be associated with the existing wind turbines, activities at WEICan (e.g., wind-diesel research), tourist traffic and related establishments, agricultural activity and fishing operations support activities. A noise analysis has been conducted by Frontier Power Systems to determine if operation activities would negatively impact nearby residences (Appendix C). Based on the results of this modeling exercise, the presence of an existing wind farm and the distance of the proposed project from residences, it is not anticipated that project activities will increase the existing noise levels.



4.5.6 Heritage and Archaeological Resources

A Heritage Resource Impact Assessment (HRIA) is one component of an EA. The objectives of an HRIA are to identify, inventory, and evaluate all sites of archaeological, historical, and architectural significance within the project impact area and to assess the potential impact on these heritage resources. For the Project, the potential impact area includes the area where the proposed wind turbines will be erected and the transmission route to the on-site sub-station. The objectives of an HRIA are accomplished via a four-phase process:

• Phase 1: Background desktop review (documentary research, Regulator consultation). • Phase 2: Field examination (visual surface survey, informational interviews). • Phase 3: Field evaluation (archaeological survey). • Phase 4: Significance determination, impact assessment, mitigation, and contingency

plan. This four-phase process is approached sequentially and involves decision points along the way. While these steps are initially addressed in a linear fashion, they are actually iterative as circumstances commonly arise during the course of investigations that require previous phases to be revisited. Therefore, the specific methodology used or recommended for each phase is based upon the results obtained in the preceding phase. The information within this section provides a brief statement of the methodology utilized and relevant findings.

4.5.6.1 Phase 1 Background Desktop Review

Documentary background research was undertaken for the proposed Project area in order to assess the potential for heritage resources. This research included the following:

• reviewing present day and historic aerial photographs and topographic maps; • reviewing previous archaeological surveys conducted in the area; • reviewing documentation on existing identified heritage sites in the vicinity; • conducting a literature review of archaeological literature sources; • consulting with the provincial Regulator (Dr. Helen E. Kristmanson, Director, Aboriginal

Affairs and Archaeology, Department of Communities, Cultural Affairs and Labour, Government of PEI);

• identifying any National or Provincial historic sites in the area; • conducting a literature review of historical literature sources; and • making initial contact with potentially impacted First Nations groups.

There is evidence in the archaeological record that between 9,000 and 11,000 years ago there were people occupying areas of the present-day Maritime Provinces of Canada. These Palaeo-Indians, as they are now called, manufactured “lithic” (stone) tools of a typology called “fluted points”. These lithic points (“arrowheads”) have long narrow grooves on each side of the stone tool, which extend from the base of the point for some distance along each side. This technology is used to thin an area in order to haft the point to a wooden shaft. Stone artifacts of



this typology have been identified on coastline of North Eastern PEI at Basin Head (Keenlyside, 1982; Maloney, 1973). Therefore, we may conclude that there was a Paleo-Indian presence on PE, which could possibly include the Project area. Similar to the Passamaquoddy region in Charlotte County of NB (see Blair, 1999; Bishop, 1994; Black, 1984; Davis, 1982), there have been reported finds of “shell middens” along the coast of PEI (Maloney, 1973). Shell middens are mounds of discarded shellfish remains that are characteristic Pre-Contact campsites. Davis and Christianson’s coastal survey of Murray Harbour, on the east shore of PEI, identified three Pre-Contact oyster shell middens eroding from the shoreline (Davis and Christianson, 1981). The antiquity of the sites identified in the Passamaquoddy region reportedly range between 4000 and 1500 years before the present. While the documented topography of the Project area indicates that the ocean shoreline is steep-sloped, there remains the possibility of Pre-Contact shell midden sites in the vicinity of the Project area. According to historic Acadian mapping, in the mid-1700s the present day North Cape area was called “Pointe du Nord” at the northern most point, but the western side was called “Cap des Sauvages” (InfoPEI, 2009). This would seem to imply that this area was either occupied or frequented by the Native aboriginals during the French occupation of PEI. The first documented account of PEI was by Jacques Cartier in 1534 and was first mentioned as Isle St. Jean by Samuel de Champlain in 1604 (de Jong, 1973; InfoPEI, 2006). However, it would not be until the early 1700s that continuous occupation by European settlers was recorded. In the 16th and 17th centuries the island was reportedly only visited irregularly by fishermen and traders (de Jong, 1973). In the 1720s there was French settlement located at present-day Charlottetown (Port la Joie) and at Malpeque (de Jong, 1973; InfoPEI, 2006). In, the whole population of the Island was estimated at 1,354. The portions of the Island that were most settled in 1752 were the lands on both sides of Point Prim, in the vicinity of St. Peter’s Bay, Savage Harbor, Charlottetown Harbor, and Hillsborough Bay (InfoPEI, 2009). No accounts were found of French habitation within the Project area. Isle St. Jean changed hands from the French to the British, back to the French, and ultimately back to the British following the Treaty of Paris in 1763 (InfoPEI, 2006). During the 1760s the British, through Major Samuel Holland, surveyed and divided the island into 67 lots (Boylan, 1973). The present Project area is located on the most northwestern portion of PEI within Lot 1. The initial proprietor of Lot 1 was Philip Stephens, who was the Secretary to the Lords of the Admiralty. In 1838 the ownership of Lot 1 seemed to be under the superintendence of the Lord Chancellor as The Colonial Herald states that it was “in Chancery”. In 1864 “Messrs. Palmer and Ed. Cunard, Esq.” are listed as the proprietors of Lot 1. While there are numerous registered historic places in the Tignish area, southeast of the Project area, there is only one within 5 km of the Project area; the North Cape Lighthouse (1866). This historic lighthouse, one of the oldest in the province, is located at the northern tip of North Point at the end of Route 12. This historic structure is well outside of the proposed Project area.



As a result of initiating the preliminary background “desktop” review and applying a predictive model to the proposed Project area, it is evident that the North Cape coastal area in general has potential for both Pre-Contact and Historic heritage resources.

4.5.6.2 Phase 2 Field Examination

Field Examination

A field visual survey for this Project was conducted by AMEC archaeologist, Darcy Dignam over two field seasons due to revisions to proposed turbine locations. The initially proposed locations for turbines “TB1”, TB2”, and “TB3” were visually surveyed on September 2-3, 2009; while the locations for “TB1 Alt.”, TB3 Alt.”, and “TB4” were conducted on October 21, 2009. The exact locations of all proposed wind turbines, laydown areas, sub-station, and access roads were not known at that time. On November 5, 2010 a visual survey was conducted of the revised locations for the proposed six (6) wind turbines in addition to the locations for the proposed access roads, transmission lines, laydown areas, and substation. These investigations included informational interviews with local residents/landowners and a representative of the Mi’kmaq Confederacy of PEI and a pedestrian field visual survey of the Project area for the proposed locations of the wind turbines. All on-site investigations were conducted with the permission of the landowners. The surficial visual survey included walking to the stated placement of the proposed turbine and walking in the vicinity to identify any potential heritage impediments to that placement. This would include both existing heritage resources and any indicators of potential heritage resources (based on modeling). During the 2010 field examination, the perimeter of each laydown area was surveyed, as well as the proposed footing of the access roads, transmission lines, and the footprint of the substation. As a result of the background research and the 2009 visual survey, an historical heritage resource (an archaeological site) was identified in the vicinity of the proposed placement for Turbine 5, but outside the Project impact area. This archaeological site consists of a slightly mounded area on Nelligan Road where structures were located in 1935, but are no longer present (Figure 4.4). According to a local resident, there was a residential building located there that was constructed over 100 years ago by a Mr. Nelligan. While there were a few scattered stones over the site (possible foundation stones), there were no artifacts identified at the site. This historic archaeological site has been registered with the provincial regulator. Since this newly recorded site is outside of the Project area, it will not be impacted by the proposed development.



Figure 4.4 Archaeology Site Observed During 2009 Field Surveys



During the 2010 visual examination of the revised Project area another historic archaeological site was identified within the Project study area. In this case the physical evidence of the site is an artifact scatter in a ploughed potato field on Waterview Road. Specifically, the scatter is located where the substation is proposed, in the vicinity of Turbine 4. The historical aerials of this area (back to 1935) do not indicate a structure (or remnants) at this location. None of the local inhabitants of the area who were interviewed in 2009 recalled there being a structure at this location. Approximately 25 artifacts were collected from this site including coarse red earthenware sherds, white refined earthenware sherds, "black" bottle glass shards, and a flat glass shard. There were not many artifacts here. One would expect many more if there were structural remnants at that location. The artifacts collected are mostly from the 19th century. This historic archaeological site is presently in the process of being registered with the provincial regulator.

Informational Interviews

These investigations included informational interviews with local residents/landowners and a representative of the Mi’kmaq Confederacy of Prince Edward Island (MCPEI). Table 4.7 lists both the individuals contacted for informational purposes and a brief statement of the results of those encounters. As a result of the background research, the visual field survey, and the informational interviews, two historical heritage resources (archaeological sites) have been identified within the Project study area. The archaeological site located on Nelligan Road is the remnants of historic residential structures and has been registered with the provincial regulator as Site CgDa-1 Since this newly recorded site is located outside of the Project impact area, it will not be impacted by the proposed development. The historic archaeological site identified by an artifact scatter in the ploughed potato field on Waterview Road is located with the proposed footprint for the substation. While background research does not indicate that an historic structure was located there, the 19th century artifacts collected indicates an historic presence. Due to the small size of the artifact scatter, the fact that there does not appear to be structural remnants on this site (historic occupation) this site may simply be remnants of an historic refuse pile. Regardless, this is an archaeological site that should be considered during construction. Therefore, limited mitigation measures are recommended at this location in order to protect this archaeological site. While a Phase 3 field evaluation is not recommended for this site, construction monitoring by a licensed archaeologist is recommended at this location. This will ensure that in the off chance that there are remnants of an historic structural feature at this location, they can be properly identified and documented.



Table 4.7 Heritage Resources Contacts

Contact Affiliation Mode

of Contact

Results of Contact

Dr. Helen Kristmanson

Director, Aboriginal Affairs and Archaeology Aboriginal Affairs Secretariat Department of Health and Wellness Government of Prince Edward Island

Consult • Consultation regarding archaeological and heritage research materials and sources.

• Consultations on Project licensing, methodology, and reporting.

Tammy MacDonald

Director of Research, Mi’kmaq Confederacy of Prince Edward Island

Email &

Phone

Produced a memo addressing: • Archaeological Sites in the area – none • Historical use of the area – none • Oral History use of the area – none • Traditional (“Living Memory”) use of the

area – Harvesting plants: o Decorative plants – in area o Specialty woods – near area o Specialty wood and logs – near area o Medicinal plants – near area o Ceremonial plants – near area

Don MacKenzie

Legal/Band Government Advisor, Mi’kmaq Confederacy of Prince Edward Island

Email • No response to date

Wayne Brother of Landowner (Location of TB4 Alt.)

In person

• No knowledge of local heritage resources within the Project study area

• Assisted with access to the proposed location for TB4 Alt.

• Specifically, no memory of any structure being located within the Project area along Waterview Road.

Raymond (Wayne’s father)

Resident and local Landowner In person

• No knowledge of local heritage resources within the Project study area

• Specifically, no memory of any structure being located within the Project area along Waterview Road.

Mr. Gerald Hackett

Local Resident of Norway, PEI In person

• Confirmed site CgDa-1 as a past location of a residential building

• Noted that the building was occupied by a Mr. Nelligan (the Road’s namesake)

4.5.7 Recreation Areas and Tourism

The Tourism Industry brings approximately 1 million people to PEI annually and generates approximately $350 million in annual revenues (InfoPEI, 2010). There are several campgrounds, hotels/motels and bed and breakfasts within a short distance of the site. The 275 km Confederation Trail, a multi-use trail built on former railway beds, runs from one end of the Island to the other. It is used for running, walking and biking in the summer, and snowmobiling in the winter. The trail’s western terminus is in Tignish, 15 km from North Cape.



North Cape is located at the Northwestern tip of PEI on the North Cape Coastal Drive. The newly expanded interpretive centre at North Cape houses a series of state of the art displays dedicated to wind energy and development of special technology to harness it. The complex also houses The Wind & Reef Restaurant & Lounge, a marine aquarium and historical museum, a gift shop, and an interpretive centre (www.northcape.ca). North Cape is also home to an active historic lighthouse which was one of the first lighthouses on the Island, built to warn ships off the two-mile rock reef extending from North Cape. The Reef at North Cape is the longest natural rock reef in North America and the site of many shipwrecks. Visitors can walk out a half a mile onto the reef at low tide, and watch sea birds, seals, and other marine life. When the tides rise, witnesses can view the “meeting of the waters” as the Gulf of St. Lawrence and the Northumberland Strait come crashing together (www.northcape.ca). The area is also home to the Black Marsh trail, the only bilingual coastal nature trail on PEI. It provides interpretive displays on local fishing, erosion, natural growth, plants, birds, a write up on the legendary story of the Phantom Ghost Ship and the local history including the former Elephant Rock attraction. The 2.7 km trail winds through an open bog area and along the coastline allowing spectacular views of the Northumberland Strait and the rugged coastal terrain (www.northcape.ca). The concentration of wind turbines in the North Cape and Norway areas, in conjunction with the WEICan presence, the Wind Energy Interpretive Centre located in the North Cape Interpretive building and the Black Marsh trail system form a focus for an estimated 75,000 visitors per year (Tignish Initiatives Corporation, Oct. 2010), approximately 75% of whom visit the location during the summer and fall tourism period.

4.5.8 Land and Resources Used for Traditional Purposes by Aboriginal Persons

The closest First Nations reserve to the project is Lennox Island, situated in Malpeque Bay, some 45 km from the project site. The Lennox Island First Nation is located at the mouth of Malpeque Bay, and covers approximately 520 ha and has an estimated population of 245 residents. Archaeological evidence and oral traditions indicate a native presence on the shores of Malpeque Bay dating back 10,000 years. The Mi'kmaq people have had a permanent settlement on Lennox Island since at least the early 19th century. In the recent past peat and blueberry harvesting has been the cornerstone of the economy. These industries persist today and are complemented by a burgeoning ecotourism industry (Lennox Island, 2006). Aside from the Lennox Island First Nation population living on in Lennox Island, according to the Native Council of PEI, there are approximately another 2,300 people with Aboriginal origin in PEI. These people continue to pursue traditional activities throughout the province. As part of the Heritage Resources Component of the Preliminary Environmental Constraints Report prepared for WEICan by AMEC (09 December, 2009), an informal interview was conducted with a representative of the Mi’kmaq Confederacy of PEI. Since provincial crown lands are included in the project, the PEI Department of Transportation and Infrastructure

http://www.northcape.ca/�

http://www.northcape.ca/�



Renewal (PEIDTIR) are in the process of conducting an Aboriginal consultation and review with respect to the lands in question. It is ongoing at present. To date, there have been no indications to the proponent that the proposed wind park would have an adverse effect on traditional land use by Aboriginal people.

4.5.8.1 Aboriginal Fisheries

The lobster fishery, both as a commercial enterprise and a traditional food fishery, is a staple for the Aboriginal people. The wind farm project will not interact with these fisheries.

4.5.9 Safety Issues

There are several potential safety issues for both the public and on-site workers. The potential hazards from the construction and decommissioning phases are limited to the workers, as the public will be prevented from accessing the site. The exception to this would be the transportation of materials to and from the site which extends the spatial boundaries to include public roads. Any special permits required for the delivery of turbine components using over weight or non-compliant trucking configurations will be obtained. The potential hazards from the operation phase include maintenance activities, the potential formation of ice on the turbines, and the potential for breakage of turbines or turbine blades. Maintenance hazards are limited to workers but the other scenarios pose a risk to anyone that may be near the site. Structural failure of the turbines and rotors is a rare event but can be caused by material fatigue, rotor over-speed, poor maintenance or lightning strikes. There are also safety issues regarding human health, such as shadow flicker and excessive noise levels. The Project Area is set away from any residential subdivision area and the potential for interaction with the public is minimal.

4.5.10 Visual Landscape

The terrain of PEI is a predominantly flat to moderately undulating plain, best described as gently rolling (Agriculture Canada, 2006). Approximately 75% of the land surface is less than 45 metres above sea level (MASL) (PEI Department of Agriculture, Fisheries & Aquaculture (PEIDAFA), 2006). The land within the Study Area is level and flat with site topography sloping down toward the Black Marsh and then into the Northumberland Strait coastline. The Study Area will fall between the 10 and 15 m contour lines (PEIEEF, 2009). The North Cape Wind Farm exists just to the north of the proposed wind park. The Norway Wind Farm is southwest of the proposed project. Consequently is not anticipated that the addition of 5 wind turbines will further impact the visual landscape of the area.



5.0 IMPACT ASSESSMENT, MITIGATION AND RESIDUAL EFFECTS ASSESSMENT

The construction, operation, maintenance and decommissioning of the proposed wind park will have the potential to affect the biological, bio-physical and socio-economic environments. This section will describe potential interactions between the Project and the environmental components. As per the Environmental Impact Statement Guidelines for Screenings of Inland Wind Farms Under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, the assessment conducted following the six-step process outlined below:

• describing the project activities;* • identifying and describing the environmental component(s) that will be affected; • describing the impact of any interaction between the environment and the project; • describing the mitigation measure(s); • identifying any residual environmental effects after mitigation measures; and • determining the importance of effects after mitigation measures.

* Detailed project activities, for all Phases are provided in Section 2.

This was done in order to ensure that interactions between the project components and the environment were adequately described, that the likely environmental effects are identified and properly assessed, and that the importance of any residual effect is determined. Accidents and malfunctions are addressed in Section 5.8. The importance of effects after mitigation measures (residual effects) are determined using the definitions of level of impact established in the Guidelines (Table 5.1).

Table 5.1 Definitions of Level of Impact after Mitigation Measures Level Definition

High Potential impact could threaten sustainability of the resource and should be considered a management concern. Research, monitoring and/or recovery initiatives should be considered.

Medium Potential impact could result in a decline in resource to lower-than-baseline but stable levels in the Study Area after project closure and into the foreseeable future. Regional management actions such as research, monitoring and/or recovery initiatives may be required.

Low Potential impact may result in slight decline in resource in Study Area during life of the project. Regional management actions such as research, monitoring and/or recovery initiatives would not normally be required.

Minimal Potential impact may result in slight decline in resource in Study Area during construction phase, but should return to baseline levels.



5.1 GEOPHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT

5.1.1 Soil Quality

5.1.1.1 Pathways and Activities

There are several potential impacts to soil (e.g., soil admixing, erosion, compaction, and increased stoniness) that can occur during the activities associated with the construction phase of the project (e.g., construction and upgrading of roads, turbines foundation, substation, underground electrical cables installation, etc). Potential adverse impacts to soil during the decommissioning phase will be similar to the effects of construction activities.

5.1.1.2 Boundaries

Spatial boundaries are the areas to be cleared, grubbed and compacted. For the temporary work areas (lay down areas), the temporal boundaries are the number of weeks in 2011-2012, when the construction activities occur, as well as a similar number of weeks during the de-commissioning phase. For the turbine foundations, roads, substation and parking lot, the temporal boundaries are the operations phase or the duration of the wind farm.

5.1.1.3 Impact Assessment

The potential interactions associated with the project construction phase and soils; which could result in a reduction in localized soil quality are:

• Soil Admixing. • Soil Erosion. • Soil Compaction. • Loss of Productive Area.

Soil Admixing It is expected that topsoil stripping (layer of peat) in the proposed project for turbines 1-3 will range between 0.6 to 1.9 m. The actual depth of stripping for turbines 4 and 5 will range between 0.1 to 0.15 m and will depend on slope position and agricultural practices. If proper measures are not employed top soil stripping can result in a degradation of soil quality by combining productive top soil with subsurface layers. Soil Erosion Freshly exposed soil has a higher risk of erosion especially should precipitation or high winds occur. The lay down areas and work sites will be grubbed of their top soil, thereby exposing these areas to the physical elements that cause soil erosion. Soil Compaction Soil compaction is required to construct the access roads and crane operating pads to the load bearing capacity required for the delivery trucks and crane. The roads and crane operating



pads will remain in this compacted condition for the duration of the wind farm’s existence. Compaction will also occur as a result of the use of heavy equipment and vehicle traffic on the lay down areas. Loss of Productive Area The footprint of the project components (turbine foundations, roads, parking lot and sub station) represents a loss of productive area in terms of current utilization. Area removed from agricultural or forest production is minimal and project activities will not affect the ability of the land owner to cultivate/manage the remaining area.

5.1.1.4 Mitigation

• The potential for soil admixing to occur will be mitigated through the stripping of topsoil from any area which requires grading and the storage of the topsoil separately from the subsoil for reuse during rehabilitation of the site.

• During the excavation for the foundation, any shallow soft rock that may be encountered will not be mixed with the topsoil.

• Because soil admixing can also result from excessive rutting of access roads, travel on the access roads will be limited following periods of heavy rain.

• Soil erosion will be mitigated by minimizing of topsoil stripping. • The time between topsoil storage and reclamation will be minimized, thus reducing

exposure of the topsoil to the wind. • Proper drainage will be incorporated into both road and foundation designs. • Approximately 1 year after construction of the wind facility has been completed, a survey

will be undertaken to ensure the long-term erosion control measures have been effective.

• If erosion control measures have not been effective, additional mitigation measures will be implemented.

• The private land owners will be compensated for land removed from production as part of the land rental agreements.

• Top soil removed from the footprint of all areas grubbed will be stored and utilized in site rehabilitations.

• During the operation phase, maintenance activities will be confined to access roads.

5.1.1.5 Residual Impacts

It is anticipated that the residual adverse effects of the project on the soil resource will be minimal after the mitigation measures described above, are implemented throughout the different phases of the project.



5.2 TERRESTRIAL ENVIRONMENT

5.2.1 Fauna

5.2.1.1 Local and Migratory Birds

The federal MBCA affords protection to all migratory birds. The Act states that no person may disturb, destroy, or take/have in their possession a migratory bird (alive or dead), or its nest or eggs, except under authority of a permit. The Act also protects bird species listed in the CWS Occasional Paper Birds Protected in Canada under the MBCA. It is important to note that some of the birds on this list do not migrate and some of the birds that are excluded are not hawks or owls. Birds have long been a concern for wind turbine generators, particularly due to the potential for collisions with the turbines. The impact best known to the public is the potential for direct bird mortality due to collisions with turbines, but other potential impacts are mortality from collisions with guy wires, power lines, loss or degradation of habitat, disturbance, barrier effect, interference with normal behaviour (such as feeding, breeding), etc. These effects can be caused by activities associated with construction, operation and decommissioning of the wind farm. A detailed literature review of the interactions between birds and wind farms is provided in the bird survey report in Appendix A. This review documents the different potential impacts and their significance on breeding/resident birds, migrating birds and by bird species and/or species groups. Any bird using the wind farm area may be impacted by the wind farm related structures and activities. Field surveys were conducted throughout in the summer of 2008 and in the spring, summer and fall seasons of 2009 to determine if there are breeding birds, resident non-breeding birds, migratory birds or wintering birds which use the Project Area at different times of the year. 5.2.1.1.1 Pathways and Activities Birds can potentially be impacted by a number of structures and activities related to all project phases of a proposed wind park. The potential impacts vary with the project phase. Table 5.2 below summarizes the potential project interactions with birds, for all phases. Project boundaries are included as well. Impacts from the decommissioning phase will be largely similar to impacts from the construction phase, though the impacts will be less intense. Effects of wind turbine developments on birds fall mainly into two categories: indirect effects due to habitat loss and disturbance, among others, as well as the direct effect of injury or mortality through collisions.

Construction and Decommissioning

During construction and decommissioning phases, the activities related to construction of roads, buildings, turbines and utility lines, such as clearing and grading and turbine assembly, or their removal, can result in temporary disturbance of birds due to noise, visual impacts and the presence of humans (workers in the area). Also, land will be used for the footprint of the turbines, meteorological mast, buildings, access road and lay-down areas, resulting in an



intermittent or permanent loss, fragmentation, alteration or degradation of breeding, feeding and resting habitat. Also, there may be a risk for exposure to contaminants, particularly to hazardous materials such as oil from building or turbine equipment or equipment refuelling.

Table 5.2 Potential Impacts on Birds

Potential Impact Project Activity or Structure Pathway

Duration and Physical

Boundaries Construction Phase/Decommissioning Phase

Habitat loss, alteration and degradation (resulting in loss of birds)

Site clearing and grading, construction of turbines, substation and roads. Construction equipment travel.

Habitat destruction, habitat fragmentation; introduction of invasive plant species resulting in habitat degradation; changes to the water regime resulting in habitat degradation.

Long-term in the project foot-prints (tower pads, roads, ancillary structures2

Short-term in lay-down areas, as original habitat should be restored.

Direct injury or mortality

Site clearing and grading, construction of turbines, substation and roads, construction equipment travel.

Nests or eggs destroyed by land clearing during breeding season; collisions with construction equipment.

Short-term, but may have long-term effects; project footprint.

Disturbance of normal behaviour: foraging and breeding; Habitat avoidance: disturbance/displacement/ exclusion of birds

Site clearing and grading, construction of turbines, substation and roads, construction equipment travel

Noise from construction activities including blasting and equipment travel, resulting in habitat avoidance; presence of humans; habitat destruction

Short-term; Project Area

Disturbance of normal behaviour: migration and commuting


Disruption of migratory movements; avoidance of construction areas for resting and feeding due to noise, presence of humans, habitat destruction.

Short-term; Project Area

Mortality or health impacts from exposure to toxic contaminants

Accidental spills during equipment refueling; Leakage of stored fuels or toxic chemicals (such as transmission oil for the turbines)

Exposure to toxic chemicals, including gasoline from accidental spills

Short-term and restricted to the location where the spill occurred

Respiratory health


Emissions of fugitive dust Short-term; Project Area






Boundaries

Drinking water supply


Erosion and run-off Short-term, but may extend beyond Project Area.

Operation and Maintenance

Habitat loss, alteration and degradation (resulting in loss of birds)

Maintenance visits and public access to the area; existence of access roads

Introduction of invasive plant species.

Short-term and long-term; in the project footprint (tower pads, roads, ancillary structures2.

Direct injury or mortality

Presence and operation of turbines, turbine lights; and guy wires on meteorological mast;

Collisions with the Structures, increased predation if project structures can be used for perching by raptors

Long-term, but restricted to Project Area and low magnitude, project footprint

Direct injury or mortality to nest and young

Maintenance of access roads, turbine site and substation site maintenance

Mowing or cutting of vegetation

Short-term, but repeatedly; restricted to Project Area

Disturbance of migration and daily movements (barrier effect)

Presence and arrangement of turbines

Turbine size, arrangement, and wing movement may form a visual barrier to bird movement, potentially exacerbated by noise

Long-term, restricted to Project Area

Disturbance of normal behaviour: foraging and breeding; habitat avoidance, displacement/ exclusion of birds

Turbine operations, maintenance using motor vehicles, vegetation management

Noise from turbine operation and maintenance activities, as well as the presence of turbines and wing movement may result in avoidance of Project Area

Short-term and long-term; greatest effect in areas with the highest noise; particularly along access roads and at turbine locations.

Disturbance of normal behaviour: foraging and breeding; habitat avoidance, displacement/exclusion of birds

Daily presence of humans and vehicles (maintenance and visitors)

Disturbance of normal behaviour such as feeding, breeding

Short-term and long term, mostly restricted to the area around access roads and turbine pads

Mortality or health impacts from exposure to toxic contaminants

Accidental spills or releases of transmission oils and/or vehicle fuel

Exposure to toxic chemicals

Short-term or long-term; restricted to the location where the spill occurred

Drinking water supply Roads and turbine pads Erosion and run-off

Short-term, but may extend beyond Project Area.






Boundaries

Fire

Fires caused by construction activities (land clearing), Access to the area by visors, including visitor vehicles

Fire may result in mortality, and reduction of habitat quality due to loss of vegetation or establishment of invasive species.

Short-term; Project Area and potentially beyond

Notes: 1 Table is based on Bureau of Land Management (BLM), 2004 2 On-site power lines will be underground. There will be no new utility corridors.

Other potential pathways may be fugitive dust for the construction and movement of construction equipment, negative changes to water quality due to erosion and run-off, and introduction and spread of invasive vegetation that may result in habitat degradation. Also, construction may lead to direct injury or death of adult birds, nestlings or eggs through collisions or the destruction of nests, depending on the timing of the construction activities. During the construction and de-commissioning phase, the biggest effects on birds are expected from the disturbance of habitat (BLM, 2004).

Impact Assessment – Habitat Loss

During the construction of the wind park, habitat will be lost, altered and fragmented. This will be the biggest impact on birds during this project phase (BLM, 2004). Avoidance of areas by birds can be considered to be in effect a loss of habitat, even though the habitat is not destroyed. In this section, loss of habitat by destruction, as well as modification and degradation are considered, while avoidance will be dealt with in a later section. During the construction of the wind park, there will be loss of habitat, as a certain area of land will be used for turbine pads, access roads and the substation. This will result in permanent loss of potential habitat, as well as feeding and resting habitat for non-breeding and migrating birds. Other land will be used for lay-down areas. Habitat on this land will be altered and disturbed, and should return to the original vegetation immediately after the end of construction. This impact will consist of a short-term loss of habitat for one or a limited number of years, until the vegetation has recovered. Bird use of this land for feeding and resting will only be impacted for the duration of construction work itself, i.e. a few weeks at each location. However, since the habitat will be altered until it has recovered the composition of the bird species using a particular area will be changed to reflect their different feeding habits. Generally, the impact of habitat loss and alteration due to the Project would be considered moderate. Turbines 1, 2 and 3 will be located in a forested wetland whereas turbines 4 and 5 are located in agricultural fields. The amount of habitat that will be disturbed is small compared



to the total available in the Project Area. For the wetland sites, special measures will be employed to minimize the area cleared (see following section). Birds that are breeding, feeding or resting, including migrating birds, will be permanently or temporarily displaced from the destroyed or altered habitat. Consequently, displaced birds may not find territory elsewhere (Rosemary Curley, personal communication). According to CWS (2007), “wind farms may have a greater negative impact on waterbirds when a significant proportion of a local resource is displaced.” Potentially sensitive areas may include those close to breeding colonies, and/or linked to distribution of food supply (Percival, 2001). The study area near the tip of North Cape, is estimated at 50-100 hectares, about equally divided between second-growth mixed forest and agricultural fields. Given the limited number of turbines proposed it is unlikely that habitat loss due to construction of roads, turbines and other associated structures will have an appreciable negative impact on species diversity or numbers (Dalzell, B., 2010). Care should be taken so that no unique habitat types are destroyed. All habitat found on turbine locations should be available in surrounding areas. Therefore, no bird species should be permanently displaced from the Project Area. The limited variety of habitats in the Project Area facilitates this approach. Therefore, feeding and resting birds can easily move a short distance to find suitable habitat, and the overall small reduction in habitat area should not result in negative impacts due to restriction of the food supply, which could result in competition and maybe loss of birds. There may be displacement of some breeding birds due to competition for suitable territory, if the remaining habitat is at its carrying capacity, which is not known.

Mitigation – Habitat Loss

Suggested mitigation measures include avoidance of unique habitat types and reduction measures. Turbines have been placed in order to minimize the potential of interaction with the Canada warbler which were noted in the Study Area. It is not anticipated that project activities will remove habitat the breeding pairs were observed to utilize. Measures to prevent or minimize impacts on the hydrological regime and the introduction of invasive plant species as discussed and outlined in the section on wetlands (Section 5.3) will mitigate bird habitat effects as well.

5.2.1.2 Impact Assessment – Disturbance and Avoidance

The sight and sound of humans and vehicles and other engines are known to disturb birds. These effects therefore can occur during the construction phase as well as the operations phase, which includes maintenance activities and turbine monitoring by wind park personnel. The disturbance can result in interruption of the regular behaviour, such as feeding, migrating and breeding. Birds tend to avoid areas where they are disturbed. If birds are displaced to avoid disturbance, this effectively means a loss in suitable habitat. Disturbance effects are species, season, and site-specific (Langston and Pullan, 2003). There are few studies on disturbance effects, and often there are no conclusive results (Langston and Pullan, 2003).



Some species may habituate to these new conditions, but others do not appear to be able to do this (Langston and Pullan, 2003). The sensitivity to disturbance varies from species to species, and may also vary with the type of behaviour that is influenced. Studies in the Netherlands demonstrated that breeding bird density near roads was less than the density away from roads (from BLM, 2004). Monitoring studies of wind farms showed that, in a given species, breeding birds were much less sensitive to turbine presences than migrating, resting birds (German Wind Energy Association, 2005). Sounds produced by the turbine may also disturb birds, but many birds adapt to the presence over time and progressively move closer to the turbines – a behaviour known as “habituation”. Since disturbance and avoidance vary from species to species, and may also vary depending on the status of the bird (breeding, floating, migrating), the impact assessment will be carried out for separate species groups, where necessary and where literature data are available. Impacts will be more important for species-at-risk, or protected species such as migrating birds. Impacts would be larger for previously undisturbed areas. Though the frequency of pre-construction visitors in the Project Area is not known, the presence of agricultural land, usage of Waterview Road for Irish moss collecting and presence of a nature trail is evidence that this area is not “previously undisturbed”. Appendix A, Bird Survey Results, reviews in detail the current knowledge of avian species in the Study Area and all of the potential impacts that the proposed Project may have on them as well as their habitat. Mitigation and monitoring that can be implemented to lessen such impacts is also discussed.

5.2.1.3 Bats

5.2.1.3.1 Pathways and Activities Bats present in the Project Area could potentially be impacted by activities during the construction and the operational phase of the project. Impacts from the decommissioning phase are not expected, since all the work would be done during the day, when bats are not active, and there would be no destruction of vegetation where some bat species may roost.

Construction

During the construction phase, bats could potentially be affected indirectly by reduction in quality and quantity of habitat. They could also be impacted directly through killing of individuals during the land clearing activity. Human presence could also disturb bats.

Operations

During the operational phase, bats could be affected by collisions with turbines or infrastructure such as buildings, power lines, etc, or by noise from the turbines if it interferes with foraging. They could also be attracted to or repelled by the turbine noise. Turbines may affect the distribution of insect prey. Human presence could also disturb bats.



5.2.1.3.2 Boundaries The immediate spatial boundaries are the Project Area, in particular the turbine sites, the roads and the ancillary infrastructure such as the sub-station. Population level impacts to bat species could also occur on larger scale, as bats presumably hibernate elsewhere on PEI or in nearby Nova Scotia or New Brunswick. Temporal boundaries are the construction phase, i.e. winter through late Spring 2011, as well as the operational phase, i.e. 25 years from the start of the first turbines in late Fall or early Winter 2011. This timeframe will have to be extended if refurbishment of the turbines occurs. 5.2.1.3.3 Impact Assessment There are three bat species know to occur on PEI. None of these bat species are protected by statute, however, the Northern long-eared bat is listed as S1S2 by ACCDC. There are no known caves or old mines in the immediate vicinity which could be used as hibernacula by the Northern long-eared bat, but nightly foraging flights could occur through the Project Area. Overall, habitat quality is low for the Northern long-eared bat, which prefers interior forest habitats. The site could, however, support low numbers of foraging long-eared bats during the summer months. Impacts on bats could result from direct effects such as death of individuals related to project infrastructure and activities, or indirect impacts due to loss and/or alteration of habitat. Whether an impact is significant depends on the number of bats impacted and the vulnerability of the species. Evidence (monitoring September-October 2010) to date suggests that the number of bats using the Project site for foraging activities is likely quite low. It is unlikely that maternity colonies are present on the site during summer, due to the poor quality stunted coastal black spruce forest. In addition, there are no known bat hibernacula on the site where vulnerable bats may congregate in large numbers.

Construction

During the construction phase, bats could potentially be impacted by the destruction of habitat, or directly through killing of roosting individuals during land clearing activities. Construction of the turbines is scheduled to start in winter of 2011, and is expected to continue for up to 14 months. During the early spring and fall, any bats which utilize the Project site would be hibernating. It is not likely that these hibernating bats will be present on the Project site during construction, due to the absence of suitable hibernating caves. However, bats, including the Northern long-eared bat, could be present during the summer construction phase. If large trees with suitable cavities exist in the Study Area, they could be home to potential nurseries containing flightless young. However, this is unlikely for Northern long-eared bats, given the nature of the stunted coniferous forest. Noise from construction will not impact bat foraging activities, as construction activities will not occur at night.



Operation

Potential impacts to bats during the operational period are discussed in the following subsections.

Bat collisions

During the operational phase, there is a potential risk to bats from collisions with turbines or ancillary structures. Bats have been shown to be killed by the collision with the turning rotor blades of turbines (Horn et al., 2004), though the mechanism is unclear. It has been suggested that tree-roosting bats mistake the turbine monopoles for roost trees and fly into the rotor blades (Ahlen 2003). While bats have been shown fly and feed in close proximity to the wind turbines (Ahlen 2003, Horn et al. 2004), echolocation is relatively ineffective at distances greater than 10m for most bats species, so bats foraging around turbines may fail to predict rotor velocity or to detect the large rapidly moving turbine blades (Ahlen 2003). Some flying insects are attracted to the heat provided by nacelles, resulting in attraction of insect-feeding bats (Ahlen 2003).It has also been suggested that the clearing of treed areas around turbine sites creates habitat conducive to the aerial insects which most bats feed upon (Grindal and Brigham 1998), thereby indirectly attracting foraging bats (Limpens and Kapteyn 1991, Verboom and Spoelstra 1999, Menzel et al. 2005). The risk for resident bats is different from the risk to migrating bats. Resident bats include the little brown and northern long eared bats, though these species may migrate short distances (a few hundred km) to hibernacula, while migratory bats include the hoary bat, which migrates south for winter rather than hibernating. Though there is a risk of fatal collisions with turbines when bats are present, most published reports show that mortality of resident bats is generally low, though numbers may vary with the location of the wind farm. Erickson et al. (2002) state that the collision risk for resident breeding bats is virtually nil, resulting in no apparent impact on resident breeding bats. In addition, the risk to bats is somewhat correlated with the number of passes a bat makes across wind turbines (one mortality for every 70 passes) (Johnson et al., 2002, in Erickson et al., 2002). Collision risk is low because bats generally forage below 25 m height (Erickson et al., 2002). As the lowest blade height for the turbine model chosen for the WEICan wind farm is approximately 33 m, bats will only infrequently fly within the blade height, particularly since the trees in the area are short. Broders et al., (2003) have found that little brown bats and Northern long-eared bats are typically caught near ground level. In North Cape, the number of bats living and foraging in the area is likely low, since the habitat appears to be of low quality due to the lack of large roosting trees, structures or caves, and the exposed coastal nature of the site. Therefore, the risk from turbine strikes to resident bats at the Project Site is considered low. Migrating bats are known to be at a higher risk from collisions with turbines than resident bats (Keeley et al., 2001; Erickson et al., 2002), possibly because it is believed rely on sight more than echolocation while migrating (Curry and Kerlinger 2005; Van Gelder, 1956 in Keeley et al., 2001). Also, long distance migrants such as hoary or red bats (Lasiurus spp) may be more



likely to fly through open areas, and to fly at heights that would bring them into contact with turbine blades or cables used for anchoring turbines or communication towers than short distance migrants such as Myotis sp. (Keeley et al., 2001). Again, the risk is positively correlated with the number of bats passing through the turbine area. The fact that hoary bats are considered to be rare migrants in PEI (Henderson et al. 2009), and that red bats have only been reported once, indicates that the impacts from the proposed Project on migratory bats will be minimal to nonexistent. There will be negligible impacts from collisions with guy wires, since these will not be used for the attachment of turbines. Only the meteorological tower on site will be supported by guy wires. The risk from collisions with power lines is considered negligible, since all on-site power lines will be underground, except for a short 20 m section at each turbine. A recent review of available literature by Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources (OMNR, 2006) stated that general observations to date indicate that bats do not typically collide with turbine towers, transmission structures, guy wires, or meteorological towers (i.e., stationary structures). Noise Impacts During the operational phase, bats could also be impacted by noises emitted by the turbines. Wind turbines are known to emit noises. Bats might be impacted by noise from the turbines if it affects foraging. As bats use ultrasound (20 kilohertz (kHz) and up) for echolocation of prey, there could potentially be interference with foraging activities, if the sounds from the turbine cover the frequencies that bats use for echolocation. The frequencies and volume of sound in the 20 – 60 kHz range are of particular interest. Sounds emanating from wind farms could potentially result in bats avoiding the area, or conversely, may attract bats to the turbines (Keeley et al., 2001, Schmidt and Joermann 1986), potentially increasing the risk of collisions. However, since bats were found to forage at distances as close as 1 m from a moving turbine blade (Bach et al., 1999, in Keeley et al., 2001), it appears unlikely that bats would avoid a wind farm because of noise. They have been shown via thermal imaging to fly and feed in close proximity to the wind turbines (Ahlen 2003, Horn et al. 2007). Erickson et al. (2002) stated there is no impact of turbine noise on echolocation, as bats are generally able to avoid moving turbine blades, because only few resident bats collide with the turbines, even if there is a high level of bat activity around turbines. Therefore, sound emissions from turbines are not expected to adversely affect foraging activities or lead to displacement of bats. Human Presence The presence of people in the area on a regular basis could potentially affect bats. Since bats are nocturnal, it is not likely that they would be negatively affected by the infrequent presence of humans during the day. Turbine inspections, maintenance or general visits to the wind farm would only occur during the day. Also, several bats species are known to use attics or similar structures for roosting, indicating that these species are somewhat tolerant of human beings. Recreational activities, noise from construction (vehicles, heavy machinery), and other human disturbances near roosting sites may also have an effect (Garcia et al., 1995) and could lead to abandonment of summer roosts. The low numbers of bats likely using the project site makes



this impact insignificant at the population level. Therefore, impacts from the presence of humans are not expected. Spills and Leaks Spills of toxic chemicals on the site such as fuels and lubricants could also potentially affect bats. The immediate clean up of spills of toxic chemicals is part of the EMP (to be provided) and wetland-spill mitigation for the proposed Project. Therefore, adverse effects on bats from spills are not likely. See Section 5.12 for measures to address Accidents and Malfunctions. Changes in Pressure The vortices created at the turbine blade tips may also injure bats, causing rapid decompression due to changes in atmospheric pressure as the rotor blades rotate downward. Evidence for this comes from the fact that some bats killed at wind turbines show no sign of external injury, but necropsies have shown signs of internal organ damage consistent with decompression. Other Impacts Some bats are known to be sensitive to magnetic fields, (Buchler and Wasilewski 1985; Holland et al. 2006), it is possible that the complex electromagnetic fields produced by turbines around nacelles may interfere with perception in these species. Further research is required to determine the extent of this effect, if any, though such research is beyond the scope of this project. 5.2.1.3.4 Mitigation In order to protect bat roosting areas it is recommended that the removal of tall trees and snags be limited to the areas where it is absolutely necessary for the project construction. Avoidance of clearing and grubbing activities during the late spring and summer months (May 1 to August 30) will minimize impact to breeding and roosting bats. It is recommended that monitoring of the turbines for bat strikes be carried out for a limited time during the construction and operation phase. Surveys should occur throughout the migration period in spring and late summer, early fall (i.e., April/May and August/September). Surveys should be conducted by a person with knowledge of bat identification, early in the morning around the bases of the turbines, extending outward from the base to a 50 m radius. If dead bats are found, they should be identified to species, photographed, collected and given an identification number. Information on the location, condition of the bat and of weather conditions the previous night should also be recorded. This data should be reported to the PEIDEEF. If mortalities occur in numbers that may cause concern, discussions with the PEIDEEF should be conducted to identify additional potential mitigation measures. 5.2.1.3.5 Residual Impacts Significant adverse impacts are unlikely. There is potential that there will be bat mortalities due to the Project, however these mortalities are expected to be small in number and will not affect the overall population of bats in the area.



5.2.2 Species-at-Risk

5.2.2.1 Flora Species-at-Risk

Over half of the Project area consists of a wetland complex made up of meadow, shrub and forested wetland. The Project Area is of relatively moderate vegetative diversity and with a portion in a manipulated nature (agriculture lands). For the areas that are currently cultivated, fallow or abandoned agriculture lands it is expected that the potential for floral Species-at-Risk is low. However, as noted in Section 4.3.3.1 floral Species-at-Risk were identified in the wetland portion of the Study Area. A field survey of the Project Area was conducted on August 11th to 13th, 2010 by Christina LaFlamme, Botanist, AMEC Earth and Environmental for all the proposed Project foot prints and unique surrounding habitat features. None of the species identified are listed by SARA or COSEWIC. In addition, the several of the Species-at-Risk identified were found throughout the Study Area or confined to areas that will not be impacted by project activities. Consequently, no significant adverse effects on plant species are likely in those circumstances. 5.2.2.1.1 Pathways and Activities

Construction

Potential Project interactions with Flora Species-at-Risk and related effects resulting from Project construction activities are:

• Clearing, grubbing, and excavation activities. Accidental release of hazardous materials/ contaminant mobilization is addressed in Section 5.8 Accidents and Malfunctions.

Operations

There are no project interactions with floral Species-at-Risk during operations. 5.2.2.1.2 Boundaries The bounded area within which proposed Project activities could potentially interact with Species-at-Risk is considered to be the Project Site. In this context, a significant adverse effect on Species-at-Risk is defined as any effect resulting in a sustained suppression of fitness to maintain the population, or a decrease in density of the population below naturally occurring levels. For species designated as endangered (or significant for other reasons), the loss of these species at an individual level may be considered a significant adverse effect. The temporal boundaries are limited to the duration of clearing, grubbing excavation activities. 5.2.2.1.3 Impact Assessment

Clearing, Grubbing, and Excavation Activities

Several plant Species-at-Risk have been identified as occurring within 5 km of the Project Area by AC CDC, some of which were observed in the field survey conducted in 2010.



5.2.2.2 Recommended Mitigation

The following mitigation to minimize adverse effects on floral Species-at-Risk is recommended: • The area cleared will not exceed the absolute minimum amount necessary. • Materials cleared from the sites (brush, logs, soil, etc.) should not be dumped into

otherwise unaffected land. • Native plant regeneration will be promoted in any areas that are cleared but not built

upon (i.e. roadside ditches, temporary laydown areas, etc.). • Alterations to existing natural drainage patterns will be minimized. • Utilize erosion prevention methods as stated in the SSEPP. • Additional mitigative measures identified for protection of wetland habitats will also

minimize the likelihood of adverse effects on floral Species-at-Risk.

5.2.2.3 Significance of Residual Effects

It is not likely that significant adverse residual effects will result from Project interactions with proper implementation of the identified mitigation measures.

5.2.2.4 Faunal Species-at-Risk

Bird Species-at-Risk Several bird Species-at-Risk were identified by AC CDC to occur within 5 km of the Study Area. Of those identified by AC CDC only the Canada Warbler and Black Guillemot were observed during the field surveys conducted by Brian Dalzell (2010). The Canada Warbler is listed as Threatened under both COSEWIC and SARA. No impact is anticipated to occur to the Black Guillemot due since it seldom flies more than 10 m above the ocean’s surface. The significance of any effect on bird Species-at-Risk will depend in part on the permanence of that effect and the sensitivity of the particular species or habitat component effected. Based on recommendations in Dalzell (2010), the most sensitive bird habitat features required by the Canada Warbler have been avoided.

Fish Species-at-Risk

COSEWIC designates the striped bass as Threatened and the American eel as a Species of Special Concern within the province. The project will not interact with fish or fish habitat.

Invertebrate Species-at-Risk

SARA lists the Monarch butterfly as Species of Special Concern. The ACCDC data request did not identify any occurrences of the monarch butterfly within 5 km of the Project Area, however the common least skipper was identified. Neither species was identified during the field surveys. The occurrence of the Monarch butterfly is highly related to the presence of the common milkweed (Asclepias syriaca). Milkweed is preferred by the Monarch butterfly for larval feeding and as a location for pupation and oviposition. No milkweed was observed during the 2010



vegetation survey. All areas to be disturbed will be surveyed prior to construction. If milkweed is found, they will be examined for pupa, chrysalis, or eggs. The common least skipper is adaptable to a variety of temporary and permanent open or brushy wetlands from fens to ditches to temporarily drought impacted ponds. In wooded areas it is generally only found along grassy stream corridors. This habitat does exist in the Project Area, however clearing will be conducted in the winter and habitat loss will be minimal.

Bat Species-at-Risk

There are no bat species of concern known to occur on or near the project site.

5.2.2.5 Potential Effects on Species-at-Risk

Potential project interactions with Species-at-Risk and related effects resulting from Project construction activities are primarily clearing, grubbing, and excavation activities.

These activities have the potential to result in:

• An alteration/displacement of habitat. • Noise/physical disturbance of wildlife causing behavioural changes. • Direct mortality and destruction of active nests. • Spill and release of hazardous chemicals.

5.2.2.6 Clearing, Grubbing, and Excavation Activities

Alteration/Displacement of Habitat

The potential effects of construction on habitat focus on the presence of Species-at-Risk and the location of designated areas and other critical habitat features.

Recommended Mitigation

The following mitigation to minimize adverse effects on Species-at-Risk is recommended: • Measures recommended minimize disturbance to bird species. • Minimize impact in wetland areas. • The areas to be disturbed will be surveyed for milkweed and examined for the presence

of Monarch Butterfly pupae, chrysalises, and eggs. If found, plants will be flagged for avoidance and recorded with GPS.

Significance of Residual Effects

It is not likely that significant adverse residual effects will result from Project interactions with proper implementation of the identified mitigation measures.

Noise/Physical Disturbance of Wildlife

Construction activities such as excavating and trucking will produce varying levels of noise. These noise levels will be dependant upon many factors, including weather conditions, topography, vegetation, and construction practices. Table 5.3 lists typical noise levels for



various construction equipment and activities. Due to the nature of the proposed Project, noise effects are anticipated to be localized and will be in short duration in the context of the Project life cycle.

Table 5.3 Noise Levels at Various Distances from Typical Construction Equipment

Equipment dB at 15/30 m+

dB at 76 m*

dB at 152 m*

dB at 305 m*

dB at 762 m*

dB at 1524 m*

Bulldozer 85 / 80.2 71 65 59 51 45

Crane, mobile 83 / 81.3 69 63 57 49 43

(Dump) Truck 88 / 67.1 74 68 62 54 48

Front-end loader 85 / 80.2 71 65 59 51 45

Concrete mixer truck 85 / 85.2 71 65 59 51 45

Generator 81 / -- 67 61 55 47 41

Grader 85 / -- 71 65 59 51 45

Backhoe -- / 81.3 - - - - -

Roller 74 / -- - - - - -

Notes: * The estimated sound levels at various distances are based on the assumption that sound pressure diminishes by 6 A-weighted decibel (db(A)) with each doubling of distance.

Source: * HMMNH (1995) in BLM,2004 + CBCL , 2003

Noise or physical disturbance could encourage adult birds to avoid or be displaced from feeding, breeding, or nesting habitat. Similarly, once eggs have been laid, abandonment of nests could occur if adult birds are displaced from the nest. During construction, it can be expected that most wildlife and bird species occupying the immediate vicinity of the construction site will initially be affected. However, construction activities will be of short duration (in the context of the Project life cycle) and, therefore, it is not likely that significant effects will occur.

Recommended Mitigation

A schedule control will be implemented for clearing activities in order to limit effects on nesting birds. All construction activities will be scheduled to avoid sensitive nesting periods (typically May 1st to August 31st) as much as possible.



For construction activities required during the sensitive nesting season the following measures will be implemented:

• Clearing activities will be scheduled in consideration of critical habitat features (e.g., wetland areas) identified during the pre-construction field survey.

• The proponent will instruct the Environmental Inspector and contractors on the MBCA, the importance of habitat, the significance of the nesting period, and measures to be implemented to minimize any disturbance to birds/nests.

• A bird nest survey of the area will be conducted by a professional biologist/ornithologist/ birder prior to clearing activities. The bird species recorded during the survey will be used as an indicator regarding the potential nesting habitat in the area.

• The typical nesting habitat for these species would be investigated for potential nests. • Nest trees will be felled prior to or after the nesting season. • The occurrence of all identified nests will be documented.

Significance of Residual Effects

With the implementation of the mitigation measures listed previously, it is unlikely that there will be any significant adverse effects on migratory birds or their habitat due to construction activities.

5.2.3 Wetlands

Both collectively and as individual units, wetland resources serve a variety of important ecological and socio-economic functions. Wetlands function in the maintenance of surface and groundwater resources and quality, as well as providing wildlife habitat. The value of wetlands to society and their ecological value are derived from their biological productivity and biodiversity. Wetlands are generally characterized by hydrophytic vegetation, and can vary from a closed peat bog to an open water body dominated by submergent vegetation. By providing natural flood control, points of recharge and discharge of groundwater, acting as filters, and by trapping silt, wetlands play an important role in the hydrological cycle and generally enhance the water regime. As they provide habitat for a wide variety of plants and animals, they may be highly productive and often exceed adjacent uplands in their standing crops, productivity, and biodiversity. In the past, wetlands have been viewed mainly in terms of development, such as agricultural land or peat resources. However, their ecological value is now more clearly understood. Ecological wetland values may include sustenance for waterfowl, sources of fish production, storage and slow release of water, erosion protection, and areas of aesthetic or recreational enjoyment. With increasing competition for land, particularly in urban areas, wetlands have continued to be impacted through dyking, filling, drainage, flooding, and other forms of conversion. Such use has caused the number and extent of wetlands to decrease substantially (Bond, et al., 1992).



This is particularly true of coastal wetlands where historical losses in the Maritimes may be as high as 80% (Hanson & Calkins, 1996). PEI contains only 4% of vegetated wetland area in the Maritimes but includes a disproportionately high proportion (19%) of salt marsh habitat. The North Cape region contains the second largest concentration of relatively large salt marsh areas in the province (Hanson & Calkins, 1996) including approximately 700 ha (15 %). The Project is not affecting salt marsh habitat. The wetlands in which Turbines 1, 2, and 3 are to be located are not salt marsh habitat. Wetland alterations are controlled by Section 10 of the PEI Environmental Protection Act. Before commencing a project that involves work within 10 m of or within a wetland, a WWAP is required. The Federal government has established a “no net loss of wetland function” policy in co-operation with the Provinces (EC, 1991). Furthermore, in 2003 the Province created a Wetland Conservation Policy with commitments to the “no net loss of wetland function” objective and identifying specific wetlands and wetland types as Provincially Significant. Activities proposed within Provincially Significant Wetlands are usually subject to severe restrictions (InfoPEI, 2010).


The Project could potentially result in impacts on the wetland habitat, mainly through spills or other malfunctions and accidents, soil erosion and sediment deposition into the wetland and the potential for introduction of invasive species. These impacts are associated with short term activities during the construction phase and decommissioning phases, and potentially during the operation of the wind farm during maintenance activities.

5.2.3.2 Boundaries

Spatial boundaries include the Project Area, and adjacent areas that are connected hydrologically with the project footprint, both inside and outside of the Project Area. The temporal boundary includes the proposed construction, operation, and decommissioning of the Project. Construction, through commissioning of each of the turbines, sub-station and storage component will occur over a 14 to 15 month period, while the operation of the Project is expected to last for a minimum of 25 years.


Wetlands were located within the Study Area based on a field reconnaissance and assessment by Christina LaFlamme, M.Sc. with AMEC from August 11th to 13th, 2010. The results of this field assessment characterize the wetland as a wetland complex that is part of Black Marsh (See Figure 4.3). Potential impacts from the Project are focussed on the construction and operation of wind turbines and access roads at sites 1, 2 and 3. Since all disturbance of the wetland surface beyond the turbine foundation will be allowed to revegetate naturally, impacts on habitat will be temporary, and are expected to recover fully.



This activity will require regulatory authorization under the Watercourse/Wetland Alteration Guidelines; therefore, these impacts are considered significant. During construction, there is potential for the wetland to be impacted by erosion/sedimentation associated with the use of the temporary access road and turbine construction. Uncontrolled storage of subsurface soil generated by the foundation construction could result in moderate sediment run-off into the wetland; which could locally exceed the assimilative capacity of the wetland. This would be considered a significant impact if the sedimentation resulted in suppression of vegetation growth or exceedance of local water quality guidelines for an extended period. The amount of sediment run-off from the access road will be very small, given standard erosion controls (i.e., silt fence). Erosion from the access road into the wetland during operation will be extremely minimal, restricted to periods of short duration (hours or days per year) related to maintenance activities. Another potential impact involves dust and minerals from road runoff. Most fugitive dust will be formed during the construction phase from construction and movement of construction equipment, but some dust may also escape during the operation phase, (e.g. from the movement of maintenance vehicles). There is potential for introduction of invasive species, both during construction and post-construction. Seeds, roots or “rootable” fragments of invasive species may be stuck to construction/maintenance equipment and shoes of workers. Invasive species such as the alien race of common reed (Phragmites australis), are known to severely degrade wetland diversity by producing dense monocultures; which displace the range of naturally occurring vegetation species. Wind turbine site 1, 2 and 3 are located in forested wetland. During construction, disturbance within the buffer and wetland will be restricted to the area for the foundation, crane pad, laydown area and access road will be within the regulated buffer and wetland, therefore there will be interactions with the wetland complex. Since all disturbed areas beyond the turbine foundation, crane pad, and access road will be allowed to revegetate naturally, impacts on the buffer and wetland will be temporary, and are expected to recover fully. It is possible that the restored buffer and wetland area will be less than the regulatory requirement which will require regulatory authorization under the Watercourse/Wetland Alteration Guidelines; therefore, these impacts are considered significant. Consequently, a wetland compensation plan may be required. Accidental events resulting in spills of toxic materials could result in long term or permanent significant impacts on wetland habitat and water treatment functions. Standard mitigation for accidental events is described in Section 5.8; which will minimize the potential for accidental events to occur; therefore, significant impacts are not likely.



5.2.3.4 Mitigation

Prior to construction, the proponent will need to obtain regulatory approval under the Prince Edward Island Environmental Protection Act Watercourse and Wetland Alteration Guidelines. Standard mitigation for work in wetlands will be described in the application permit. Definition of appropriate mitigative measures is largely dependant on habitat-specific construction techniques (e.g., open water vs. dry soils construction methods). However, several generally applicable mitigative measures are recommended for wetlands, including:

• avoidance of wetland habitat as much as possible; • minimizing the construction area in and adjacent to wetlands; • adherence to conditions of an applicable WWAP permit, specific to construction activity; • construction following storm events which have resulted in high water levels should be

conducted only as approved by qualified inspectors; • installation of erosion control structures; • prevent discharges to any water; and • travel by construction vehicles will be minimized in temporary construction zones in and

adjacent to wetlands. Potential alteration/displacement of habitat may result from changes to surface water flow and direct physical disturbance of vegetation and underlying soils. Generally, maintenance of vegetation patterns (and thus habitat types) can be optimized through the following standard construction practices and mitigative measures:

• Minimize ground and vegetative disturbance by: o locating staging areas at least 30 m from the edge of wetland, where possible; and o using upland access roads wherever practical.

• Maintain vegetative diversity by:

o incorporating practices to prevent the spread of non-desirable invasive species throughout the construction area, including cleaning and inspection of construction equipment prior to use in or near wetland areas.

• During site restoration, mitigate effects on vegetation by:

o not applying fertilizer, lime or mulch to wetland as part of revegetation plan; o separating organic top soil from underlying soils, and stock piling separately;

returning top soil to original horizon; o re-vegetating areas devoid of vegetation; and o restoring original contours and cross drainage patterns.



In general, the best method of preventing erosion of bare soils is to encourage vegetation re-establishment as soon as possible. Section 5.8 recommends environmental awareness and preventative measures intended to mitigate potential effects of an accidental release of potentially hazardous materials, which are also applicable to the protection of wetland resources. Any spills that occur will be remediated to meet or exceed regulatory requirements. To diminish the risk of transferring invasive plants, or their seeds, rhizomes or vegetative structures, it is recommended that:

• Construction equipment (e.g., tracked vehicles) transported from elsewhere in PEI or Canada be thoroughly cleaned and inspected prior to transport to ensure that no vegetative matter is attached to the machinery. The use of a high pressure water hose to clean vehicles prior to transport may facilitate this process.

• Construction equipment will be inspected and cleaned immediately following construction near wetland areas and in areas found to support purple loosestrife.

5.2.3.5 Compensation

Objectives The primary indicator of wetland function is the type and health of vegetation communities present. Significant impacts on wetland functions are most likely to cause vegetation changes (including displacement). A change from one wetland vegetation community type to another can have a negative or a positive effect on wetland function. A change from a wetland vegetation community type to a non-wetland vegetation community would be negative. In most wetlands, maintenance of wetland vegetation will ensure that wetland function is conserved. Therefore, mitigation and remediation activities will be designed to maintain or improve the health of wetland vegetation communities, from which most wetland functions arise and the measure of success will be based in observations of the changes in wetland vegetation communities following remediation. It is recognized that wetlands are often integral parts of aquatic systems and that several wetland functions extend to benefit aquatic environments; however, for the purpose of the Project it is assumed that aquatic health and remediation objectives for surface and groundwater quality will be addressed as part of separate aquatic habitat and groundwater study programs. Wetland Monitoring Monitoring is an integral part of mitigation design. The purpose of monitoring is to ensure that wetland mitigation and compensation is successfully implemented, so that no net loss of wetland function occurs; therefore, a wetland environmental effects monitoring program (WEEMP) must be conducted as part of the Project follow-up. The WEEMP is not only related to the predicted impacts, for which a regulatory approval will be obtained, but also must address any unpredicted impacts that result from Project activities. Therefore, the WEEMP must be designed to both quantify the true extent of impacts from the permitted activities AND identify any unpredicted impacts that may have occurred. If the WEEMP identifies any impacts on wetlands which were not predicted in the environmental screening, additional mitigation and/or



compensation would be required. Additional compensation requirements would need to be incorporated into the wetland compensation plan. Additional mitigation would need to be developed and implemented immediately. Typically, the WEEMP should include site visits to directly impacted wetlands, selected nearby wetlands (particularly those within 30 m down gradient from project components), and all wetland compensation areas. The WEEMP schedule for each wetland would commence in the first year post construction and would be repeated again in the third and fifth years post construction. It is possible that some wetlands may be eliminated from the program after the third year post construction site visit, if no project related impacts are apparent. If all mitigation and wetland compensation is successful, a determination will be made after five years that the “no net loss” requirement has been achieved. If at any time, mitigation or compensation fails, then additional monitoring or mitigation/compensation will be recommended. The WEEMP will have to be reviewed and approved by regulatory agencies as part of the approval process. At some sites, the regulators may require “quantitative” vegetation data to be collected as part of the WEEMP. This would include the installation of permanent sample plots in any directly affected wetlands prior to remediation and a detailed vegetation survey within the established plots. These would also be re-surveyed after construction as part of the environmental effects monitoring program (EEM) program. Wetland Compensation Where permanent impacts on wetland function are identified as a result of Project activities, a compensation plan will be required. The detailed compensation plan will have to be reviewed and approved by regulatory agencies prior to construction, as part of the approval process. There is no standard approach to compensation design. Terms of reference are usually addressed by regulators on a site-by-site basis using the relative value of wetland functions present and the nature of the project to determine appropriate compensation objectives. The effort required for implementation of a wetland compensation plan will be extremely variable from site to site. The factors that will have a large influence on the design of a compensation plan are discussed in the following sections. Total Wetland Area that will be Impacted This represents the loss of wetland function that must be compensated for. Typically, this is quantified by how much wetland area will actually be overlapped by the project footprint. The type and relative value of the wetland can affect the perceived “loss” of wetland function in a qualitative way. Compensation Ratio When determining what amount of compensation should be implemented, a compensation ratio is usually applied. It is based on the recognition that man-made wetland improvement programs historically have failed to achieve the proposed functionality and operates like a factor of safety that will ensure that a sufficient amount of compensation will be successful so that Project



impacts are truly balanced by new wetland enhancements. The compensation ratio indicates how much area of wetland improvements must be implemented with respect to the area of wetland impacts. Currently there is a general agreement among regulators in Atlantic Canada that a minimum compensation ratio of 3:1 will be applied. Compensation ratios of up to 10:1 have been used previously in the Maritimes. Typically, higher compensation ratios are applied to wetland types that are very complex (i.e., difficult to recreate with certainty) or of a provincially significant nature (such as coastal wetlands that have been subject to large reductions in area by historical conversion to agriculture). As part of proposed early consultation with federal and provincial regulators, what compensation ratio(s) applied to the Project will be identified Form of Compensation Wetland restoration/enhancement can be relatively inexpensive, for example, the erection of educational signage or duck nest boxes, but can become increasingly more expensive with hydrological or vegetative modifications, such as shallow impoundment with a low dam or improved drainage through removal of a man-made embankment. Even more expensive are restoration/creation activities that involve significant earth moving such as removing old fill from a former wetland or excavation to create new shallow water areas. The potential cost range crosses orders of magnitude. The recommended form of compensation will depend on available opportunities within and near the site and on specific requirements imposed by regulators (if any). It is also possible for different compensation forms to receive different compensation ratios (i.e., restoration – 2:1, creation – 3:1, enhancement – 4:1, etc.). Agreements with Local Non-profit Organizations Where available, agreements with local non-profit (volunteer) organizations can yield significantly greater value per dollar spent. Such agreements can include support for habitat improvement projects and watershed management activities. This approach can also relieve the proponent of the need for expensive monitoring as the agreements usually include long term management by the third party (such as Ducks Unlimited). Available opportunities for public outreach or education will be considered as these elements significantly increase the value of wetland compensation. High visibility wetland conservation activities could also improve public perception of the Project.

5.2.3.6 Significance of Residual Effects

With proper implementation of the identified mitigative measures, Project impacts on wetland resources will be minimized. Post construction effects monitoring is recommended and a compensation plan may need to be developed. The compensation plan will be implemented either as a condition of the CEAA Determination or as part of the PEI Wetland Alteration Approval.



5.3 ATMOSPHERIC ENVIRONMENT

5.3.1 Air Quality


The potential Project interactions associated with ambient air quality and the related effects are during Project construction. These include:

• overburden disturbance; • equipment operation; and • accidental release of hazardous materials.

The activities during the operational phase are not a source of significant amounts of dust, emissions or use of hazardous materials.

5.3.1.2 Boundaries

Spatial boundaries are the Project Site and the rural, inhabited areas surrounding the Project Site. The temporal boundaries are the construction period, a total of approximately 14 months in 2011/2012, as well as a limited number of weeks during the de-commissioning phase.


Most construction activities have the potential to contribute to environmental effects on air quality, mainly gaseous emissions, and PM. In general, any dust that is generated will be at low concentrations, and is expected to disperse within 300 m of the source.

Overburden Disturbance

The primary air quality concern during construction is the effect of PM, mainly fugitive dust on the surrounding environment. Particulate emissions during construction are associated with grubbing, excavation, backfilling, and material transport activities. The potential effect of particulates is influenced by site and weather conditions (rain and wind direction) and by preventative measures implemented during Project activities to minimize emissions. Emissions of particulates that exceed air quality guidelines may result in problems on the construction site and under special circumstances (such as strong winds), off-site. The level of particulates at construction sites depends on the silt content of the soils being disturbed, the proportion of dry days, operator habits, construction vehicle type and speeds, vehicle weights, and the number of vehicles. Studies indicate that dust from similar construction activities (including excavation and grading) settles out very quickly, and a level of 150 µg/m3 will be exceeded at a distance of 50 m only 2% to 3% of the time (National Cooperative Highway Research Program, 1999). The Province of PEI has an acceptable level of 70 μg/m3 for an annual averaging period. During the construction and de-commissioning phase, dust is likely to be produced due to the movement of soil and gravel. Dust is a known trigger of health problems in susceptible people,



e.g. asthmatic people. The effects of such attacks can be serious, even fatal. The residential area near the Project Site is small and the number of people with breathing related health problems can be expected to be small. The nearest dwelling to a turbine location is over 600 m south of wind turbine 5, therefore, adverse effects from dust are not likely. Furthermore, agricultural practises in the area typically involve exposing significantly greater amounts of soils, for longer periods of time than the Project. Construction is planned from late spring to early fall. Spring and fall are seasons of the year when the soil tends to be moist, and precipitation events are frequent (particularly in the spring), which reduces the amount of dust production. Therefore, impacts from dust formation on air quality are considered to be not significant.

Equipment Operation

Vehicles and equipment produce gaseous emissions (CO, CO2, and unburned hydrocarbons) from the combustion of fuels, gas, or diesel. Generally, emissions may cause occasional nuisance problems on construction sites; however, they typically do not present problems outside the immediate construction area. The potential effect of gaseous emissions during construction relates to the duration and intensity of the emissions. Construction for the proposed Project is expected to be limited to a total of approximately 14 months in 2011/2012.

Accidental Release of Hazardous Materials/Contaminant Mobilization

Hazardous materials may be released to the surrounding airshed as a result of accidental spillage of solvents; Petroleum, Oil, and Lubricants (POLs); and epoxies used during Project activities. The primary air quality concern resulting from the accidental release of contaminants is the effect of solvent, hydrocarbon, and fuel vapours on air quality. See Section 5.8 for measures to address Accidents and Malfunctions.

5.3.1.4 Mitigation

Construction supervisors will use dust abatement measures (i.e water) as required to prevent complaints about nuisance dust conditions. This may include watering the gravel roads in the Project Area or soil that is moved. Also, speed limits (40 kilometres per hour (km/h)) should be imposed and enforced, trucks should not be loaded with soil above the freeboard of the truck, and drop heights should be minimized when loading the trucks. Land should be moistened before clearing and exposed soil stockpiles covered. These mitigation measures would also minimize the effect of dust on the vegetation and wetlands. Exhaust fumes can be controlled by ensuring that equipment is kept in good repair and that processes are scheduled to effectively complete construction with minimal back-tracking. These measures will minimize exhaust production with its attendant loads of gaseous emissions.


No significant adverse impacts are likely.



5.4 SOCIO-ECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT

5.4.1 Local Economy

The existing local economy in the area is unstable, with an unemployment rate above (13.8%) the Provincial average (11.1%) and has a declining population (-8.8%) (Statistics Canada 2006 Census). The proposed wind park will bring additional jobs to the area. In addition, it will lessen the dependency for PEI on outside energy sources.


During the construction phase, general construction work such as clearing the vegetation, grading, building roads and foundations for the turbines and substation building will be carried out. Workers, equipment and materials will be needed. During the de-commissioning phase, workforce and equipment needs will be similar to those of the construction phase, but there will be a higher need for waste removal. During the operational phase, site and turbine maintenance, such as vegetation control, road maintenance, turbine and ground cleaning, will be carried out. Workforce, equipment and materials will be needed. Project activities are not anticipated to impact the existing North Cape Wind Farm located just north of the Study Area. In addition, should Option A be selected improvements to the access road would be beneficial to the Irish moss industry.

5.4.1.2 Boundaries

Spatial boundaries are the greater Project Area including the towns of Tignish and Alberton and into the adjacent rural areas the communities of North Cape, Norway, Seacow Pond. Economic impacts related to the manufacturer and the long-distance transport will not be considered, since the focus is on the local economy. The temporal boundary encompasses the construction phase, operation phase and decommissioning phase. The temporal boundaries of the Project will be limited to the construction phase and its normal 25-year lifespan as well as during the de-commissioning phase.


5.4.1.3.1 Employment and Local Economy The construction and operation of the WEICan R&D wind park is likely to have positive impacts on the local economy in terms of employment. During the construction, and decommissioning phase, there will be numerous tasks that fall into the category “general construction”, which does not require training specific for wind turbines. In addition, a large number of specialists that assemble wind turbines come from West Prince County. Therefore, it can be expected that at least some workers will be hired locally. The non-resident work force will consist of specialists in engineering design and turbine commissioning, crane operators and/or specialized transport vehicle drivers. Local businesses will have the opportunity to provide materials, such as crushed rock for the construction of roads, as well as construction equipment. Also, the presence of the non-resident workforce will provide opportunities for businesses that provide



food and accommodation, or food implements for the workers who choose to cook for themselves. During the operation phase, there is likely opportunity for local residents to gain long-term employment due to the maintenance of the wind park. There may be a need for training. Some intermittent employment requiring no wind-park specific training is likely available due to road maintenance, vegetation control, and general site maintenance. Also, the presence of the wind park has the potential to further advance WEICan’s research, development and other innovation activities as well as provide a secure and stable revenue stream through a power purchase agreement with MECL. Also, wind farms are known to attract tourists. Currently the North Cape Wind Energy Complex attracts over 75,000 tourists per year. Tourists will have access to this development through the usage of the existing Black Marsh trail that begins at the WEICan facility in North Cape or via the Waterview Road. The Norway wind park is located immediately to the southeast of the proposed project. Consequently, this area is known to have a higher number of tourists that are attracted to visiting wind farms due to the number of wind farms in the area. Property prices are not likely to drop after the installation of the wind park since two are already well established in the area. Several recent studies further illustrate this observation. For example, Australia found no drop and some increase in residential property prices adjacent to a new wind farm (AusWEA, 2005). Also, two studies undertaken in the US came to the same conclusion (BLM, 2004). One of these studies found increase in property values within the view shed of the wind farm. Public opinion surveys in the UK showed that 72-78 % of respondents did not notice any change in house prices near wind farms (Yes2Wind, 2005).

Mitigation

No mitigation measures will be necessary to offset impacts to the local economy as the majority of the impacts will be beneficial. There will be an increase in business in the area and should Option A be chosen for the access road, the road improvements would be beneficial to the Irish moss industry.


Significant positive impacts on the local economy are expected during all phases of the project. In addition, should Option A be selected, it is believed there will be a positive impact to the Irish moss industry in the area. Consequently, the Project should have no significant adverse effect on the local economy.



5.4.2 Land Use

5.4.2.1 Agricultural

5.4.2.1.1 Pathways and Activities


During all construction and decommissioning activities agricultural practices on the Project Area will potentially be interfered with by the presence of heavy equipment and the temporary removal of area from production for lay down areas.

Operations

Once temporary work areas have been rehabilitated, the area will be available for agricultural practices. 5.4.2.1.2 Boundaries Spatial boundaries are the portions of the currently cultivated fields that will be removed from access or production during within the construction phase. Economic impacts to the landowners related to the interference and loss of production will be compensated for by the proponent as part of the land rental agreements. The temporal boundary encompasses the construction phase, and decommissioning phase. 5.4.2.1.3 Impact Assessment The impact on the ability of the land owners to cultivate their field will be minimal. 5.4.2.1.4 Mitigation If construction operations interfere with the ability of a landowner to cultivate their crops, monetary compensation would offset the loss of revenue. Other recommended mitigations include:

• scheduling of clearing, grubbing and excavation activities outside of the growing season; • minimization of compaction by not working while ground is wet and/or in the spring of the

year; • maintain soil horizon in agricultural areas; • maintenance of all surface drainage during construction; and • repair of any damaged tile drainage systems (not anticipated to be affected).

5.4.2.1.5 Residual Impacts No significant adverse residual effects are expected to agricultural producers.

5.4.2.2 Transportation Infrastructure

5.4.2.2.1 Pathways and Activities


The delivery of the turbine components will require the use of oversized and heavy load trucks.



Operations

There will be no project interaction with transportation routes during the operations phase. 5.4.2.2.2 Boundaries Spatial boundaries are the public roads upon which the delivery of the turbine components will occur. The temporal boundaries are the construction periods required. 5.4.2.2.3 Impact Assessment The impact on transportation routes and the public include possible damage to road infrastructure and interference with traffic flows. 5.4.2.2.4 Mitigation Before transporting the crane and large turbine components, a permit under the Highway Traffic Act is needed. Also, in order to reduce traffic congestion, the following measures are recommended:

• Scheduling of deliveries should be during periods of low local traffic. • Scheduling of deliveries when seasonal weight restrictions on public roads are not in

practice. • Advance public notice should be made to local residents and the business community. • Repairs to public roads be implemented should the need arise.

5.4.2.2.5 Residual Impacts No significant adverse residual effects are expected to roads and public traffic flow with the implementation of the mitigating measures above.

5.5 ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND HERITAGE RESOURCES

Archaeological/heritage resources are defined as known archaeological sites, designated historic sites, and heritage structures. These resources are considered important as they are recognized by the Province and form part of a collective body of information used to understand and define the Provincial heritage. The geographical extent of any adverse effects will be the entire resource and adjacent areas associated with heritage resources that occur within the Project footprint. The magnitude of construction effects on unknown heritage resources will be high, as clearing and excavation activities will expose the resource. This effect will be immediate and irreversible. If unknown resources are encountered during either the construction or operation phase, they will be affected, and effects will be site-specific. However, the potential for significant loss of knowledge would be minimized through the initiation of a contingency plan for affected resources.



Mitigation

One previously unrecorded historic site was identified in 2009 on Nelligan Road (outside of the Project impact area) and a second historic archaeological site was identified on Waterview Road within the proposed footprint for the substation. None of the potential turbine placements surveyed for this Project fall within an archaeological elevated potential area according to regulatory guidelines (ASU 2009). Where turbines and/or access roads are located close to the archaeological buffer (80 metres) for the ocean shoreline, they are located within a wetland (low potential for heritage resources). Therefore, Phase 3 subsurface field evaluation is not recommended for this Project. Thus, the following are the mitigation recommendations based on the heritage resources investigations conducted to date:

• It is recommended that a licensed archaeologist monitor subsurface construction activities (any excavations) for the construction of the substation due to the presence of the archaeological site (small 19th century artifact scatter) at this location.

• It is recommended that prior to construction, the proponent develop and have in place construction protocols for the discovery of heritage resources and human remains.

• It is recommended that construction inspectors and crew members self-monitor excavation activities.

With the implementation of mitigative measures, significant adverse residual effects to archaeological/heritage resources are unlikely to occur.

5.6 HUMAN HEALTH AND SAFETY

Safety of the workers and the public is a concern during the construction, operation and decommissioning phases of the wind farm. Safety hazards to the public and to the workers on-site can be caused via several pathways associated with the project. While some of the occupational hazards are the same as in any other facility, other occupational hazards are typical of wind farms. Though these occupational hazards can be minimized by adhering to safety standards and wearing protective equipment, injuries or fatalities can still occur. Public safety concerns are mostly specific for wind farms. Public health can be influenced by several activities connected to the wind farm construction and operation such as shadow flicker and noise. These impacts also include air quality which is discussed in the air quality impact assessment (see Section 5.2.). Additional safety items such as the release of contaminants, icing, breakage, and traffic are addressed in Accidents and Malfunctions (Section 5.8). Occupational health and safety are protected through both the federal and provincial Occupational Health and Safety Acts.



5.6.1 Pathways and Activities

5.6.1.1 Construction and Decommissioning

During the construction and decommissioning phases, accidents connected to the construction activities may pose a physical hazard to the workers on-site (i.e. they are occupational hazards). The public will be prevented from accessing the Project Area during that time and therefore are not at risk. Hazardous construction activities include clearing and grubbing of the land, excavation, construction of roads, excavation and construction of foundations and buildings (control building and electrical substation), delivery of equipment, assembly and erection of turbines, erection of power poles and power lines, and commissioning the turbines. During the decommissioning phase, the hazards are posed by accidents during the deconstruction activities, in particular, removal of power lines, turbines, buildings, waste, and the site remediation. These activities are potentially hazardous for the workers on-site, and not the public, which is banned from the site. During the construction and decommissioning phases, noise generated will be typical for construction activity such as transporting materials, clearing the work sites, and building the access roads, turbine foundations, turbines, and ancillary structures, as well as site clean up and re-vegetation. The noise will be caused by the operation of heavy construction equipment, such as backhoes, bulldozers, rollers, flatbed trailers, cranes, dump trucks, ready-mix trucks and field compressors. Also, the operation of pickup trucks or other smaller vehicles used to ferry workers will result in noise. In addition, construction activities such as drilling and grading used during the road and turbine foundation construction generate noise. Table 5.3 contains some examples of typical noise levels associated with construction equipment.

5.6.1.2 Operation

During the operational phase of the wind park, potential hazards arise from activities due to routine maintenance of turbines and ancillary facilities. Therefore, during the operational phase, there are both occupational and public safety concerns. Maintenance activities, such as exchanging the transmission oils in the nacelle, pose a hazard to the workers on the site. During the operation phase, noise may be associated with the presence and rotation of the turbine blades, the substation and the vehicles used for the regular visits to turbines and power lines for monitoring and maintenance activities. According to the specifications of the DeWind Wind brochure, the wind turbines produce a sound pressure level of approximately 45 dB(A) approximately 365 m from the mast base in a mixed area environment.



5.6.2 Boundaries

With regards to occupational accidents, the spatial project boundaries are limited to the Project Site for all of the above mentioned construction, deconstruction and maintenance activities. However, regarding accidents during the transport of materials and turbine parts to and from the Project Site, the spatial project boundaries have to be extended to include the roads to and from the supply or waste disposal sites. Temporal boundaries are the short periods of construction and deconstruction activities, as well as the short periods of yearly maintenance work during the operational phase of the wind park. The spatial boundaries are set by the distance that the noise originating from the construction, operational and de-commissioning activities carries. This distance can be influenced by the presence and type of vegetation, wind direction, etc. The temporal boundaries vary with the project phase (construction, operation, de-commissioning). The construction phase will be approximately 14 months in duration. Deconstruction work during the de-commissioning phase is likely to proceed without interruption, thus resulting in noise being generated for a period of about six months. The operational phase will last for 20-25 years, and may be extended through refurbishment.

5.6.3 Impact Assessment

5.6.3.1 Occupational Safety

Occupational Safety concerns accidents involving staff and workers during construction, operation and decommissioning of the wind farm. Some occupational hazards are similar to the hazards in the heavy construction and electrical power industry. Others, however, are typical for wind farm projects, such as: rotating/spinning equipment, high winds, energizing system, heights (BLM, 2004), and especially the installation and maintenance of the turbines. The latter results in hazards similar to those associated with building high buildings or bridges. There have been studies tracking the number of injuries and fatalities associated with wind power projects, both worldwide and in the US (Sorensen 1995; Gipe 1995 in BLM, 2004). While Gipe reports 14 fatalities and several serious injuries from the 1970s to the 1990s, Sorensen reports 20 fatalities and hundreds of injuries. Gipe points out that several of the fatalities occurred in the early years of wind power development. Therefore, some fatalities may have been based on inexperience with the specific types of hazards, and are less likely to occur again. Most accidents were related to construction, but some occurred during maintenance (e.g. 5 of the 14 fatalities). Falls, neglecting to wear safety belts, electrical burns, etc., all resulted in serious effects. The construction and decommissioning activities, including the operation of heavy equipment, have the potential to lead to accidents, which may cause physical harm to the workers involved. The potential for accidents during the operations phase is smaller, but cannot be neglected. Risks to occupational health and safety can be minimized during all phases of the project, if workers follow safety standards and use appropriate protective equipment. Still, accidents may



occur. These accidents may be significant to the individual based on the severity and the potential irreversibility of the consequences. During the construction and maintenance of a wind park, there is potential for exposure to hazardous substances. This risk, however, is considered small, as the amounts of chemicals are small, and the effects can be mitigated easily by wearing standard protective equipment. 5.6.3.1.1 Mitigation During construction and decommissioning phases of the Project, the general public should be kept off-site at all times. As pointed out earlier, there are specific hazards related to the erection, energizing, operation and maintenance of the turbines. The International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) has published minimum safety requirements for wind turbine generator (WTG) systems (IEC, 2002). The IEC requires that the WTG Systems manufacturer provide the operator of the wind farm with an operator’s instruction manual, which should also include additional information geared to the local conditions. The operator’s manual “should include information on system safe operating limits and descriptions, start-up and shut-down procedures, alarm response actions, and an emergency procedures plan (IEC, 1992 in BLM, 2004). The emergency procedures plan should cover a range of emergencies that can arise from the operation of wind generators, including: “overspeeding, icing, lightning storms, earthquakes, broken or loose guy wires, brake failure, rotor imbalance, loose fasteners, sand storms, fires, floods, and other component failures”. Information provided in this owner’s manual should be used to minimize the hazards. Mitigation measures aimed at reducing hazards related to general construction, maintenance and decommissioning activities include the following:

• Workers and operators of heavy equipment will be properly trained in order to avoid hazardous situations occurring related to the use of the heavy equipment. Also, anyone involved with excavation, road and foundation excavation, power line installation, etc., must be appropriately trained to perform the task.

• A Health and Safety Policy and Procedures Manual should be developed specific to this Project to ensure that all staff adheres to the proper health and safety procedures. This program should be based on all federal and provincial legal standards, and industry codes of practice. The manual should document training and reporting of accidents.

• It has to be ensured that staff adheres to health and safety standards and procedures (as outlined in the federal and provincial Occupational Health and Safety Act), safe work practices, etc.

• In addition, emergency response procedures will be put in place to ensure that an injured individual will receive competent help as quickly as possible.



5.6.3.1.2 Residual Impacts While the effects of an accident may be severe for the individual, accidents are expected to be rare occurrences, particularly after the implementation of mitigation measures. Based on the relatively small number of injuries and fatalities reported in connection with wind farms, the likelihood for accidents can be considered minimal. Therefore, with the implementation of the above noted mitigation measures, significant residual effects are considered to be minimal.

5.6.3.2 Noise

Noise produced by the wind turbines is a frequent concern with people living close to wind farms. Noise results from the conversion of wind energy into sound when interacting with the rotors. Other project activities also result in noise. Sound is measured in decibels (dB). Audible sound range is from 0 dB (the threshold of hearing) to 140 dB (the pain threshold) (BLM, 2004). Human hearing normally detects frequencies between 20 Hz and 30 kHz but the ear does not respond equally to all frequencies and we are much more sensitive to sounds in the frequency range about 1 kHz to 4 kHz (1000 to 4000 vibrations per second) than to very low or high frequency sounds. For this reason, sound meters are usually fitted with a filter whose response to frequency is a bit like that of the human ear. The "A weighting filter" is commonly used for environmental noise and is expressed as dB(A). This scale is thought to be more reflective of human hearing, as it filters out lower frequencies, which are less damaging. The Project Area is in a rural setting with low anthropogenic noise levels but is beside an existing wind farm. The Government of PEI has regulations for siting wind turbines at least four times their height from any residential area (Planning Act, Section 54.1 of the Subdivision and Development Regulations). Anything further than this is considered to be below ambient noise levels. Ambient noise includes everyday sounds such as passing cars, birds singing, and leaves blowing. The impact of the noise created by project activities depends on several factors, most of which influence sound propagation: distance from the source, height of the source, atmospheric conditions (especially humidity), intervening topography or structures, vegetation cover, wind speed, wind direction, turbulence (Beranek and Ver 1992 in BLM, 2004), as well as background noise levels. Any sound level created by a point source such as a WTG will drop by 6 dB with each doubling of the distance, while noise from a line source, such as highways or powerlines, decreases by about 3 dB per doubling of distance (BLM, 2004). These decreases can be enhanced by the presence of vegetation, such as shrubs, topography, etc. As sound is carried on the wind, sound impacts will be larger downwind of the source than upwind. As well, sound is carried further downwind than upwind from the sources. To what degree the sounds originating from project activities are actually noticed by the receptors (people) also depends on the amount of background noise at the receptor’s location, as well as on the amount of sound produced by the wind itself. Wind itself, due to the interaction with vegetation or structures, can actually be quite noisy, for example, 32-45 dB during moderately high winds of 10 m/s (Sea Breeze, 2004).



Noise impacts on people fall into three categories: 1) annoyance or nuisance - a subjective effect; 2) interference with speech, sleep, learning, etc.; and 3) physical effects such as hearing loss or anxiety. Generally, sound levels associated with environmental effects are low, therefore resulting in effects in category 1 and 2, but not category 3 (BLM, 2004). Whether noise is considered annoying depends largely on the sensitivity of the listener. However, the type of noise (constant, impulsive, low frequency, tonal, etc), circumstances and the difference from previously existing noise, all influence the perception. Tonal noise (containing discrete tones) stands out much more against background noise. While changes in noise levels of 3 dB are less noticeable, a 5 dB change is likely to result in comments, and a 10 dB change (perceived as a doubling in sound level) is highly likely to result in adverse reactions from the people impacted (BLM, 2004). The noise levels associated with construction equipment will likely vary considerably, depending on the type, model, size, and condition of the equipment, the condition of the area, and the construction schedule. Also, construction projects generally proceed in stages, and there are daily variations in activities. Each of the phases will have a different mix of equipment as the source of the noise. Therefore, the noise levels and the impact of the noise can be expected to vary considerably over the period of the construction phase. Typical noise levels from construction equipment range from about 80 to about 90 dB(A) at 15 m distance (Table 5.3). For comparison, typical sound levels associated with various common environments are generally much lower, with a few exceptions (Table 5.4). Humans whispering produce about 30 dB(A), talking about 60 dB(A) (CBCL, 2003).

Table 5.4 Noise Levels Associated with Common Environments and Sources Location/Source Sound Level [dB(A)] Rural Residential ++ 38–46/40** Suburban Residential++ 48–52 Urban Residential++ 58–62 Rural night - time background+ 20-40/30** Quiet bedroom+ 35 Rustling leaves* 10 Busy general office+ 60 Car at 65 km/h at 100 m+ 55 Truck at 50 km/h at 100 m+ 65 Pneumatic Drill at 7 m+ 95 Jet aircraft at 250 m+ 105 Threshold of pain+ 140 Sources: + Sea Breeze 2004

++ CBCL, 2003 * BLM, 2004 ** Harris, 1979; in BLM, 2004.



Noise levels will be highest during the day (i.e., when elevated noise levels are most tolerated, since people are not disturbed in their sleep, and the construction noise is partly masked by background noise). Night time noise is expected to drop to background levels, since there is no plan for construction during the night. Considering the short and intermittent nature of the construction activities, the daily schedule, the season of the year chosen for construction, and the distance of the Project Site from the closest receptors, the impact on the people living close to the construction site and along the transport route is considered to be not significant, although intermittent truck traffic will be audible for most of the construction period. While there may be short-term annoyance, adverse effects on the health of individuals are not expected. Noise levels associated with the regular maintenance activities, such as visits to the turbines and power lines, are expected to result in a low level of noise, since light vehicles are used and they will be driven slowly. There is potential for short periods of increased noise levels, when repairs to the roads are necessary, or when there are major repairs to the turbines, including exchange of nacelles or rotors. In both cases, heavy equipment would be brought in, resulting in increased noise. Based on the distance between the Project Area and residential areas impacts on residents are not expected from the use of regular sized vehicles. Also, heavy equipment use will be very infrequent and at considerable distance from the receptors, resulting in non-significant and short-term impacts. Mitigation measures are not necessary. During the operational phase, noise can originate from the substation (transformer and switchgear noise), vehicle traffic between the WTGs, maintenance activities and deliveries, and noise from the wind turbines themselves. The noise may have effects on humans and wildlife. The nearest residence is approximately 600 m from the project footprint. The effects of operational noise, particularly from turbines, on wildlife, including birds, are dealt with elsewhere (see Section 5.6). Often, habituation can be expected. Noise produced by the wind turbines is a frequent concern with people living close to wind farms. Wind turbines produce both mechanical and aerodynamic noise (BLM, 2004). While modern wind turbines are designed and built to produce much less sound “side-effects” than earlier models, there still is a gentle “swishing” sound associated with the rotor movement, which becomes louder as the wind speed increases. This aerodynamic noise has broad-band character (BLM, 2004). It can be reduced through blade design, but cannot be avoided. As sound is carried with the wind, locations downwind from the turbines will experience a higher noise level than locations upwind, as well as for a longer distance from the turbines. A noise analysis has been conducted by Frontier Power Systems (2010b) to determine if operation activities would negatively impact nearby residences (Appendix C).



5.6.3.2.1 Mitigation Construction and decommissioning activities should be limited to daytime working hours. Also, there should not be any construction on weekends, particularly Sundays. Construction and decommissioning work should preferably be carried out in winter and early spring, which also would reduce impacts from dust and impacts on wildlife and vegetation. The fact that the turbines are set back at least 600 m from the nearest residences will significantly reduce the amount of noise audible in those areas. Nearby residents should be informed in advance when particularly noisy construction activities such as blasting (not anticipated on this project) will be performed. Using engine brakes should be discouraged. This schedule, together with the short term duration of the construction activities and the distance between source and receptors, are expected to reduce the impact on residents and visitors to a low level. Further mitigation measures are not necessary. As avoidance is the best mitigation, the wind park layout was designed with a set back distance of at least three times the height of the turbine between the turbine and the nearest residences. This measure will reduce noise to the level of the rural environment, similar to current noise levels in most locations. In addition, the turbines will automatically switch off at high wind speeds, thus eliminating higher noise levels at very high wind speed. 5.6.3.2.2 Residual Effects With the implementation of the above noted mitigation measures, significant adverse residual effects are unlikely.

5.7 AESTHETICS: VISUAL RESOURCES

Wind turbines are highly visible in any landscape, due to their size and colour. Therefore, they can produce adverse visual impacts. Adverse visual impacts can be defined as an “unwelcome visual intrusion, or the creation of visual contrasts, that affect the quality of the landscape” (BLM, 2004). The concept of adverse visual impacts implies that steps should be taken to protect the scenic resources from unnecessary adverse effects (BLM, 2004). Though visual impacts are widely recognized as one of the most important impacts of wind farms, it is difficult to determine the significance of the impact. The impact can be described in specific terms, but the human response is highly subjective and therefore cannot be quantified (BLM, 2004). Adverse visual impacts can be grouped into three major types: unnatural intrusion of man-made appearance or disfigurement; partial degradation, reduction or impairment of the existing level of visual quality, and complete loss of the visual resources. The US Bureau of Land Management defines visual impacts as the contrast perceived by observers between existing landscapes and proposed projects and activities (BLM, 2004). Therefore, the amount of visual contrast produced will influence the degree to which a structure or “activity intrudes on, degrades or reduces the visual quality of a landscape” (BLM, 2004).




During the construction phase, visual impacts may be caused by road construction, and by the accompanying disturbance of the soils and vegetation, levelling and grading the terrain, and stockpiling of soil for further use. These activities may leave visible impacts on the landscape. The same effect will result from the construction of the ancillary buildings, and the turbine pads and turbines, and lay-down areas. Dust created by the construction activities, including vehicle traffic, may enhance the visual impacts. Vehicle traffic, both from small vehicles ferrying workers and from trucks delivering equipment and turbine parts, may also result in visual impacts. During construction the large crane(s) required for the assembly of the tower and rotor structure will be visible from the general Norway area. The presence of the crane, although short term, may attract interested persons, both local residents to the area and tourists. This increased traffic could interfere with local residents’ daily travel and privacy. During the decommissioning phase, the same activities and potential impacts are possible, since soil will be moved to reclaim the roadways, turbine pads and ancillary building areas. During the operation phase, visual impacts are possible from the presence and operation of the turbines, and to a small degree, from the visits of the maintenance workers as well as occasional major maintenance work or repairs using large equipment.

5.7.2 Boundaries

Spatial boundaries are the Project Area, and the area in which the turbines are visible. The temporal boundaries are the construction, operations and decommissioning phases. Once decommissioned, for the most part the visible landscape will be returned to the pre-construction condition.


The wind turbines in the Project Area will be highly visible in the landscape. Because of their size, colour and exposed location, wind turbines cannot be reduced or concealed consequently visual impacts are therefore likely. However, since the North Cape Wind Farm and Norway Wind Farm and Vestas V90 prototype are already in existence in the area, there should not be an increased visual impact as a result of the Project. Therefore, local and tourist perception of the visual effects in the Study Area resulting from the Project are not likely to change whether the attitude or opinion of the viewer are negative or positive. Factors that contribute to negative impressions are: lattice towers, shiny surfaces, colour contrast to the surroundings, artificial, industrial appearance contrasting the natural environment, presence of logos or advertising signs, location of turbines at prominent landscape features, arrangement of turbines, etc. Glare from shiny surfaces and shadow flicker contribute to the visual impacts, as may lighting requirements. Strong, steady lighting may cause “skyglow” (BLM, 2004). Also, “untidy” arrangement of turbines may increase the negative



impression. Garbage, traces of leaks from the nacelles, and otherwise dirty turbines will also result in a more negative impression on the viewer, as do “idle” turbines or turbines with parts missing (BLM, 2004). Due to the existence of four other wind farms in the immediate area, additional significant visual impacts are not expected.

5.7.4 Mitigation

While visual impacts of turbines cannot be avoided without abandoning the project, there are a number of mitigation measures that will reduce the potential for negative impacts (BLM, 2004). A number of these mitigation measures have been considered by the turbine manufacturer and during the planning of the wind farm layout. These include:

• tubular towers; • aesthetic balance in the design; • light grey colour, non reflective, not shiny steel; • turbine model identical for all turbines; • turbines arranged in clusters where possible (no disorder); • no long lines of turbines; • turbines are not located on elevated land points; and • information for the public using computer simulations of the landscape with the turbines.

Other mitigation measures to be considered are:

• Minimizing the lighting on the turbines to what is required for air safety, choosing flashing lights over steady lights.

• Minimizing project footprint and implement erosion control and dust abatement. • Repair turbines immediately and remove obsolete turbines instead of just switching them

off, in order to prevent the impression of idle turbines. • Clean the turbines, particularly traces of spills from the nacelle. • Remove excess materials and any ‘fugitive’ litter from the Project Area. • Avoid posting commercial signs.

Some of these mitigation measures have also been recommended as mitigation measures in conjunction with other VECs.

5.7.5 Residual Impacts

Residual adverse effects are not likely with the implementation of mitigation measures.



5.8 ACCIDENTS AND MALFUNCTIONS

During all phases of the Project there is potential for accidents to occur. Some accidents may have significant consequences. Such events may include fires and uncontrolled releases of materials such as POLs, solvents and epoxy resins. Uncontrolled release of such materials may affect the health and safety of individuals, air quality, water quality, including surface or ground water and terrestrial or aquatic habitat, wetlands and wildlife, in particular, species-at-risk. Accidents specific to wind farms include ice-throw and blade breakage, which could impact individuals and property.


Petroleum product spills can occur during site clearing and construction due to equipment malfunctions and refueling activities. Also, there may be spills of transmission oil or transformer liquids during maintenance of the turbines and transformers, spills of fuel or oil from the vehicles used for turbine and road maintenance, and leaks of transformer and transmission liquids from turbines and transformers during normal operation. Spills of paint or solvents used for turbine paint touch-ups are possible. Herbicides are not anticipated to be used so they have not been considered in the impact analysis. With respect to emergency repairs, Section 7.1 (c) of CEAA states that: notwithstanding section 5, an EA of a project is not required where, “the project is to be carried out in response to an emergency and carrying out the project forthwith is in the interest of preventing damage to property or the environment or is in the interest of public health or safety."

5.8.2 Boundaries

The temporal boundary includes the proposed construction, operation, and decommissioning of the Project. Construction of the proposed Project will occur over a fourteen-month period, while the operation of the Project is expected to last for 20 to 25 years. This timeframe will have to be extended if refurbishment of the turbines occurs. The temporal bounds for traffic accidents include the weeks of the construction and decommissioning activities. The spatial boundaries will vary depending on the type of accident or malfunction that occurs. Boundaries for potential spills will depend on the type of spill and the substrate. Spills on land will not migrate as far as spills in aquatic environments. Boundaries for icing and breakage are limited to the extent that parts or ice particles can travel through the air. It is anticipated that the setbacks required to reduce noise impacts is sufficient to mitigate icing and breakage impacts.


5.8.3.1 Accidental Spills and Leaks

The potential release of hazardous materials and construction debris to the surrounding environment during Project activities may increase background contaminant levels. In addition, the accidental release of petroleum products from construction equipment and wind turbines can have adverse effects.



Spills or exposure to toxic substances, either directly or indirectly via contaminated soil or water, has the potential to lead to negative impacts on flora and fauna, including Species-at-Risk. If several individuals of a species are affected, it would have an impact on population level and therefore the effects would be considered significant. Adverse effects can also occur if wetlands or watercourses in and around the Project Area are exposed to contaminants. Spills have the potential to cause long-term significant adverse effects to both soil and water quality. 5.8.3.1.1 Mitigation The fundamental approach to accidents is one of prevention through training and being prepared to respond to any emergency. The preventative measures and contingency planning identified below will be developed with reference to the Canadian Standards Association (CSA) publication “Emergency Planning for Industry” (CAN/CSA-Z731-99). The recommended mitigation measures include:

• Reducing the need for hazardous substances by substituting for less harmful ones. • Incorporating appropriate preventative and response measures and construction

practices. • Providing environmental awareness training to contractors and workers involved in the

Project. Training will include the handling, clean-up, reporting and disposal of contaminated material.

• Maintaining appropriate spill response equipment, such as spill kits, in a readily accessible location.

• Reporting all spills to applicable authorities (e.g., 24-hour emergency reporting system 1-800-563-1633).

• The inspection of equipment (e.g., construction vehicles, exhaust systems) by the site personnel to ensure that vehicles with obvious fuel or oil leaks do not enter the Project Area.

• Vehicles will not be refueled on-site, whenever possible. • Fuel and lubricant storage, and location for equipment servicing will be maintained

outside of at least a 30 m buffer from wetlands and watercourses. • A thorough inventory of hazardous materials to be used at the construction site, e.g.,

fuels, lubricants, cement, wet cement, concrete additives and agents, preservatives, solvents, paints and wastes such as waste oil should be maintained on-site and updated as needed.

Best management practices prescribe the presence of spill kits on location and on the vehicles. Spill management procedures as outlined in the contingency plan will be followed when a spill occurs. Spill kits are mandatory on-site. Any discharge will be cleaned immediately and authorities notified (e.g. PEIDEEF, DFO). Frequent investigation of the turbines and transformers will ensure that any leaks are discovered promptly. Leaks will be repaired, and spills will be cleaned up immediately.



5.8.3.1.2 Residual Impacts With the implementation of mitigation measures, significant adverse residual effects due to accidents are unlikely to occur. WEICan is committed to develop and implement an EMP. This plan will include contingency measures to address potential accidents or malfunctions.

5.8.3.2 Icing

Under certain weather conditions, ice can build up on the wind turbine blades, even if they are moving. This ice can be thrown off the blades, which poses a hazard to workers on-site, as well as the public in the vicinity of the turbines. Ice can build up due to melting snow or when the air temperature is below 0ºC, while there is humidity in the air (including rain, fog or drizzle). These conditions are relatively frequent along PEI’s Atlantic coast, even though the winter weather conditions are comparatively mild. The amount and the consistency of ice depend on the weather conditions and the operational status of the turbines (i.e. moving or stationary). Morgan et al. (1998) mention that ice build-up is greater on moving turbines than on stationary ones. Most ice shedding occurs as temperatures rise and the ice thaws from the rotor (Morgan et al., 1998 in Sea Breeze 2004). Typically, icing on the rotors and nacelle leads to automatic rotor shutdown. Restart happens only when the ice has thawed off, and the operators re-start the turbine. However, the authors state that it is common practice for operators to speed up this process by thawing the sensors, and re-starting the still ice-covered rotors. This leads to heavy ice shedding. Few data are available on the mass of the ice pieces and the distance they travel (Morgan et al., 1998 in Sea Breeze 2004). Observations put the mass of pieces found on the ground between 0.1 and 1 kilogram (kg), and the distance to 15-100 m (rotor diameter up to 60 m), but it is not known how well the area was searched. Large pieces tend to disintegrate in flight. Ice tends to fall predominantly downwind from the turbine. Also, it appears that most ice drops off rather than being thrown off (Morgan et al., 1998 in Sea Breeze 2004). To date, no fatalities have been reported as a result of icing (American Wind Energy Association (AWEA), 2005). AWEA also states that ice throw is of little danger to the public since the set backs required to minimize noise are usually sufficient to protect the public from any danger from thrown ice. In addition, ice build up on the rotors slows down the rotation. This is sensed in the turbines control system, and causes the turbine to shut down (AWEA, 2005). Morgan et al. (1998 in Sea Breeze 2004) state that the risk of being struck by ice thrown from a turbine is “diminishingly small” at distances over 250 m from a turbine with moderate icing. The same report points out that there were no earlier studies on this concern, and that this is probably due to the fact that there had been no reported injuries from thrown ice, despite the 6000 MW of turbine power installed world-wide. However, the authors also state that there had been several “significant incidents” in Germany in 1997-1998. A European group has studied the question of ice throw. They recommend a set back distance which is 1.5 times the sum of the turbine hub height and its rotor diameter (AWEA, 2005).



Ice build up on tall structures may be an issue for occupational safety of the workers during the construction and decommissioning phase. Stage 1 turbine construction is scheduled for the spring of 2011. Subsequent Stages of construction will be scheduled for similar time periods. Deconstruction is not likely to be carried out during the winter. Therefore, air temperatures should be above freezing, thus preventing ice formation. Also, during both phases, the turbines blades will not be rotating, thus avoiding ice throw. In addition, workers will be trained on the hazards due to ice build up on tall structures. Ice throw will not be a hazard to the public during the construction and decommissioning phases, since the public will be banned from the Project Area during these phases, and the turbines will not be rotating. Therefore, adverse effects from ice build up are not likely during the construction and decommissioning phases. Ice being thrown off the blades in theory poses a health and safety concern for any person on the site or near the turbines, since it may result in injuries. The ice may be thrown up to 100 m (Morgan et al., 1998 in Sea Breeze, 2004). However, ice is mainly a public safety issue, since operations personnel are trained and are more likely to avoid the hazard. On the other hand, operations staff is at greater risk from ice since they work more regularly and at shorter distances from the turbines. In addition to personal injuries, ice impacts may cause damage to residences and vehicles. Adverse effects from ice build up and ice-throw are likely. While the frequency is relatively low, the effects are potentially severe. Therefore, ice is considered to potentially cause significant impacts, and mitigation measures should be applied. 5.8.3.2.1 Mitigation All workers will be trained on the hazards due to ice build up on tall structures. During construction and decommissioning phases of the Project, the general public should be kept off-site at all times. The wind turbines should be set back a sufficient distance from the nearest residences, roads and public access areas for an appropriate distance to prevent ice impacts. This set back distance (safety zone) should be slightly larger than the 100 m the ice is expected to fly. Experience gained with wind farms in Ontario indicates that a minimum distance of 150-200 m should be maintained to residences. The turbines proposed for the R&D Wind Park will be set back by at least 600 m from residences. This should provide sufficient distance to avoid flying ice. However, parts of Waterview Road and Norway Road are located within this distance, as will be the access roads. Therefore, it is recommended that operations personnel set up warning signs or warning flags on days where ice build up is potentially possible, to prevent people from using the access roads. If the signs or flags are ignored, other options will be discussed with the regulators such as shutting the turbines off. Operations personnel must be trained to recognize the conditions that lead to ice build up, in order for this warning system to be operated effectively.



If warning signs or flags only are set up, follow-up monitoring should be carried out to find out whether the public accepts the warning. If the warning signs are ignored, other options have to be considered to keep people from entering the access roads on days with ice build up. The warning signs or flags should also be installed in the emergency access road south of the wind farm area, since people may access the Project Area by following the road and then continuing on foot. 5.8.3.2.2 Residual Impacts A sufficient safety distance of the turbines from residences and roads, as well as the successful implementation of a warning sign system is expected to reduce the impacts after mitigation to a low level.

5.8.3.3 Breakage

While icing is a normal process (and therefore will occur regularly) during the operation of wind turbines under the climatic conditions at the Project Site, breakage of the turbine or turbine blades is qualified as an accident or malfunction. In the past, a major safety hazard of wind turbine operations has been the breakage of a turbine blade, which results in the parts being thrown off. Blade breakage can be the result of several occurrences, though each is a rare event. Blades may break apart as a result of rotor overspeed, though this happens mostly with older and smaller turbines, and happens extremely rarely. Material fatigue can also lead to blade breakage (Hau, 2000 in BLM, 2004). It is difficult to predict the trajectory of the broken rotor blade pieces, however, it is known that a blade or turbine part has rarely travelled further than 500 m from the tower; generally, most pieces land within 100 and 200 m (Manwell et al., 2002 in BLM, 2004). Today, proper engineering design and quality control are expected to make blade breaks rare. There have been no reports of fatalities due to blade throws during all of the 20 years that the wind industry is in operation (AWEA, 2005). Also, lightning strikes have been known to cause breakage. In addition to breaks in rotor blades, the turbine tower could potentially collapse. During both construction and decommissioning phases, the rotors will be shut off, resulting in low risk of rotor blade parts being thrown off. However, there is an extremely low potential risk from collapses of the turbine towers, or, even more rarely, the rotors can drop off during construction. This hazard is posed to workers on-site and is covered under occupational safety (see above). The public will have no access to the turbine sites during the construction and de-commissioning phases. Therefore, adverse effects from breakage are not likely during these project phases. Like icing, breakage of blades poses mainly a public health and safety concern, though operations personnel may be impacted as well. Broken pieces can be thrown like projectiles, and may cause injury and even death, as well as damage to property if residences or vehicles are hit. However, no fatalities have been reported yet (see above).



Since the turbines are new and will be inspected yearly, breaks from material fatigue are not expected. The biggest concern for a cause of breakage therefore is lightning strike. PEI, according to a flash density map, experiences an average of 42 lightning flashes per one hundred square kilometres per year in the period from 1998 to 2002, cloud-to-cloud and cloud-to-ground counts combined (EC, 2010). Though breakage is considered a very rare event, the impact is considered significant, warranting mitigation measures. 5.8.3.3.1 Mitigation The best mitigation is avoidance. Therefore, safety zones should be included in the Project design. A safety set back of 290 m reduced the likelihood of blade fragment impacts greatly (and was sufficient in Ontario, see above). A set-back of at least 500 m from residences and roads would eliminate any possibility of impacts. Signs at the start of wind farm area will warn visitors to safety hazards connected to wind turbines, particularly the danger of lightning strikes, and advise the public to leave area during a thunder storm. A public education session should be considered for the local residents to alert them to the safety hazards and how to avoid them. If flags are installed at the start of the road system as a mitigation procedure for ice throw concerns, the flags should also be used during thunderstorms, and warning signs or flags should be set up while the storm lasts. Operations staff will have to wear protective equipment such as hard hats whenever they approach the turbines. Also, they will be trained to be aware of the potential dangers from blade breakage. The Health and Safety Procedure Manual should include safety protocols to be followed, particularly during annual maintenance activities. Tower failure, resulting in the collapse of a turbine, is highly unlikely. 5.8.3.3.2 Residual Impacts The residual effects after implementation of the safety measures are considered to be low, if visitors to the area obey the safety advisory on the signs posted.

5.8.3.4 Traffic Accidents

During the construction and decommissioning phases, there will be an increase in traffic in and on the roads around the rural areas of Norway and town of Tignish. Traffic related to the R&D wind park project will consist of automobiles carrying workers, trucks to transport soil, rock and waste, heavy lifting equipment, and flatbed trailer trucks transporting construction equipment and turbine parts. Increased traffic during certain phases of the Project could conceivably lead to a higher risk of traffic related accidents for the public.



The increase in the number of vehicles of different types during the construction and decommissioning phases of the project can potentially result in a higher number of traffic related accidents. Therefore, adverse effects are likely. These accidents may cause injury to the persons involved, or even death. At the minimum, there is damage to property, i.e., the cars involved. Since many of these additional traffic participants are large, heavy vehicles, the outcome of traffic accidents can be expected to be more severe than if it were a collision with a regular car. This increase in traffic is limited to the times when construction activities occur. The construction phase is expected to stretch out over a total of 14 months starting in the early part of 2011 and finishing mid-summer 2012. The majority of traffic will consist of trucks carrying road construction and foundation construction materials to and from the construction site. The same type and amount of traffic will be found during the de-commissioning phase. Should refurbishment of the turbines occur, the traffic would be somewhat less than during the construction since the transport of earth moving equipment and road building material would be limited. The impact from the increased traffic during the construction phase is considered significant and warrants mitigation measures. During the operation phase, the traffic is not expected to increase significantly. Repairs to the turbines would necessitate heavy lifting equipment and transport of turbine parts. However, repairs are expected to be rarely necessary. In any case, repairs would be on individual turbines, so that the heavy vehicles will be on the roads only for one to two days. 5.8.3.4.1 Mitigation Since the traffic related to the construction activities cannot be avoided, the mitigation has to focus on other methods, such as increasing the safety for the public and the transportation workers. Safety can be increased by making sure that transportation workers have been trained to adhere to safe driving rules, such as no alcohol and no cell phone use when driving, and by ensuring that they are alerted to the fact that there may be children crossing the roads at any time and any location. The people along the route should be made aware of the times when the traffic will be increased, for example, by posting notices in public places or messages in newspaper and/or radio. Notes should be sent to the schools, to alert the children to the additional traffic, and to encourage the schools to practice traffic safety with the children. 5.8.3.4.2 Residual Impacts Since the increase in traffic volume is limited to a short time period, if the above mitigation measures are put in place, residual effects are considered low.



6.0 EFFECTS OF THE ENVIRONMENT ON THE PROJECT Several environmental factors could have adverse effects on the project: fire, extreme weather events and global climate change. These effects have been considered during the project design phase.

6.1 EXTREME WEATHER

Extreme weather events can damage the turbines, e.g. by ice formation, hail or lightning strikes. Also, during extreme high winds or ice formation, the wind turbines will cut out, thus not producing energy and revenue. The Island seldom experiences violent local storms in the form of tornadoes, severe thunderstorms, and hailstorms, although waterspouts, the aquatic cousins of tornadoes, are somewhat more in evidence (Atlantic Climate Centre, 2006). Although local storms are rarely severe, the Island is vulnerable to the destructive forces of much more powerful Atlantic storms. These bring very high tides (storm surges), strong winds, and heavy rains. About once every summer and early fall, dissipating hurricanes tracking along the Atlantic coast expend their energy and remaining rainfalls over the Island. One of the most drenching and damaging storms of this kind occurred on September 22, 1942. Charlottetown recorded 163.8 mm of rain, the greatest daily total ever recorded for any PEI station. Winter storms bring a variety of weather conditions from hurricane force winds to heavy precipitation in all forms, and they can pass rapidly through the region or stall and batter the province for days. Winds associated with these storms on occasion exceed 100 km/h. When such storms occur at high tide, storm surges become a problem. When the centres of the storms remain to the south of the Island, precipitation reaches the Gulf and the Island in the form of snow. If the low centre passes to the north of the Island, the snow will change to freezing rain and rain. Freezing precipitation is rare, and occurs on average for about 40 hours per year (Atlantic Climate Centre, 2006). Thunderstorm days number between 9 and 12 a year on average, considerably less than in other parts of southern Canada, and thunderstorms are not of the same intensity as those experienced elsewhere (Atlantic Climate Centre, 2006). Based on the climate data available some extreme weather events are likely. However, the effects on the turbines have been considered during the project designs, and losses to productivity are not a concern. The turbine towers will be equipped with lightning protection and electronic wind speed monitoring. In the case of extreme weather conditions with wind speeds exceeding 25 m/s, the rotors are shut down. Significant adverse effects of extreme weather events on the project are not likely.



6.2 GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is an international organization of the world’s leading climate scientists, and is affiliated with the United Nations. According to the IPCC, the average global temperature is expected to rise by 1.4 – 5.8 ºC over the next century. In Canada the temperatures could rise by 5-7 ºC (EC, 2004b). The increases are predicted to differ depending on the region, with the highest increases in the North. The increase in temperature is attributed to GHG emissions, and CO2 is the most important GHG. The increase in average temperatures will be accompanied by an increase in severe weather events, and a rise in sea levels. Severe weather events include flood, drought and storms, and the rise in sea levels will increase the number and severity (height) of storm surges, the wave energy and erosion (EC, 2004a). According to The Canadian Centre for Climate Modelling and Analysis, projections for PEI depict a 2.3 to 2.5 oC rise in both the Annual Mean Maximum and Minimum Temperatures by the 2050s. These values are based on the Hadley Centre Coupled Model, version 3 (HadCM3) and the Canadian coupled global climate model version 1 (CGCM1), (Gary Lines Pers comm., Meteorological Service of Canada (MSC) 2007). In 2002, a study on sea-level rise on PEI adopted the IPCC’s central value of about 0.5 m for sea-level rise and 0.2 m for crustal subsidence in the Charlottetown area by 2100. Predictions for sea-levels show that the rise will vary from location to location, but this would most likely result in a substantial rises in the Study Area as well (McCulloch, 2002). North Cape is located in an area of high sensitivity to sea-level rise (Geological Survey of Canada, 1998 in EC, 2004b). In addition, the land in the Maritimes has been subsiding by about 20 cm per century since the last ice age (EC, 2004a). Based on this information, the wind park project in North Cape may be impacted by increased erosion (coastal turbines), flooding due to storm surges and sea-level rise, flooding from increased precipitation, increase in the number of days with ice-formation, and increased number of severe weather occurrences.



7.0 CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ASSESSMENT The Agency and the PEIDEEF also require consideration of cumulative effects that are likely to occur in respect to the Project. The CEAA does not define cumulative environmental effects, but does provide a number of points that indicate what should be considered. First, all environmental effects as described in the Act can be considered cumulatively. Second, the Act states that EA’s must consider the cumulative environmental effects "that are likely to result from the project in combination with other projects or activities that have or will be carried out" (Drouin and LeBlanc, 1994). Future projects that are reasonably foreseeable should be considered (The Agency, 1999). The term "Cumulative Effect" has been defined as:

• the summation of effects over time which can be attributed to the operation of the Project itself; and

• the overall effects on the ecosystem of the Project Area that can be attributed to the Project and other existing and planned future projects.

The Agency (1999) provides a reference guide entitled ‘Cumulative Effects Assessment Practitioners Guide’.

7.1 BOUNDARIES

For the purpose of identifying and assessing cumulative effects, the spatial dimensions can be variable, depending on the VEC that is being assessed. For example, the cumulative effects on air quality can cover an area well beyond the footprint of the Study Area. The temporal boundaries are extended to include past, current, and known planned or reasonably foreseeable projects.

7.2 OTHER PROJECTS IN THE AREA

7.2.1 Existing

A search of the CEAA Registry and the PEI EIA Registry identified two projects within 1 km of the site, 9 additional projects within 5 km and 2 additional projects within 10 km of the Project Site that have been initiated or approved. The projects ranged from basic infrastructure improvements such as boardwalk construction and building additions to highway reconstruction, small craft harbour maintenance and improvement, and development of a renewable energy facility. In general, development activity in the area is focused on the near shore and inshore fishery, agriculture, tourism and wind energy. The major development activity in the immediate area (within a 5 km radius) is the development of wind energy. The project area lies within Zone 1 (Western Prince County) of the PEI Zone of Inclusion for the development of renewable energy and it is quite possible that future wind farm development will take place within the zone. The area has a wind regime which is highly



desirable to developers. In addition, the WEICan has in the past and will continue in the future to undertake research and evaluation of small scale wind turbines as a significant portion of its mandate. There are six wind turbines (5 – 600 kW and 1 – 3 MW) within a one km radius of the proposed project. There are 11 additional 600 kW turbines and 3 additional 3 MW turbines included within a 5 km radius. The Wind Energy Institute of Canada’s turbine test area is located within two km of the project location. The focus at this facility is on research, testing and evaluating small wind turbines. Numbers of turbines and levels of operation vary from a few turbines to about 15. Maximum output capacity is in the range of 600 kW but as a rule, functional output is about ½ of that. The PEI Wind-Hydrogen Village Project is located at the WEICan test site. It includes a hydrogen production station, a hydrogen storage depot, a hydrogen fuelled generator, and a wind-hydrogen integrated control system. Wind energy from the turbines at the Wind Energy Institute of Canada is used to meet ongoing electricity needs and to provide power to electrolysis equipment which makes hydrogen from water. The North Cape Wind Farm was established in 2001 as an eight turbine, 5.28 MW wind generation facility. It has since doubled in size and capacity to 16 turbines and 10.56 MW capacity. It is located to the north east of the R&D Wind Park proposed location. A single 3 MW wind turbine, established in 2004 as an Aeolus prototype project, is located approximately one km east of the proposed R&D Wind Park. The Norway Wind Park consists of three 3MW wind turbines located within 5 km south of the proposed R&D Wind Park. Another wind generation site, the West Cape Wind Farm, is a 55 turbine, 99 MW complex located approximately 35 to 40 km southeast of the proposed R&D Wind Park. In summary, there are five existing wind farm developments in Western PEI within 45 km of each other: Atlantic Wind Test Site, North Cape Wind Park, Norway Wind Park, Aeolus Prototype Project, West Cape Wind Farm. The R&D Wind Park will be number six. These sites may have a potential for regional impacts on the environment.

7.2.2 Future

PEI had a plan under consideration in 2008 - 2009 for the development of up to 130 MW of additional wind power (100 MW for export and 30 MW for use in the province). This plan, which likely would have seen the development of significant additional wind generation in the same general area as the R&D Wind Park project, did not come to fruition. Alternatively, there is presently a plan in place to develop an additional 30 MW of wind generated power for use in the province. It is unknown at this point where this energy will be developed.



7.3 IMPACT ASSESSMENT

Following the definitions of the term, the “residual effects on the environment”, i.e. effects after mitigation measures have been put in place, combined with the environmental effects of past, present and future projects and activities will be considered in this assessment. Also, a “combination of different individual environmental effects of the project acting on the same environmental component” can result in cumulative effects.

7.3.1 Potential Cumulative Effects

The VECs presented in Section 5 have been examined alongside other past, present and future projects for potential adverse cumulative effects. A summary of the cumulative effects discussed are summarized in Table 7.1. There have been 22 specific VECs identified with reference to the R&D Wind Park project (Table 3.3). Of those VECs identified, five can be considered to be components of cumulative effects analysis. Table 7.1 indicates the potential cumulative effects VECs and the rationale for inclusion/exclusion. The potential for cumulative effects exists for: floral and faunal Species-at-Risk, bats, birds & migratory birds, and wetlands. These will be discussed below. There are no major developments such as a power plant or oil refinery underway in the Province that will have far reaching effects on the VECs discussed in this document. The examination of cumulative effects will focus on projects within an approximate 10 km radius of the Study Area as well as present and future wind farm developments.

7.3.2 Birds

Birds can be affected by wind generation developments during construction and operation phases. During construction, particularly during sensitive breeding and nesting periods, disruption of breeding, nesting and rearing can occur due to noise, removal of habitat, and destruction of nests as well as suitable habitat. Mitigation for these situations is dealt with in the project specific VEC sections. There are no other wind projects, nor are there any other significant construction activities planned in the general area for the proposed construction period. Thus, cumulative effects with regard to this component will be negligible. During operation and maintenance, displacement can occur and can lead to habitat loss for birds (Drewitt and Langston, 2006) Birds can be displaced by the presence of the turbines themselves through visual, noise and vibration impacts, and also by repeated vehicle movements related to maintenance. While the other wind farms in the region are in operational mode, regular maintenance does not result in excessive intrusion. However, there will be some cumulative effect as a result of this project. Mitigative measures (minimizing footprint, making maximum use of existing access routes, and remote monitoring) will aid in limiting the cumulative impact.



Table 7.1 Potential Cumulative Effects for VECs and Rationale for Inclusion

VEC Potential for Cumulative Effect Rationale for Inclusion/Exclusion Level of

Cumulative Effect Soil and soil quality No Effect only localized not applicable (na)

Birds Yes Increased possibility of interaction with turbines. Removal of Habitat

Low

Bats Yes Increased possibility of interaction with turbines. Removal of Habitat

Low

Flora Species-at-Risk Yes Rare species in the project and surrounding areas Minimal

Fauna Species-at-Risk Yes Rare species in the surrounding

areas Minimal

Critical Natural Areas No Removed from NAPA process na

Wetland Environment Yes Possibility of increased loss of wetland habitat. Low

Air Quality No No other significant construction activities in the surrounding area na

Population Demographics No Will not change present

demographics cumulatively na

Local Economy No localized na Industry & Commerce No Minimal cumulative effect. na Agriculture No Specific to project only na

Transportation No Temporary increased use of transportation corridors to project site

na

Heritage, Pre-historic No Specific to project only na Historic Heritage No Specific to project only na Human Health & Safety No Specific to project only na

Accidents and Malfunctions (6) No Specific and limited to project. na

Habitat loss can have a long term cumulative effect on bird populations. However, the total footprint for this project will be between 2.13 ha and 2.70 ha, depending upon the option for access chosen. Of this total, approximately 40 percent is in wooded areas while the remainder is in agricultural fields already highly altered and of minimal potential for bird habitat. It is unlikely that habitat loss due to construction of roads, turbines and other associated structures will have an appreciable negative impact on species diversity or numbers. Previous studies have indicated that birds may exhibit avoidance behavior when encountering a series of turbines. They may either fly around or over the turbines without stopping (Dalzell, 2010). The area is not in a significant migration flyway, The majority of birds observed in flight at the study site (67%) were American Crow, Common Raven, Herring Gull, Great Black-backed gull and Double-crested Cormorant, it is unlikely that this project will cause any significantly increased barrier to flight west to east across the Island. There is a space of approximately



0.8 km between the northernmost turbine in this project and the southernmost turbine in the North Cape wind farm. While risk of collision has been thought of as a major cause of bird mortality in relation to wind turbines, studies have shown this to be a relatively low level of mortality in birds (Drewitt and Langston, 2006). In addition, very few bird deaths due to wind turbine collision have been recorded at wind turbines already in existence in the North Cape – Norway area. The Norway Wind Farm, immediately south of the proposed R&D Wind Park project, carried out extensive post-construction monitoring studies and determined that there was very low or minimal avian death due to the operation of the wind farm (M.K. Ince and Associates, 2009). In the project bird study report (Dalzell, 2010) points out that “two-thirds of the birds in flight were comprised of five species that have already habituated to the presence of several wind turbines in the North Cape area, and it is felt the risk of collision for these species to be negligible at best”.

7.3.3 Bats

As has been pointed out in Section 5.2.1.3, bats can be subject to disruption by wind turbines through construction activities, human activities during operations, and mortality as a result of passing close to rotating turbine blades. No bat studies have been undertaken with regard to any of the other wind turbine locations in the region. A cursory search for possible hibernacula in abandoned buildings was carried out during data collection for the West Cape Wind Farm Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). The effect of existing wind energy projects on bats in the project area is unknown. The post-construction mortality survey carried out at the Norway Wind Park also included bats in the carcass search program. No bat carcasses were found during the survey (M.K. Ince, 2009). This EIS includes a survey of bat presence and abundance. Based on the data, there appears to be low levels of bat activity in the project area. There will likely be minimal cumulative effect on bat populations as a result of this project. In summary, cumulative effects to avian and bat species are expected to be insignificant if developments are spaced to minimize the concentration of turbines and avoid creating a barrier effect.

7.3.4 Floral Species-at-Risk

While some rare species are known to exist in the general area of the project, particularly sites T1, T2, &T3, they are mostly limited to the open bog areas of the Black Marsh, adjacent to the project sites. A rare plants survey at the footprint locations of the turbines did not reveal any species listed by SARA or COSEWIC. Mitigation measures have been implemented to take into account protective measures for some of the unique flora that exists in areas adjacent to project footprint locations.



It is likely that cumulative effects with regard to flora at risk will be minimal with regard to this project.

7.3.5 Faunal Species-at-Risk

Only the Canada Warbler and Black Guillemot were observed during the field surveys conducted at the project location by Brian Dalzell (2010). The Canada Warbler is listed as Threatened under both COSEWIC and SARA. No impact is anticipated to occur to the Black Guillemot since it seldom flies more than 10 m above the ocean’s surface. The significance of any effect on bird Species-at-Risk will depend in part on the permanence of that effect and the sensitivity of the particular species or habitat component effected. Based on recommendations by Brian Dalzell’s (2010) report, the most sensitive bird habitat features of the Canada Warbler have been avoided. It is unlikely that any cumulative effects will accrue to these listed species as a result of the project.

7.3.6 Wetlands

As noted in Section 5.2.3, turbine sites T1, T2 and T3 are located in wooded wetland areas (black spruce bog – T1 & T2, mixed woodland bog – T3). Several effects on that habitat are anticipated primarily as a result of construction and a series of mitigative measures will be put in place to minimize impacts. The North Cape Wind Farm and the Aeolus Prototype Turbine also impact the wetland area generally referred to as the Black Marsh, to varying degrees. Access roads, turbine sites and substations for these projects have influenced the wetland to an undetermined degree. The R&D Wind Park project will have a cumulative effect on the integrity of the marsh in relationship with those projects. The project will result in the loss of slightly more than 1 hectare of wooded bog wetland. In accordance with zero wetland loss policies, this loss will be compensated at rates established by governmental policy. Given the relatively small loss of wetland relative to other activities in the same wetland complex, it is likely that cumulative effects as a result of this project will be low.



8.0 POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND CUMULATIVE EFFECTS In this section, the impact assessments carried out in Section 5.1 to 5.15 is summarized in two tables: a summary of the predicted environmental impacts is provided in Table 8.1 and a summary of the cumulative effects assessment is provided in Table 8.2.



Table 8.1 Summary of Environmental Impacts

Project Activities Environmental Components

Subject to Impacts Impacts Mitigation

Measures Residual

Environmental Effects

Level of Residual Impact

Construction and Decommissioning Activities Turbine, road, and ancillary building construction: • Clearing, grubbing,

excavation.

Soils • Soil Admixing

• Compaction

• Erosion

• Loss of Productive Area

• Topsoil stripping will be kept to a minimum

• Top soils will be kept separate from all sub-soils

• Shallow softrock will be kept separate from topsoil

• Equipment travel will be limited to roads during period of rain

• The time between top soil stripping and rehabilitation will be minimized

• A follow-up survey will be conducted to identify areas requiring further rehabilitation

• Proper drainage will be incorporated into both road and foundation designs

• Landowner will be compensated for land removed from production

Likely Minimal






Measures Residual



Turbine, road, and ancillary building construction: • Operation of heavy

equipment and smaller vehicles

• Blasting, drilling, and grading

• Site clearing

• Presence of humans

• Accidental spills of oil, fuel

Birds • Avoidance and changes to migratory movement caused by noise, visual impacts, and human presence

• Loss, fragmentation, or degradation of breeding, feeding, and resting habitat

• Habitat degradation by invasive species

• Changes to the water regime by erosion and runoff

• Exposure to toxic chemicals

• Respiratory health effects from dust

• Potential mortality of adults, young and eggs from collisions, or nest destruction

• Guywires on single meteorological mast.

• Fire

• No clearing between May and August

• Avoid important habitat and migration areas;

• Minimize project footprint

• Do not unnecessarily cut down trees of 15 cm or more in diameter

• Minimize impacts on the hydrological regime

• Avoid construction or decommissioning during breeding season

• Do not create areas of high prey density during habitat restoration

• Use native plants or no vegetation at all around turbines

• Avoid mowed lawn

• Place high-visibility flight diverters on guy wires

None expected on birds in general Minimal effect on the local long eared owl population

Minimal

Turbine, road, and ancillary building construction Land clearing

Species-at-Risk: Bats

• Reduction of quality and quantity of habitat

• Killing of individuals during land clearing activity

• Limit removal of tall trees and snags to areas absolutely necessary for construction

• Timing of work

None expected Minimal


Species-at-Risk: Invertebrates

• Clearing, grubbing and excavation activities

• Alterations to existing natural drainage patterns will be minimized

• Install and maintain erosion control structures (silt fences, etc.)







Measures Residual




Species-at-Risk: Flora

• Clearing, grubbing and excavation activities

• The area cleared will not exceed the absolute minimum amount necessary

• Materials cleared from the sites (brush, logs, soil, etc.) should not be dumped into otherwise unaffected land.

• Native plant regeneration will be promoted in any areas that are cleared but not built upon (i.e. roadside ditches, laydown areas, etc.)

• Minimize cutting large patches of forest

• Alterations to existing natural drainage patterns will be minimized

• Install and maintain erosion control structures (silt fences, etc.)







Measures Residual




equipment and smaller vehicles.

Wetlands (incl. surface water quality)

• Disturbance, erosion and run-off

• Disruption of hydrology

• Loss of species diversity

• Introduction of invasive species

• Mineral input (dust)

• Water quality impairments

• Prior to site works, a Watercourse/Wetlands Alteration Permit will be obtained

• Minimize work in wetland areas

• No discharges to any water

• Reduce footprint

• Construction following storm events which have resulted in high water levels should be conducted only as approved by qualified inspectors

• Travel by construction vehicles will be minimized in temporary construction zones adjacent to wetlands

• Install erosion control structures (silt fences, etc.)

• Re-vegetate areas devoid of vegetation

• Clean construction equipment of soil residues before entering the site

• Implement a field monitoring program to study invasive weeds and the water regime

• Restore original contours and cross drainage patterns

• EMP to be developed and implemented







Measures Residual




equipment and smaller vehicles.

Air Quality • Formation of dust and exhaust fumes

• Use dust abatement techniques

• Impose and enforce speed limits on access roads

• Do not load trucks with soil above the freeboard

• Minimize drop heights when loading trucks

• Moisten land before clearing

• Equipment should be kept in good running order

No residual effects expected

Minimal

Construction Local Economy • Positive impact: work, income, taxes

Positive No residual effects expected

Positive



• Delivery of supplies and turbine components

Transportation • Increased traffic including possible damage to roads and interference with traffic flows.

• Scheduling of deliveries should be during periods of low local traffic and when weight restrictions are not in practise

• Advance public notice should be made to local residents and the business community

• Repairs to public roads to implemented should the need arise

No significant effects expected

Low






Measures Residual





• Blasting, drilling, and grading.

• Site clearing

• Materials delivery

Human Health and Safety (Workers, residents and visitors)

• Potential physical harm to workers (accidents)

• Noise

• Properly train workers involved with heavy equipment, excavation, power line installation

• Develop a health and safety program

• Put in place emergency response procedures

• Timing of work

• Limit construction to daytime hours and weekdays

• Carry out construction in winter and early spring

• Inform residents when activities will be particularly noisy

• Keep the public off-site during construction

None expected for icing and breakage Minimal Impacts are expected for Occupational safety and traffic impacts

Minimal




• Site clearing

Visual resources (Residents and visitors

• Dust created by construction

• Scars to the landscape by cleared land and buildings

• Large part of area is hidden from view by vegetation

• Use of dust abatement techniques


Minimal






Measures Residual



Turbine, road, and ancillary building construction and decommissioning: • Operation of heavy



• Site clearing

• Materials delivery

Accidents and Malfunctions

• Potential hydrocarbon contamination of soil and water.

• Potential adverse effects to flora and fauna as a result of exposure to toxic substances.

• Damage or injury as a result of traffic accidents

• Replace hazardous materials with less harmful ones when possible

• Incorporate preventative and response measures into construction practices

• Provide environmental awareness training

• Maintain appropriate spill response equipment

• Report all spills to applicable authorities (e.g. 24 hour emergency reporting system 1-800-563-1633)

• Inspect equipment to ensure equipment and vehicles have no obvious leaks

• Do not refuel vehicles on-site

• Store all hazardous materials outside of a 30 m buffer around wetlands and watercourses

• Maintain and update and inventory of hazardous materials on-site.

• Train workers to adhere to safe driving rules in order to prevent traffic accidents

• Public notification of an increase in construction traffic


Minimal

Operation Activities Turbine operation: • Human presence

• Maintenance of site

Soil Quality • Erosion of stripped areas • Maintenance activities will be confined to access roads

None expected Low






Measures Residual



Turbine operation: • Human presence

• Maintenance of site

• Presence of turbines

• Accidental oil, fuel, toxic substance spills

• Turbine and infrastructure lighting

Birds • Direct mortality or injury from collisions with overhead power lines and turbines

• Electrocution from powerlines

• Disturbance and avoidance of potential breeding habitat due to human presence

• Noise may interfere with feeding, migration, and breeding

• Interference with movement due to barrier effect (avoidance of turbines)

• Erosion and runoff affecting water supply

• Increased predator pressure (exposed prey)

• Guywires to be used on single meteorological mast

• Fire

• Control visits to the area by both workers and public

• Keep workers from entering areas where no work is done and vegetation is unchanged

• Encourage public to refrain from visiting access roads during breeding season (May – end of July)

• On-site power lines will be underground

• Avoid migrating bird landfall sites

• Prevent perching and nesting on turbines, transmission lines, and meteorological tower

• No guywires on wind turbine structures

• Install bird deterrents on guywires attached to meteorological mast.

• Do not create areas of high prey density during habitat restoration and maintenance

• Use native plants or no vegetation at all around turbines, avoid Mountain ash trees

• Avoid mowed lawn

• Use minimum amount of and white colour aviation lighting in accordance with Transport Canada Guidelines

• Avoid or shield strong lights such as sodium vapour lights

• Implement monitoring program

Reduction in population density for birds disturbed by turbines; Limited mortality of birds (birds can return to preconstruction levels when wind farm is decommissioned) None expected for: Barrier effect, contaminant exposure, dust, water regime; fire

Low






Measures Residual



Turbine operation: • Presence of power lines,

buildings, and turbines

• Presence of humans

• Exposure to toxic chemicals

Bats • Collisions with turbines, buildings, or power lines

• Attraction/deterrence by turbines

• Interference with foraging by noise from turbines

• Presence of people on a regular basis, toxic chemical spills, and use of herbicides or pesticides may affect bats and should not be used

• Carry out monitoring for bat strikes

• Turn off turbines during few nights of fall migration

• Avoid pesticide use

Small number of mortality (little brown bats and potentially northern long-eared bats) potentially every year for the lifetime of the wind farm

Low: (Little brown bats, northern long-eared bats)

Turbine and transformer presence, road maintenance (toxic chemicals present)

Wetlands • Impacts to water flow and drainage

• Loss of wetland habitat

• Reduced species diversity

• Toxic effects from chemicals substances

• Proper culvert installation,

• Minimize impacts to surface water flow

• Compensation for wetland habitat loss

• Avoid herbicide use

• Immediate spill clean up

None expected

Low

Turbine operation: • Substation

• Vehicle traffic

Air Quality • Dust created from soil depleted of vegetation and from gravel access roads

• Allow vegetation cut in the lay down areas to grow back

None expected

Low

Operation Local Economy • Positive impact: employment opportunities, income, taxes, contribution to power supply

Positive No residual effects expected

Positive






Measures Residual



Turbine operation: • Presence and operation of

turbines

• Maintenance work

• Repairs using large equipment

Human Health and Safety (workers, residents, visitors)

• Accidents (physical harm)

• Shadow flicker

• Noise

• Properly train workers involved with equipment, handling, power lines, etc.

• Develop a health and safety program

• Make available an emergency procedures plan covering possible component failures

• Installation of shutters or curtains to block incoming flicker

• Establishment of vegetation shielding

• Construction/installation of a physical barrier

• Ensure a set back distance of at least 200-280 m

• Turbines automatically shut down at very high wind speeds

Impacts are expected to be low for all factors

Low






Measures Residual




turbines

• Visits by maintenance workers


Visual Resources (Residents and visitors)

• Turbines in the natural landscape

• Strong steady lighting may cause “skyglow”

• Glare

• Negative impressions caused by “untidy” turbine arrangement, garbage, leaks from nacelles, idle turbines or turbines with parts missing

• Use tubular towers

• Create aesthetic balance in the design

• Use light grey colour, non reflective, not shiny steel

• Arrange turbines in clusters

• Do not arrange turbines in long lines

• Do not locate turbines on elevated land points

• Minimize lighting on the turbines

• Minimize project footprint, implement erosion control and dust abatement

• Repair turbines immediately

• Clean turbines

• Remove excess materials and litter

• Avoid posting commercial signs

• Integrate information on wind energy and wind farm technology with information provided by interpretive walks and hikes in the area;

Residual effects are likely despite mitigation measures

Low






Measures Residual




turbines

• Maintenance work


Accidents and Malfunctions

• Potential hydrocarbon contamination of soil and water.

• Potential adverse effects to flora and fauna as a result of exposure to toxic substances.

• Icing and breakage

• Damage or injury as a result of traffic accidents

• The mitigation for spills and traffic accidents for the construction phase is sufficient for the operation phase.

• Workers will be trained on the hazards of ice build up on tall structures

• Warning signals or flags should be set up to warn of potential ice issues

• If those measures are not heeded other options must be investigated

• A safety set-back of at least 290 m will mitigate most effects of breakage.

• Staff should wear protective equipment when on-site



Table 8.2 Summary of Cumulative Effects

Valued Ecosystem Components (VECs)

Description of Project Activities

Other Activities Assessment of Cumulative Effects

Level of Cumulative Effect

All All Past tree cutting, agriculture Unknown Unknown Bird population Turbines, power

lines, access construction. (Collisions)

Visitors/Public access • Disturbance from public access may add to losses from collisions

• Removal/destruction of habitat

• Birds may move in from adjacent areas

Low

Bat population Construction of turbines & infrastructure

na • Restriction of access

• Pressure change impacts

Low

Flora at Risk Construction of turbines & infrastructure

Existing access maintenance and improvement.

• Possible losses & habitat limitation.

Minimal

Fauna at Risk Construction of turbines & infrastructure

na • Possible interruption of breeding & restriction of access.

Minimal

Wetlands Construction of Turbines T1, T2, T3 & Infrastructure

Other Wind Farm encroachments on wetland complex.

• Loss of wetland

• Alteration of wetland function

Low



9.0 ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS MONITORING An EEM involves taking repeated measures of environmental variables or components to detect changes caused by external influences directly or indirectly attributable to a Project’s activities over time. EEM can include either a direct monitoring of VECs or monitoring of environmental parameters known to be important to the VECs. EEM studies are normally undertaken to fulfil the following objectives:

• verify EA predictions and evaluate the effectiveness of mitigation measures; • to detect undesirable changes in the environment; and/or • to improve the understanding of environmental cause and effect relationships.

The EEM will be site-specific and include documentation of the following, as appropriate:

• Wetland monitoring program to identify vegetation community changes/hydrological regime, invasive plant species and noxious weed surveys. Wetland survey plots will be delineated at the start of the wetland monitoring program.

• The turbine locations will be monitored for mortalities of bird and bat species due to collision with the turbines blades, or other project interactions. EC and CWS will be consulted in developing the monitoring details and data will be provided to interested regulating agencies; and

• The proposed EEM program will be submitted to EC and PEIDEEF prior to completion of construction for review and comment.

The monitoring program for birds will be developed following the CWS’ “Guidance Document for Environmental Assessment; Recommended Protocols for Monitoring Impacts of Wind Turbines on Birds”, (CWS, 2006). This monitoring program will be subject to approval by EC and the Provincial government.



10.0 CONCLUSION This report addresses the environmental effects of the construction, operation and decommissioning project phases. The information to date has shown that no significant adverse residual impacts on the VECs are likely. The generation of electricity from renewable resources such as wind is in accordance with federal and provincial strategies, since it contributes to the reduction of GHG emissions and air pollutants. The WEICan R&D Wind Park, if approved, would contribute to the reduction of GHG emissions required to meet Canada’s and the Province of PEI’s targets.



11.0 LIST OF SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS

Agriculture Canada, 2006. Topography. Available at: collections.ic.gc.ca/agriccan/pubweb/hs190004_f.asp.

Ahlen, I. 2003. Wind turbines and bats – a pilot study. Final Report. Dnr 5210P-2002-00473, P-nr P20272-1. December 11, 2003.

AMEC. 2009. Resources Component of the Preliminary Environmental Constraints Report prepared for WEICan. December 09, 2009.

American Wind Energy Association (AWEA), 2005/4. Wind Energy and the Environment. Wind Web Tutorial. http://www.awea.org/pubs/tutorial/wwt_environment.html. Accessed February 2005.

Anthony, E. L. and T. H. Kunz. 1977. Feeding strategies of the Little Brown Bat, Myotis lucifugus, in Southern New Hampshire. Ecology. 58: 775-786.

Archaeological Services NB (ASU). 2009. Guidelines for Conducting Heritage Resource Impact Assessments in New Brunswick. Archaeological Services Unit, Heritage Branch, Department of Wellness, Culture and Sport, New Brunswick. April 21, 2009.

Atlantic Canada Conservation Data Centre (ACCDC), 2009. Data request to Stefan Gerriets.

Atlantic Canada Conservation Data Centre (ACCDC). 2010. http://www.accdc.com/Products/ranking.html

Atlantic Climate Centre, 2006. Accessed Nov 2007 http://atlantic-web1.ns.ec.gc.ca/climatecentre/default.asp?lang=En&n=CACEE433-1

Australian Wind Energy Association (AusWEA). 2004. The Electromagnetic Compatibility and the Electromagnetic Field Implications for Wind Farming in Australia. Available at: http://www.wind.appstate.edu/reports/BP10_EMC&EMF.pdf. Accessed March, 2008.

Australian Wind Energy Association (AusWEA), 2005. Wind Farm Impacts on Local Tourism. Available at: http://www.auswea.com.au/.

Banfield, A. W. F. 1974. The Mammals of Canada. University of Toronto Press. Toronto, Ontario. 438 p

Barbour, R. W. and W. H. Davis. 1969. Bats of America. The University Press of Kentucky.Press. Lexington, Kentucky.

http://www.awea.org/pubs/tutorial/wwt_environment.html. Accessed February 2005�

http://www.awea.org/pubs/tutorial/wwt_environment.html. Accessed February 2005�

http://atlantic-web1.ns.ec.gc.ca/climatecentre/default.asp?lang=En&n=CACEE433-1�

http://atlantic-web1.ns.ec.gc.ca/climatecentre/default.asp?lang=En&n=CACEE433-1�



Barclay, R.M.R. 1989. The echolocation calls of Hoary (Lasiurus cinereus) and Silver-haired (Lasionycteris noctivagans) bats as the adaptations for long-versus short-range foraging strategies and the consequence for prey selection. Canadian Journal of Zoology 64:2700-2705

Barclay, R.M.R., J.H. Fullard, and D.S. Jacobs. 1999. Variation in the echolocation calls of the Hoary Bat (Lasiurus cinereus): Influence of body size, habitat structure and geographic location. Canadian Journal of Zoology 77:530-534

BatCon (Bat Conservation International, Inc.), 2006. Available at: www.batcon.org.

BBC, 2006. The Impact of Large Buildings and Structures (Including Wind Farms) on Terrestrial Television Reception. Available at: http://www.bbc.co.uk/reception/info/pdf/buildings_factsheet.pdf.

Beanlands, Gordon E., and Peter N. Duinker, 1983: An Ecological Framework of Environmental Impact Assessment in Canada. Institute for Resource and Environmental Studies, Dalhousie University, Halifax, and Federal Environmental Assessment Review Office, Hull, Canada, 132 pp.

Betts, BJ 1998. Effects of interindividual variation in echolocation calls on identification of Big Brown and Silver-Haired bats. Journal of Wildlife Management 62:1003-1010

Bishop, J.C. 1994. The Partridge Island Archaeological Project: Volume 2. The Partridge Island Site: Early and Middle Woodland-Related Assemblages. New Brunswick Manuscripts in Archaeology No. 28. Fredericton: New Brunswick Municipalities, Culture, and Housing.

Black, D.W. 1984. An Archaeological Survey of the Shores of the Grand Manan Archipelago. New Brunswick Manuscripts in Archaeology No. 5. Fredericton: New Brunswick Tourism, Recreation, and Heritage.

Black, H. L. 1974. A north temperate bat community: structure and prey populations. Journal of Mammalogy. 55: 138-157.

Blair, S.E. 1999. The Pre-Contact Archaeology of the Grand Manan Archipelago: Cultural History and Regional Integration. New Brunswick Manuscripts in Archaeology No. 29. Fredericton: New Brunswick Culture and Sport Secretariat.

Bogan, M. A. 1972. Observations on parturition and development in the Hoary Bat, Lasiurus cinereus. Journal of Mammalogy. 53(3): 611-614.

Bond, W.K., K.W. Cox, T. Heberlein, E.W. Manning, D.R. Witty and D.A. Young. 1992. Wetland Evaluation Guide. Final Report of the Wetlands are Not Wastelands Project. North American Wetlands Conservation Council (Canada). Issues Paper, No. 1992-1. 121 p.



Bouchard, S., Zigouris, J. and M. B. Fenton. 2001. Autumn mating and likely resorption of an embryo by a Hoary Bat, Lasiurus cinereus (Chiroptera: Vespertilionidae). American Midland Naturalist. 145: 210-212

Boylan, D.B. 1973. Rule Britannia In Canada’s Smallest Province: A History of Prince Edward Island. Edited by F.W.P. Bolger. Canada: John Deyell Company. Pp. 33-36.

Brack, V., Jr. and J. O. Jr. Whitaker. 2001. Foods of the northern Myotis, Myotis septentrionalis, from Missouri and Indiana, with notes on foraging. Acta Chiropterologica. 3: 203-210.

Broders H.G., D.F McAlpine., and G.J Forbes. 2001. Status of the Eastern Pipistrelle (Pipistrellus subflavus) (Chiroptera: Vespertilionidae) in New Brunswick. Northeastern Naturalist 8:331-336.

Broders H.G., Forbes G., Woodley, S., and Thompson I. 2006. Range extent and stand selection for roosting and foraging in forest-dwelling northern long-eared bats and little brown bats in the Greater Fundy Ecosystem, New Brunswick. Journal of Wildlife Management 70: 1174-1184.

Broders HG, Quinn GM, Forbes GJ. 2003. Species status, and the spatial and temporal patterns of activity of bats in southwest Nova Scotia, Canada. Northeastern Naturalist 10:383-398.

Broders, H. G. and G. J. Forbes. 2004. Interspecific and intersexual variation in roost-site selection of northern long-eared and little brown bats in the Greater Fundy National Park ecosystem. Journal of Wildlife Management. 68(3): 602-610.

Brown, JA, DF McAlpine, and R. Curley. 2007. Northern long-eared bat, Myotis septentrionalis (Chiroptera: Verspertilionidae), on Prince Edwards Island: First records of occurrence and overwintering. Canadian Field-Naturalist 121:208-209

Buchler, E. R. and P. J. Wasilewski. 1985. Magnetic remanence in bats. in: Kirschvink, J. L., D. S. Jones, B. J. MacFadden, eds. Magnetite biomineralization and magnetoreception in organisms: a new biomagnetism. New York: Plenum Press.

Bureau of Land Management (BLM), 2004. Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement on Wind Energy Development on BLM-Administered Lands in the Western United States. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management. September 2004. Available at: windeis.anl.gov/eis/guide/index.cfm.

Caceres, C. M., and R.M.R. Barclay. 2000. Myotis septentrionalis. Mammalian Species 634:1–4.

Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency (The Agency), 1999. Cumulative Effects Assessment Practitioners Guide. Prepared by: The Cumulative Effects Assessment Working Group and AXYS Consulting Ltd. Available at www.ceaa-acee.gc.ca.



Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency (The Agency). 1994. Reference Guide. Determining Whether a Project is Likely to Cause Significant Adverse Environmental Effects. Available at www.ceaa-acee.gc.ca., Accessed April 22, 2005.

Canadian Wind Energy Association (CanWEA), 2006. North Cape Wind Farm. www.canwea.ca/images/uploads/File/North_Cape2.pdf

Carter, T., Menzel, M., Owen, S., Edwards, J. and J. Menzel. 2003. Food habits of seven species of bats in the Allegheny plateau and ridge and valley of West Virginia. Northeastern Naturalist. 10(1): 83-88.

CBC news 2007. Analogue TV Going the Way of the Dodo. http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/tech/analogue-tv.html

CBCL Limited. 2003. Pubnico Point Environmental Assessment. Prepared for Atlantic Wind Power Corporation Ltd., September 2003.

Community Museums Association of Prince Edward Island, 2005. Irish Moss. http://www.virtualmuseum.ca/Exhibitions/PrinceEdwardIslandHarvest/moss_e/index.html

Crow, G.E., and C.B. Hellquist. 2000. Aquatic and Wetland Plants of Northeastern North America. 2 vols. University of Wisconsin Press, Madison.

Cryan, P. M. 2003. Seasonal distribution of migratory tree bats (Lasiurus and Lasionycteris) in North America. Journal of Mammalogy. 84(2): 579-593.

Curry and Kerlinger, 2005. Bats and Wind Power. Available at: www.currykerlinger.com/bats.htm.

CWS and Environment Canada, 2006. Wind Turbines and Birds. A Guidance Document for Environmental Assessment.

CWS and Environment Canada. 2007. Recommended Protocols for Monitoring Impacts of Wind Turbines on Birds. Canadian Wildlife Service - Environment Canada

Dalzell, Brian, 2010. Pre-construction Bird Monitoring at a proposed wind-power project near Waterview Road (in the area of Norway, PEI). Produced for Frontier Power Systems, Alberton PEI. 13pp.

Davis, S.A. 1982. Coastal Erosion and Archaeological Sites in Charlotte County, New Brunswick – 1980 Survey. In Archaeological Resources in the Maritimes: 1980. Reports in Archaeology No. 5. Edited by C.J. Turnbull. The Council of Maritime Premiers – Maritime Committee on Archaeological Cooperation. Fredericton, NB: Archaeological Branch, Historical resources Administration, The Province of New Brunswick.

http://www.canwea.ca/images/uploads/File/North_Cape2.pdf�

http://www.virtualmuseum.ca/Exhibitions/PrinceEdwardIslandHarvest/moss_e/index.html�

http://www.currykerlinger.com/bats.htm�



Davis, S.A. and Christianson, D. 1981. Archaeological Resources in the Maritimes: A Coastal Survey - 1979. Report in Archaeology No. 4. In The Council of Maritime Premiers – Maritime Committee on Archaeological Cooperation. Fredericton, NB: Archaeological Branch, Historical resources Administration, The Province of New Brunswick.

de Jong, N. 1973. The French Regime, 1534-1758 In Canada’s Smallest Province: A History of Prince Edward Island. Edited by F.W.P. Bolger. Canada: John Deyell Company. Pp. 11-32.

Drewitt, A.L. and R.H.W. Langston, 2006. Assessing the impact of wind farms on birds. Ibis 148:s1):19-42.

Drouin C, and P. LeBlanc, 1994. The Canadian environmental assessment act and cumulative environmental effects. In: Kennedy AJ, editor. Cumulative effects assessment in Canada: from concept to practice. Fifteenth Symposium of Alberta Society of Professional Biologists, 13 – 14 April 1994, Calgary, AB, Canada. Edmonton, AB, Canada: Alberta Association of Professional Biologists; 1994. p. 25–36.

Environment Canada (EC). 2007. Regulatory Framework for Air Emissions. Available: www.ec.gc.ca/doc/media/m_124/report_eng.pdf

Environment Canada (EC). 2008a. Information on Greenhouse Gas Sources and Sinks: Canada’s 2006 Greenhouse Gas Inventory – A summary of Trends. Available: www.ec.gc.ca/pdb/GHG/inventory_report/2006/som-sum_eng.pdf

Environment Canada (EC). 2008b. Criteria Air Contaminants and Related Pollutants. Available: http://www.ec.gc.ca/cleanair-airpur/default.asp?lang=En&n=7C43740B-1

Environment Canada (EC). 2008c. 2005 Air Pollutant Emissions for Canada. Available: www.ec.gc.ca/pdb/cac/pdbc/Emissions1990-2015/2005/2005_canada_e.cfm

Environment Canada (EC). 1996. The Federal Policy on Wetland Conservation: Implementation Guide For Federal Land Managers. Environment Canada. Ottawa, Ontario.

Environment Canada, 2004a. Impacts of Sea-Level Rise and Climate Change on the Coastal Zone of Southeastern New Brunswick. Available at: http://atlantic-web1.ns.ec.gc.ca/slr/default.asp. Accessed Jan., 2005.

Environment Canada, 2004b. Impacts of Sea-Level Rise and Climate Change on the Coastal Zone of Southeastern New Brunswick. Available at: http://atlantic-web1.ns.ec.gc.ca/slr/default.asp. Accessed Dec.22, 2004.

Environment Canada, 2005a. Canada’s Greenhouse Gas Inventory, 1990-2003. Available at: www.ec.gc.ca/pdb/ghg/inventory_report/2003_report/toc_e.cfm.

http://www.ec.gc.ca/doc/media/m_124/report_eng.pdf�

http://www.ec.gc.ca/pdb/GHG/inventory_report/2006/som-sum_eng.pdf�

http://www.ec.gc.ca/cleanair-airpur/default.asp?lang=En&n=7C43740B-1�

http://www.ec.gc.ca/pdb/cac/pdbc/Emissions1990-2015/2005/2005_NB-e.cfm�



Environment Canada, 2008d. Canadian Weather RADAR. Available at: http://weatheroffice.ec.gc.ca/radar/index_e.html. Accessed March, 2008.

Environment Canada. 1986. Atlantic Provinces: Active Hydrometric Stations Reference Index. Inland Waters Directorate, Atlantic Region.

Environment Canada. 1991. The Federal Policy on Wetland Conservation. Government of Canada. 14 pp.

Environment Canada. 2005b. Canadian Climate Normals. Available at: www.msc-smc.ec.gc.ca/climate.

Environment Canada. 2002. The Climate of Prince Edward Island. Available at: www.atl.ec.gc.ca/climate/pei.html.

Environment Canada. 2010. Lightning in Canada. Available at: http://www.ec.gc.ca/meteo-weather/default.asp?lang=En&n=CAB371C9-1. Date last modified: August 13, 2010.

Environmental Canada, 2003. Is poor air quality a concern in Atlantic Canada? Available at: www.atl.ec.gc.ca/airquality/concern_e.html.

Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual. Technical Report Y-87-1. U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station. Vicksburg, Mississipi.

Erickson, W., G. Johnson, D. Young, D. Strickland, R. Good, M. Bourassa, K. Bay and K. Sernka, 2002. Synthesis and Comparison of Baseline Avian and Bat Use, Raptor Nesting and Mortality Information from Proposed and Existing Wind Developments. Report prepared for Bonneville Power Administration. December 2002.

Erskine, Anthony J., 1992: Atlas of Breeding Birds of the Maritime Provinces. Nova Scotia Museum and Nimbus Publishing Limited. 270 pp.

Faure, P. A., Fullard, J. H. and J.W. Dawson. 1993. The gleaning attacks of the Northern Long-eared Bat, Myotis septentrionalis, are relatively inaudible to moths. Journal of Experimental Biology. 178: 173-189.

Fenton, M. B. and R. M. R. Barclay. 1980. Myotis lucifugus. Mammalian Species. 142: 1-8.

Fenton, M., and G. Bell 1981. Recognition of species of insectivorous bats by their echolocation calls. Journal of Mammology 62:233-234

Fenton, M.B., H.G. Merriam, and G.L. Holroyd. 1983. Bats of Kootenay, Glacier, and Mount Revelstoke national parks in Canada: Identification by echolocation calls, distribution, and biology. Canadian Journal of Zoology 61:2503-25089.

http://www.ec.gc.ca/meteo-weather/default.asp?lang=En&n=CAB371C9-1�

http://www.ec.gc.ca/meteo-weather/default.asp?lang=En&n=CAB371C9-1�



Findley, J.S. and C. Jones. 1964. Seasonal distribution of the Hoary Bat. Journal of Mammalogy 45(3): 461-470.

Fisheries and Oceans (DFO), 2010. Traditional Fisheries Knowledge Internet Mapping Application. Available at: glfgeo.dfo-mpo/tfk-ctp.

Foster, R. W. and A. Kurta. 1999. Roosting ecology of the Northern Bat (Myotis septentrionalis) and comparisons with the endangered Indiana Bat (Myotis sodalist). Journal of Mammology 80(2): 659-672.

Fox, Don, Clare Robinson and Marcos Zentilli, 1997. Pyrrhotite and Associated Sulphides and Their Relationship to Acid Rock Drainage in the Halifax Formation, Meguma Group, Nova Scotia. Atlantic Geology 33, 87-103.

Frontier Power System. 2010a. WEICan Wind Farm – Radio Interference Assessment. Dated: August 2010.

Frontier Power System. 2010b. GH WindFarmer Report WEICan Wind Farm 5 x D8.2 Optimized Noise Modeling. Dated: 19 July, 2010. 11pp.

Garcia, P. F.J., Holroyd, S.L., Rasheed, S.A., 1995. British Columbia Environment, Status of the Spotted Bat in British Columbia. Ministry of the Environment, Lands and Parks, Wildlife Branch. Victoria. B.C.

German Wind Energy Association (BWE). 2005. www.wind-energie.de/home/

Government of Canada, 2010. Canada’s Action on Climate Change Fact Sheet. Available at: http://climatechange.gc.ca/default.asp?lang=En&n=D43918F1-1 Last Modified: June 09, 2010.

Grindal, S. D. and R. M. Brigham. 1998. Short-term effects of small-scale habitat disturbance on activity by insectivorous bats. Journal of Wildlife Management (62): 996–1003.

Hanson, A.R. and L. Calkins. 1996. Wetlands of the Maritime Provinces: Revised Documentation for the Wetlands Inventory. Technical Report No. 267. Canadian Wildlife Service. Atlantic Region.

Health Canada. 1999. National Ambient Air Quality Objectives For Ground-level Ozone - Science Assessment Document. Canadian Council of Resource and Environment Ministers, July 1999.

Henderson LE, Farrow LJ, Broders HG. 2009. Summer distribution and status of the bats of Prince Edward Island. Northeastern Naturalist 16: 131-140.

Hinds, H. 2000. Flora of New Brunswick Second Ed. University of New Brunswick, Fredericton, New Brunswick.

http://www.wind-energie.de/home/�

http://climatechange.gc.ca/default.asp?lang=En&n=D43918F1-1�



Holland R.A, Thorup K, Vonhof M.J, Cochran WW, and Wikelski M. 2006. Bat orientation using Earth's magnetic field. Nature 444: 653.

Horn, J., Arnett, E. and R. Rodriguez. 2004. Bats and wind turbines: infrared analysis of abundance, flight patterns, and avoidance behaviour. Bat Research News. 45(4): 227-228.

Howells, K. and D. Fox, 1998. Geophysical Methods for Detecting Shallow Sulphide Mineralization in the Halifax Formation, Nova Scotia: a Reconnaissance Study. Atlantic Geology 34, 211 – 227.

InfoPEI. February 2006. English Settlement from 1774 to Confederation. Available at: http:/www.gov.pe.ca/infopei/index.php3?number=19672&lang=E

InfoPEI. Accessed in 2009 and 2010. Available at: http://www.gov.pe.ca/infopei/

International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC). 2002. TR 61400-24 First edition Wind turbine generator systems – Part 24: Lightning protection. International Electrotechnical Commission, Geneva 20, Switzerland.

International Energy Agency (IEA). 2004. IEA Wind Energy Annual Report 2003. Available : www.ieawind.org/iea_wind_pdf/PDF_2003_IEA_Annual_Report/2003IEA_WindAR.pdf

Jung, T. S., Thompson, I. D. and R. D. Titman. 2004. Roost site selection by forest-dwelling male Myotis in central Ontario, Canada. Forest Ecology and Management. 202: 325-335.

Keeley, Brian, Steve Ugorez and Dale Strickland, 2001: Bat Ecology and Wind Turbine Considerations. Presentations and Panel Discussion. Proceedings of the National Avian-Wind Planning Meeting IV, Carmel, California, May 2000. Prepared for the Avian Subcommittee of the National Wind Coordinating Committee by RESOLVE INC. Washington, DC, May 2001. Available at: www.nationalwind.org.

Keeling, C.D. and T.P. Whorf. 2005. Atmospheric CO2 records from sites in the SIO air sampling network. In Trends: A compendium of Data on Global Change. Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, U.S. Department of Energy, Oak Ridge, Tenn., U.S.A.

Keenlyside, D. 1982. Prince Edward Island Archaeological Research 1980. In Archaeological Resources in the Maritimes: 1980. Reports in Archaeology No. 5. Edited by C.J. Turnbull. The Council of Maritime Premiers – Maritime Committee on Archaeological Cooperation. Fredericton, NB: Archaeological Branch, Historical resources Administration, The Province of New Brunswick.



Kingsley, Andrea and Becky Whittam. 2001. Potential Impacts of Wind Turbines on Birds at North Cape, Prince Edward Island. Prepared by Bird Studies Canada, Atlantic Region, on behalf of the PEI Energy Corporation.

Koehler, C. E. and R. M. R. Barclay. 2000. Post-natal growth and breeding biology of the Hoary Bat (Lasiurus cinereus). Journal of Mammalogy. 81(1): 234-244.

Langston, RHW, and JD Pullan, 2003. Wind Farms and Birds: An analysis of the effects of wind farms on birds, and guidance on environmental assessment criteria and site selection issues. Report written by BirdLife International on behalf of the Bern Convention on the Conservation of European Wildlife and Natural Habitats. Strassburg, September 11, 2003. T-PVS/Inf (2003) 12. Available at: www.safewind.info/pdf/wind farmsandbirds.pdf.

Lennox Island First Nation, 2006. Available at: http://www.lennoxisland.com/

Limpens, H J G A and Kapteyn, K. 1991 Bats, their behaviour and linear landscape elements. Myotis (29): 63-71

Loucks, O.L. 1962. A forest classification for the Maritime Provinces. Proceedings of the Nova Scotian Institute of Science 25: 85-167.

M.K. Ince & Associates, 2009. Norway Wind Farm, Year 1 Post-Construction Bird and Bat Monitoring Assessment. January 13, 2009. 16pp.

MacDonald, K., E. Matsui, R. Stevens, and M.B. Fenton, 1994. Echolocation calls and field interpretation of the Eastern Pipistrelle (Pipistrellus subflavus, Chiroptera, Vespertilionidae) using ultrasonic bat detectors. Journal of Mammology 75:462-465.

Maloney, J.H. 1973. The First Centuries “And in the Beginning….” In Canada’s Smallest Province: A History of Prince Edward Island. Edited by F.W.P. Bolger. Canada: John Deyell Company. Pp. 1-10.

Manwell, James F., Anthony F. Ellis, and Mohit Dua. 2004. Wind Resource Data Interpretation Report. Ipswitch, Mass. Available at: http://74.94.169.139/utilities/wind/Ipswitch%20Report.pdf

Maritimes Breeding Bird Atlas. 2010. Site hosted by Bird Studies Canada. Available at: http://www.mba-aom.ca/english/index.html.

McAlpine DF, Muldoon F, Forbes GJ, Wandeler AI, Makepeace S, Broders HG, Goltz JP. 2002. Over-wintering and reproduction by the big brown bat, Eptesicus fuscus, in New Brunswick. Canadian Field-Naturalist 116:645-647

Menzel, J. M., Menzel, M. A., Kilgo, J. C., Ford, W. M., Edwards, J. W. and G. F. McCracken. 2005. Effect of habitat and foraging height on bat activity in the coastal plain of South Carolina. Journal of Wildlife Management. 69(1): 235-245.Black 1974

http://www.mba-aom.ca/english/index.html�



Milko, R. 1998. Wetlands Environmental Assessment Guideline. Published by Environment Canada. Cat. No. CW66-174/1998.

National Cooperative Highway Research Program. 1999. NCHRP Synthesis Report #218 Mitigation of Nighttime Construction Noise, Vibrations, and Other Nuisances.

Natural Resources Canada (NRCan). 2009. Clean Energy Fund Program Renewable and Clean Energy Demonstrations: Request for Project Proposals Applicants’ Guide.

Nikkel, Steven, 2010. Canadian Cellular Towers Map. http://www.ertyu.org/steven_nikkel/cancellsites.html

North American Wetlands Conservation Council (Canada) (NAWCC). 1992. NO NET LOSS. Implementing “No Net Loss” Goals To Conserve Wetlands In Canada. Issues Paper, No. 1992 -2.

North American Wetlands Conservation Council (Canada) (NAWCC). 1999. Wetlands and Government. Policy and Legislation for Wetland Conservation in Canada. Issues Paper, No. 1999 -1.

North American Wetlands Conservation Council (Canada) (NAWCC). 2000. Wetland Mitigation In Canada. A Framework For Application. Issues Paper, No. 2000 -1.

O’Farrell, MJ, BW Miller, and Wl Gannon. 1999. Qualitative identification of free-flying bats using the Anabat detector. Journal of Mammology 80:11-23.

Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources (OMNR). 2006. Wind Power and Bats: Bat Ecology Background Information and Literature Review of Impacts. December 2006. Fish and Wildlife Branch. Wildlife Section. Lands and Waters Branch. Renewable Energy Section. Peterborough, Ontario. 61 p.

PEI Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Aquaculture, 2006. Slope/Topography/Landscape on PEI, Available at: www.gov.pe.ca/af/agweb/index.php3?number=71770.

PEI Department of Environment, Energy and Forestry, 2008. Island Wind Energy – Securing our Future: The 10 Point Plan. Published October 17, 2008.

PEI Department of Environment, Energy and Forestry, 2009. Resource Inventory & Modelling. Dated April 2009.

PEI Department of Environment, Energy and Forestry, 2010. Prince Edwards Island Public Water Data Access and Ground Water Data Access. http://web3.gov.pe.ca/waterdata/tool.php3

http://www.ertyu.org/steven_nikkel/cancellsites.html�

http://web3.gov.pe.ca/waterdata/tool.php3�



PEI Department of Environment, Energy and Forestry, 2010. Prince Edwards Island Public Water Data Access and Ground Water Data Access. http://web3.gov.pe.ca/waterdata/tool.php3

PEI Department of Health, 2010. Available at: http://www.healthpei.ca/

PEI Energy Corp and Université de Moncton. 2005. The Prince Edward Island Wind Atlas. Available at: www.gov.pe.ca/envengfor/windatlas/index.html

Percival, S.M. 2001. Assessment of the effects of offshore wind farms on birds. Report ETSUW/13/00565/REP, DTI/Pub URN 01/1434.

RABC and the Canadian Wind Energy Association (CanWEA). 2007. Technical Information and Guidelines on the Assessment of the Potential Impact of Wind Turbines on Radiocommunication, Radar and Seismoacoustic Systems.

Ratcliffe, J. M. and J. W. Dawson. 2003. Behavioural flexibility: the Little Brown Bat, Myotis lucifugus, and the Northern Long-eared Bat, M. septentrionalis, both glean and hawk prey. Animal Behaviour. 66: 847-856.

Roland et al., 1998. Roland's flora of Nova Scotia. Nimbus Publishing and Nova Scotia Museum, Halifax, NS. 2 vols.

Rowe, J.S. 1972. Forest regions of Canada. Canadian Forestry Service, Ottawa. Publication No. 1300. 172 pp.

Salcedo, H. D. L. C., Fenton, M. B., Hickey, M. B. C. and R. W. Blake. 1995. Energetic consequences of flight speeds of foraging Red and Hoary Bats (Lasiurus borealis and Lasiurus cinereus; Chiroptera: Vespertilionidae). Journal of Experimental Biology. 198: 2245-2251.

Salema, Carlos, Carlos Fernandes, and Luca Fauro. 2001. TV Interference from Wind Turbines. Instituto Superior Tecnico and Instituto de Telecomunicaoes. Portugal.

Schmidt, U. and G. Joermann. 1986. The influence of acoustical interferences on echolocation in bats. – Mammalia 50: 379-389.

Sea Breeze, Sea Breeze Energy Inc., 2004. Proposed Knob Hill Wind Farm - Environmental Assessment Application. Available at: http://www.eao.gov.bc.ca/epic/output/html/deploy/epic_document_219_16996.html.

Sengupta, Dipak L. 1984. Electromagnetic Interference Effects of Wind Turbines. Working Committee on EMI, IEA, Denmark.

Shump, K. A. Jr. and A. U. Shump. 1982. Lasiurus cinereus. Mammalian Species. 185: 1-5.

http://web3.gov.pe.ca/waterdata/tool.php3�

http://www.gov.pe.ca/envengfor/windatlas/index.html�



Sobey, D. G. 2007. An analysis of the historical records for the native mammalian fauna of Prince Edward Island. Canadian Field-Naturalist 121(4): 384-396.

Species-at-Risk Act (SARA) Registry. 2010. Accessed at http://www.sararegistry.gc.ca/default_e.cfm.

Stantec, 2009. Preliminary Geological Investigation, Four (4) Proposed Wind Turbines, North Cape, Prince County, Prince Edward Island. Wind Energy Institute of Canada. Job No. 1052043 – File No. 2889. Dated: May 29, 2009.

Statistics Canada. 2008. Canadian Census. Available at: http://www12.statcan.ca/english/census01/home/index.cfm Date last modified: August 11, 2008.

Swisher, Randall. 2006. Can Wind Turbines and Military Radar Coexist? Composites World.com. Available at: www.compositesworld.com/hpc/issues/2006/November/1481.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) - New England District. 1999. The Highway Methodology Workbook Supplement: Wetland Functions and Values A Descriptive Approach. September 1999. 39 pp. NAEEP-360-1-30a

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 2009 (unpublished). Interim Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Northcentral and Northeast Region. Draft for Peer Review and Field Testing.

van de Poll. 1983. Geology of Prince Edward Island. Charlottetown, PEI.

van Zyll de Jong, C.G. 1985. Handbook of Canadian Mammals. Volume 2. Bats. National Museum of Canada, Ottawa.

Verboom, B. and Spoelstra, K. 1999. Effects of food abundance and wind on the occurrence of pipistrelle bats Pipistrellus pipistrellus and serotines Eptesicus serotinus near treelines. Canadian Journal of Zoology (77):1393–1401.

Whitaker, J. O. Jr. 1972. Food habits of bats from Indiana. Canadian Journal of Zoology. 50:877-883.

Whitaker, J. O. Jr. 2004. Prey selection in a temperate zone insectivorous bat community. Journal of Mammology. 85: 460-469.

Yes2Wind, 2005. www.yes2wind.com

Zentilli, Marcos and Don Fox. 1997. Geology and mineralogy of the Meguma Group and their importance to environmental problems in Nova Scotia. Atlantic Geology 33, 81-85.

http://www.sararegistry.gc.ca/default_e.cfm�

http://www12.statcan.ca/english/census01/home/index.cfm�



12.0 GLOSSARY Cumulative Effects A project’s effects on the environment combined with the effects of

projects and activities (past, existing or imminent). These may occur over a certain period of time or distance.

Environmental Assessment The process of identifying the significant environmental impacts

that a proposed project may have on the environment and the proposed mitigation efforts to minimize the impacts.

Environmental Effect With respect to a project, any change that the project may cause

in the environment, including any changes to health and socio-economic conditions, physical and cultural heritage and current land and resources used for traditional purposes by Aboriginal persons. Also included are changes to any structure or site that is of historical, archaeological, palaeontological or architectural significance, and any change to the project that may be caused by the environment.

Residual Effects Effects that remain after mitigation measures have been applied. Valued Ecosystem Any part of the environment that is considered important by the Component (VEC) proponent, members of the public, scientists and government

involved in the assessment process. Importance may be determined on the basis of cultural or scientific concerns.



13.0 ACRONYMS AC CDC Atlantic Canada Conservation Data Centre ACSR Aluminum conductor steel reinforced AM amplitude modulated ARD Acid Rock Drainage ATC Air Traffic Control AWEA American Wind Energy Association AWTS Atlantic Wind Test Site BLM Bureau of Land Management CanWEA Canadian Wind Energy Association CCME Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment CDIAC Carbon Dioxide Information and Analysis Centre CEAA Canadian Environmental Assessment Act CFB Canadian Forces Base CLI Canadian Land Inventory CO carbon monoxide CO2 Carbon dioxide COSEWIC Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada CRTC Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission CSA Canadian Standards Association CWS Canadian Wildlife Service dB decibels DFO Fisheries and Oceans Canada DND Department of National Defence EC Environment Canada ECC Environmental Components of Concern EEM environmental effects monitoring program EIA Environmental Impact Assessment EIS Environmental Impact Statement EMP Environmental Management Plan EMR electromagnetic radiation EMS Emergency Medical Service FM frequency modulated GHG green house gas Gt giga tones ha hectare HRIA Heritage Resource Impact Assessment IEA International Energy Agency IEC International Electrotechnical Commission IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change kg kilogram kHz kilohertz



km kilometers km/h kilometres per hour kV kilovolt kW kilowatt kWh kilowatt-hour LRT long-range transport m metres m2 square metres m3 cubic metres m/s metres per second MASL metres above sea level MBCA Migratory Birds Convention Act MCM thousand circular mils MECL Maritime Electric Company Limited mg/L milligrams per litre mg/m3 milligrams per cubic metre MW Megawatt mm millimetres na not applicable NAAQOs National Ambient Air Quality Objectives NAWCC North American Wetlands Conservation Council NB New Brunswick NBDENV New Brunswick Department of Environment NGO Non-Governmental Organizations NO nitric oxide NOx oxides of nitrogen NRCan Natural Resources Canada OMNR Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources PEI Prince Edward Island PEIDAFA Prince Edward Island Department of Agriculture, Fisheries & Aquaculture PEIDCCA Prince Edward Island Department of Community and Cultural Affairs PEIDEEF Prince Edward Island Department of Environment, Energy and Forestry PEIDTIR Prince Edward Island Department of Transportation and Infrastructure Renewal PEIDTPW Prince Edward Island Department of Transportation and Public Works PEIEC Prince Edward Island Energy Corporation PID Property Identification Number PM Particulate Mater POL Petroleum, Oil, and Lubricants ppb parts per billion ppmv parts per million by volume RA Responsible authority RABC Radio Advisory Board of Canada RCAF Royal Canadian Air Force RCMP Royal Canadian Mounted Police



RCS radar cross section R&D Research & Development RF radio frequency SARA Species at Risk Act SO2 sulfur dioxide SOx sulphur oxides SSEPP Site-specific Environmental Protection Plan TC Transport Canada The Agency Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency TV television USACE US Army Corps of Engineers UTM Universal Transverse Mercator VEC Valued Environmental Components VOCs Volatile organic compounds WEEMP wetland environmental effects monitoring program WEICan Wind Energy Institute of Canada WTG wind turbine generator WWAP Watercourse and Wetland Alteration Permits ug/L micrograms per litre µg/m3 micrograms per cubic metre μm micrometres

APPENDIX A Bird Survey Results Brian Dalzell Report

Pre-construction Bird Monitoring at a proposed wind-power project near Waterview Road (in the area of Norway, PEI).

Final Results 3 June, 2010

Produced by Brian Dalzell for: Frontier Power Systems, Alberton, PEI.

2

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This report provides results obtained from pre-construction bird-monitoring at the proposed Waterview Road wind turbine site near Norway, PEI. Bird surveys were conducted during four periods: winter (January-March), spring migration (April-June), summer breeding (June-July) and fall migration (July-November). Migrating spring and fall birds were sampled utilizing a 1.8 km 10-stop (driven) roadside transect. Breeding birds were sampled using a combination of a one-kilometer (walked) transect through the centre of the study area, a one-hour sea watch, plus three point counts centered on each of the planned turbine locations. Point counts were conducted thrice between early and late June. In spring migration, 1949 birds of 64 species were detected during 13 roadside counts. The highest number of migrant/resident birds and highest diversity occurred (as would be expected) in early June, with 200 individuals of 41species on 5 June. No threatened or endangered species were found. The most common species detected were: Common Raven (209), American Crow (195), American Robin (176), Song Sparrow (163), Savannah Sparrow (148), Great Black-backed Gull (114), Herring Gull (102), Double-crested Cormorant (71), White-throated Sparrow (57), Dark-eyed Junco (54), Black-capped Chickadee (45), Yellow-rumped Warbler (43), Chipping Sparrow (36), Common Yellowthroat (35), American Goldfinch (34), Yellow Warbler (30), Northern Flicker (30), and Alder Flycatcher (29). During the breeding surveys (point counts and transect), a total of 968 birds representing 59 species were observed. Only a single species listed as “Threatened” in Canada by COSEWIC (Canada Warbler) was confirmed breeding in the immediate study area, with two pairs detected and mapped (Figure 2). The most common species detected during the breeding surveys were (total in parentheses): Savannah Sparrow (61), Song Sparrow (51), American Robin (58), Common Raven (50), White-throated Sparrow (50), Common Yellowthroat (45), American Crow (41), Great Black-backed Gull (40), Alder Flycatcher (40), Herring Gull (39), Double-crested Cormorant (34), Magnolia Warbler (30), Red-eyed Vireo (30), Black-capped Chickadee (28), Northern Parula (26) and Black-throated Green Warbler (25). In fall migration, 965 birds of 70 species were detected during 19 roadside transect counts. The highest number of birds and the greatest diversity occurred on 24 September, when 63 individuals of 29 species were detected. The number and variety of migrants during the fall was lower than expected, likely due to the paucity of suitable stopover habitat in the study area. No truly rare or unusual species were found. The 15 most common species detected (20 individuals or more) were: Common Raven (92), Great Black-backed Gull (74), Double-crested Cormorant (58), Herring Gull (54), European Starling (43), Song Sparrow (43), American Robin (42), American Crow (40), Savannah Sparrow (33), Black-capped Chickadee (32), American Goldfinch (27), Common Grackle (22), White-throated Sparrow (21), Blue Jay (21), and American Black Duck (20), During winter surveys, 82 individual birds of 12 species were found during three roadside transect counts. In order of descending abundance (total in parentheses) these were: Common Raven (20), American Crow (18), Great Black-backed Gull (12), Black-capped Chickadee (7), Herring Gull (7), European Starling (4), Golden-crowned Kinglet (4), Boreal Chickadee (3), Downy Woodpecker (2), Blue Jay (2), Red-breasted Nuthatch (2) and Northern Shrike (1). No diurnal raptors were found. During the spring of 2009, all birds seen in flight were recorded, with relative height estimated in order to examine potential collision risk. A total of 679 birds representing 22 species were recorded in flight, or approximately one-third of all birds observed during the spring surveys. Five species alone comprised two-thirds (67%)of the birds in flight (with total in brackets): Common Raven (145), American Crow (125), Great Black-backed Gull (114), Herring Gull (127) and Double-crested Cormorant (71). Flight heights and the remaining 17 species noted in flight are detailed later in this report (Section 4.2.1). The main recommendation from this study is that care should be taken during any construction activities to avoid the single Canada Warbler territory identified in the study area (Figure 2).

3

TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................................................. 4 2.0 METHODS ........................................................................................................................................... 6 2.1 Stationary Point Counts, Transect and Seawatch................................................. 6 2.2 Migration Stopover Transects (Migration and Winter Residency)...................... 6 2.3 Habitat Types............................................................................................................ 6 2.4 Spring Migration Surveys ....................................................................................... 6 2.5 Summer Breeding Surveys ..................................................................................... 6 2.6 Fall Migration Surveys............................................................................................. 7 2.7 Winter Resident Surveys......................................................................................... 7 2.8 Rarity of Observed Species .................................................................................... 7 3.0 RESULTS ............................................................................................................................................ 7 3.1 Spring Migration Surveys ....................................................................................... 7 3.1.1 Bird abundance/variety .................................................................... 7 3.2 Summer Breeding Surveys ..................................................................................... 7 3.2.1 Bird abundance/variety .................................................................... 7 3.2.2 Rare or unusual species .................................................................. 9 3.3 Fall Migration Surveys............................................................................................. 9 3.3.1 Bird abundance/variety .................................................................... 9 3.4 Winter Resident Surveys........................................................................................ 11

3.4.1 Bird abundance/variety .................................................................. 11 3.5 Birds in Flight ….………………………………………………………...…………..11 4.0 DISCUSSION ...................................................................................................................................... 11 4.1 Spring Migration Surveys ...................................................................................... 11 4.2 Breeding Surveys ................................................................................................... 12 4.3 Fall Surveys ............................................................................................................ 12 4.4 Winter Surveys ........................................................................................................ 12 5.0 CONCLUSIONS AND ASSESSMENT OF RISK .............................................................................. 12 5.1 Risk of Collision with Turbines ............................................................................ 12 5.2 Disturbance and Displacement ............................................................................ 13 5.3 Barrier Effect .......................................................................................................... 13 5.4 Habitat Loss............................................................................................................ 13 6.0 REFERENCES................................................................................................................................... 13 FIGURES ................................................................................................................................................ Figure 1 Aerial Photo of Survey Locations........................................................ Figure 2 Map of Canada Warbler Territories ....................................................

4

1.0 INTRODUCTION The establishment of wind energy facilities has raised legitimate concerns regarding their effect on breeding, migrating and staging birds. These effects have three main components (Drewitt and Langston 2006): 1) direct mortality caused by collisions with turbines and other wind plant facilities; 2) disturbance and displacement associated with construction and operation of the facilities; and 3) habitat loss associated with construction and maintenance. Many studies that have taken place around the globe suggest that, with few exceptions, very low numbers of bird fatalities actually occur from collisions with turbines (review in Kingsley and Whittam 2007). The greatest adverse effects that wind energy facilities may have on birds is disturbance to breeding and migrating birds and destruction of their habitat – although this issue has received less attention than have collisions (Kingsley and Whittam 2007). This report presents the findings of a baseline study conducted in 2009 and 2010 (plus additional data from a June 2008 point count study conducted by Avitech) on the potential impact upon birds of a three to five wind turbine installation near North Cape, PEI. The study area for this assessment encompassed a relatively small area of about 50-100 hectares abutting the western shore of the island along the Waterview Road near Norway. The area is composed principally of agricultural fields (60%) and mixed, semi-mature woods (30%) consisting principally of wind-stunted conifers and brush (10%). Figure 1 shows an aerial view of the survey locations. Bird surveys were conducted over a 12-month period from April 2009 to March 2010. These consisted of four seasonal components: Spring migration (April-June 2009), peak breeding season (June-July 2009), autumn migration (August-November 2009), and winter residency (January-March 2010). The objectives of the study were to determine: 1) what species migrate through, and breed at the proposed wind farm site; 2) which species present at the site may be at risk of collision with turbines based on flight height and behaviour; 3) the peak spring and fall migration periods at the site based on bird abundance and species diversity; and 4) whether any rare species use the proposed site during migration or for breeding. Avitech Services was contracted by Frontier Power Systems to examine potential impacts of the proposed Norway Wind Farm on birds. The following survey results are written both for those who know much about birds and their ecology, and those who may have a limited knowledge of birds but are interested in the environmental dimensions of wind farm development. The author wishes to acknowledge the assistance of Carl Brothers of Frontier Power Systems for overseeing the contract, Adam Sandler for producing the graphic (Figures 1 and 2) used in this report, and field ornithologist Cathleen Gallant for conducting the bulk of the actual field work.

5

Figure 1

6

2.0 METHODS 2.1 Point Counts, Transect and Stationary Watch (Breeding Season) The methods employed during the current study were basically identical to those developed for an earlier wind development investigation in the same area in 2008-09. A portion of this earlier study is referenced in this report for the northernmost point counts (No’s 4, 5 and 6). The study methodology was developed following discussions with Environment Canada scientist John Chardine in April 2008. The previous study (also conducted by the author) consisted primarily of 10-minute point counts at each proposed turbine location within an adjacent wind plant. Because the current study site bordered the coast, it was thought prudent to add a stationary count in the form of a one-hour seawatch, to determine what seabirds were using the area. A one-kilometer transect was also added along an access road running between the proposed turbines. The point counts centered on the proposed turbine locations were conducted three times (rather than the usual two), on June 10, 21 and 30th. The one-kilometer transect was walked eight time, on June 10, 15, 21, 26, 30, and July 6, 10 and 15. The observer stopped every 100 meters and noted all birds seen and heard during a three-minute period. The seawatch was conducted following the transect on the same dates, and consisted of a one-hour stationary watch close to the cliff edge off the Waterview Road. 2.2 Migration Stopover Transect (Spring and Fall Migration, Winter Residency) One roadside transect was laid out that passed close by two of the proposed turbine sites. It began at the power substation on the Waterview Road, proceeded south until it met the Nelligan Road, then east until it terminated about one kilometer down that road. A total of 10 stops were established, each 200 meters apart. The route covered the two main habitats (agricultural fields and krumholz forest) almost equally, and was 1800 meters in total length. Spring counts generally began at sunrise and were completed within two hours, but late fall and winter counts began up to two hours after sunrise. Spring surveys were conducted on 14 dates between April 15 and June 5, 2009. Fall surveys were conducted on 19 days between July 31 and November 22, 2009, while winter surveys were conducted a month apart on January 15, February 15 and March 15, 2010.. Each point was surveyed for three minutes and birds seen or heard within 100m were recorded on special field sheets. Bird data collected included stop number, number of birds seen, behaviour (flying, foraging, calling, loafing), flight direction and height, plus additional notes deemed to be of interest by the surveyor. Heights of flying birds were estimated and classed into four categories: Height 1 (1-10m), Height 2 (10-40m), Height 3 (40-100m), and Height 4 (100m+). Wind speed, direction, temperature and precipitation were also noted. 2.3 Habitat Types Of the 10 total points along the roadside transect, six were bordered by fields on one side and forest on the other, three were in fields alone, and one was in forest alone. Fields sampled were principally fallow cropland or old pasturage, while the forest was mostly a mixture of coniferous krumholz and deciduous shrubs. Point counts 1, 2 and 3 were located within the krumholz forest, while point counts 4, 5 and 6 were old pasturage along the shoreline bordered by a strip of peat bog grassland which was adjacent to coniferous krumholz on the inland (eastern) edge. The one-kilometer transect passed through an area between two of the proposed turbines consisting mostly of krumholz forest. 2.4 Spring Migration Surveys Environment Canada requires that surveys be conducted twice a week during the peak of spring migration during the first three weeks of May, and at the least, once a week prior to, and following, this peak period (John Chardine, pers. comm.). Surveys were initiated in mid-April of 2009 and concluded in early June of that year. A total of 14 migration stopover counts were completed along the roadside transect on the following dates: April 15, 20, 25, 30, May 3, 6, 9, 12, 15, 18, 21, 26, 31, and June 5.

7

2.5 Summer Breeding Surveys Three 10-minute surveys for breeding birds were conducted at each of the three point counts, on June 10, 21 and 30. The points were located as close as possible to the proposed turbine locations. 2.6 Fall Migration Surveys Environment Canada requires that surveys be conducted twice a week during peak fall migration in the first three weeks of September, and once a week during the last two weeks of August, and the five weeks following the peak period (until the end of October; John Chardine, pers. comm.). Therefore, a total of 19 migration stopover surveys were completed along the 1800-meter roadside transects between late July and late November of 2009 on the following dates: July 31, August 7, 14, 21, 28, 31, September 3, 9, 14, 18, 24, 28, October 5, 13, 19, 26, November 2, 12 and 22. 2.7 Winter Resident Surveys Counts during the winter were carried out principally because the habitat characteristics (significant amounts of open fields and forest edge) led to an expectation that raptors might be present. Visits were done once per month between mid-January and mid-March, for a total of three surveys. The roadside transects were utilized, followed by general searches along area roads for birds of prey. Counts took place on 15 January, 15 February and 15 March. No diurnal raptors of any kind were detected. 2.8 Rarity of Observed Species Species were considered rare if they met one of the following criteria: 1) listed as being of Special Concern, Threatened, or Endangered by the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC); 2) listed as Sensitive, May be at Risk, or At Risk by the General Status of Species in Canada; 3) and a provincial rank of S3 or lower by the Atlantic Canada Conservation Data Centre. 3.0 RESULTS 3.1 Spring Migration Surveys 3.1.1 Bird Abundance/Variety In total, 1949 birds of 64 species were recorded during all spring surveys of the 10-stop line transect established to sample potential migration stopover habitat in the study area. The most commonly detected species (more than 10 individuals recorded) were: Common Raven (209), American Crow (195), American Robin (176), Song Sparrow (163), Savannah Sparrow (148), Great Black-backed Gull (114), Herring Gull (102), Double-crested Cormorant (71), White-throated Sparrow (57), Dark-eyed Junco (54), Black-capped Chickadee (45), Yellow-rumped Warbler (43), Chipping Sparrow (36), Common Yellowthroat (35), American Goldfinch (34), Yellow Warbler (30), Northern Flicker (30), Alder Flycatcher (29), Black-throated Green Warbler (29), Common Grackle (29), Magnolia Warbler (24), Common Snipe (23), Ruby-crowned Kinglet (22), American Black Duck (22), Golden-crowned Kinglet (18), Mourning Dove (13), Swamp Sparrow (13), European Starling (12), Purple Finch (11), American Redstart (11), Red-breasted Nuthatch (11) and Fox Sparrow (11). Almost all species detected bred in the local area, with very few true migrants noted, with the exception of Fox Sparrows and a single White-crowned Sparrow. 3.2 Summer Breeding Surveys 3.2.1 Bird Abundance/Variety During all three phases (Point Counts, Transect, Seawatch) of the 2009 breeding surveys a total of 968 birds representing 59 species were observed. The most common species detected during the breeding surveys were: Savannah Sparrow (61), Song Sparrow (51), American Robin (58), Common Raven (50), White-throated Sparrow (50), Common Yellowthroat (45), American Crow (41), Great Black-backed Gull

8

(40), Alder Flycatcher (40), Herring Gull (39), Double-crested Cormorant (34), Magnolia Warbler (30), Red-eyed Vireo (30), Black-capped Chickadee (28), Yellow-rumped Warbler (28), Northern Parula (26), Black-throated Green Warbler (25), Ruby-crowned Kinglet (20), American Redstart (19), Yellow Warbler (19), Rock Dove (14), Blue-head Vireo (13), Red-winged Blackbird (12) and Swainson’s Thrush (11). Table 1: Point Count results from June 2009 (Points 1, 2 & 3) and June 2008 (Points 4, 5 & 6). Species June 10 June 21 June 31 Total Total 2009 2008 Northern Gannet 4 - - 4 - Great Cormorant - - - - 2 Double-crested Cormorant 11 4 3 18 American Black Duck 2 - - 2 Bald Eagle 1 1 - 2 Merlin - - 1 1 Great Black-backed Gull 12 2 8 22 Herring Gull 9 9 7 25 3 Black Guillemot 2 - - 2 1 Rock Dove 4 2 - 6 Mourning Dove - - 2 2 Ruby-throated Hummingbird - - 1 1 Northern Flicker 2 - 2 4 Alder Flycatcher 6 6 5 17 10 Blue Jay 1 2 1 4 1 American Crow 7 6 4 17 10 Common Raven 7 9 7 23 4 Blue-headed Vireo 1 1 1 3 Red-eyed Vireo 5 2 2 9 2 Cedar Waxwing - - 1 1 1 Swainson’s Thrush 3 1 1 5 4 Hermit Thrush 1 1 - 2 4 American Robin 8 4 5 17 Tree Swallow 2 - - 2 Ruby-crowned Kinglet 2 2 4 8 Golden-crowned Kinglet - 2 2 4 Black-capped Chickadee 5 6 2 13 Boreal Chickadee 1 - - 1 American Goldfinch - - 2 2 3 White Wing Crossbill - - - - 31 Purple Finch - - 2 2 Nashville Warbler 2 2 1 5 1 Northern Parula 3 3 4 10 4 Yellow Warbler 3 1 2 6 9 Chestnut-sided Warbler 1 1 - 2 1 Magnolia Warbler 6 4 4 14 6 Black-throated Blue Warbler - 1 - 1 Black and White Warbler - - - - 1 Yellow-rumped Warbler 4 2 1 7 4 Black-throated Green Warbler 7 4 3 14 13 American Redstart 3 - 2 5 5 Common Yellowthroat 6 6 6 18 5 Canada Warbler - 1 - 1 5 Song Sparrow 7 4 7 18 11 Swamp Sparrow 3 - - 3 2 White-throated Sparrow 9 8 6 23 3 Chipping Sparrow - - - - 4

9

Dark-eyed Junco 1 2 2 5 Savannah Sparrow 8 7 5 20 Red-winged Blackbird - 3 2 5 Total Species: 36 32 34 46 28 3.2.2 Rare and/or Unusual Species One species was detected during summer breeding surveys that fit one or more of the definitions established for rare species (see section 2.8). While not rare, a second species of interest was found during the sea watches (Black Guillemot), and is included here for the sake of completeness. Canada Warbler (Wilsonia canadensis): newly listed at Threatened by COSEWIC, as sensitive by the General Status of Species in Canada, and as S4B by the AC DCC. This warbler breeds in moist mixed-woods, usually associated with water (Conway, 1999). According to the Maritimes Breeding Bird Atlas, the species’ range is much reduced in the Maritimes since the first Atlas. A singing male was found at the point count nearest the power substation on June 20th. An additional extra effort was therefore made to locate this species in the study area, and resulted in two territories eventually being identified (Figure 2). Black Guillemot (Cepphus grille): a small colony of this tiny seabird was discovered nesting in the cliffs below the sea watch. Based on the maximum number of birds observed (15 on June 20), it is estimated that from 5-10 pairs nest there. The population of this species is widespread and not threatened. Because it seldom flies more than 10 meters above the ocean’s surface, it would be in very little (or no) danger of coming in contact with the turbine blades of a wind power generator. 3.3 Fall Migration Surveys 3.3.1 Bird Abundance/Variety In total, 965 birds of 70 species were detected during 19 roadside transect counts. The highest number of birds and the greatest diversity occurred on 24 September, when 63 individuals of 29 species were detected. The number and variety of migrants during the fall was lower than expected, likely due to the paucity of suitable stopover habitat in the study area. No truly rare or unusual species were found. The most common species detected (more than 10 individuals each) were: Common Raven (92), Great Black-backed Gull (74), Double-crested Cormorant (58), Herring Gull (54), European Starling (43), Song Sparrow (43), American Robin (42), American Crow (40), Savannah Sparrow (33), Black-capped Chickadee (32), American Goldfinch (27), Common Grackle (22), White-throated Sparrow (21), Blue Jay (21), American Black Duck (20), Yellow-rumped Warbler (19), Dark-eyed Junco (18), Golden-crowned Kinglet (17), Common Yellowthroat (16), Swamp Sparrow (14), Boreal Chickadee (13), Common Merganser (12), Red-breasted Nuthatch (11), Mourning Dove (11), White-winged Crossbill (11), Black-throated Green Warbler (11), Rock Dove (10), Northern Flicker (10), Cedar Waxwing (10), and Red-winged Blackbird (10). Most of the species detected were locally-breeding birds, many of which remained in the study area until well into September. No truly large or significant numbers of northern migrants were noted, which indicates the area is very likely of limited value as stopover habitat for fall migrants.

10

Figure 2.

11

3.4 Winter Resident Surveys 3.4.1 Bird Abundance During winter surveys, 82 individual birds of 12 species were found during three roadside transect counts. In order of descending abundance (total in parentheses) these were: Common Raven (20), American Crow (18), Great Black-backed Gull (12), Black-capped Chickadee (7), Herring Gull (7), European Starling (4), Golden-crowned Kinglet (4), Boreal Chickadee (3), Downy Woodpecker (2), Blue Jay (2), Red-breasted Nuthatch (2) and Northern Shrike (1). No diurnal raptors were found. Following the roadside transect, a general one-hour search of all passable roads in the study area was undertaken to look for wintering owls and/or raptors – but none was found. Both the number and variety of winter birds in the area was low. The main attraction for wintering American Crows appeared to be the large amount of grain left behind in harvested corn fields, while Common Ravens were attracted to mink carcasses discarded in a field along the Nelligan Road. 3.5 Birds in Flight In total, 679 (35%) of all birds observed during spring counts (1949) were recorded in flight (Table 2), with 145 Common Ravens (21%) being the most common, followed by Herring Gull (127 or 19%), American Crow (125 or 18%), Great Black-backed Gull (114 or 17%) and Double-crested Cormorant (71 or 10%). These five species alone accounted for 67% of the birds seen in flight. Birds of prey included three Northern Harriers at Height 1, and a Merlin at Height 2. Of the remaining 15 species seen in flight, none exceeded more than five per cent of the total birds seen in flight. These species were Great Cormorant (1), Mallard (2), Am. Black Duck (21), Common Snipe (23), Common Loon (2), Mourning Dove (2), Belted Kingfisher (1), Northern Flicker (1), Blue Jay (1), European Starling (8), Bank Swallow (3), Pine Siskin (4), American Goldfinch (32), Red-winged Blackbird (4) and Common Grackle (14). Table 2: Number of birds observed in flight according to height category during fall migration surveys. Number of Birds Height 142 1 (1-10m). 383 2 (10-40m). 151 3 (40-100m). 3 4 (>100m) ----------------------------------------------------- 4.0 DISCUSSION 4.1 Spring Migration Surveys Spring migration is generally a rapid affair, with birds in a hurry to reach their breeding grounds, males usually first, followed by females up to four weeks later. Only long periods of inclement weather will slow migrants down and force them to remain in an area for more than a few days. Of the 64 species detected between mid-April and early June of 2009 in the Waterview Road area, more than 95 per cent were species that breed in the local area. It is therefore likely that more than 90 per cent of the total individuals were also comprised of local birds returning to their breeding grounds. The only obvious migrants bound for further north or east were 14 Fox Sparrows and a single White-crowned Sparrow. 4.2 Breeding Surveys With the exception of gulls, cormorants, gannets and a few sea ducks (less than 10 individuals each of Red-breasted and Common Mergansers, Common Eider, Black Scoter and Long-tailed Duck), all the species detected during the 2009 breeding surveys were local breeders. The 25 most common breeders in the study area (in descending order) were: White-throated Sparrow, Savannah Sparrow, Common Yellowthroat, American Robin, Alder Flycatcher, Black-throated Green Warbler, Magnolia Warbler, Black-

12

capped Chickadee, Northern Parula, Red-eyed Vireo, Ruby-crowned Kinglet, Yellow-rumped Warbler, Yellow Warbler, Dark-eyed Junco, American Redstart, Red-winged Blackbird, Swainson’s Thrush, Golden-crowned Kinglet, Blue Jay, Blue-headed Vireo, Northern Flicker, Blue Jay, Swamp Sparrow, Purple Finch and American Goldfinch. The rarest breeding species found was the Canada Warbler (Wilsonia canadensis), of which one singing males was initially identified on June 20th near the power substation on Waterview Road. Subsequent investigation revealed the presence of one breeding pair here, as well as a second more than a kilometer away outside the study area (Figure 2). The Committee ‘On the Status of Endangered Wildlife In Canada’ (COSEWIC) has recently listed the species as “Threatened” in Canada. 4.3 Fall Migration Surveys In addition to the 30 most common species (noted in Section 3.3.1) another 40 species were found on the surveys, with less than 10 individuals of each species tallied. Thirty of these species were represented by five individuals or less, indicating an insignificant presence in the study area (given that more than 20 hours was invested in field work. The most significant observation was the presence of a number of Bald Eagles, a total of six – one each in August and September, and two each in October and November. They were all sub-adults and attracted to a nearby mink-carcass disposal site along the Nelligan Road. This practice may have to be discouraged in order to prevent Bald Eagles from lingering in the area. 4.4 Winter Resident Surveys Winter surveys were undertaken to principally to determine whether or not significant numbers of diurnal raptors and owls were using the study area. Species that were hypothesized to use the area were Red Tailed Hawk, Rough-legged Hawk, Northern Goshawk, Snowy Owl and Short-eared Owl. The same 10-stop roadside transect used for spring and fall migration surveys was employed, along with the same protocol (3-minute stops at each point). Following the roadside transect, all roads not drifted in by snow in the study area were driven in search of raptors. More than 10 hours was spent in this regard, without a single raptor sighting. The two most obvious wintering species were Common Raven and American Crow. All species found are noted in Section 3.4.1. 5.0 CONCLUSIONS AND ASSESSMENT OF RISK Four main effects of wind energy developments on birds are identified by Drewitt and Langston (2006). They are: 1) Collision; 2) Displacement; 3) Barrier effects; and 4) Habitat loss. 5.1 Risk of Collision with Turbines Overall, more than half (383 out of 679, or 56%) of the birds observed in flight during the spring of 2009 were flying at Height 2 (10-40m). Slightly more than a fifth (151 out of 679, or 22%) were flying at Height 3 (40-100m), and one fifth (142 out of 679, or 21%) were flying at Height 1 (1-10m). Less than one percent (three Bank Swallows) were flying above 100m. Two thirds of the birds in flight were comprised of five species that have already habituated to the presence of several wind turbines in the North Cape area, and it is felt the risk of collision for these species (Common Raven, Herring Gull, Great Black-backed Gull, Double-crested Cormorant and American Crow) to be negligible at best. The majority of collisions caused by wind turbines have recorded relatively low levels of mortality (Drewitt and Langston, 2006). There is no reason to believe the Waterview Road site will be any different. Common Snipe is perhaps most at risk because it engages in aerial flight displays at any time of day or night. Two or three displaying males were heard along the Waterview and Nelligan Roads during spring migration transect counts. However, the species is fairly common, and listed as Secure by the General Status of Species in Canada. A small colony of Black Guillemots nests on the cliffs adjacent to the Waterview Road, but they seldom fly more than 10m above the ocean, and never over land.

13

5.2 Disturbance and Displacement Displacement of birds from areas near wind farms can occur during both the construction and maintenance phases of wind farms, and can lead to habitat loss for the birds (Drewitt and Langston, 2006). Birds can be displaced by the presence of the turbines themselves through visual, noise and vibration impacts, and also as a result of repeated vehicle movements related to maintenance. Studies have shown displacement effects at up to 600m from turbines. It is difficult to determine the potential scale of disturbance caused by a wind farm, as effects can only reliably be determined following turbine installation (through comparison of abundances before and after). 5.3 Barrier Effect Previous studies indicate birds may exhibit avoidance behaviour when encountering a series of turbines, and either fly around or over the turbines without stopping (Environment Canada 2005, Jacques Whitford 2005). This can be positive from the standpoint of avoiding the turbine blades, but can also be negative if they are forced to expend too much energy flying around the wind farm site. Given that the majority of birds observed in flight at the study site (67%) were American Crow, Common Raven, Herring Gull, Great Black-backed Gull and Double-crested Cormorant, it is unlikely a wind farm at this site will pose a barrier to the majority of birds crossing from west to east (and vice-versa) across the island at this point. 5.4 Habitat Loss The study area near the tip of North Cape, is estimated at 50-100 hectares, about equally divided between second-growth mixed forest and agricultural fields. Given the limited number of turbines proposed it is unlikely that habitat loss due to construction of roads, turbines and other associated structures will have an appreciable negative impact on species diversity or numbers. 6.0 REFERENCES Conway, Courtney J. 1999. Canada Warbler (Wilsonia canadensis), The Birds of North America Online (A. Poole, Ed.). Ithaca: Cornell Lab of Ornithology; Retrieved from the Birds of North America Online: http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/421 (subscription required). Drewitt, A.L., and R.H.W. Langston. 2006. Assessing the impact of wind farms on birds. Ibis 148(s1):29-42. Environment Canada. 2007. Wind Turbines and Birds, A Guidance Document for Environmental Assessment. Erskine, Anthony J. 1992. Atlas of Breeding Birds of the Maritime Provinces. Nimbus Publishing Limited and the Nova Scotia Museum, Halifax. Kingsley, A., and B. Whittam. 2007. Wind turbines and birds: A background review for environmental assessment. Report to Environment Canada, Gatineau, Quebec.

APPENDIX B Radio Interference Assessment Frontier Power Systems Report

WEICan Wind Farm – Radio Interference Assessment Prepared by Frontier Power Systems August 17, 2010 Background The Wind Energy Institute of Canada (WEICan) proposes to build a wind farm near their facility at North Cape, Prince Edward Island. The proposed wind farm will consist of 4 or 5 wind turbines and have a total generating capacity of approximately 10 MW. The potential impact of the wind farm on radiocommunication, radar, and seismoacoustic systems is underway. This impact assessment is being conducted according to the Radio Advisory Board of Canada and the Wind Energy Association of Canada guideline entitled Technical Information Guidelines on the Assessment of Potential Impact of Wind Turbines on Radiocommunication, Radar and Seismoacoustic Systems (the Guidelines). Licensed Radio Frequencies The Industry Canada radio frequency database was searched using a geographical area defined by the project center coordinates listed below and a search radius of 70km. Project Center (NAD83) UTM20: 423017, 5209560 Lat: 47.034° Long: -64.013° A total of 499 search results were returned for licensed radio frequencies in the analysis area. The wind farm site map is shown in figure 1 and the search results are shown in figure 2. Point-to-Point Systems Point-to-point radio systems were identified by matching the Link License Number data field to the station License Number data field in the search results. A total of 73 point-to-point radio systems were identified. The consultation zones were determined and plotted for all point-to-point systems. None of the proposed turbine sites are within the point-to-point consultation zones. Figure 3 shows the results of the point-to-point radio analysis. Broadcast Transmitters Broadcast transmitters were identified by querying the search results using the ITU Station Class data field. A total of 34 broadcast transmitters were identified at 11 discreet locations. The largest consultation zone, 15km for a directional AM transmitter, was plotted around all transmitter locations. None of the proposed turbine sites are within the consultation zone. Figure 4 shows the results of the broadcast transmitter analysis. Cellular Type Networks and Land Mobile Radio Systems Cellular type networks and land mobile radio network stations are shown in figure 5. None of the proposed turbine sites are within the 1km consultation zone for these stations.

Satellite Systems Satellite antennas were identified by querying the search results using the ITU Station Class data field. A total of 7 satellite antennas were identified at 3 discreet locations. The maximum consultation zone of 10km was plotted around each antenna. None of the proposed turbine sites are within the consultation zone. Figure 6 shows the results of the satellite station analysis. Radar and Aeronautical Navigation Systems A single aeronautical radio station is listed in the search results. This station is located at the Slemon Park Airport near Summerside, PEI. This station is approximately 66 km from the proposed wind farm. The site map and description of the proposed project will be provided to all agencies listed in the Mandatory Contact List in Table 1 of the Guidelines. None of the proposed wind turbines are expected to be within the consultation zones required for radar, seismoacoustic, or aeronautical navigation systems; however this will need to be assessed when the appropriate agencies have responded. Conclusion The proposed wind farm is not expected to have any significant impact on nearby radiocommunication, radar, and seismoacoustic systems. A final assessment of the potential impact on these systems will be made when the appropriate agencies have responded.

Figure 1: Site Map

Figure 2: Radio Frequency Search Results

Figure 3: Point-to-Point Radion Systems

Figure 4: Broadcast Transmitters

Figure 5: Cellular and Fixed Radio Systems

Figure 6: Satellite Radio Systems

APPENDIX C Noise Modelling

Frontier Power Systems Report

WEICan Wind Farm GH WindFarmer

Frontier Power Systems 19 July 2010

1

GH WindFarmer Report WEICan Wind Farm 5 x D8.2 Optimized

Noise Modelling 19 July 2010

Note to Reader: The data and results contained in this report are preliminary and should be used as such. DeWind have indicated that the warranted sound power level of the D8.2 wind turbine is 106 dBA under certain conditions which have yet to be described. The noise modelling described in this report uses 1/1 octave sound power levels, which presently are not available for the D8.2 turbine. Octave sound power levels were derived for the D8.2 using measured data from a similar turbine, which was scaled to the warranted sound power level of the D8.2. Similarly, the turbine locations and turbine noise data for the neighbouring wind farms should be considered preliminary and the accuracy of this data is not guaranteed in any way.



2

1 General report information WindFarmer version v4.1.1.0 D:\FPS Work\Current Projects\WEICan\WEICanWindPark\WindFarmer\WEICanWindFarm_070610.wow July 19, 2010

2 Project: WEICan Wind Farm Project WEICan Wind Farm Number of turbines 5

3 Project: WEICan Wind Farm - Turbines Table

Turbine ID Turbine label Turbine type name

Hub height (m) Rotor diameter (m)

Capacity (kW)

1 <label> DeWind D8.2 (2.0 MW)

80.0 80.0 2000


80.0 80.0 2000


80.0 80.0 2000


80.0 80.0 2000


80.0 80.0 2000

Table 1 - Turbines Table - Part 1

Turbine ID Eastings (m) UTM20 NAD83

Northings (m) UTM20 NAD83

Height of base (m)

Nearest turbine ID

Distance to nearest turbine

(m) 1 423159.0 5210290.0 12 2 282.0 2 423016.0 5210047.0 12 1 282.0 3 422910.0 5209727.0 12 2 337.1 4 422662.0 5209375.0 14 3 430.6 5 422899.0 5208775.0 12 4 645.1




3

4 Project: WEICan Wind Farm - Turbine types Turbine type DeWind D8.2 (2.0 MW) Diameter 80.0 m Hub height 80.0 m Number of blades 3 Power regulation Pitch Cut-In windspeed 4.0 m/s Cut-Out windspeed 25.0 m/s Turbine noise options: Turbine produces tonal noise No Noise in octave bands Yes

Octave band (Hz)

Sound Power Level

(dB(A)) 31.5 87.50 63.0 89.20

125.0 95.20 250.0 99.40 500.0 100.70

1000.0 100.00 2000.0 96.20 4000.0 84.30 8000.0 71.70 Table 3 - Sound Power Level for DeWind D8.2 (2.0 MW)

Specify absolute sound power level Yes Specify variation of sound power level with wind speed No



4

5 Project: WEICan Wind Farm - Dwellings

Dwelling ID Dwelling name Distance to nearest turbine

(m)

Eastings (m)

Northings (m)

Altitude (m)

Turbine exclusion

radius (m)

1 1450.1 421847.0 5207777.0 19.3 525.0 2 1388.9 421975.0 5207738.0 18.4 525.0 3 777.2 422232.0 5208376.0 18.0 525.0 4 704.6 422234.0 5208542.0 10.0 525.0 5 598.4 423173.0 5208243.0 10.4 525.0 6 1229.3 423915.0 5208083.0 8.2 525.0 7 1370.3 424128.0 5208169.0 9.9 525.0 8 1527.7 424316.0 5208204.0 9.3 525.0 9 1607.6 424294.0 5207976.0 8.8 525.0 10 1677.2 424568.0 5208609.0 6.0 525.0 11 1719.9 424618.0 5208720.0 5.2 525.0 12 1598.5 424496.0 5208844.0 4.0 525.0 13 1554.2 424403.0 5209167.0 8.4 525.0 14 1619.7 424471.0 5209165.0 8.0 525.0 15 1668.6 424518.0 5209179.0 8.0 525.0 16 1711.1 424566.0 5209161.0 7.1 525.0 17 1786.8 424636.0 5209265.0 6.9 525.0 18 1781.7 424638.0 5209293.0 7.7 525.0 19 1686.2 424633.0 5209471.0 8.0 525.0 20 1523.0 424484.0 5209539.0 10.0 525.0

Table 4 - Project: WEICan Wind Farm - Dwellings



5

Figure 1 - 5xD8.2_Optimized_080610



6

6 Workbook noise options Form of noise model to be used Complex (ISO9613) General Ground Effect Porous Ground Ground Effect ISO9613 General Ground factor around turbines 0.70 Ground factor everywhere else 0.70 Meteorological correction factor Co 0.00 dB Other attenuations to be considered 0.00 dB Initial default noise limit to use when placing dwellings 45.00 dB(A) Relative to background noise 0.00 dB(A) Calculation grid spacing 10.00 m Height above ground for noise mapping 2.00 m Use DTM height data Yes Octave Spreading Yes

Octave band (Hz)

Attenuation coefficient

(dB/km) 31.5 0.00 63.0 0.10

125.0 0.40 250.0 1.00 500.0 1.90

1000.0 3.70 2000.0 9.70 4000.0 32.80 8000.0 117.00

Table 5 - Atmospheric Attenuation for Octave Bands of Noise

7 Project: WEICan Wind Farm - Dwellings noise

Dwelling ID Noise prediction (dB(A))

Noise limit type Absolute noise limit

(dB(A))

Relative to background noise limit

(dB(A))

Background noise reference

ID

1 40.66 Absolute 45.00 Not applicable Not applicable 2 40.15 Absolute 45.00 Not applicable Not applicable 3 39.49 Absolute 45.00 Not applicable Not applicable 4 40.05 Absolute 45.00 Not applicable Not applicable 5 40.35 Absolute 45.00 Not applicable Not applicable 6 36.56 Absolute 45.00 Not applicable Not applicable 7 36.04 Absolute 45.00 Not applicable Not applicable 8 35.48 Absolute 45.00 Not applicable Not applicable 9 35.01 Absolute 45.00 Not applicable Not applicable

10 35.82 Absolute 45.00 Not applicable Not applicable 11 36.00 Absolute 45.00 Not applicable Not applicable 12 37.02 Absolute 45.00 Not applicable Not applicable 13 38.99 Absolute 45.00 Not applicable Not applicable 14 38.56 Absolute 45.00 Not applicable Not applicable 15 38.33 Absolute 45.00 Not applicable Not applicable 16 37.97 Absolute 45.00 Not applicable Not applicable 17 37.97 Absolute 45.00 Not applicable Not applicable 18 38.06 Absolute 45.00 Not applicable Not applicable 19 38.78 Absolute 45.00 Not applicable Not applicable 20 40.10 Absolute 45.00 Not applicable Not applicable

Table 6 - Project: WEICan Wind Farm - Dwellings noise



7

Figure 2 - 5xD8.2_Optimized_NoiseContours_190710



8

8 Project: PEIEC Wind Farm (16 x V47) Project PEIEC Wind Farm Number of turbines 16

9 Project: PEIEC Wind Farm - Turbines Table



Capacity (kW)

1 N1 Vestas V47 (660 kW)

50.0 47.0 660


50.0 47.0 660


50.0 47.0 660

4 S1 Vestas V47 (660 kW)

50.0 47.0 660


50.0 47.0 660


50.0 47.0 660

7 W1 Vestas V47 (660 kW)

50.0 47.0 660

8 W2 Vestas V47 (660 kW)

50.0 47.0 660


50.0 47.0 660


50.0 47.0 660


50.0 47.0 660


50.0 47.0 660


50.0 47.0 660

14 E1 Vestas V47 (660 kW)

50.0 47.0 660


50.0 47.0 660


50.0 47.0 660


Turbine ID Eastings (m) Northings (m) Height of base (m)

Nearest turbine ID


(m) 1 424471.0 5211681.0 7 2 199.7 2 424305.0 5211570.0 9 1 199.7 3 424121.0 5211484.0 11 9 184.7 4 424222.0 5211106.0 12 10 155.3 5 424071.0 5211010.0 10 4 178.9 6 423937.0 5210865.0 12 5 197.4 7 423746.0 5211239.0 2 8 210.8 8 423645.0 5211054.0 2 7 210.8 9 423985.0 5211359.0 10 3 184.7

10 424242.0 5211260.0 12 4 155.3 11 424195.0 5210801.0 12 12 178.3 12 424229.0 5210626.0 12 11 178.3 13 424070.0 5210440.0 12 12 244.7 14 424428.0 5211031.0 11 15 183.4 15 424451.0 5210849.0 11 14 183.4 16 424573.0 5210476.0 12 12 375.3




9

10 Project: PEIEC Wind Farm - Turbine types Turbine type Vestas V47 (660 kW) Diameter 47.0 m Hub height 50.0 m Number of blades 3 Power regulation Pitch Cut-In windspeed 4.0 m/s Cut-Out windspeed 25.0 m/s Turbine noise options: Turbine produces tonal noise No Noise in octave bands Yes

Octave band (Hz)

Sound Power Level

(dB(A)) 31.5 76.00 63.0 78.20

125.0 86.10 250.0 89.80 500.0 95.20

1000.0 97.00 2000.0 92.90 4000.0 87.90 8000.0 69.20 Table 9 - Sound Power Level for Vestas V47 (660 kW)

Specify absolute sound power level Yes Specify variation of sound power level with wind speed No



10

11 Project: Ventus V90s Project Ventus V90s Number of turbines 3

12 Project: Ventus V90s - Turbines Table



Capacity (kW)

1 Vestas V90-3.0MW (Mode 0)

80.0 90.0 3000


80.0 90.0 3000


80.0 90.0 3000



Nearest turbine ID


(m) 1 422421.0 5206518.0 10 2 370.1 2 422788.0 5206566.0 12 1 370.1 3 421188.0 5207428.0 17 1 1532.4


13 Project: Ventus V90s - Turbine types Turbine type Vestas V90-3.0MW (Mode 0) Diameter 90.0 m Hub height 80.0 m Number of blades 3 Power regulation Pitch Cut-In windspeed 3.5 m/s Cut-Out windspeed 25.0 m/s Turbine noise options: Turbine produces tonal noise No Noise in octave bands Yes

Octave band (Hz)

Sound Power Level

(dB(A)) 31.5 85.00 63.0 95.70

125.0 96.80 250.0 101.40 500.0 103.50

1000.0 104.60 2000.0 100.30 4000.0 95.00 8000.0 85.10

Table 12 - Sound Power Level for Vestas V90-3.0MW (Mode 0) Specify absolute sound power level Yes Specify variation of sound power level with wind speed No



11

14 Project: V90 Prototype Project V90 Prototype Number of turbines 1

15 Project: V90 Prototype - Turbines Table



Capacity (kW)

1 Existing V90 Vestas V90-3.0MW (Mode 0)

80.0 90.0 3000



Nearest turbine ID


(m) 1 423634.0 5209740.0 12 2 690.1


16 Project: V90 Prototype - Turbine types Turbine type Vestas V90-3.0MW (Mode 0) Diameter 90.0 m Hub height 80.0 m Number of blades 3 Power regulation Pitch Cut-In windspeed 3.5 m/s Cut-Out windspeed 25.0 m/s Turbine noise options: Turbine produces tonal noise No Noise in octave bands Yes

Octave band (Hz)

Sound Power Level

(dB(A)) 31.5 85.00 63.0 95.70

125.0 96.80 250.0 101.40 500.0 103.50

1000.0 104.60 2000.0 100.30 4000.0 95.00 8000.0 85.10

Table 15 - Sound Power Level for Vestas V90-3.0MW (Mode 0) Specify absolute sound power level Yes Specify variation of sound power level with wind speed No

Date post:	14-Mar-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	vudang
View:	219 times
Download:	6 times