Environmental Assessment of the 30MW East Point Wind Plant East Point King’s County, Prince Edward Island Prince Edward Island Energy Corporation Kari MacDonald, E.I.T. On behalf of Frontier Power Systems June 15, 2006 Amended by Diane F. Griffin D Griffin Consulting July 31, 2006
84
Embed
Environmental Assessment of the 30MW East Point Wind … · · 2006-08-17Environmental Assessment of the 30MW East Point Wind Plant East Point ... 4.1 Eco-region ... Ms. Griffin
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
Environmental Assessment of the 30MW
East Point Wind Plant
East Point
King’s County, Prince Edward Island
Prince Edward Island Energy Corporation
Kari MacDonald, E.I.T.
On behalf of Frontier Power Systems
June 15, 2006
Amended by Diane F. Griffin D Griffin Consulting
July 31, 2006
ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF FIGURES ............................................................................................................................ iii LIST OF TABLES.............................................................................................................................. iii 1. PROJECT SUMMARY................................................................................................................... 1 2. PROJECT SCOPE........................................................................................................................... 3
2.1 Scope of Project & Assessment............................................................................................................... 3 2.2 Methodology............................................................................................................................................ 3
5.2 Cumulative Effects Assessment ............................................................................................................ 63 5.3 Effects of the Environment on the Project............................................................................................. 67
6.0 FOLLOW-UP PROGRAM ......................................................................................................... 70 7.0 PUBLIC CONSULTATION ....................................................................................................... 72
8.0 FIRST NATIONS CONSULTATION........................................................................................ 75 9.0 SCREENING DECISION AND SIGNATURE.......................................................................... 76 10.0 REFERENCES .......................................................................................................................... 77 Appendix A. Wind Resource Maps Addendum to Appendix B Appendix B. Bird Studies Canada – Spring & Fall Migration Surveys Appendix C. Provincial EIA Application Addendum to Appendix D Appendix D. CEAA Project Description & FCR Responses Appendix E. Site Specific Environmental Protection Plan Appendix F. Public Meeting Documentation Appendix G. Rare Plant Survey Report Appendix H. PEI T&PW Environmental Protection Plan Appendix I. Project Site Photos Appendix J. V90 3.0MW Turbine Specifications Appendix K. Shadow Flicker Impact Analysis Appendix L. Noise Impact Analysis Appendix M. Borrow Pit Applications
Appendix N. Draft Bird Mortality Monitoring Protocol for the Wind Power Facility at North Cape,PEI
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 3.1. Aerial photograph showing site layout............................................................................................ 9 Figure 3.2.Components of the V90 nacelle (Vestas, 2005) ............................................................................. 14 Figure 3.3.V90 Power Curve (Vestas, 2005) ................................................................................................... 14 Figure 3.4 Photomontage simulation of East Point Wind Plant....................................................................... 18 Figure 4.1. Land use in the project area........................................................................................................... 23 Figure 4.2. Locations of species identified by ACCDC data search................................................................ 23 Figure 4.3. Tracks covered during the full vascular plant survey at the project site (Blaney, 2006)............... 29 Figure 4.4. Area of greatest risk to birds (Campbell & Whittam, 2005) ......................................................... 35 Figure 5.1. Predicted noise level contours resulting from wind plant operation ............................................. 49 Figure 7.1. Public meeting at Eastern King's Community Center ................................................................... 73 Figure 7.2. Display at public meeting.............................................................................................................. 73
LIST OF TABLES
Table 3.1. Turbine array details ......................................................................................................................... 9 Table 4.1. Land use in each watershed ............................................................................................................ 26 Table 4.2. Current ownership and land use at each turbine site....................................................................... 26 Table 4.3. Geotechnical testing results ............................................................................................................ 26 Table 4.4. Details on rare plants identified during vascular plant survey (Blaney, 2006) .............................. 29 Table 4.5 Number of observations and total number of individuals observed during fall migration surveys
(Campbell & Whittam, 2005).................................................................................................................. 34 Table 4.6. Number of observations and total number of individuals observed during spring migration surveys
(Armenta, Campbell & Whittam, 2006).................................................................................................. 35 Table 5.1. Noise levels associated with construction equipment at various distances (PEI Energy
Table 5.2. Noise levels of wind turbines compared to other common noise sources (LHH, 2006)................. 49 Table 5.3. Potential Project /Environment Interactions Matrix ....................................................................... 53 Table 5.4. Expected level of residual effects (NRCan, 2003).......................................................................... 53 Table 5.5 Potential influence of project on valued ecosystem components and recommended mitigation
measures.................................................................................................................................................. 54 Table 5.6 Potential cumulative effects associated with the project ................................................................. 66 Table 5.7. Potential effects of the environment on the project ........................................................................ 69
1. PROJECT SUMMARY
Proponent Proponent:
Prince Edward Island Energy Corporation P.O. Box 2000 Charlottetown PE C1A 7N8
Design completed by:
Frontier Power Systems Inc. P.O. Box 72 Alberton PEI C0B 1B0
Contact Persons Mr. Ron Estabrooks, P. Eng Prince Edward Island Energy Corporation Tel: (902) 368-5011 Fax: (902) 894-0290 Email: [email protected] Mr. Carl Brothers, P. Eng President, Frontier Power Systems Inc. Tel: (902) 853-2853 Fax: (902) 882-3823 Email: [email protected]
Project Title East Point Wind Plant
Project Location The project will be located in a rural area in King's County on the northeastern tip of Prince Edward Island. The specific coordinates of each turbine site can be seen in Table 3.1
Estimated Capacity The wind plant will consist of ten Vestas V90-3.0MW wind turbines and will have a total generating capacity of 30MW.
Construction Schedule • Land negotiations – September to December 2005 • Design work – December 2005 to May 2006 • Conduct Geotechnical work – February 2005 • Clear roads and commence road construction – July 2006 • Install foundations – August 2006 • Install electrical collector system – September 2006 • Receive turbines – October 2006 • Install and commission turbines – October/November 2006
Federal Involvement This project will receive financial support from Natural Resources Canada through the Wind Power Production Incentive (WPPI) program. WPPI provides funding based on a rate of $0.01/kWh of electricity produced per year over a period of 10 years. For the EPWP this amounts to approximately $750,000 – 800,000 per year.
2
Involvement of Other
Departments/Agencies
Mr. Mark Victor, former Environmental Assessment Coordinator and Mr. Greg Wilson current Environmental Assessment Coordinator with the PEI Department of Environment, Energy and Forestry (PEIDEEF), were consulted as a part of the EA process.
Required Permits &
Authorizations
Approval for development from the PEI Department of Community and Cultural Affairs. Excavation Pit Permit from PEIDEEF. Project approval under Section 9(1) of the Environmental Protection Act, PEIDEEF.
Public Consultation This project was announced to the public by PEI Energy Minister Jamie Ballem on October 4, 2005. This meeting took place at the East Point Community Center. A subsequent public meeting was held on March 30, 2006 in which the final wind plant layout and the details of the electrical interconnection were presented to the public. Documentation related to this public meeting is presented in Appendix F. Residents in the project area were also individually informed of this project through discussions by Adam Sandler, E.I.T., an employee of Frontier Power Systems.
Author of EA Kari MacDonald, E.I.T. 2120 Creighton St. Halifax, NS B3K 3R4 Tel: (902) 420-9360 E-mail: [email protected] Edited by Diane F. Griffin D Griffin Consulting Stratford, PEI Tel: (902)569-2343 E-mail: [email protected]
3
2. PROJECT SCOPE
2.1 Scope of Project & Assessment
This environmental assessment was conducted in accordance with the Canadian Environmental
Assessment Act. CEAA requires that an Environmental Screening be conducted for any undertaking
which receives funding from a federal department or agency. The East Point Wind Plant is eligible
for incentives under the Wind Power Production Incentive Program, as described in the following
section; therefore an environmental assessment (EA) has been conducted for this project under
requirements of CEAA. Any new developments or future project phases not described in this report
will require a separate environmental assessment.
2.2 Methodology
This environmental assessment was completed using Natural Resource Canada’s Environmental
Impact Statement Guidelines for Screenings of Inland Wind Farms under the Canadian
Environmental Assessment Act. This EA report evaluates the potential interactions between the
environmental components at the project site (Section 4) and the activities associated with the
construction, operation and decommissioning of the East Point Wind Plant (Section 3). The first
step in the process involves gathering detailed information on each project phase and the
environmental conditions at the project site. This information is used to determine the potential
interactions between the project and the surrounding physical and socio-economic environment.
Any environmental element that may be impacted by the project is termed a Valued Ecosystem
Component (VEC). Based on the results of this analysis, mitigation measures have been established
to minimize any potential project-environment interactions. This process helps ensure that the
project is completed in a sustainable and responsible manner, and that any required permits are
identified and obtained.
The PEI Energy Corporation has made significant changes to the siting of the wind plant in
response to environmental concerns raised early in the EA process. The modified siting has moved
wind turbines from areas which were identified in preliminary studies, as potentially disruptive to
local bird populations and has avoided wetland and riparian areas which may have been affected by
the project. The PEI Energy Corporation has addressed environmental concerns raised and has
implemented measures to mitigate these concerns. Although there is inevitably some environmental
4
interaction with any project, the proponent does not believe that any significant environmental
interactions will occur as a result of this project.
2.3 Individuals Involved in Preparation of Environmental Assessment Report:
P = Potential Effect of Project on the Environment; E = Potential Effect of Environment on Project
Table 5.4. Expected level of residual effects (NRCan, 2003)
54
Tab
le 5
.5 P
ote
nti
al
infl
uen
ce o
f p
roje
ct o
n v
alu
ed e
cosy
stem
com
pon
ents
an
d r
ecom
men
ded
mit
igati
on
mea
sure
s
Va
lued
Eco
syst
em
Co
mp
on
ent
(VE
C)
Pro
ject
Ph
ase
P
roje
ct A
ctiv
itie
s P
ote
nti
al
Inte
ract
ion
s R
eco
mm
end
ed
Mit
igati
on
Mea
sure
s R
esid
ua
l
Eff
ects
Sit
e P
rep
arat
ion,
Co
nst
ruct
ion &
D
eco
mm
issi
onin
g
• S
ite
gru
bb
ing
• C
onst
ruct
ion o
f ac
cess
ro
ads
• E
xca
vat
ion o
f so
il a
nd
p
ouri
ng c
oncr
ete
pad
s • R
emo
val
of
turb
ines
an
d b
ases
• R
e-co
nto
uri
ng s
urf
ace
• S
ite
gru
bb
ing h
as t
he
po
tenti
al t
o d
istu
rb s
oil
, ca
use
ero
sio
n,
and
p
ote
nti
ally
im
pac
t nea
rby w
ater
cours
es
• E
xca
vat
ion a
ctiv
itie
s co
uld
im
pac
t gro
und
wat
er q
ual
ity b
y
exp
osi
ng t
he
wat
er
tab
le a
t se
ver
al o
f th
e tu
rbin
e p
roje
ct s
ites
. • C
onst
ruct
ion o
f ac
cess
ro
ads
and
turb
ine
site
s has
the
po
tenti
al t
o
alte
r su
rfac
e w
ater
flo
w
and
/or
dra
inag
e p
atte
rns
• S
ho
rt-t
erm
ero
sio
n a
nd
sed
imen
t co
ntr
ol
mea
sure
s (s
ilt
fence
or
stra
w b
ales
) w
ill
be
use
d
to p
reven
t co
nta
min
ated
runo
ff f
rom
lea
vin
g t
he
pro
ject
sit
e an
d e
nte
rin
g n
earb
y w
ater
cours
es.
• I
f th
e gro
und
wat
er t
able
is
exp
ose
d d
uri
ng
exca
vat
ion,
the
pit
wil
l b
e p
um
ped
dry
pri
or
to
po
uri
ng c
oncr
ete.
S
pec
ial
pre
cauti
on
s w
ill
be
taken
to
pre
ven
t gro
und
wat
er c
onta
min
atio
n.
• T
he
pro
ject
sit
e is
lo
cate
d a
t le
ast
43
5 m
aw
ay
fro
m t
he
nea
rest
surf
ace
wat
erco
urs
e.
• T
his
pro
ject
has
a l
imit
ed s
pat
ial
and
tem
po
ral
sco
pe
and
is
no
t ex
pec
ted
to
res
ult
in l
arge
amo
unts
of
conta
min
atio
n o
r su
spen
ded
se
dim
ents
. • N
atura
l d
rain
age
wil
l no
t b
e im
ped
ed u
nle
ss
conta
min
ated
ru
no
ff i
s a
conce
rn.
L
ow
H
yd
rolo
gic
al
Res
ou
rces
Mal
funct
ions
and
A
ccid
enta
l E
ven
ts
• A
ccid
enta
l sp
ills
of
hyd
roca
rbo
n p
rod
uct
s o
r lo
ad/e
quip
men
t lo
ss
duri
ng a
ny p
roje
ct
phas
e.
• D
egra
dat
ion o
f su
rfac
e an
d g
rou
nd
wat
er
qual
ity
• R
elea
se o
f haz
ard
ous
mat
eria
ls
• F
uel
and
haz
ard
ous
mat
eria
ls m
ust
be
sto
red
at
leas
t 5
00
m a
way
fro
m t
he
nea
rest
wat
erco
urs
e.
• C
ontr
acto
r m
ust
hav
e sp
ill
clea
n-u
p m
ater
ials
on
site
wit
h a
min
imu
m o
f 2
5kg o
f su
itab
le
com
mer
cial
so
rben
t, 3
0 c
ub
ic m
eter
s o
f 6
mil
p
oly
eth
yle
ne,
a s
ho
vel
and
an e
mp
ty f
uel
bar
rel
for
spil
l co
llec
tio
n a
nd
dis
po
sal.
• C
onst
ruct
ion e
quip
men
t m
ust
be
pro
per
ly
mai
nta
ined
to
pre
ven
t le
aks
or
spil
ls o
f haz
ard
ous
mat
eria
ls.
• F
uel
lin
g a
nd
ser
vic
ing o
f eq
uip
men
t w
ill
be
cond
uct
ed o
ff s
ite.
If
on
-sit
e w
ork
is
nec
essa
ry,
it w
ill
be
cond
uct
ed a
t le
ast
10
0m
fro
m a
ny
wat
erco
urs
e o
r w
etla
nd
. • A
ny c
onta
min
ated
runo
ff w
ill
be
conta
ined
fo
r im
med
iate
co
llec
tio
n a
nd
dis
po
sal.
• A
ny s
pil
ls w
ill
be
clea
ned
up
im
med
iate
ly a
nd
re
po
rted
to
the
Co
ast
Guar
d (
1-8
00
-56
5-1
63
3).
L
ow
55
Tab
le 5
.5 P
ote
nti
al
infl
uen
ce o
f p
roje
ct o
n v
alu
ed e
cosy
stem
com
pon
ents
an
d r
ecom
men
ded
mit
igati
on
mea
sure
s
Va
lued
Eco
syst
em
Co
mp
on
ent
(VE
C)
Pro
ject
Ph
ase
P
roje
ct A
ctiv
itie
s P
ote
nti
al
Inte
ract
ion
s R
eco
mm
end
ed
Mit
igati
on
Mea
sure
s R
esid
ua
l
Eff
ects
Sit
e P
rep
arat
ion,
Co
nst
ruct
ion a
nd
D
eco
mm
issi
onin
g
• S
ite
gru
bb
ing
• C
onst
ruct
ion o
f ac
cess
ro
ads
• E
xca
vat
ion o
f so
il
• P
ouri
ng c
oncr
ete
pad
s • U
nd
ergro
und
cab
le
inst
alla
tio
n
• R
emo
val
of
turb
ines
an
d b
ases
• R
e-co
nto
uri
ng s
urf
ace
• R
e-veg
etat
ion b
y
nat
ura
l gro
wth
or
seed
ing.
• P
ote
nti
al t
o a
dver
sely
im
pac
t th
e so
il i
n t
he
area
by c
om
pac
tio
n a
nd
er
osi
on.
• P
ote
nti
al l
oss
of
top
so
il a
nd
mix
ing w
ith
oth
er s
oil
lay
ers.
• C
onst
ruct
ion/D
eco
mm
issi
onin
g w
ill
no
t o
ccur
duri
ng p
erio
ds
of
rain
or
wet
so
ils.
• T
raff
ic w
ill
be
lim
ited
to
acc
ess
road
s an
d
spec
ific
turb
ine
site
s.
• I
n a
reas
wher
e ex
cavat
ion i
s to
tak
e p
lace
, to
pso
il i
s to
be
stri
pp
ed a
nd
pla
ced
in a
dis
tinct
p
ile
abo
ve
the
hig
h w
ater
mar
k i
n a
man
ner
that
d
oes
no
t b
lock
dra
inag
e o
r ru
no
ff,
con
stru
ctio
n
acti
vit
ies,
or
rep
lace
men
t o
f gra
de
mat
eria
l.
Sep
arat
ion d
ista
nce
s b
etw
een s
tock
pil
ed t
op
soil
, su
bso
il a
nd
over
burd
en s
hal
l b
e a
min
imu
m o
f 1
m
etre
to
pre
ven
t m
ixin
g.
• T
he
und
ergro
und
cab
les
wil
l b
e p
loughed
in,
,ther
eby m
inim
izin
g i
mp
act
to t
op
soil
. • S
tock
pil
ed t
op
soil
, su
bso
il a
nd
over
burd
en s
hal
l b
e re
pla
ced
in a
man
ner
that
min
imiz
es m
ixin
g
and
in a
n o
rder
that
en
sure
s re
pla
cem
ent
wit
h
like
mat
eria
ls.
M
inim
al
So
ils
Mal
funct
ions
and
A
ccid
enta
l E
ven
ts
• A
ccid
enta
l sp
ills
of
hyd
roca
rbo
n p
rod
uct
s o
r lo
ad/e
quip
men
t lo
ss
duri
ng a
ny p
roje
ct
phas
e.
• P
ote
nti
al r
elea
se o
f haz
ard
ous
mat
eria
ls
deg
rad
atio
n o
f so
il
qual
ity.
• C
ontr
acto
r m
ust
hav
e sp
ill
clea
n-u
p m
ater
ials
on
site
wit
h a
min
imu
m o
f 2
5kg o
f su
itab
le
com
mer
cial
so
rben
t, 3
0 c
ub
ic m
eter
s o
f 6
mil
p
oly
eth
yle
ne,
a s
ho
vel
and
an e
mp
ty f
uel
bar
rel
for
spil
l co
llec
tio
n a
nd
dis
po
sal.
• C
onst
ruct
ion e
quip
men
t m
ust
be
pro
per
ly
mai
nta
ined
to
pre
ven
t le
aks
or
spil
ls o
f haz
ard
ous
mat
eria
ls.
If
mai
nte
nan
ce i
s re
quir
ed
on s
ite,
sp
ill
pro
tect
ion m
easu
res
wil
l b
e im
ple
men
ted
. • A
ny s
pil
ls w
ill
be
clea
ned
up
im
med
iate
ly a
nd
re
po
rted
to
the
Co
ast
Guar
d (
1-8
00
-56
5-1
63
3.)
• A
ll c
onst
ruct
ion w
aste
s w
ill
be
coll
ecte
d a
nd
d
isp
ose
d o
f as
per
Was
te W
atch
reg
ula
tio
ns.
M
inim
al
56
Tab
le 5
.5 P
ote
nti
al
infl
uen
ce o
f p
roje
ct o
n v
alu
ed e
cosy
stem
com
pon
ents
an
d r
ecom
men
ded
mit
igati
on
mea
sure
s
Va
lued
Eco
syst
em
Co
mp
on
ent
(VE
C)
Pro
ject
Ph
ase
P
roje
ct A
ctiv
itie
s P
ote
nti
al
Inte
ract
ion
s R
eco
mm
end
ed
Mit
igati
on
Mea
sure
s R
esid
ua
l
Eff
ects
Sit
e P
rep
arat
ion,
Co
nst
ruct
ion a
nd
D
eco
mm
issi
onin
g
• S
ite
gru
bb
ing
• C
onst
ruct
ion o
f ac
cess
ro
ads
• E
xca
vat
ion o
f so
il
• P
ouri
ng c
oncr
ete
pad
s • U
nd
ergro
und
cab
le
inst
alla
tio
n
• R
emo
val
of
turb
ines
an
d b
ases
• C
onto
uri
ng s
urf
ace
• P
ote
nti
al d
istu
rban
ce o
r d
estr
uct
ion o
f nat
ive
veg
etat
ion,
pro
duct
ive
agri
cult
ura
l la
nd
s, o
r ra
re/e
nd
anger
ed p
lant
spec
ies.
• D
ata
fro
m t
he
vas
cula
r p
lant
surv
ey a
t th
e p
roje
ct s
ite
sho
ws
the
pre
sence
of
twel
ve
pla
nt
spec
ies
consi
der
ed r
are
(S-r
ank
4 o
r le
ss)
in t
he
pro
ject
ar
ea.
• P
ote
nti
al u
se o
f veh
icle
s w
ith f
ault
y
exhau
st s
yst
ems
or
low
ca
taly
tic
con
ver
ters
.
• T
he
maj
ori
ty o
f p
roje
ct s
ite
is c
onsi
der
ed
pre
vio
usl
y d
istu
rbed
bec
ause
it
has
bee
n i
n
agri
cult
ura
l p
rod
uct
ion f
or
man
y y
ears
.
• T
he
road
way
bet
wee
n t
urb
ines
7 a
nd
8 w
ill
be
mo
ved
aw
ay f
rom
the
area
wh
ich s
up
po
rts
the
rare
sp
ecie
s id
enti
fied
. • P
roje
ct a
ctiv
itie
s w
ill
be
a m
inim
um
of
10
0m
fr
om
id
enti
fied
rar
e p
lants
and
thei
r hab
itat
.
• V
ehic
le t
raff
ic w
ill
be
lim
ited
to
acc
ess
road
s an
d t
urb
ine
site
s, w
hic
h w
ill
be
loca
ted
on
cult
ivat
ed l
and
wh
ere
po
ssib
le.
• U
nd
ergro
und
cab
le r
oute
s w
ill
be
loca
ted
on
cult
ivat
ed l
and
s w
her
e p
oss
ible
, av
oid
ing a
ny
sen
siti
ve
hab
itat
s an
d/o
r fl
ora
l sp
ecie
s at
ris
k.
• F
or
re-v
eget
atio
n,
the
agri
cult
ura
l si
tes
sho
uld
b
e se
eded
wit
h h
ay a
nd
fo
rest
sit
es w
ill
be
left
to
re
-gro
w n
atura
lly u
po
n p
roje
ct c
om
ple
tio
n i
f th
ere
is n
o e
rosi
on c
once
rn.
• T
he
pro
ject
fo
otp
rint
is s
mal
l re
lati
ve
to t
he
surr
ou
nd
ing a
gri
cult
ura
l ar
ea,
ther
efo
re i
s no
t ex
pec
ted
to
cau
se s
ign
ific
ant
dis
turb
ance
to
p
rod
uct
ive
agri
cult
ura
l la
nd
s.
• V
ehic
les
wit
h f
ault
y e
xhau
st o
r lo
w c
atal
yti
c co
nver
ters
wil
l no
t b
e p
erm
itte
d o
n s
ite.
• R
are
pla
nt
loca
tio
ns
sho
uld
be
avo
ided
.
M
inim
al
Veg
eta
tio
n
Mal
funct
ions
and
A
ccid
enta
l E
ven
ts
Acc
iden
tal
spil
ls o
f h
yd
roca
rbo
n p
rod
uct
s o
r lo
ad/e
quip
men
t lo
ss
duri
ng a
ny p
roje
ct
phas
e.
• D
egra
dat
ion o
f so
il a
nd
w
ater
qual
ity.
• R
elea
se o
f haz
ard
ous
mat
eria
ls.
• T
oxic
eff
ects
to
lo
cal
veg
etat
ion.
• C
ontr
acto
r m
ust
hav
e sp
ill
clea
n-u
p m
ater
ials
on
site
wit
h a
min
imu
m o
f 2
5kg o
f su
itab
le
com
mer
cial
so
rben
t, 3
0 c
ub
ic m
eter
s o
f 6
mil
p
oly
eth
yle
ne,
a s
ho
vel
and
an e
mp
ty f
uel
bar
rel
for
spil
l co
llec
tio
n a
nd
dis
po
sal.
• C
onst
ruct
ion e
quip
men
t m
ust
be
pro
per
ly
mai
nta
ined
to
pre
ven
t le
aks
or
spil
ls o
f haz
ard
ous
mat
eria
ls.
• A
ll c
onst
ruct
ion w
aste
s w
ill
be
coll
ecte
d a
nd
d
isp
ose
d o
f as
per
Was
te W
atch
reg
ula
tio
ns.
M
inim
al
57
Tab
le 5
.5 P
ote
nti
al
infl
uen
ce o
f p
roje
ct o
n v
alu
ed e
cosy
stem
com
pon
ents
an
d r
ecom
men
ded
mit
igati
on
mea
sure
s
Va
lued
Eco
syst
em
Co
mp
on
ent
(VE
C)
Pro
ject
Ph
ase
P
roje
ct A
ctiv
itie
s P
ote
nti
al
Inte
ract
ion
s R
eco
mm
end
ed
Mit
igati
on
Mea
sure
s R
esid
ua
l
Eff
ects
Wil
dli
fe
Sit
e P
rep
arat
ion,
Co
nst
ruct
ion &
D
eco
mm
issi
onin
g
• T
ree
rem
oval
& s
ite
gru
bb
ing
• U
se o
f hea
vy
mac
hin
ery a
nd
oth
er
veh
icle
s • I
ncr
ease
d h
um
an
acti
vit
y a
t th
e w
ind
p
lant
site
• C
able
inst
alla
tio
n
• T
ree
rem
oval
and
gru
bb
ing c
ould
p
ote
nti
ally
cau
se
dis
turb
ance
or
des
truct
ion o
f ex
isti
ng
or
po
tenti
al f
utu
re
wil
dli
fe h
abit
at.
• I
ncr
ease
d v
ehic
le
traf
fic
wil
l in
crea
se
loca
l no
ise
level
s an
d
may
res
ult
in m
ore
fr
equen
t veh
icle
-anim
al
coll
isio
ns.
• I
nju
ry o
r en
trap
men
t o
f an
imal
s in
cab
le
tren
ches
. • P
ote
nti
al i
nte
ract
ion
s w
ith r
are
or
end
anger
ed
spec
ies
list
ed a
s ra
re o
r en
dan
ger
ed u
nd
er
SA
RA
.
• P
ote
nti
al i
nte
ract
ion
s w
ith s
pec
ies
list
ed a
s ra
re t
hro
ug
ho
ut
thei
r ra
nge
in t
he
pro
vin
ce
• A
sig
nif
ican
t p
ort
ion o
f th
e p
roje
ct s
ite
is
loca
ted
on c
lear
ed a
gri
cult
ura
l la
nd
; th
eref
ore
li
mit
ed i
mp
act
on e
xis
tin
g w
ild
life
hab
itat
is
exp
ecte
d.
• A
sp
ring
/ear
ly s
um
mer
bir
d s
urv
ey w
ill
be
cond
uct
ed a
t th
e p
roje
ct s
ite
by B
SC
pri
or
to t
he
com
men
cem
ent
of
const
ruct
ion a
ctiv
itie
s.
(sp
ring r
epo
rt i
s co
mp
lete
, su
mm
er r
epo
rt d
ue
in
earl
y A
ug
ust
) • V
ehic
les
and
eq
uip
men
t w
ill
be
pro
per
ly
mai
nta
ined
to
min
imiz
e no
ise.
• I
nst
alla
tio
n o
f und
ergro
und
cab
le b
y p
lou
ghin
g
wil
l el
imin
ate
the
risk
of
wil
dli
fe f
rom
fal
lin
g
into
cab
le t
rench
es.
• A
dat
a se
arch
thro
ug
h A
CC
DC
do
es n
ot
sho
w
the
pre
sence
of
any r
are
or
end
anger
ed a
nim
al
spec
ies
wit
hin
the
pro
ject
bo
und
arie
s.
• D
ue
to t
he
dis
tance
of
any r
are,
end
anger
ed o
r sp
ecie
s at
ris
k f
rom
the
pro
ject
sit
e, t
he
pro
po
sed
pro
ject
is
no
t li
kel
y t
o a
ffec
t a
list
ed
wil
dli
fe s
pec
ies
or
its
crit
ical
hab
itat
und
er
SA
RA
. • D
ue
to t
he
lim
ited
sp
atia
l an
d t
emp
ora
l sc
op
e o
f th
e p
roje
ct,
it i
s no
t ex
pec
ted
to
ad
ver
sely
im
pac
t w
ild
life
at
a p
op
ula
tio
n l
evel
.
L
ow
58
Tab
le 5
.5 P
ote
nti
al
infl
uen
ce o
f p
roje
ct o
n v
alu
ed e
cosy
stem
com
pon
ents
an
d r
ecom
men
ded
mit
igati
on
mea
sure
s
Va
lued
Eco
syst
em
Co
mp
on
ent
(VE
C)
Pro
ject
Ph
ase
P
roje
ct A
ctiv
itie
s P
ote
nti
al
Inte
ract
ion
s R
eco
mm
end
ed
Mit
igati
on
Mea
sure
s R
esid
ua
l
Eff
ects
Wil
dli
fe
(…co
nti
nu
ed)
Op
erat
ion a
nd
M
ainte
nan
ce
• O
per
atio
n o
f th
e w
ind
p
lant.
• T
he
op
erat
ion o
f w
ind
tu
rbin
es h
as t
he
po
tenti
al t
o c
ause
avia
n
(bir
ds
or
bat
s) m
ort
alit
y
by c
oll
isio
ns
wit
h
turb
ine
tow
ers
or
bla
des
.
• I
ncr
ease
d n
ois
e le
vel
s m
ay d
istu
rb n
earb
y
wil
dli
fe.
• F
all
and
sp
rin
g m
igra
tio
n s
urv
eys
hav
e b
een
cond
uct
ed a
t th
e p
roje
ct s
ite
to d
eter
min
e th
e p
rese
nce
of
any s
ensi
tive
spec
ies,
hab
itat
s an
d
imp
ort
ant
mig
rato
ry c
orr
ido
rs.
• R
esult
s o
f th
e fa
ll s
tud
y i
nd
icat
e th
at t
he
maj
ori
ty o
f co
asta
l b
ird
sp
ecie
s fl
y a
round
Eas
t P
oin
t, n
ot
dir
ectl
y o
ver
the
pro
po
sed
sit
e.
• T
he
area
id
enti
fied
as
po
sin
g t
he
gre
ates
t th
reat
to
bir
d s
pec
ies
in t
he
area
has
bee
n a
vo
ided
d
uri
ng d
esig
n o
f th
e w
ind
pla
nt
layo
ut.
• T
he
pro
ject
wil
l b
e lo
cate
d a
way
fro
m k
no
wn
mig
rato
ry b
ird
pat
hw
ays.
• N
o b
at p
op
ula
tio
ns
hav
e b
een o
bse
rved
in t
he
pro
ject
are
a d
uri
ng s
tud
ies
for
oth
er p
urp
ose
s,
but
mo
nit
ori
ng
for
coll
isio
n m
ort
alit
y s
ho
uld
o
ccur.
• F
lash
ing l
ights
wil
l b
e in
stal
led
on e
ach t
urb
ine
to m
ake
the
stru
cture
s m
ore
vis
ible
to
bir
ds.
• T
he
tub
ula
r to
wer
des
ign i
s no
t su
itab
le f
or
bir
ds
to u
se a
s p
erch
ing o
r nes
tin
g s
ites
. • N
ois
e le
vel
s ar
e no
t ex
pec
ted
to
incr
ease
si
gnif
ican
tly d
ue
to t
urb
ine
op
erat
ion.
• D
ue
to t
he
lim
ited
sp
atia
l an
d t
emp
ora
l sc
op
e o
f th
e p
roje
ct,
it i
s no
t ex
pec
ted
to
ad
ver
sely
im
pac
t w
ild
life
at
a p
op
ula
tio
n l
evel
.
L
ow
59
Tab
le 5
.5 P
ote
nti
al
infl
uen
ce o
f p
roje
ct o
n v
alu
ed e
cosy
stem
com
pon
ents
an
d r
ecom
men
ded
mit
igati
on
mea
sure
s
Va
lued
Eco
syst
em
Co
mp
on
ent
(VE
C)
Pro
ject
Ph
ase
P
roje
ct A
ctiv
itie
s P
ote
nti
al
Inte
ract
ion
s R
eco
mm
end
ed
Mit
igati
on
Mea
sure
s R
esid
ua
l
Eff
ects
Wil
dli
fe
(…co
nti
nu
ed)
Mal
funct
ions
and
A
ccid
enta
l E
ven
ts
Acc
iden
tal
spil
ls o
f h
yd
roca
rbo
n p
rod
uct
s o
r lo
ad/e
quip
men
t lo
ss
duri
ng a
ny p
roje
ct
phas
e.
• D
egra
dat
ion o
f so
il a
nd
w
ater
qual
ity.
• R
elea
se o
f haz
ard
ous
mat
eria
ls.
• T
oxic
eff
ects
to
w
ild
life
.
• F
uel
and
haz
ard
ous
mat
eria
ls m
ust
be
sto
red
at
leas
t 5
00
m a
way
fro
m t
he
nea
rest
wat
erco
urs
e.
• C
ontr
acto
r m
ust
hav
e sp
ill
clea
n-u
p m
ater
ials
on
site
wit
h a
min
imu
m o
f 2
5kg o
f su
itab
le
com
mer
cial
so
rben
t, 3
0 c
ub
ic m
eter
s o
f 6
mil
p
oly
eth
yle
ne,
a s
ho
vel
and
an e
mp
ty f
uel
bar
rel
for
spil
l co
llec
tio
n a
nd
dis
po
sal.
• C
onst
ruct
ion e
quip
men
t m
ust
be
pro
per
ly
mai
nta
ined
to
pre
ven
t le
aks
or
spil
ls o
f haz
ard
ous
mat
eria
ls.
• F
uel
lin
g a
nd
ser
vic
ing o
f eq
uip
men
t w
ill
be
cond
uct
ed o
ff s
ite.
If
on
-sit
e w
ork
is
nec
essa
ry,
it w
ill
be
cond
uct
ed a
t le
ast
10
0m
fro
m a
ny
wat
erco
urs
e o
r w
etla
nd
. • A
ny s
pil
ls w
ill
be
clea
ned
up
im
med
iate
ly a
nd
re
po
rted
to
the
Co
ast
Guar
d (
1-8
00
-56
5-1
63
3).
L
ow
Hea
lth
& S
afe
ty
Co
nst
ruct
ion,
Op
erat
ion,
Dec
om
mis
sio
nin
g/A
ban
do
nm
ent
Mal
funct
ions
and
A
ccid
enta
l E
ven
ts
• P
rese
nce
and
use
of
hea
vy e
quip
men
t • O
per
atio
n o
f w
ind
p
lant
for
elec
tric
ity
gen
erat
ion.
• R
egula
r an
d u
np
lanned
m
ainte
nan
ce a
ctiv
itie
s • A
ccid
enta
l sp
ills
of
hyd
roca
rbo
n p
rod
uct
s o
r lo
ad/e
quip
men
t lo
ss
duri
ng a
ny p
roje
ct
phas
e
• M
ayb
e sh
ort
exp
osu
re
to p
ote
nti
al h
azar
do
us
mat
eria
ls a
nd
wo
rkin
g
cond
itio
ns.
• C
onst
ruct
ion w
ork
ers
or
win
d p
lant
tech
nic
ian
s co
uld
be
inju
red
or
kil
led
if
acci
den
ts o
ccur.
• D
uri
ng f
reez
ing
pre
cip
itat
ion e
ven
ts,
ice
thro
w m
ay c
reat
e a
safe
ty h
azar
d.
• E
mp
loyee
s w
ill
be
trai
ned
in h
ealt
h a
nd
saf
ety
pro
toco
ls (
e.g.
safe
wo
rk p
ract
ices
, em
ergen
cy
resp
onse
).
• A
ll t
urb
ine
mai
nte
nan
ce s
taff
wil
l b
e fu
lly
qual
ifie
d a
nd
wil
l w
ear
app
ropri
ate
per
sonal
sa
fety
eq
uip
men
t d
uri
ng a
ll m
ainte
nan
ce
acti
vit
ies.
• P
rop
er s
afet
y p
roce
dure
s m
ust
be
foll
ow
ed f
or
the
dura
tio
n o
f th
e p
roje
ct a
s per
ap
pli
cab
le
mu
nic
ipal
, p
rovin
cial
and
fed
eral
reg
ula
tio
ns.
• T
he
pro
ject
wil
l in
clud
e th
e in
stal
lati
on o
f fe
nce
s an
d w
arn
ing s
igns.
E
mer
gen
cy
pro
ced
ure
s w
ill
be
po
sted
aro
und
the
pro
ject
si
te.
• S
pec
ific
war
nin
g s
igns
wil
l b
e p
ut
in p
lace
when
w
eath
er c
ond
itio
ns
crea
te t
he
po
tenti
al f
or
ice
thro
w a
nd
peo
ple
pub
lic
acce
ss t
o t
he
pro
ject
ar
ea w
ill
be
lim
ited
.
M
inim
al
60
Tab
le 5
.5 P
ote
nti
al
infl
uen
ce o
f p
roje
ct o
n v
alu
ed e
cosy
stem
com
pon
ents
an
d r
ecom
men
ded
mit
igati
on
mea
sure
s
Va
lued
Eco
syst
em
Co
mp
on
ent
(VE
C)
Pro
ject
Ph
ase
P
roje
ct A
ctiv
itie
s P
ote
nti
al
Inte
ract
ion
s R
eco
mm
end
ed
Mit
igati
on
Mea
sure
s R
esid
ua
l
Eff
ects
Cli
ma
te
Co
nst
ruct
ion,
Op
erat
ion,
Dec
om
mis
sio
nin
g/A
ban
do
nm
ent
• U
se o
f hea
vy
equip
men
t an
d
per
sonal
veh
icle
s
• U
se o
f co
nst
ruct
ion
equip
men
t an
d
per
sonal
veh
icle
s w
ill
resu
lt i
n i
ncr
ease
d
emis
sio
ns
of
gre
enho
use
gas
es.
• O
per
atio
n o
f w
ind
p
lant
for
elec
tric
ity
pro
duct
ion w
ill
red
uce
th
e am
oun
t o
f h
yd
ro-
carb
on f
uel
led
el
ectr
icit
y r
equir
ed,
ther
eby d
ecre
asin
g
gre
enho
use
gas
em
issi
on
s o
ver
the
pro
ject
’s l
ifet
ime.
• T
he
use
of
const
ruct
ion e
quip
men
t an
d h
igher
p
erso
nal
veh
icle
use
wil
l b
e sh
ort
-ter
m a
nd
li
mit
ed t
o t
he
const
ruct
ion a
nd
d
eco
mm
issi
on
ing p
has
es o
f th
e p
roje
ct.
• C
arp
oo
ling w
ill
be
use
d w
hen
fea
sib
le t
o r
educe
em
issi
on
s fr
om
per
sonal
veh
icle
s.
• T
he
op
erat
ion o
f th
e w
ind
pla
nt
wil
l ult
imat
ely
red
uce
the
pro
vin
ce’s
dep
end
ence
on
conven
tio
nal
so
urc
es o
f el
ectr
icit
y.
• T
he
pro
ject
wil
l re
sult
in a
net
red
uct
ion o
f gre
enho
use
gas
em
issi
ons,
to
tall
ing
app
roxim
atel
y 1
,86
4,9
18 t
CO
2 o
ver
its
lif
etim
e.
P
osi
tive
La
nd
Use
O
per
atio
n
• O
per
atio
n o
f th
e w
ind
p
lant
• U
se o
f ac
cess
ro
ads
• P
ote
nti
al l
oss
of
pro
duct
ive
agri
cult
ura
l o
r fo
rest
ry l
and
s
• T
he
pro
ject
has
a l
imit
ed s
pat
ial
sco
pe
(ap
pro
xim
atel
y 2
5H
a) r
elat
ive
to t
he
avai
lab
le
agri
cult
ura
l an
d f
ore
sted
lan
ds
in t
he
area
.
• T
he
agri
cult
ura
l ar
ea s
urr
ou
nd
ing t
urb
ine
site
s ca
n b
e re
turn
ed t
o i
ts o
rigin
al u
se d
uri
ng w
ind
p
lant
op
erat
ion.
M
inim
al
61
Tab
le 5
.5 P
ote
nti
al
infl
uen
ce o
f p
roje
ct o
n v
alu
ed e
cosy
stem
com
pon
ents
an
d r
ecom
men
ded
mit
igati
on
mea
sure
s
Va
lued
Eco
syst
em
Co
mp
on
ent
(VE
C)
Pro
ject
Ph
ase
P
roje
ct A
ctiv
itie
s P
ote
nti
al
Inte
ract
ion
s R
eco
mm
end
ed
Mit
igati
on
Mea
sure
s R
esid
ua
l
Eff
ects
Vis
ua
l Im
pa
cts
Co
nst
ruct
ion,
Op
erat
ion,
Dec
om
mis
sio
nin
g/A
ban
do
nm
ent
• P
rese
nce
of
hea
vy
mac
hin
ery a
nd
cra
nes
• O
per
atio
n o
f V
90
win
d
turb
ines
• T
he
pre
sence
of
hea
vy
mac
hin
ery a
nd
cra
nes
has
the
po
tenti
al t
o
crea
te s
ho
rt-t
erm
vis
ual
d
istu
rban
ces
for
nea
rby
resi
den
ts.
• W
ind
turb
ine
op
erat
ion
has
the
po
tenti
al t
o
alte
r th
e vis
ual
la
nd
scap
e o
n a
lo
ng-
term
bas
is.
• S
had
ow
fli
cker
may
im
pac
t th
e ei
ght
resi
den
ces
that
hav
e b
een i
den
tifi
ed a
s p
rim
ary r
ecep
tors
.
• D
ue
to t
he
lim
ited
tem
po
ral
sco
pe
of
the
pro
ject
, th
e vis
ual
im
pac
ts a
sso
ciat
ed w
ith t
he
pre
sence
o
f hea
vy m
achin
ery a
nd
cra
nes
is
exp
ecte
d t
o b
e sh
ort
ter
m a
nd
wil
l ca
use
min
imal
dis
turb
ance
to
nea
rby r
esid
ents
. • A
ll n
earb
y r
esid
ents
hav
e b
een c
onsu
lted
pri
or
to t
he
beg
innin
g o
f co
nst
ruct
ion a
nd
hav
e no
o
bje
ctio
ns
conce
rnin
g t
he
pro
ject
.
• T
he
win
d p
lan
t d
esig
n h
as b
een o
pti
miz
ed t
o
min
imiz
e sh
ado
w f
lick
er i
mp
acts
on n
earb
y
resi
den
ts.
• T
he
maj
ori
ty o
f sh
ado
w f
lick
er e
ven
ts o
ccur
duri
ng t
he
win
ter
mo
nth
s in
ear
ly m
orn
ing o
r la
te a
fter
no
on,
wh
en r
esid
ents
are
no
t as
lik
ely
to b
e im
pac
ted
. S
had
ow
fli
cker
even
ts t
yp
ical
ly
last
fo
r 3
0 m
inute
s o
r le
ss.
• I
f sh
ado
w f
lick
er b
eco
mes
pro
ble
mat
ic f
or
any
of
the
pri
mar
y r
ecep
tors
, tu
rbin
e o
per
atio
n w
ill
be
lim
ited
to
ensu
re s
had
ow
fli
cker
is
at a
n
acce
pta
ble
lev
el.
M
inim
al
62
Tab
le 5
.5 P
ote
nti
al
infl
uen
ce o
f p
roje
ct o
n v
alu
ed e
cosy
stem
com
pon
ents
an
d r
ecom
men
ded
mit
igati
on
mea
sure
s
Va
lued
Eco
syst
em
Co
mp
on
ent
(VE
C)
Pro
ject
Ph
ase
P
roje
ct A
ctiv
itie
s P
ote
nti
al
Inte
ract
ion
s R
eco
mm
end
ed
Mit
igati
on
Mea
sure
s R
esid
ua
l
Eff
ects
No
ise
Lev
els
Co
nst
ruct
ion,
Op
erat
ion,
Dec
om
mis
sio
nin
g/A
ban
do
nm
ent
• P
rese
nce
of
hea
vy
truck
s an
d c
ranes
• O
per
atio
n o
f V
90
win
d
turb
ines
• T
he
pre
sence
of
hea
vy
mac
hin
ery a
nd
cra
nes
has
the
po
tenti
al t
o
crea
te e
levat
ed n
ois
e le
vel
s an
d d
istu
rb
nea
rby r
esid
ents
or
anim
als
• O
per
atio
n o
f w
ind
tu
rbin
es w
ill
crea
te
hig
her
than
bac
kgro
und
no
ise
level
s at
the
pro
ject
sit
e an
d m
ay
dis
turb
nea
rby
resi
den
ts o
r an
imal
s
• D
ue
to t
he
lim
ited
tem
po
ral
sco
pe
of
the
pro
ject
, th
e no
ise
imp
acts
ass
oci
ated
wit
h t
he
pre
sence
o
f hea
vy m
achin
ery a
nd
cra
nes
is
exp
ecte
d t
o b
e sh
ort
ter
m a
nd
wil
l ca
use
min
imal
dis
turb
ance
to
nea
rby r
esid
ents
. • A
ll e
quip
men
t w
ill
be
pro
per
ly m
ainta
ined
to
en
sure
min
imal
no
ise
emis
sio
ns
fro
m t
he
pro
ject
sit
e.
• A
so
und
im
pac
t st
ud
y w
as c
om
ple
ted
duri
ng t
he
des
ign p
has
e o
f th
e p
roje
ct a
nd
the
layo
ut
has
b
een o
pti
miz
ed t
o m
inim
ize
sound
im
pac
ts o
n
nea
rby r
esid
ents
. • T
he
op
erat
ion o
f w
ind
turb
ines
is
no
t ex
pec
ted
to
cau
se a
sig
nif
ican
t in
crea
se i
n l
oca
l no
ise
level
s.
• A
pp
rop
riat
e se
tbac
k d
ista
nce
s w
ill
ob
serv
ed a
s p
er t
he
req
uir
emen
ts o
f th
e P
EI
Pla
nnin
g A
ct.
• T
he
max
imu
m e
xp
ecte
d n
ois
e w
ill
be
app
roxim
atel
y 4
3.9
Db
at
a d
ista
nce
of
48
8m
fr
om
the
pro
ject
sit
e
Min
imal
So
cio
-Eco
no
mic
Co
nd
itio
ns
Co
nst
ruct
ion,
Op
erat
ion a
nd
M
ainte
nan
ce,
Dec
om
mis
sio
nin
g
• I
ncr
ease
d h
um
an
acti
vit
y a
t th
e p
roje
ct
site
, ei
ther
fo
r w
ork
-re
late
d o
r to
uri
sm
acti
vit
ies.
• I
ncr
ease
d b
usi
nes
s o
pp
ort
unit
ies
in n
earb
y
com
mu
nit
ies
• E
mp
loym
ent
op
port
unit
ies
for
loca
l co
ntr
acti
ng c
om
pan
ies
and
tra
des
men
.
• G
reen
Po
wer
init
iati
ves
cr
eate
a p
osi
tive
imag
e fo
r th
e co
mm
unit
y.
• I
ncr
ease
d d
istu
rban
ce
to n
earb
y r
esid
ents
• N
one
req
uir
ed,
incr
ease
d b
usi
nes
s o
pp
ort
unit
ies
hav
e a
po
siti
ve
imp
act
on n
earb
y c
om
mu
nit
ies.
• N
one
req
uir
ed,
emp
loym
ent
op
po
rtunit
ies
hav
e a
po
siti
ve
imp
act
on l
oca
l ec
ono
mic
co
nd
itio
ns.
• N
on r
equir
ed,
gre
en p
ow
er i
s a
po
siti
ve
tech
no
log
y.
• D
istu
rban
ces
to r
esid
ents
wil
l m
ainly
be
lim
ited
to
the
const
ruct
ion/d
eco
mm
issi
onin
g p
has
es a
nd
ar
e no
t ex
pec
ted
to
hav
e lo
ng t
erm
im
pac
ts o
n
the
com
mu
nit
y.
Po
siti
ve
5.2 Cumulative Effects Assessment
Cumulative effects are the environmental impacts which may result from the combination of
environmental effects resulting from the proposed project in combinations with other past,
existing, and potential future activities in the project area. Watersheds are a useful boundary for
determining the area in which potential cumulative effects may occur. The project site spans
three watersheds including North Lake Creek, East Lake Creek and Surveyor’s Point. The
combined area of these three watersheds is approximately 6815ha, while this phase of the project
site covers approximately 25ha or 0.4% of the watershed area. The area requirements for the
project can be seen in Section 5.1.2. Due to the relatively small footprint of the project site
relative to the study area, significant cumulative effects are not expected to result from this
project.
Other past, present and likely future projects and activities considered in cumulative effects
assessment include agricultural activities, forest harvesting and future wind developments. These
activities also require land clearing and may therefore result in further disruption or destruction
of established or potential wildlife habitat. In order to minimize potential interactions with
wildlife, it would be beneficial to conduct a separate environmental impact assessment prior to
any other land clearing activities. The operation of wind turbines also has the potential to
impact wildlife over the long term through disruption and permanent displacement of terrestrial
and avian wildlife as well as avian mortality. As discussed previously, an avian use survey was
conducted at the project site and turbine locations were based on the recommendations laid out in
the study report. In addition, avian mortality rates will be monitored at the project site to
confirm the validity of the turbine locations. The impact on avian wildlife in the area is expected
to be minimal and localized, so no effects are predicted at the population level. The operation of
wind turbines at the project site may also displace wildlife that had established habitat in the
area.
The majority of the project site is located on previously disturbed agricultural land which is used
by such animals as the Red Fox (Vulpes vulpes), Northern Harrier (Circus cyaneus hudsonius)
and Rough-legged Hawk (Buteo lagopus). Farm land has use for wildlife for such activities as
sunning sites for foxes, as feeding sites for insectivorous birds, as nesting sites when in hay.
64
Since agricultural habitat is in wide supply and has few outstanding elements that are not
repeated elsewhere, it is preferable to disturb a highly-disturbed site than to destroy a forested
site that is richer wildlife habitat and supports significantly more species. Considering the
limited project footprint with 10 turbines and established mitigation measures, the project is not
expected to impact wildlife at a population level over the long term.
However, with possible eventual expansion of the wind plant beyond 10 turbines, it would have
potential to more seriously affect wildlife and archaeological resources with that increased
footprint and towers. To assist in the planning for any such expansion and to offset negative
consequences as much as possible, it would be advisable to undertake bird, bat and
archaeological studies well in advance of any site clearing associated with a wind plant
expansion.
Wind developments, agriculture and forestry may also disturb soil and may result in compaction
or increase soil erosion rates and sedimentation/silting within the three watershed boundaries.
Soil compaction will be minimized by limiting vehicle traffic to access roads and turbine sites.
Increased sedimentation in nearby rivers and streams could degrade water quality and potentially
impact fish and other aquatic life present. In order to minimize these potential interactions,
erosion control measures such as silt fences and straw bales will be used to manage soil loss
from the wind plan site. With these mitigation measures in place, significant cumulative effects
are not expected to impact water quality or terrestrial and aquatic wildlife within the three
watersheds.
Land clearing activities may also make turbines visible from locations where they were not
previously. In addition, future wind developments in the project area may create visual impacts
for nearby residents. The residents in the project area have been consulted and are in favour of
this development. Furthermore, neighbouring communities may experience long-term socio-
economic benefits as a result of the wind plant through the development of employment and
tourism opportunities. Although visitors cannot access the turbines as they can at North Cape,
the wind plant will still form an interesting feature on the landscape which will attract visitor
interest.
65
The operation of wind turbines will also increase ambient noise levels in the project area. A
sound impact study was completed and incorporated into the project design to minimize the
sound impacts on nearby residents. Sound produced by wind turbines dissipates quickly. A
sound impact study was conducted and the turbine layout has been optimized to reduce the
impacts on nearby residents. Design calculations show the maximum noise level within 500m of
the project site should not exceed 43.9dB (A) (45dB (A) is a commonly accepted limit). Impacts
on air quality will not likely be obvious within the watershed boundaries; however this project
will have a net positive effect on global air quality. The operation of wind turbines produces no
greenhouse gas emissions, compared to conventional electricity generation with fossil fuels
which generates greenhouse gases and a significant number of air pollutants. A summary of the
potential cumulative effects associated with each valued ecosystem component is seen in Table
5.6.
Tab
le 5
.6 P
ote
nti
al
cum
ula
tive
effe
cts
ass
oci
ate
d w
ith
th
e p
roje
ct
Va
lued
Eco
syst
em
Co
mp
on
ent
(VE
C)
Pro
ject
Act
ivit
ies
O
ther
Act
ivit
ies
Po
ten
tia
l E
ffec
ts &
Mit
igati
on
C
um
ula
tiv
e
Eff
ects
Wil
dli
fe H
ab
ita
t
•
Co
nst
ruct
ion
•
Op
erat
ion o
f w
ind
turb
ines
•
Dec
om
mis
sio
nin
g
•
Agri
cult
ura
l A
ctiv
itie
s •
Ele
ctri
cal
Infr
astr
uct
ure
up
gra
des
•
Fo
rest
Har
ves
tin
g
•
Futu
re w
ind
dev
elo
pm
ents
•
Dis
turb
ance
s o
r re
loca
tio
n o
f te
rres
tria
l, o
r aq
uat
ic
wil
dli
fe
•
Incr
ease
d s
usp
end
ed s
oli
ds,
tu
rbid
ity,
and
se
dim
enta
tio
n,
resu
ltin
g i
n a
dver
se e
ffec
ts o
n f
ish a
nd
sh
ellf
ish h
abit
at a
nd
im
pac
ts o
n a
sso
ciat
ed i
nd
ust
ries
Lo
w
Bir
d/B
at
Po
pu
lati
on
•
Co
nst
ruct
ion
•
Op
erat
ion o
f w
ind
turb
ines
•
Dec
om
mis
sio
nin
g
•
Agri
cult
ura
l A
ctiv
itie
s •
Ele
ctri
cal
Infr
astr
uct
ure
up
gra
des
•
Fo
rest
Har
ves
tin
g
•
Futu
re w
ind
dev
elo
pm
ents
•
Incr
ease
d r
isk o
r d
isru
pti
on o
f b
ird
po
pula
tio
ns
and
av
ian c
oll
isio
ns
wit
h d
evel
op
men
t o
f in
fras
truct
ure
su
ch a
s si
los,
far
m b
uil
din
gs,
tra
nsm
issi
on l
ines
, an
d
win
d t
urb
ines
.
L
ow
Aes
thet
ics
•
Op
erat
ion o
f w
ind
turb
ines
Cle
arin
g a
ctiv
itie
s as
soci
ated
w
ith:
•
Agri
cult
ura
l A
ctiv
itie
s •
Fo
rest
Har
ves
tin
g
•
Futu
re w
ind
dev
elo
pm
ents
•
Turb
ines
may
bec
om
e vis
ible
wh
ere
they
wer
e no
t p
revio
usl
y.
•
The
pre
sence
of
turb
ines
or
oth
er t
all
stru
cture
s m
ay
ob
stru
ct v
iew
of
the
oce
an i
n s
om
e ar
eas
•
Nea
rby r
esid
ents
hav
e b
een c
onsu
lted
and
hav
e no
o
bje
ctio
ns
conce
rnin
g t
he
aest
het
ic i
mp
acts
ass
oci
ated
w
ith t
he
op
erat
ion o
f th
e w
ind
pla
nt
L
ow
Air
Qu
ali
ty
•
Op
erat
ion o
f w
ind
turb
ines
•
Futu
re w
ind
po
wer
d
evel
op
men
ts
•
Red
uct
ion i
n g
reen
ho
use
gas
em
issi
on
s re
quir
ed f
or
elec
tric
ity g
ener
atio
n o
n P
EI
P
osi
tive
No
ise
Lev
el
•
Co
nst
ruct
ion
•
Op
erat
ion o
f w
ind
turb
ines
•
Dec
om
mis
sio
nin
g
•
Agri
cult
ura
l A
ctiv
itie
s •
Fo
rest
Har
ves
tin
g
•
Futu
re w
ind
dev
elo
pm
ents
•
Po
tenti
al f
or
incr
ease
d a
mb
ien
t no
ise
level
s in
the
pro
ject
are
a.
•
So
und
pro
duce
d b
y w
ind
turb
ines
dis
sip
ates
quic
kly
.
A s
ound
im
pac
t st
ud
y w
as c
on
duct
ed a
nd
the
turb
ine
layo
ut
has
bee
n o
pti
miz
ed t
o r
educe
the
imp
acts
on
nea
rby r
esid
ents
. D
esig
n c
alcu
lati
on
s sh
ow
the
max
imu
m n
ois
e le
vel
wit
hin
50
0m
of
the
pro
ject
sit
e sh
ou
ld n
ot
exce
ed 4
3.9
Db
.
L
ow
5.3 Effects of the Environment on the Project
Throughout the project phases, environmental conditions may affect the working conditions,
equipment or structures associated with the project. Weather is the main factor to consider in
this analysis, which is discussed below and summarized in Table 5.7.
Weather conditions, particularly wind speeds, play a major roll in the operation of a wind plant.
The V90-3.0MW turbines are designed to begin generating electricity at a minimum wind speed
of 4.0m/s and cut out when wind velocities exceed 25m/s. The average wind speed in East Point
is in the range of 7.5m/s to 8.0m/s. Design engineers predict that the proposed wind plant will
generate electricity at an availability rate of approximately 95% and a net capacity factor of
approximately 33%. These data confirm the validity of the proposed project at the chosen site in
East Point, Prince Edward Island.
Ice build up on turbine components is a common weather related hazard that has the potential to
cause operational problems and safety hazards at a wind plant. Rime icing is the most common
type of ice accumulation to impact energy generation on wind turbines. This type of icing,
which has the appearance of frosty snow, tends to occur at high altitudes, primarily in
mountainous areas. In Atlantic Canada, glaze icing is predominant. This icing appears as frozen
rain and is caused by precipitation in freezing conditions when the temperature of turbine
components reaches sub-zero temperatures. Typically, the largest quantity of ice builds up on the
large turbine components, such as the blades and the tower. Observations of ice shedding events
have shown that accumulated ice on the rotor typically falls downward and is not thrown any
distance (Morgan et al., 1998). Icing conditions can also cause problems for important weather
sensors mounted on the nacelle. In addition, ice shedding from moving turbine components can
create a safety risk for people using the wind turbine site.
At the East Point Wind Plant, the V90 turbines will automatically shut down during severe icing
events. Automatic shut down will allow plant technicians to ensure that the blades are free of ice
before restarting the turbines. This may require waiting until the ice has melted naturally or the
ice may require manual removal. If it is not possible to remove the ice, the shut down
68
mechanism will also allow technicians to ensure everyone has safely cleared the area prior to
restarting the equipment when there is the potential for ice to be thrown from the blades.
Due to the height of the turbines, lighting also has the potential to impact the operation of the
wind plant. To mitigate the risk of equipment damage and operational malfunction, the turbine
has been designed in compliance with IEC 61024 – “Lightning Protection of Wind Turbine
Generators”. The V90 has built in safety features to protect the entire turbine including:
• Lightning protection which allows the lightning current to by-pass all vital components in
the blade, nacelle and tower without causing damage.
• A shielding system to protect the control units and processors in the nacelle.
• Lightning detectors are mounted on all three rotor blades. Data from the sensors is
recorded to allow technicians to identify the exact location, time, and power of the
lighting strike (Vestas, 2004).
Heavy rains and flooding have the potential to cause erosion problems at any construction site
and may also impact soil properties over the long term. In the East Point area, coastal erosion
rates are approximately 0.21-0.39 meters per year. The project site is located away from any
coastal or saltwater areas; therefore erosion is not likely to be a concern. However, because the
project is near a freshwater wetland, caution will be exercised. In addition, geo-technical testing
has been completed to ensure that the soil beneath each turbine site has appropriate geo-technical
properties.
69
Table 5.7. Potential effects of the environment on the project
Project Phase Potential
Interaction Potential Effects Mitigation
Residual
Effects
Construction,
Operation &
Maintenance,
Decommissioning
Adverse weather conditions including: • Low wind
speeds • Excessive wind
speeds • Freezing
precipitation • Heavy rainfall • Flooding
conditions
• Wind speeds lower
than 4m/s will not generate electricity.
• Wind speeds above 25m/s will cause the turbine to shut down.
• Rime icing and potential ice throw
• Equipment shutdown, malfunctions or damage to equipment
• Accelerated erosion at construction and disposal sites before they stabilize.
• Wind speeds at the East Point average
approximately 7.5-8.5m/s, therefore the turbines are expected to generate electricity at an availability rate of approximately 95% and a capacity factor of approximately 35-35%.
• Wind turbines will automatically shut down when severe icing conditions are present. This will allow plant technicians to ensure that the blades are free of ice before restarting the turbines.
• Signs will be posted around the site warning of the safety hazards associated with ice throw when conditions are present.
• Geo- • technical testing has been completed to ensure
that the soil beneath each turbine site has appropriate geotechnical properties.
• Erosion rates near the coast in the East Point area are typically 0.21-0.39meters per year. The site is located away from any coastal, freshwater or saltwater areas; therefore erosion is not likely to be a concern.
• Weather conditions should be assessed on a daily basis to determine the potential risk of climate on the project.
• Contractors are encouraged to consult Environment Canada’s local forecast at http://www.weatheroffice.ec.gc.ca/ so that the construction work can be scheduled appropriately.
Minimal
6.0 FOLLOW-UP PROGRAM
A formal follow up program verifies the results of the CEAA screening and determines the
effectiveness of the mitigation measures laid out for the project. Follow ups are usually
conducted when the project involves a new or unproven technology, new or unproven mitigation
measures, the project is located in an unfamiliar environment, conclusions are uncertain or when
the timing of the project has been changed. None of these conditions apply at the East Point
Wind Plant; therefore no formal follow-up program will be required under CEAA. However,
due to the concern surrounding the interaction of the wind turbines and local bird species, avian
mortality rates will be monitored according to the guidelines established in the Canadian
Wildlife Service document, Wind Turbines and Birds: A Guidance Document for Environmental
Assessment”.
Prior to construction, avian use studies were conducted to determine bird utilization rates at the
project site. The results of these surveys were used to determine final turbine placement. All
potential turbine sites are located in inland areas with low sensitivity ratings; therefore bird
utilization rates will not be studied following the construction phase of the project. However,
bird mortality searches will be conducted every two weeks during peak migration periods in the
spring and fall. These surveys will include at least half of the turbine sites and will focus on any
sensitive groups identified during the site specific bird study. Surveys should be conducted in a
well-defined zone, using turbines as reference points and searching the area within a 50m radius.
If possible, bird mortality surveys will be conducted by the same observers to ensure an accurate
comparison between current and past site conditions (CWS, 2003). It is anticipated that a similar
protocol will be instituted as the one established by Bird Studies Canada for the North Cape
project. A detailed outline for the required avian mortality surveys to be conducted during the
operation of the wind turbines will be submitted to the DEEF for review. It is proposed to use
the same protocol as has been used at the North Cape project (Appendix N). For further details
on avian mortality searches, see the above mentioned document published by the Canadian
Wildlife Service.
71
Bat mortality will be noted as part of the monitoring process; and monitoring will occur on the
identified locations of the rare plants.
72
7.0 PUBLIC CONSULTATION
7.1 Description
A public meeting regarding the East Point Wind Plant was held on October 4th, 2005 at the East
Point Community Center. At this time the project was announced to the public by PEI Energy
Minister Jamie Ballem. Individual landowners in the area were informed about the project
through discussions with Adam Sandler, an employee of Frontier Power Systems. Any impacted
landowners have signed land use agreements with the project proponent.
A second public meeting was held as part of the environmental assessment process at the Eastern
King’s Community Center on Thursday March 30th, 2006. The purpose of this meeting was to
inform the public about the project and the associated environmental assessment process. To
accommodate as many people as possible, the meeting was in the form of an open house between
3:00pm and 8:00pm. A public notice for the meeting was placed in two local newspapers; the
Eastern Graphic and The Guardian. In addition, an article was published in The Guardian
following the public meeting on Monday, April 3rd. A copy of both the public notice and The
Guardian Article can be seen in Appendix F. Prior to the public meeting, the draft environmental
assessment report was made available at the following locations: Access PEI site in Souris,
offices of the Department of Environment, Energy and Forestry at 11 Kent St. in Charlottetown,
and online at: http://www.gov.pe.ca/go/easternkingswindfarm. Several copies of the report were
also made available at the Eastern King’s Community Center during the public meeting.
Large displays (as seen in Figure 7.2) were used to provide information on the various project
phases and the environmental assessment process. The information presented on the displays
can be seen in Appendix F. In addition, a laptop and projector were used to show a
photomontage video clip of the fully operational wind plant (Figure 3.4). Approximately 92
people attended the open house session on March 30th, including media, nearby residents, local
birdwatchers, as well as representatives from the PEI Energy Corporation, Frontier Power
Systems and Bird Studies Canada. All attendees were asked to record their names on a sign-in
sheet in order to accurately track the number of people attending the meeting. Comment sheets
were also available for people who wanted to use them.
73
Figure 7.1. Public meeting at Eastern King's Community Center
Figure 7.2. Display at public meeting
74
The public information session for the associated transmission line was held concurrently by
Maritime Electric, although the transmission line is considered a separate undertaking and
therefore requires a separate environmental assessment.
7.2 Issues Raised
Overall, the response to the project was positive. The majority of the issues and questions raised
at the public meeting pertained to the wind plant design and proposed layout. However, there
were questions and comments on a variety of topics including:
• Project cost and investment recovery timeline
• Turbine technical and operational details
• Turbine installation and location details
• PEI wind resource maps and results of local wind regime studies
• Future plans for wind power in Prince Edward Island and at the project site
• Opportunities for independent wind power producers
• Potential hazards of turbines to birds
• Aesthetic impact of wind turbines
• Noise impact of wind turbines
• Potential employment opportunities created by the project
• Municipal assessment and landowner compensation One comment form was submitted at the meeting, which provided positive feedback on the
decision to move turbines from the original proposed layout to locations west of East Lake. In
addition to the concerns raised at the public hearing, specific comments on the environmental
assessment document were received via e-mail. These comments were thoroughly reviewed and
where appropriate, incorporated into the report. The most significant comments pertaining to the
environmental impact assessment of the project include:
• Rare Plants – current wording regarding rare plants issue is too restrictive. Specific
limitations on distance from rare plants and their habitat could have a significant negative
impact on the project.
• Bird Study – A more detailed analysis (e.g. a mathematical model) is required to
complete a representative risk assessment of the potential interaction between birds and
the proposed wind turbines. The current study results have had a significant impact on
the project and may limit future development in the area.
75
7.3 Responses to Issues Raised
The materials and information presented to individual landowners and to the general public at the
meeting addressed the issues related to the logistics of the wind turbine project. This included
discussions about the size, description, design, manufacture, transportation, installation,
operation and cost of the equipment. Results of wind studies were shared with those interested
and explained by employees of Frontier Power Systems.
The environmental issues that arose during public consultations included potential for bird
collisions with turbines, noise resulting from the turbines and the potential for impacts on rare
plants. These issues have been addressed in detail in the following sections of the Environmental
Assessment document: sections 5.0 and 6.0, and Appendices E and H.
The comments received from comment forms and via e-mail have been incorporated into the
environmental assessment report and further research will be conducted to confirm the results of
the Fall Migration Study in Eastern Kings.
7.4 Conclusions
Based on comments received during the public consultation process, the general reaction from
the majority of affected landowners and others nearby residents was positive and often
enthusiastic. The project will benefit the area through employment opportunities, increased
tourism to the area, revenue to landowners and stabilized electrical rates. This project will also
help reduce Prince Edward Island’s dependency on imported petroleum fired electricity and
bring the province closer to achieving its renewable energy goals.
8.0 FIRST NATIONS CONSULTATION
There are no known First Nations communities in the project area; therefore, no potential
interactions are anticipated with this group. The construction, operation and decommissioning of
the East Point Wind Plant are expected to have minimal impact on the current use of land and
resources for traditional purposes.
76
9.0 SCREENING DECISION AND SIGNATURE
This document summarizes the results of an environmental assessment related to the proposed
East Point Wind Plant in King’s County, Prince Edward Island. This environmental assessment
has been performed and completed on behalf of the proponent and the responsible authority in
accordance with the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. Based on the results of this
assessment, the following conclusion has been established:
□ The project is unlikely to cause significant adverse environmental effects, taking into
account the implementation of appropriate mitigation measures. The requirements of CEAA have been met and the proponent and responsible authority may take action to allow the project to proceed.
□ The project is likely to cause significant adverse environmental effects. The proponent and responsible authority may not take any action to allow the project to proceed.
□ Uncertain whether project will cause significant adverse environmental effects. Refer to federal Ministry of the Environment for Panel Review or Mediation
□ Uncertain whether the project may cause significant adverse environmental effects, project could be justified under the circumstances. Refer to the federal Ministry of the Environment for Panel Review or Mediation.
□ Public concerns merit referral to federal ministry of the Environment for Panel Review or Mediation.
CEAA Screening Completed by: Kari MacDonald, EIT Frontier Power Systems Inc Edited by Diane F. Griffin D Griffin Consulting Name of Proponent: Prince Edward Island Energy Corporation Signature of Proponent: Mr. Wayne McQuarrie, P. Eng CEO, Prince Edward Island Energy Corps Name of Responsible Authority: Natural Resources Canada
Wind Power Production Incentive Program Signature of Responsible Authority:
77
10.0 REFERENCES
Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada – Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Administration (AAFC-PFRA).
2004. Environmental Assessment Users Guide. Agriculture Canada – Research Branch. 1988. Soils of Prince Edward Island. Research Program
Service; Charlottetown PEI. Armenta, T., Campbell, G. & Whittam, B. 2006. Interim report on spring studies of avian use of
a potential wind energy site at East Point, Prince Edward Island. Bird Studies Canada. Sackville, NB.
Blaney, S. 2006. A vascular plant inventory of the proposed wind turbine array, North Lake,
Prince Edward Island, with notes on breeding birds. Atlantic Canada Conservation Data Center. June 11, 2006.
Brown, K. and B.L. Hamilton. 2004. Bird and Bat Monitoring at the McBride Lake Wind Farm,
Alberta 2003-2004. Prepared for: Vision Quest Windelectric Inc., Calgary AB. Broders, H.G., 2006. Professor at Biology Department, St. Mary’s University. Halifax. Personal
communication. Buchanan, Scott. 2006. SB Archaeologist. Personal communication. Campbell, G & Whittam B. 2005. Interim report on fall studies of avian use of a potential wind
energy site at East Point, Prince Edward Island. Bird Studies Canada. Sackville, NB. Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency. 1999. Cumulative Effects Assessment
Practitioners Guide. Prepared by: The Cumulative Effects Assessment Working Group, AXYS Environmental Ltd. February, 1999.
Canadian Wildlife Service. 2003. Draft Report: Wind Turbines and Birds – A Guidance
Document for Environmental Assessment. Committee on the Status of Endangered Species in Canada (COSEWIC). 2004. Canadian
Species at Risk. Corning, Lesley J., 2005. Species composition of bats in the greater Prince Edward Island
National Park Ecosystem with a preliminary investigation of the effects of forest fragmentation on the distribution of Myotis septentrionalis. Honours thesis, St. Mary’s University. Halifax. 47 pp.
Curley, Rosemary, 2006. Natural Areas Biologist, PEI Department of Environment, Energy and
Forestry. Personal communication.
78
Dibblee, Randy. 2006. Wildlife Biologist, PEI Department of Environment, Energy and Forestry.
Personal communication. Erickson, W.P., B.Gritski , and K. Konner. 2003. Nine Canyon Wind Power Project Avian and
Bat Monitoring Report, September 2002 – August 2003. Technical report submitted to Energy Northwest and the Nine Canyon Technical Advisory Committee.
Erickson, W.P.,, J. Jeffrey, K. Konner and K. Bay. 2003. Stateline Wind Power Project Wildlife
Monitoring Report, Results from the Period July 2001 – December 2002. Technical Report Submitted to FPL Energy, the Oregon Office of Energy, and Stateline Technical Advisory Committee.
Erkskine, A.J. 1992. Atlas of Breeding Birds in the Maritime Provinces. Nimbus Publishing
Limited; Halifax NS. Forestry Canada and PEI Department of Energy and Forestry. Prince Edward Island Road Atlas. Frontier Power Systems. 2003. Registration Pursuant to Section 7 of the Environmental
Assessment Act for the Ramea Wind-Diesel Demonstration Project. Jasinski, W.J., Noe, S.C., Selig, M.S., Bragg, M.B. 1997. Wind turbine performance under icing
conditions. American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Inc. Aerospace Sciences Meeting & Exhibit, 35th, Reno, NV, Jan. 6-9, 1997
Johnson, G.D., W.P. Erickson, M.D. Strickland, R.E. Good and P. Becker, 2001. Avian and bat
mortality associated with the initial phase of the Foote Creek Rim Windpower Project, Carbon County, Wyoming. Technical Report prepared by WEST, Inc., 32 pp.
Kingsley, A & Whittam, B. 2001. Potential Impacts of Wind Turbines on Birds at North Cape,
Prince Edward Island. Bird Studies Canada. League for the Hard of Hearing (LHH). 2006. Noise Levels in our Environment Fact Sheet.
Retrieved on April 8, 2006 from http://www.lhh.org/noise/decibel.htm MacFarlane, Rosanne. 2006. Freshwater Fisheries Biologist, PEI Department of Environment,
Energy and Forestry. Personal Communication. Maissan, John F. 2001. Wind power development in sub-arctic conditions with severe rime
icing. Yukon Energy Corporation. Circumpolar Climate Change Summit and Exposition. March 19-21, 2001; Whitehorse, Yukon.
McAskill, Dan. 2006. Manager, Central Forest District Office, Department of Environment,
Energy & Forestry. Personal communication.
79
Morgan, C., Bossanyi, E., Seifert, H. 1998. Assessment of Safety Risks Arising from Wind Turbine Icing. BOREAS IV 31 March - 2 April 1998, Hetta, Finland.
Natural Resources Canada (NRCan). 2003. Wind Power Production Incentive - Environmental
Impact Statement Guidelines for Screenings of Inland Wind Farms under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act.
Retrieved on March 11, 2006 from http://www.canren.gc.ca/tech_appl/index.asp?CaID=6&PgID=232.
PEI Department of Community and Cultural Affairs, 2005. PEI Energy Corporation. 2005. PEI Wind Atlas Wind Resource Maps. Retrieved on October
20, 2005 from http://www.gov.pe.ca/envengfor/windatlas/. PEI Energy Corporation. 2005. Incidence of Avian Mortality from Collisions With Wind
Turbines for 2004, North Cape, Prince Edward Island. PEI Energy Corporation. 2003. Environmental Registration to Expand the Facilities of the North
Cape Wind Farm. PEI Provincial Government. 2005. Official Website - Island Maps. Retrieved on September 20,
2005 from http://www.gov.pe.ca/maps/index.php3 PEI Department of Environment and Energy. 2004. PEI Energy Framework and Renewable
Energy Strategy. Retrieved on October 2, 2005 from http://www.gov.pe.ca/photos/original/ee_frame_rep_e.pdf.
Public Works and Government Services Canada – Environmental Services (PWGSC-ES (a)).
2002. Water and Wastewater Model Class Screening Report (MCSR) - Atlantic Canada. Public Works and Government Services Canada – Environmental Services (PWGSC-ES (b)).
2002. Environmental Assessment Report for Water Column Aquaculture of Mussels, Oysters and Off-Bottom Aquaculture of Oysters in New London Bay. Volume 1.
Seeler, David. 2006. Associate Professor, Atlantic Veterinary College, and PEI Coordinator of
the Maritimes Breeding Bird Atlas Project. Personal communication. Stewart, Jennifer, 2006. Wildlife Biologist - Species at Risk, Canadian Wildlife Service,
Environment Canada. Sackville. Personal communication. Transport Canada. (2005). Canadian Aviation Regulations 2005-2. Part VI General Operating
and Flight Rules Standard 612.19 Standards Obstruction Markings.
80
Vestas. 2004. General Specification V90-3.0MW Opti-SpeedTM Wind Turbine. Retrieved on January 15, 2005 from http://www.vestas.com.
Waddell, J & MacDonald, T. 2005. Prince Edward Island Piping Plover Atlas. Island Nature