Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
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
3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ........................................................................................................... 5 3.1 Background.............................................................................................................................................. 5 3.2 Purpose .................................................................................................................................................... 7 3.3 Project Details ......................................................................................................................................... 7
3.3.1 Project Design..................................................................................................................... 8 3.3.1.1 Wind Resource Assessment......................................................................................... 8 3.3.1.2 Turbine Selection......................................................................................................... 8 3.3.1.3 Turbine Layout .......................................................................................................... 10 3.3.1.4 Electrical Interconnection.......................................................................................... 10 3.3.1.5 Civil Design............................................................................................................... 10 3.3.1.6 Environmental Assessment........................................................................................ 11
3.3.2 Construction...................................................................................................................... 11 3.3.2.1 Civil Infrastructure .................................................................................................... 11 3.3.2.2 Electrical Infrastructure ............................................................................................. 15 3.3.2.3 Turbine Installation.................................................................................................... 16
3.3.3 Operation .......................................................................................................................... 17 3.3.4 Decommissioning/Abandonment ..................................................................................... 18 3.3.5 Malfunctions and Accidents ............................................................................................. 18 3.3.6 Project Schedule ............................................................................................................... 19 3.3.7 Future Project Phases........................................................................................................ 20
4.0 DESCRIPTION OF SURROUNDING ENVIRONMENT......................................................... 21 4.1 Eco-region ............................................................................................................................................. 21 4.2 Climate .................................................................................................................................................. 22 4.5 Hydrological Resources......................................................................................................................... 24 4.6 Vegetation.............................................................................................................................................. 27 4.7 Wildlife.................................................................................................................................................. 30 4.7.3 Fish and Aquatic Life ......................................................................................................................... 36 4.7.4. Endangered Species........................................................................................................................... 36 4. 8 Socio-Economic Conditions ................................................................................................................. 36
4.8.1 Population......................................................................................................................... 36 4.8.2 Heritage & Archaeological Resources ............................................................................. 37
5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF PROJECT................................................................ 39 5.1 Environmental Effects and Mitigation Measures .................................................................................. 39
5.1.1 Construction...................................................................................................................... 39 5.1.2 Operation & Maintenance ................................................................................................ 43 5.1.3 Decommissioning & Abandonment ................................................................................. 50 5.1.4 Malfunctions & Accidents................................................................................................ 51
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
7.1 Description ............................................................................................................................................ 72
iii
7.2 Issues Raised ......................................................................................................................................... 74 7.3 Responses to Issues Raised.................................................................................................................... 75 7.4 Conclusions ........................................................................................................................................... 75
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
Corporation, 2003) .................................................................................................................................. 49
iv
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:
Editor - Diane F. Griffin, BSc, Biology (St. Dunstans Univ.); MSc, Biology (Acadia Univ.). Ms.
Griffin is a former Deputy Minister of the PEI Department of Environmental Resources; former
Natural Areas Coordinator for the Province of Alberta and former Executive Director of the Island
Nature Trust. She is the past chair of the board of Bird Studies Canada and a Past President of the
Canadian Nature Federation and the Natural History Society of Prince Edward Island.
Senior Author - Kari MacDonald, BSc, Environmental Engineering (DalTech). Upon graduation
from Dalhouse University with a Bachelor of Science Degree in Environmental Engineering, Ms.
MacDonald accepted term employment with the Halifax Regional Municipality to work on
infrastructure programs. Recently, she became as a full time employee with the City of Calgary,
Alberta to design and implement municipal public works projects.
Research - Sean Blaney, BSc, Hon., Biology, Botany Minor (Univ. of Guelph); MSc, Botany
(Univ. of Guelph). Mr. Blaney is the Senior Botanist and Assistant Director with the Atlantic
Canada Conservation Data Centre and he has conducted floral research in PEI related to several
projects, as well as conducting floral surveys for the proposed new book, the Flora of Prince
Edward Island.
Research - Becky Whittam, BSc Biology (Queens Univ.), MSc Biology (Dalhousie Univ.). Ms.
Whittam is the Atlantic Regional Director employed by Bird Studies Canada.
Research – Tasha Armenta , Msc. Biology (Dalhousie Univ.) a biologist with the Atlantic Office,
Bird Studies Canada and she previously in BSC British Columbia office.
Research – Greg Campbell, BSc Biology (University of Moncton). Mr. Campbell is employed as
a biologist with the Atlantic Regional Office of Bird Studies Canada.
5
3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
3.1 Background
Over the several of years both federal and provincial governments have been working to enhance
Green Power initiatives across Canada. This move stems from the increasing cost of petroleum
resources and the damaging effects that their use has on our environment. Federally, Natural
Resources Canada has developed a Wind Power Production Incentive Program (WPPI). WPPI
encourages wind power development by providing funding to private projects. This project is
eligible for funding under WPPI in the amount of $0.01 /kWh of generated electricity. On a
provincial level, the PEI Energy Corporation and the PEI Department of Environment, Energy and
Forestry (PEIDEEF) are involved in developing and promoting green power.
Prince Edward Island is the only Canadian province without substantial resources of hydroelectric
power, fossil fuels or nuclear energy. Research conducted in 2004 indicates that approximately
80% of Prince Edward Island’s energy needs are supplied by fossil fuels. Thirteen percent of our
energy demands are met using imported and oil-fired electricity, the majority of which is generated
in NB and transmitted to the Island by underwater cabling. The remainder of the energy consumed
in PEI is composed of 6.5% biomass (including wood, solid waste and sawmill residue), and 0.5%
provincially produced wind power (PEIDEEF, 2004). PEI’s dependence on fossil fuels has many
disadvantages. Burning this type of fuel has well-known environmental consequences, including
the emission of harmful air pollutants and greenhouse gases. In addition, the price of petroleum
products has been steadily rising while supplies are dwindling. It is a widely held view that Prince
Edward Island needs more reliable, sustainable energy sources.
The East Point Wind Plant is expected to generate 87 Gigawatt-hours of sustainable electricity each
year. This translates to an annual savings of approximately 21,750kg of oil, for a total saving of
543,750kg over the project’s 25 year lifetime. To quantify the energy and Greenhouse Gas (GHG)
savings associated with the project, the project was analyzed using RET Screen International. RET
is Renewable Energy Technology. This analysis indicates that the East Point Wind Plant is
expected to result in an overall GHG reduction of 74,597 tonnes of CO2 (tCO2) annually, for a total
of 1,864,918 tCO2 over the project’s 25 year lifetime.
6
The need for alternative forms of energy is being addressed by the Provincial Government through
various initiatives. In November 2003, PEI became the first province to sign a Climate Change
Memorandum of Understanding, an agreement with the Federal Government to collaborate in an
effort to increase compliance with the Kyoto protocol and achieve the following goals (PEIDEEF,
2004):
• Develop renewable energy technologies
• Promote and implement energy efficient practices
• Develop a climate change action plan
• Promote individual climate change actions
• Reduce greenhouse gases within the agriculture sector
Adopting these goals lead to the development of the PEI Energy Framework and Renewable Energy
Strategy. This policy strives to provide sustainable, dependable and affordable energy to Island
residents and businesses. The strategy also serves to promote efficient energy use, support
economic development and encourage diversity in the energy sector. The province has established
a long term goal to supply 100% of its electrical capacity through renewable energy sources by
2015 (PEIDEEF, 2004).
The PEI Energy Corporation (PEIEC), the proposed project proponent, was established in 1978.
This Crown Corporation is involved in the generation, production, transmission and distribution of
energy for the residents of Prince Edward Island. Since its creation, PEIEC has taken a leadership
role in promoting renewable energy on the Island. It is involved in developments at the Wind
Energy Institute of Canada (WEICan), formerly the Atlantic Wind Test Site, in North Cape, PEI.
North Cape is also the location of the PEI Wind-Hydrogen Village. The PEIEC has also developed
several other renewable energy projects that continue to serve Islanders, including the
Charlottetown District Heating System and the Energy from Waste facility.
Wind power is the fastest growing energy source in the world. Research conducted for both the
Canadian and PEI Wind Atlas shows that wind energy has great potential in Prince Edward Island.
The Island’s wind resources have been demonstrated at the Atlantic Wind Test Site in North Cape,
which currently generates 10.56MW of electricity. The average wind speed in North Cape is in the
7
range of 8-9m/s at 80m above ground level (AGL). Comparable wind speeds are also found at the
northeastern tip of the Island near the proposed location for the East Point Wind Plant. Average
wind speeds at this location are in the range of 7.5-8.5m/s at 80m AGL.
The design and construction phases of the proposed project are being completed by Frontier Power
Systems Inc., a privately owned Atlantic Canadian firm with extensive experience in the renewable
energy industry. The company is involved in projects such as the Atlantic Wind Test Site, the
Ramea Wind-Diesel Project, and the Wind-Hydrogen Village. Carl Brothers, President of Frontier
Power Systems (FPS), has been active in the wind energy industry in Canada for nearly twenty- five
years, primarily in the management of the Atlantic Wind Test Site. FPS was also involved in the
development of other projects such as the North Cape Wind Plant. Frontier Power Systems
continues to promote and develop energy technologies throughout the Atlantic region.
3.2 Purpose
The purpose of this project is to utilize an indigenous form of sustainable energy and to help
provide the project investors, the taxpayers of Prince Edward Island, with more long term stability
in their electrical rates. This facility will have a generating capacity of 30MW, which will be fed
into the Maritime Electric Grid system and distributed to electrical consumers.
3.3 Project Details
The proposed project involves the construction, operation, maintenance and decommissioning of a
30MW wind power plant in East Point, Prince Edward Island. This facility will consist of: ten wind
turbines, installed in a single array; access roads; a control station with a meteorological tower; a
maintenance building; an electrical substation; and connections to power distribution lines.
To determine the wind resources in the project area, three 50m meteorological towers were installed
at East Point, North Lake and South Lake. The data from these towers was processed and analyzed
using WAsP, (Wind Atlas Analysis and Application Program), the world’s premier wind modeling
software. WAsP uses wind data to produce a wind resource grid which is uploaded to GH Wind
Farmer, a wind plant design software package. Wind Farmer uses the wind resource grid to
optimize a wind plant layout to maximize energy production, while considering factors such as
noise, shadow flicker and other visual impacts. The turbine placement at the East Point Wind Plant
8
was optimized using this process. The wind plant design is expected to generate electricity at a net
capacity factor of 33%, generating 87 Gigawatt-hours of electricity annually.
The turbine array will be placed on the East-Northeast to West-Southwest axis to minimize array or
wake losses between the turbines. An aerial plan of the project site can be seen in Figure 3.1. Table
3.1 shows the PID# and the UTM coordinates (Zone20 NAD83) at each wind turbine site.
3.3.1 Project Design
The project design phase consists, typically, of six tasks, as outlined in the following sections. 3.3.1.1 Wind Resource Assessment
The wind monitoring activities for this project have been underway for more than two years. Fifty
(50) meter wind monitoring towers have been installed at East Point, North Lake and Souris for
over two years and at South Lake for over a year. The wind data gathered from these towers forms
the basis of the analysis for wind turbine selection, wind turbine location and overall project
economics. In addition to the wind monitoring towers, which provide a relatively short term record
of wind data, long term wind data is available from Environment Canada’s weather station at East
Point.
3.3.1.2 Turbine Selection
The selection of the most appropriate turbine for a project depends on a number of factors,
including local wind resource, siting constraints, site access and noise limitations.
The turbines selected for this project are 10 Vestas V90 IEC IA wind turbines, one of the most
advanced wind turbines in the world. The blade design uses carbon fiber composites and the shape
has been improved to increase energy production and reduce sensitivity to small particles and other
debris. The V90 has a larger rotor and generator than the Vestas V80-2MW turbine; however
technological advances in blade, tower and nacelle design have created a lighter machine. The
reduced weight allows for easier transportation and installation and results in lower associated costs
(Vestas, 2005).
9
Table 3.1. Turbine array details
Turbine Coordinates (UTM20 NAD83) Site ID PID#
Easting Northing
1 856088 571837 5144852
2 110973 572128 5144832
3 110973 572399 5144842
4 110965 572680 5144884
5 110932 572937 5145034
6 110916 573284 5145147
7 110908 573579 5145179
8 110858 573923 5145360
9 110817 574235 5145488
10 766436 574627 5145476
Figure 3.1. Aerial photograph showing site layout
10
The V90 has three blades, each measuring 44m in length, providing a rotor span diameter of 90m
and a swept area of 6362m2. The turbine has a hub height of 80m and the tubular steel tower has a
base diameter of 3.98m. Each turbine has a rated power output of 3.0MW, which can be achieved
with a wind speed of 15m/s or greater. The cut in wind speed, 4m/s, provides sufficient torque to
enable the rotor to turn at 9rpm and start generating electricity. The turbine operates in wind speeds
between 4m/s and 25m/s with the rotor speed varying from 9-19rpm and the power increasing from
0 kW to 3,000 kW (Vestas, 2005). Figure 3.2 shows the components of the V90 nacelle, while the
power curve for the V90 turbine can be seen in Figure 3.3.
3.3.1.3 Turbine Layout
Wind speed data, wind turbine selection, and the terrain input information in area of interest,
complete the input information needed for the wind plant design. The wind plant layout can be
optimized for energy generation and installation using one of several available wind flow modeling
and wind plant design software packages. The turbine array resulting from this optimization
process is shown in Figure 3.1.
3.3.1.4 Electrical Interconnection
The electrical output from the wind plant must be connected to the utility’s electrical system. This
design will require a combination of underground and overhead wiring. The wind turbine generator
generates electricity at 1,000 Volts, which is then increased to 34,500 Volts (34.5 kV) by a
transformer in the nacelle of the turbine. The 34.5 kV is transmitted down the tower and through an
underground cable, where it connects to an adjacent pole line that is part of the electrical collector
system. These pole lines take the electricity back to the substation where it is further increased to
69 kV and connected to Maritime Electric’s utility system.
3.3.1.5 Civil Design
Civil design work is preceded by a series of geo-technical studies. The primary geo-technical work
involves the drilling of boreholes at the location of each wind turbine in order to assess the bearing
capacity of the soil for the wind turbine foundations. This information will be made available to the
foundation design engineer to carry out the foundation design of the wind turbine.
11
Secondary geo-technical work is carried out using surface excavations, or ‘test pits’, to assess the
soil conditions near the surface. The test pits are used to evaluate the soil conditions for the
construction of roads and crane pads to install the turbines and for the substation.
Associated work, for both phases of the geo-technical work, will include clearing an access path,
possibly using some existing woods roads, to permit the excavating and borehole equipment to
access the pre-determined locations. All excavated soil will be returned to its original location.
3.3.1.6 Environmental Assessment
The Environmental Assessment (EA) is a critical project activity to ensure that the construction and
operation of the project does not cause any serous environmental impacts. This environmental
assessment was conducted as per the requirements of CEAA and WPPI using the process outlined
in Section 2.2. The EA document and the attached appendices form the primary record of the EA
process.
3.3.2 Construction
Project construction can be divided into three phases: civil infrastructure, electrical infrastructure
and turbine installation. The installation of civil infrastructure involves the construction of access
roads, crane pads, laydown areas, foundations, the service building and the meteorological tower.
All aspects of the civil work will utilize similar equipment and site restoration protocols. The
electrical infrastructure associated with the project consists of underground and overhead electrical
collector systems, the sub-station and the transmission line (which is not a direct component of this
project). The turbine installation will involve the delivery, assembly, installation and
commissioning of the wind turbines.
3.3.2.1 Civil Infrastructure
• Access Roads
Access roads will be constructed to enable the delivery of equipment and turbines during the
construction phase and to enable service vehicles to access turbine sites during plant operation.
Some clearing of wooded areas will be required to construct these access roads. It is expected
that up to 10ha of wooded land may need to be cleared to allow the access roads to be
constructed. These roads will be approximately 6m wide to enable equipment and support
12
vehicles to access the sites but wider shoulders, approximately 10m wide, will need to be cleared
and compacted to enable the lift crane to move from site to site. Clearings will need to be wider
in areas where the transmission line runs beside the roadway.
The road corridor was selected based on the parameters of maximum power production, minimal
road construction (and thus disturbance), avoidance of rare plants (including trees) and
avoidance of sensitive areas such as wetlands. Generally the forest cover type of the corridor
does not support the likelihood of rare trees and this was confirmed during the rare vascular plant
survey. No raptor nests were noted during a bird survey.
All access roads will be constructed according to the standards outlined in the PEI Department
of Transportation and Public Works Environmental Protection Plan (T&PWEPP) and the site
specific Environmental Protection Plan (EPP), seen in Appendix H and E respectively. The
following activities are involved in the construction of access roads:
o Roads will be cleared by a qualified commercial forest operator.
o Land will be grubbed and cleared by a qualified civil contractor using an excavator, a
bulldozer and bull rake.
o Up to 0.3m of top soil/overburden will be removed from the road surface and reused
or disposed of as per T&PWEPP standards.
o Approximately 0.5m of Select Borrow will cover the road surface to ensure that the
road has sufficient load bearing capacity for the transportation of turbines, cranes and
other heavy equipment.
o The road surface will be compacted to provide a smooth, more erosion resistant
surface.
o Left over grubbings will be removed from the site and disposed of in the excavation
pits as part of the pit restoration process.
Detailed drawings of the proposed access road surface width and structural configuration have
been submitted to the DEEF for review.
13
• Crane Pads
An area adjacent to the wind turbine will be prepared to support the heavy lift crane. This crane
pad, which will have similar construction requirements as the access roads, may be removed
once the turbine is installed, in order to return the land to its original use. The crane pad has
approximate dimensions of 20m x 25m.
• Laydown Areas
There will be an area immediately adjacent to the foundation, which may be cleared to enable the
turbine components to be unloaded and stored prior to installation. These laydown areas will be
approximately 75m x 75m and must have specified capacity and grade to allow the components
to be unloaded and stored.
• Foundations
The foundation, fabricated using steel reinforced concrete, will be either a proprietary annular
type design or a conventional spread footing design. The following steps are involved in the
construction of turbine foundations:
o Excavation of area for the proprietary tower foundation (8m deep x 6m diameter)
will be completed using a specialized excavator. If a conventional, spread footing
type, foundation is used, the excavation will be 3m deep and 20m square.
o A portion of the excavated material will be returned to the foundation as backfill
material if the soil is of acceptable quality. Surplus material will be removed and
placed in an approved pit.
o Compacting perimeter of the hole using a compactor and/or excavator.
o Installing form work, rebar and pouring concrete for the tower base.
o Disposal of excavated material and other waste.
• Service Building
A service building will be constructed near Highway 16A at the entry point to the wind plant
access road. This building, which is expected to a single story, slab on grade design, will be
approximately 275 square meters.
14
Figure 3.2.Components of the V90 nacelle (Vestas, 2005)
Figure 3.3.V90 Power Curve (Vestas, 2005)
An 80m high meteorological tower will be procured and installed near the service building to
provide continuous monitoring of wind speed and other meteorological parameters, and data
will be incorporated into the wind plant’s SCADA system.
15
• Equipment Operation
This activity will involve heavy equipment including large trucks, excavators, bulldozers and
cranes. The equipment will require fuelling and, potentially, servicing on site.
• Site Restoration
This activity includes:
o Backfilling and compacting excavated soil using an excavator and compactor.
o Final grading to recontour the site surface using a bulldozer and/or grader.
o Removal of site grubbings and other debris.
o Replacement of topsoil and re-vegetation of site by natural re-growth in forest and
hay in cropland.
3.3.2.2 Electrical Infrastructure
• Underground Collector System
The 34.5kV underground collector cabling will terminate in the base of the wind turbine and run
underground to an adjacent utility pole where it will connect to the overhead collector system on
the adjacent roadway. The underground cable will be installed, along with fibre-optic
communication cable in a trench between the turbine and the utility pole. A self-propelled
trencher or backhoe will dig a trench measuring approximately 1m wide and 1.5m deep. The
bottom of the trench will then be covered with a layer of sand before laying the distribution line.
The cable is protected by covering it with planks prior to backfilling the trench. Magnetic
warning tape is also placed just below the soil surface and allows the cable to be located easily.
• Overhead Collector System
An overhead collector system will transport the electricity from the point of interconnection for
the underground cable to the substation. The 34.5kV overhead distribution lines will be carried
on 15m wooden poles spaced approximately 20m - 30m apart. A specially equipped utility
truck will be used to drill holes in the ground and the wooden poles will be inserted and
prepared for cable installation.
• Substation
16
In order to connect the wind power plant to Maritime Electric’s grid, a substation is necessary to
step up the 34.5kV, coming from the wind plant’s collector system, to the grid voltage, 69kV.
The activities involved in this project phase include:
o Clearing of land and preparation of subgrade. The area required for the substation
will be approximately 100m x 100m.
o Installation of grounding network to protect equipment.
o Installation of vegetation control materials, surface fill and fencing.
o Construction of the concrete bases for substation components.
o Delivery and installation of substation units on site.
o Equipment installation will require the use of cranes to receive the transformer and
other large pieces of equipment needed to complete the civil installation work,
including concrete trucks, excavators, bulldozers and graders.
o Connection of substation to Maritime Electric’s electrical transmission system.
3.3.2.3 Turbine Installation
The turbines will be transported by two special delivery ships from the manufacturing facility to the
port of Souris in Prince Edward Island. The first ship will carry the 40 tower sections, which will
be unloaded and temporarily stored near the port. The second ship will carry the nacelles and
blades and be unloaded one week later. All components will be delivered to the construction site on
specially equipped trailers, as required for the construction sequence. The major construction tasks
will include:
• Transportation of turbine to site using a series of flatbed trailers and truck. Site offloading will
be carried out by two cranes.
• Assembling nacelle and blades in an area of approximately 100m x 100m.
• Erecting the turbine tower using a large crane.
• Installation of the tower, nacelle, hub and blades using a heavy lift crane and a smaller
‘tailing’ crane to stabilize the loads during erection.
Once the turbine components are assembled, work will continue over a period of 5-7 days to
complete the necessary mechanical and electrical connections. Following the mechanical
completion, the turbines will be commissioned individually and placed into service.
17
3.3.3 Operation
The wind plant is expected to be in operation for a period of twenty to twenty-five years and it is
probable that life extension programs may extend the service life further. Figure 3.4 shows a
photomontage simulation of the East Point Wind Plant.
The operation and maintenance of the proposed wind power plant is an integral part of the project.
The following activities are involved in this project phase:
• Operation of V90 wind turbines to provide electricity to the utility grid.
• Regular inspection of facilities to ensure equipment integrity.
• Annual preventative maintenance program for the turbines.
• Monitoring wildlife activity and behaviour at the project site through general observation
and field studies.
Most wind turbines are operationally available approximately 95% of the time and generating
electricity 65%-75% of their operational time. A major advantage of the V90 model is the economy
of scale on turbine maintenance. Repairs and maintenance are carried out by wind turbine
technicians. Typical maintenance activities include the calibration of instruments, inspection and
maintenance of hydraulic systems, and lubrication of all moving parts. Lubrication involves oil,
grease and other petroleum products (Vestas, 2005). These and any other chemicals on site will be
stored and disposed of as per T&PWEPP standards and the site specific EPP (Appendix H and E).
A computer based SCADA (Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition) system will closely monitor
the turbine operation, components and subsystems, at all times in all weather conditions. The
system detects and responds to emergency situations, while providing important information to
staff. Both the SCADA system and wind plant staff will be housed in an operations center within
the wind plant. Full time staff will be available, but 24 hour supervision will not be required
because automated paging systems will be used. The operations building will be the maintenance
centre and will also be used to store parts and other equipment.
18
Figure 3.4 Photomontage simulation of East Point Wind Plant
3.3.4 Decommissioning/Abandonment
The design lifespan of the wind plant is 20 years, so decommissioning is not expected until 2026.
If it is economically viable, the turbines may be upgraded to continue operation or be replaced with
newer technology to allow the continued operation of the wind plant. If the proponent chooses to
decommission the site, the following activities would be involved:
• Disconnection of wind turbines from grid.
• Disassembly and transportation of wind turbines using cranes and trucks.
• Possible excavation and removal of concrete pads using an excavator and trucks.
• Final grading to re-contour the site surface.
• Re-vegetation of site by natural re-growth or seeding.
• Disposal, re-use or recycling of any associated waste material as per T&PWEPP standards.
3.3.5 Malfunctions and Accidents
It is important to consider any potential malfunctions and accidents that could occur during each of
the project phases. The following events may result in unexpected negative impacts to the
surrounding environment:
• During construction and decommissioning phases there is the potential for equipment upset
and fuel spills.
19
• Maintenance activities may involve the use of petroleum products such as lubricants and
there is the potential for the accidental release of these and other hazardous substances into
the environment.
• Adverse weather conditions may cause operational problems. Precipitation in freezing
conditions can lead to ice build up on turbine blades, possibly resulting in ice shedding and
ice throw. These conditions may create a risk to human health or lead to damage of
surrounding infrastructure.
• During connection to the MECL grid, power disruptions may occur. This may not be
necessary, depending on exact connection locations. If power outages are required, they
will be short-term and are not expected to impact a large number of users.
3.3.6 Project Schedule
Preliminary siting and soil testing is expected to begin in February 2006 and continue for
approximately 2-3 weeks. The final project design, as well as the spring bird migration study and
the rare plant study, will be complete by June 2006. Approval to commence construction will be
sought at that time. While it is acknowledged that the formal completion of the bird and the rare
plant studies may not be completed prior to the submission of the EA document, advance
discussions with the principal investigators will ensure that the study results be considered in the
report’s conclusions and recommendations. The construction phase is expected to commence as
soon as EA approval is obtained and is expected to last until November 2006, when the plant will
become operational. The design life of the turbines is 20 years, so the project will operate until
2026. Wind energy is projected to become the most economical electricity source available;
therefore it will likely be an even more economic source of energy in 2026. The site will likely be
re-developed using newer equipment.
Details of the project schedule can be seen below:
• Conduct Geo-technical work – February 2006
• Design work – May 2006
• Clear roads and commence road construction – June 2006 (Note: Phase 1 commenced July 19th)
• Install foundations – August 2006
• Install electrical collector system – September 2006
• Receive turbines – October 2006
20
• Install and commission turbines – October/November 2006
• Wind Plant operational – December 2006
3.3.7 Future Project Phases
There is the potential for further development in East Point; however the PEI Energy Corporation
may not be the developer. Any developments not described in this report will require a separate
environmental impact assessment.
21
4.0 DESCRIPTION OF SURROUNDING ENVIRONMENT
The project site is located near North Lake, a rural community in northeastern King’s County,
Prince Edward Island. A project site visit was conducted on September 2nd and November 13, 2005,
and information regarding the environment surrounding the project site was obtained at this time.
Photos from the site can be seen in Appendix I.
4.1 Eco-region
This project site is located in the Atlantic Maritime Eco-zone. The climate in this area is cool and
moist with moderate temperatures. The mean annual precipitation varies from 900mm inland to
1500mm near the coast. Coastal lowland areas (such as PEI) have deeper, more fertile soils formed
on surface materials derived from the underlying sedimentary bedrock (sandstone).
The forests in the Atlantic Maritime Eco-zone are generally composed of mixed stands of conifers
and deciduous species, characterized by red spruce (Picea rubens), balsam fir (Abies balsamea),
yellow birch (Betula alleghaniensis), sugar maple (Acer saccharum), red (Pinus resinosa) and white
pine (P. strobus) and eastern hemlock (Tsuga canadensis). Characteristic mammals include red fox
(Vulpes vulpes), beaver (Castor canadensis), muskrat (Tamias sciuris) and the red squirrel (Ondatra
zibethicus). Northern Goshawk (Accipiter gentiles), Osprey (Pandion haliaetus), Common Grackle
(Quiscalus quiscula), Bobolink (Dolicnonyx oryzivorus), Red-winged Blackbird (Agelaius
phoeniceus), Song Sparrow (Melospiza melodia), Rose-breasted Grosbeak (Pheucticus
ludovicianus), Northern Harrier (Circus cyaneus), Sharp-shinned Hawk (Accipiter striatus), Ruffed
Grouse (Bonasa umbellus), Killdeer (Charadrius vociferous), Spotted Sandpiper (Actitis
macularia), American Crow (Corvus brachyrhnchos) and the American Robin (Turdus migratorius)
are characteristic birds as well as the Herring Gull (Larus argentatus), Great Cormorant
(Phalacrocorax carbo) and Double-crested Cormorant (P. auritus) which are known to have
breeding colonies in this eco-zone.
Livelihoods are provided by agriculture, fisheries and tourism. Forestry and agriculture are the
major land-oriented activities in this region, and 69% of Eastern Kings is forested. The coastal
communities traditionally support important fisheries, especially lobster. The more fertile, lowland
soils support an agricultural industry that includes dairy, beef and the dominant potato. Because of
22
the attractive landscapes and excellent beaches, the capability for tourism and recreation is high.
(Eastern Kings Official Plan)
4.2 Climate
The climate in this region is generally cool and moist with moderate temperatures. The East Baltic
weather station (46o 25’N 62o10’W) is located approximately 4km from the project site. Canadian
Climate Normal (1971-2000) data from this station indicates that average air temperatures range
from -10.9oC to 22.3oC, with extremes of -31oC and 33.5oC. The majority of the precipitation in
East Point occurs between September and January. The average annual precipitation in this area
amounts to 1226.3mm, of which 265.4mm is snow and the other 962.9mm, is rain. On average,
there are 10 freezing rain events per year in this area.
Data from anemometer towers installed at the project site indicate that the prevailing winds are from
the southwest during the summer months and from the northwest in the winter. The average wind
speed in the East Point area ranges from 7.5m/s to 9.0m/s at 80m AGL. The maximum velocity for
various heights and return periods was calculated using the observed wind data. At 80m, the
maximum three second gust velocity was calculated to be approximately 60.9m/s.
4.3 Land Use/Ownership
The project site consists of a turbine array with 10 turbine sites and connecting access roads spread
over three watersheds and 10 different properties. Table 4.2 describes the land use and ownership
at the location of each turbine in this array and the properties in between that will be impacted by
access roads. See Figure 4.1 for an aerial photo showing the location of the wind turbines.
Turbine 1 is located in the North Lake Creek watershed. Covering an area of 4770ha, this
watershed consists mainly of forest with some agricultural and wetland areas. Turbines 2 through 9
are located on the ridge that separates the East Lake Creek and Surveyor Point watersheds. Turbine
10 is located entirely in the East Lake Creek watershed, which has an area of 1660ha. The land
cover in this watershed also consists primarily of forest with some agricultural and wetland areas.
The Surveyor Point watershed has an area of 385ha and is also classified mainly as forest,
agricultural and wetland (PEI GIS, 2005). There is a low density of residents near the project site,
approximately 40 homes within a one kilometre range.
23
Figure 4.1. Land use in the project area
Figure 4.2. Locations of species identified by ACCDC data search
24
All adjacent landowners have been consulted by the proponent and have no objections concerning
the proposed project. Land negotiations were completed in January 2006 and any residents directly
impacted by the project have signed lease options with the Prince Edward Island Energy
Corporation. Figure 4.2 shows the environmental features in the project area.
4.4 Soils and Topography
The topography in the East Point area is classified as level to undulating, with slopes in the range of
0-5%. The elevation at the project site ranges from 10-40m above sea level, and the approximate
elevations at each turbine site are shown in Table 4.2. The soils in the area are composed mainly of
Charlottetown, Winsloe and Malpeque types. Malpeque soils consist mainly of the Gleyed
Eluviated Dystric Brunisol, whose family characteristics include coarse, loamy, deep, acid, cold and
perquaic. This soil is usually imperfectly drained with a permeability of less than 0.5cm/h, therefore
wetness is often a limiting factor in site usage. The dominant subgroup in Charlottetown soils is
Orthic Humo-Ferric Podzol, material that has coarse-loamy, deep, neutral-acid and cool-cold
characteristics. These soils have a deep layer of soft bedrock and are generally well drained with
permeability less than 0.5cm/h; however they are also known to be an erosion hazard. The
dominant subgroup in Winsloe soils is Orthic Gleysol, which is typically deep, sandy-loamy, acid,
cold and peraquic. This soil is often imperfectly or poorly drained, and the permeability is
consistent with Charlottetown and Malpeque soils (Agriculture Canada, 1988).
Geo-technical testing was conducted at each turbine site between January 30th and February 7th,
2006. Drilling was conducted using a track-mounted auger drill rig. In order to determine the exact
location of till and bedrock at each turbine location, 48mm diameter core samples were taken
through rotary core drilling to depths of 15-16m. The bore hole results are shown in Table 4.3.
4.5 Hydrological Resources
As mentioned previously, the project spans the North Lake Creek, East Lake Creek and Surveyor
Point watersheds. The drainage area of these watersheds are approximately is 4770ha, 1660ha, and
385ha respectively. The land use in each watershed is shown in Table 4.1. The groundwater table
depth at each turbine site was also determined through geotechnical testing and the results are
shown in Table 4.3. The water table depth was measured on February 10th, 2006. In order to allow
future groundwater level monitoring, perforated plastic standpipes were installed in each borehole.
25
North Lake is located approximately 530m from Turbine 10; however the boundary of the wetland
surrounding the lake is located approximately 355m from Turbine 10. In addition, there is a small
stream located to the south of the turbine array. This stream is located approximately 515m from
Turbine 3, 565m from Turbine 4, and 615m from Turbine 5. A photo of the stream and North Lake
can be seen in Appendix I. Concerns over environmental impact of stream crossings were one of
the key factors in the decision to modify the turbine layout to eliminate significant water crossings.
26
Table 4.1. Land use in each watershed
Land Use Composition (%) Watershed
Name Forestry Agriculture Wetland Transportation Residential Institutional
Non-Evident
East Lake Creek
60.00 26.96 7.97 1.09 1.17 0.02 2.79
North Lake Creek
73.93 15.55 6.34 1.89 0.73 0.11 1.45
Surveyor Point
37.63 34.41 16.24 3.02 2.46 1.04 5.20
Table 4.2. Current ownership and land use at each turbine site
Turbine Coordinates (UTM20 NAD83) Site ID
Elevation (m above sea
level)
Easting Northing
PID# Current Land
Use
1 36 571837 5144852 856088 Forestry
2 40 572128 5144832 110973 Agriculture
3 37 572399 5144842 110973 Agriculture
4 31 572680 5144884 110965 Agriculture
5 25 572937 5145034 110932 Forestry
6 20 573284 5145147 110916 Agriculture
7 18 573579 5145179 110908 Forestry
8 15 573923 5145360 110858 Forestry
9 18 574235 5145488 110817 Forestry
10 13 574627 5145476 766436 Agriculture
Access Rd n/a n/a n/a 111161 Forestry
Access Rd n/a n/a n/a 110882 Forestry
Access Rd n/a n/a n/a 110890 Forestry
Access Rd n/a n/a n/a 110874 Forestry
Table 4.3. Geo-technical testing results
Borehole ID Characteristic
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Rootmass/Topsoil 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.45
Till Thickness 1.68 4.43 6.10 8.69 2.14 5.65 8.69 4.73 7.17 8.08
Depth to Bedrock
Surface
2.13 4.88 6.55 9.14 2.59 6.10 9.14 5.18 7.62 8.53
Depth to Groundwater
Table
6.60 14.97
13.97
12.64
10.35
5.19 2.43 4.70 11.13
7.71
Depth of Borehole 15.6 15.4 15.7 15.4 15.7 15.3 15.2 15.7 15.6 15.5
27
4.6 Vegetation
The majority of the project site has been used as agricultural land for at least 50 years. Therefore,
the site is considered previously disturbed and many of the plants at the sites are related to
agricultural activities including weeds that have come in with crop seeds from other countries. See
Appendix I for photos of the environment surrounding the project area.
The author of this EIS conducted a search of data already on file at the Atlantic Canada
Conservation Data Centre (ACCDC) to determine the presence of sensitive flora and fauna in the
lands comprising and surrounding the project area. These results indicated the potential presence of
the following plants: Canada Hawkweed (Hieracium canadense), Leathery Grape-Fern (Botrychium
multifidum), Northern Slender Pondweed (Stuckenia filiformis ssp alpina), Yellow Nodding Ladies'-
Tresses (Spiranthes ochroleuca), Downy Willow-Herb (Epilobium strictum), Mountain Cranberry
(Vaccinium vitis-idaea), Pondshore Knotweed (Polygonum raii), Small Eyebright (Euphrasia
randii), Ground Juniper (Juniperus communis var. depressa), Flattened Oatgrass (Danthonia
compressa) and Bog Clubmoss (Lycopodiella inundata). Although the species listed for the
immediate project area are not classified as being at risk, rare or endangered by either federal or
provincial authorities, it should be noted that the Province has yet to assess any plants for proposed
listing under the Wildlife Conservation Act. However, the first five listed plant species are
considered rare throughout their range in the province (ACCDC, 2005). Figure 4.2 shows the
locations of the plants and birds identified by data from ACCDC.
The data shows the presence of Northern Slender Pondweed, Pondshore Knotweed and Leathery
Grape-Fern within 500m of the proposed site for Turbine #4. These plant species have been
assigned provincial ranks of S0, S1 and S2 respectively. Northern Slender Pondweed is ranked S0
because the rarity of the species in the province is uncertain. According to the provincial ranking
system (S-ranks), a species classified as S1 (Pondshore Knotweed) is considered to be “extremely
rare throughout its range in the province (typically very few remaining individuals)”. A ranking of
S2 (Leathery Grape-Fern) represents species considered “rare throughout its range in the province
(6 to 20 occurrences or few remaining individuals)”. Flattened Oatgrass is also found within
approximately 450m of turbines 1, 2, and 3 and is ranked S1.
28
In order to obtain a more accurate depiction of the flora species present at the project site, a rare
plant survey was undertaken by Sean Blaney, a botanist and employee of ACCDC. A preliminary
survey was completed in the project area by Mr. Blaney assisted by Carl Brothers on May 8th. In
addition, a full vascular plant survey was completed by Mr. Blaney on June 5th and June 6th, 2006.
The May survey followed the turbine and road corridor to provide the surveyor with accurate GPS
coordinates for future survey work. During the June survey, slightly different paths within natural
habitats were traveled to provide a more accurate portrayal of the vascular plants in the project area.
A total of five passes were completed through the road and turbine sites and a record was made of
all of the vascular plants observed. Within the study area, of the 216 vascular plant taxa, 166 are
considered as native or potentially native, while 50 are exotic. No site inventory is ever entirely
complete, but after five passes through the turbine and road corridor, Mr. Blaney is confident the
site is comparatively well covered for vascular plants. Figure 4.3 shows the paths covered during
the June site surveys.
The following twelve rare plant species (those having PEI S-ranks lower than S4) were recorded in
the study area during the full vascular plant survey: Dwarf Rattlesnake-Plantain (Goodyera repens)
– S2, White Panicled American-Aster (Symphyotrichum lanceolatum) – S2, Short-Stemmed Sedge
(Carex deflexa) – S3, Broad-Leaved Goldenrod (Solidago flexicaulis) – S2S3, Herb-Robert
(Geranium robertianum) - S3, Christmas Fern (Polystichum acrostichoides) - S3, Mountain
Cranberry (Vaccinium vitis-idaea ssp. minus) - S3, Emmons Sedge (Carex albicans var.
emmonsii) - S3S4, Fibrous-Root Sedge (Carex communis) - S3S4, Short-Scale Sedge (Carex
deweyana) - S3S4, Pale Sedge (Carex pallescens) – S3S4, and Ground Juniper (Juniperus
communis var. depressa) - S3S4. The precise locations of each rare species identified in the project
area can be seen in Table 4.4 and a detailed discussion on each species can be seen in Appendix G.
An ortho-map was submitted to the Department of Environment, Energy and Forestry to show the
location of the rare plants in relation to turbine sites, access roads and property boundaries.
The rarest plant in the project area is the Dwarf Rattlesnake-Plantain with only two recent and four
historic documented occurrences in Prince Edward Island. The western-most population of this
species on this project site is likely the largest known occurrence. The larger population of Dwarf
Rattlesnake-Plantain is located approximately 50m from a small population of Broad-leaved
Goldenrod (also known as Zig-Zag Goldenrod), Christmas Fern and Herb-Robert near Turbine 7.
29
The White Panicled American-Aster is found nearby. A recently proposed re-alignment of the road
corridor in the area east of Turbine 7 will assist in avoidance of these rare plants during
construction. Precaution will be taken to avoid disturbing any sensitive plants in the project area as
detailed in Section 5.1.1. The potential impacts of the project on rare vascular plant species will be
minimized with the latest road re-alignment and agreed precautionary measures.
Figure 4.3. Tracks covered during the full vascular plant survey at the project site (Blaney, 2006)
Table 4.4. Details on rare plants identified during vascular plant survey (Blaney, 2006)
Species Common Name Site
Status
PE S-
rank
PE GS
rank
Decimal
Latitude
Decimal
Longitude Comments
Goodyera repens
Dwarf Rattlesnake-Plantain
r S2 may be at-risk
46.4560242 -62.0416565
present over a 40-50m radius around this point (excluding areas cleared for turbine) with 50-100 rosettes
Goodyera repens
Dwarf Rattlesnake-Plantain
r S2 may be at-risk
46.4568291 -62.0387917 2 plants present
Symphyotrichum
lanceolatum
White Panicled American-Aster
r S2 may be at-risk
46.4567833 -62.0402336
scattered over a ~5m radius around this point
Carex deflexa Short-Stemmed Sedge
r S2 sensitive 46.4589233 -62.0352936
thinly scattered within clearcut within 25m of this site
Solidago
flexicaulis
Broad-Leaved Goldenrod
r S2S3 sensitive Range from 46.455986, -
62.0406036 to 46.4563522,
-62.0410538
zone of occurrence between these points is no more than 5m wide
Geranium
robertianum Herb-Robert r S3 secure 46.456562 -62.0410538
present over a ~15m radius around this point
30
Polystichum
acrostichoides Christmas Fern r S3 secure 46.455986 -62.0406036 just one plant
Vaccinium vitis-
idaea ssp. minus
Mountain Cranberry
r S3 secure 46.4568291 -62.0387917
fairly common over a ~5m radius around this point
Carex pallescens Pale Sedge r S3S4 secure 46.4533195 -62.0608749 just one plant
Juniperus
communis var.
depressa
Ground Juniper r S3 secure 46.4544754 -62.0509911 just one plant
4.7 Wildlife
The term “Wildlife” is being used in a more restrictive sense than in the Wildlife Conservation Act.
For the purposes of this report, ‘wildlife’ is meant to include birds, reptiles, amphibians, fish and
invertebrates, but does not include wild plants. Also, in this report the primary emphasis has been
placed on birds in Section 4.7 because in this particular location, they have the highest potential for
encounters during construction and operation of the wind plant. No field studies were done on
reptiles, amphibians, fish or invertebrates. With re-design of the wind plant corridor, no permanent
wetland will be impacted by the project. Wild plants are covered separately under ‘Section 4.6,
Vegetation’, which primarily deals with rare species.
At the majority of the turbine sites, the landscape is unsheltered and cleared for agricultural
purposes and while not considered as prime wildlife habitat, some species do make use of the area
as noted in Section 5.2. for sunning, feeding and possible nesting. Farm land may serve birds such
as Robin (Turdus migratorius), Bobolink (Dolichonyx oryzivorus) and several species of hawks, as
well as mammals including Red Fox (Vulpes vulpes), Snowshoe Hare (Lepus americanus) and
various species of small mammals such as Meadow Vole (Microtus pensylvanicus).
4.7.1 Birds A data search was conducted by the EA author through the Atlantic Canada Conservation Data
Centre (ACCDC) to determine the presence of sensitive fauna in the project area. These results
indicated the potential presence of the following animal species in the immediate project area:
Great Cormorant (Phalacrocorax carbo), Common Tern (Sterna hirundo) and Rusty Blackbird
(Euphagus carolinus). The wildlife species in the immediate project area are not classified as
being at risk, rare or endangered by either federal or provincial authorities (ACCDC, 2005). It
31
should be noted that the Province has yet to assess any animals for proposed listing under the
Wildlife Conservation Act as threatened, endangered or vulnerable.
Other avian specialists have indicated that Peregrine Falcon (Falco peregrinus), Short-eared Owl
(Asio flammeus) and possibly Bicknells Thrush (Catharus bicknelli) could be in the East Point area
at least during migration periods (McAskill, pers.com). As well, he reports the calling of Boreal
Owls (Aegolius funereus) in the general area. The presence of Short-eared Owls (coastal dunes and
wetlands) and Peregrine Falcons in spring and fall was confirmed by David Seeler with numerous
sightings (Seeler, pers.com). Jennifer Stewart of the Canadian Wildlife Service indicates that the
October sightings of Short-eared Owls would definitely be of migratory individuals, but
not necessarily the April-May sightings as they do nest earlier in the year as pair formation begins
in late winter, i.e. late March - April (Stewart, pers.com).
Ms. Stewart further indicates that the agricultural fields around the proposed wind turbine sites
would be suitable breeding habitat for the species. Also, there are coastal dunes nearby and the
species is thought to nest in the dunes in the PEI National Park. The Short-eared Owl has a territory
size that has been estimated to be from 0.55 - 1.97 square km. Therefore, the species could
definitely come in close proximity to the turbines. Ms. Stewart cites four cases where Short-eared
Owls were killed by wind turbine collisions elsewhere. Two were at McBride Lake, Alberta, one
was at Foote Creek Rim and one occurred at Nine Canyon, Wyoming.
Dr. Seeler indicates that the habitat looks suitable for Bicknell’s Thrush in the East Point area but
that none have been documented on this site or in PEI generally. If it was present, McAskill
indicates it would be in coastal thicket areas or dense growth near wetlands.
As part of the environmental assessment process a bird population survey was completed at the
project site by staff from Bird Studies Canada. The fall migration study took place between
September 9th and November 2nd, 2005. The methodology used for this survey involved monitoring
8 point count sites, 6 test sites adjacent to the proposed turbine sites as well as 2 control sites along
Lighthouse Road. Bird counts were also completed along the coast near the 50m meteorological
test tower. Each site was strategically located along hedgerows and wooded areas or near the shore
to provide a clear view of the sky and sample each type of habitat. In order to fully understand the
32
fall migration patterns in East Point, all the test sites were monitored one morning per week and the
control sites were monitored twice weekly. In addition to morning counts at the control sites,
evening surveys were conducted weekly between September 28th and November 1st. Evening
observations provide important information regarding migration patterns as many large flocks of
migrating birds set flight around this time of day.
The results of the fall migration survey indicate the presence of various bird species at the project
site. Table 4.5 shows the number of observations and total number of birds observed during the fall
survey. These birds include gulls, American Crow (Corvus brachyrhynchos) and Common Raven
(Corvus corax) as well as water birds including Harlequin Duck (Histrionicus histrionicus),
Common Eider (Somateria mollissima), Surf Scoter (Melanitta perspicillata), White-winged Scoter
(M. fusca) and Black Scoter (M. nigra) were also observed along the coast. Further inland, staff
found flocks of songbirds such as sparrows and kinglets, as well as a Yellow-billed Cuckoo
(Coccyzus americanus), a Blue-gray Gnatcatcher (Polioptila caerulea), and a White-crowned
Sparrow (Zonotrichia leucophrys) in the project area. Observations also indicate that the flight path
of these birds is typically around East Point, not directly over the project area (Whittam &
Campbell, 2005). Details regarding specific bird species observed at each point count site and
transect can be seen in the report in Appendix B.
Results of the fall survey show that more birds are located near the tip of East Point. The average
bird count (birds/visit) at the two control site locations was used to establish typical bird counts
across the project area. Results of point counts show that sites 9, 11, and 12 had more than the
average (19 birds/count). Based on these point counts and consultations with some local
birdwatchers, Bird Studies Canada has recommended that the area covering a triangle extending
from the east end of East Lake, south to South Lake and across to the tip of East Point be avoided
during turbine placement. Figure 4.4 shows the area of potential concern. BSC expects that results
of winter, spring, and summer studies will also support this conclusion. However, the proponent
believes that insufficient data have been acquired to conclude that the areas of exclusion identified
in the initial bird studies warrant total exclusion of wind turbines. Consultations at the public
hearing indicate that some locals do not agree with the conclusions reached in the fall migration
survey. It is the intent of the proponent to conduct future bird studies to evaluate their interaction
33
with the wind plant. For more detailed information on the methodologies and findings of the Fall
Migration Survey, please see the Interim Fall Migration Report in Appendix B.
To alleviate concerns surrounding this sensitive issue, the wind plant has been re-designed to
remove all wind turbines from the area of concern. The proponent intends to undertake more
detailed studies on the migration patterns and behaviour of the local bird populations once this
phase of wind development is completed to provide a more accurate assessment of local bird
behaviours and the impact of these wind turbines on local bird populations. If the results suggest
that wind turbines may impact bird populations, it is unlikely that development will be proposed in
the identified area. However, if studies show that wind turbines have limited impact on local bird
populations, the location of wind turbines within the identified area of concern may be considered
in future developments.
A spring migration survey was conducted on the following dates: April 27-28th; and May 3-4, 10-
11, 18-19, 25-26 and 29th. The site was visited once a week for six weeks by the same individual.
Point counts were conducted at 14 stations, four of which (8, 9, point and wood) had also been
visited during the fall. The other 10 corresponded to the new turbine locations. Beginning at dawn
each station was visited for 10 minutes and all detected birds were noted, including the species,
behaviour and direction of flight, distance from observer and height of flight. Once point counts
were completed, the remainder of the morning was spent counting soaring raptors (which are
generally more active later in the day than songbirds), passing or staging sea ducks and/or
shorebirds, as well as additional ad hoc observations of migrating land birds (Campbell, per.com.).
Results of the spring survey, as seen in Table 4.6, show fewer observations and significantly fewer
birds than the fall survey. In addition, the number of birds per count at each site is more consistent
and comparable to control sites than observed in the fall (Armenta, et al., 2006).
The point count sample method is more difficult than the line transect method for determining
density estimates. Birds may move around during a 10 minute point count, or can be difficult to
detect if not seen moving as they could potentially be counted as two different birds. A further
deficiency is that the observer is not continuously collecting data, although the total time spent
doing point counts is roughly the same as the total time spent walking during a transect line. The
34
only real difference is that observation is while standing still rather than moving. While a line
transect gives the chance of possibly recording birds that flee in front of the observer, point counts
may also allow this if the birds do not fly too far away and then vocalize (Campbell, pers.com.).
The most commonly observed species during the spring survey include: American Robin (97
observations), American Crow (70) and Yellow-rumped Warbler (Dendroica coronata) (58). Bird
species with the highest numbers of individuals in the project area include the Common Eider (445),
Northern Gannet (Sula bassanus) (350) and American Robin (97), although all Eiders and Gannets
were seen on or over the water at the tip of East Point. The most abundant songbirds were the
American Crow (112), Yellow-rumped Warbler (60) and Purple Finch (Carpodacus purpureus)
(52), all of which are common spring migrants and resident landbirds (Armenta, et al., 2006). For
more detailed results of the spring survey, see the interim report in Appendix B.
Summer breeding bird surveys are being conducted by BSC at the project site between June 11th
and June 24th, 2006. While the report will not be ready until early August, it is expected that the
results of these surveys will be consistent with the findings of the spring and fall migration studies.
The summer survey results will be evaluated prior to turbine installation.
4.7.2 Bats
Bat surveys were not conducted in the area. However, because there are no houses right in the area
does not necessarily mean that Little Brown Bats (Myotis lucifuscus) will not use the area as there
are plenty of records of colonies of LBBs that use trees as well (Broders, pers.com.). Dr. Broders
indicates there are certainly areas on the Island where Northern Long-eared Bats (Myotis
septentrionalis) are using woodland areas, their traditional habitat, although they have also recently
been found using buildings elsewhere. In Island-based research, Leslie Corning concluded that
since the Long-eared Bat is a forest interior specialist species it shows a greater response to habitat
disturbances. Little Brown Bat is a generalist and able to exploit a greater range of habitat types
and, therefore may be dramatically less affected by forest fragmentation (Corning 2005). It is
highly possible there may be Long-eared Bats in or near the wind plant’s corridor, so it will be
important to monitor the wind plant during operation of the currently proposed 10 turbines to see if
there are any negative effects, including mortality, on bats.
35
Table 4.5 Number of observations and total number of individuals observed during fall migration surveys
(Campbell & Whittam, 2005)
Bird Category # of Observations # of Birds
Land birds 684 2657
Raptors 24 26
Shorebirds 14 117
Water birds 198 2377
Waterfowl 65 3730
Unknown 13 585
Total 998 9492
Figure 4.4. Area of greatest risk to birds (Campbell & Whittam, 2005)
Table 4.6. Number of observations and total number of individuals observed during spring migration surveys (Armenta, Campbell & Whittam, 2006)
Bird Category # of Observations # of Birds
Land birds 708 879
Raptors 14 15
Shorebirds 4 4
Water birds 20 484
Waterfowl 11 546
Unknown 5 39
Total 762 1967
36
4.7.3 Fish and Aquatic Life
The turbine sites and access roads are located on agricultural and forested land. The sites do not
require any stream crossings as no turbines or the road are located at any streams, rivers, or other
bodies of water, therefore there are no fish and aquatic life within the project’s footprint. Tower
#10 is 435m from East Lake. The lake and tributary would probably have brook trout and
sticklebacks (Pers.com, R. MacFarlane). The proposed wind plant is not predicted to have any
impact on this environmental component as long as the mitigative actions in Table 5.5 are followed
so that silt and hydrocarbons do not enter the watercourse. Site visits conducted in September and
November 2005 support this prediction.
4.7.4. Endangered Species
The only endangered animal species found within 5km of the project area is the Piping Plover
(Charadrius melodus). Piping Plovers nest in coastal environments, particularly on sandy beaches.
According to the 2004 PEI Piping Plover Atlas, these birds are found along the shore in Diligent
Pond and South Lake, located approximately 3-5km from the project site (Waddell & MacDonald,
2005).
Plover monitoring is also conducted at East Point and East Lake. No Plovers have been observed in
these areas since 1996 and 2003 respectively (Waddell & MacDonald, 2005). Due to the distance
of established nesting site from the project site, the East Point Wind Plant is not likely to impact
existing Piping Plover habitat. In addition, the project will be located away from the shoreline,
further reducing the likelihood that it might impact any potential Piping Plover habitat.
A full vascular plant survey was conducted at the project site in June 2006. No endangered species
were identified at this time. The results are discussed in Section 4.6 and the complete study report
can be seen in Appendix G.
4. 8 Socio-Economic Conditions
4.8.1 Population
There are approximately thirty five permanent residencies within one kilometer of the project site.
The locations of nearby homes can be seen in Figure 3.1. Agriculture, fisheries and tourism are the
37
primary industries in the area and employ many people. Like most rural areas, the Eastern Kings
area has been experiencing population decline (E. K. Official Plan). This project is expected to
generate work opportunities for local contracting companies and nearby businesses.
4.8.2 Heritage & Archaeological Resources
The majority of the turbine sites are located on previously disturbed agricultural land that has been
in production for greater than fifty years.
Information received from the Prince Edward Island Department of Community and Cultural
Affairs indicates that there are no known heritage sites within the project boundaries, but there has
only been limited archaeological exploration of forest habitats in northeastern PEI. The East Point
Lighthouse, located approximately 2.5km from the project site, is listed on the PEI Register of
Heritage Place. In addition, there were known to be Acadian Colonists located in the East Point
area in the 1700’s. Although the discovery of archaeological artifacts in the wind farm site is not
highly likely, there is historically strong evidence of various ancient cultures occupying nearby
properties. Despite long term farming of the South Lake area, artifacts are still being discovered in
these periodically ploughed lands (PEIDC&CA).
Scott Buchanan, archaeologist, indicates there is archaeological evidence of Acadian settlement at
both South Lake and North Lake, collaborated by more substantial documentary evidence. Local
tradition also maintains the probable location of initial over-wintering (1719-earliest known
permanent European presence) in close proximity to East Lake & East Point. The eastern end of the
Island in general has the highest density of known First Nations sites in the province and abundant
evidence of significant 18th century French-Basque & Acadian settlement (1719-1758), including
one of the two earliest known permanent European settlements on the Island. Although the
archaeological data originates almost exclusively from shoreline-based survey of fields & beaches
(surface collection and limited testing), excavation reveals the potential for relatively intact site
deposits in both former and active farmland tracts, and isolated finds are known from inland
locations including a close proximity to (if not within) the proposed wind farm corridor (Buchanan,
pers.com.).
Archival maps collaborate geo-morphological evidence that the small pond west of the lighthouse
was formerly open to the sea, as were East Lake, North Lake, Diligent Pond, etc. East Lake as we
38
know it today has also migrated "upstream" during 19th century from a former location in the in-
filled basin north of RTE 16 -- result of transgression/siltation of lower watercourse. The present
'lake' used to be a low marshy section along the main stem of the creek, now drowned (Buchanan,
pers.com).
39
5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF PROJECT
Project site visits were conducted in September 2nd and November 13, 2005. Information regarding
the surrounding environment and the potential environmental effects of the project were obtained at
this time.
5.1 Environmental Effects and Mitigation Measures
When predicting and evaluating the potential environmental effects of a project, details concerning
project phases, project timing, project location and the surrounding environmental components must
be considered. The following section presents a breakdown of the potential environmental impacts
associated with each project phase. Mitigation measures are provided with the objective of
avoiding, minimizing or compensating for potential environmental effects associated with the
project. Following the written description, a breakdown of the potential project/environment
interactions is outlined in tabular format as they apply to each environmental component. Table 5.3
shows the matrix used to determine the potential interactions between the project and various
ecosystem components. This table outlines the project phases in the left-most column and the
environmental components in the upper row. A ‘P’ indicates a potential effect of the project on the
environmental component, an ‘E’ indicates a potential effect of the environmental component on
the project, and a blank space indicates no potential interactions. The Valued Ecosystem
Components (VEC’s) are determined from the interactions in this table and are then carried forward
for evaluation in Table 5.5. This table shows the potential interactions between the project and the
VEC’s, provides mitigation measures for each component and an evaluation of the level of residual
impact. The mitigation measures provided here follow a hierarchical sequence of protection in
order to eliminate, reduce or control the adverse environmental effects of the project. A summary
of mitigation measures and contingency plans can be seen in the Appendix E – Site Specific
Environmental Protection Plan.
5.1.1 Construction
The construction phase of the EPWP has the potential to impact various environmental components
including: hydrological resources, soils, vegetation, wildlife, health and safety, archaeological, land
use and noise levels.
40
During grubbing, excavation of the base area and drilling for anchor installation, there is the
potential for the disturbance or destruction of native or rare plant species. The rarest plant species in
the project area is the Dwarf Rattlesnake-Plantain. The western-most population of this species is
likely the largest known occurrence, and one of only 7 documented occurrences in Prince Edward
Island. The larger population of Dwarf Rattlesnake-Plantain is located approximately 50m from a
small population of Broad-Leaved Goldenrod, Christmas Fern and Herb-Robert; while the White
Panicled American-Aster is found nearby. Precaution will be taken to avoid disturbing any
sensitive plants in the project area including: establishing a 100m buffer zone around any sensitive
species or habitats, limiting vehicle traffic to access roads and turbines sites, and installing signage
and/or fencing at nearby sensitive plant locations. As per Mr. Blaney’s recommendation, the
roadway between turbines 7 and 8 was moved further away from the area which supports these rare
species. As a result of these mitigation measures, the project is not expected to impact any vascular
plants species identified as rare or endangered under the Species at Risk Act or Provincial S-ranks.
The Project Manager will ensure that all operators will be apprised of the location of rare plants and
instructed to stay away from these areas.
The exact locations of rare plants were identified with the aid of Rosemary Curley, Natural Areas
Biologist from the Department of Environment, Energy and Wildlife. These were marked with
flagging tape, and the Project Manager will alert workers to the rare plants locations and instruct
personnel not to enter these areas either during or after the construction period. Since the rare plant
clusters between Turbines 7 and 8 constitute a significant Value Ecosystem Component, the
proponent has modified the road segment in that area 25m to the north from the proposed plan. A
revised map will be submitted to the DEEF to reflect this change in road alignment.
All merchantable wood will be removed. There will be no open burning on the site of any slash or
woody debris from tree cutting and clearing operations. Mechanical harvesting methods will be
utilized for clearing the excavation pits and the roadway from the pits through PID#111161.
Manual crews will be employed through the eastern section of the roadway. Small diameter and un-
merchantable material will be chipped and dispersed so as to avoid heating or spontaneous
combustion. The roadway will be mulched after tree clearing and before road construction begins.
Overburden, including stumps and root balls, will be disposed of in the excavated shale pits and will
be buried during pit restoration.
41
A detailed description of the proposed borrow pits including their intended use, size, location,
rehabilitation plan, and environmental implications has been submitted to DEEF to obtain
excavation permits (See Appendix M).
Soils may also be impacted through compaction and erosion. Almost half of the turbine sites (No’s
2, 3, 4 &10) are located on previously disturbed agricultural land; therefore construction at these
sites will not impact any native vegetation or undisturbed soils. In order to minimize disturbance at
the forested sites, access roads will be constructed using geo-textile material if necessary, and all
vehicle traffic will be limited to these roadways and the specific turbine sites. In order to further
minimize impacts on soils and vegetation, construction will not occur during periods of rain or wet
soils. In addition, woodland areas will be allowed to regenerate naturally after construction is
complete and agricultural land will be planted with hay seed.
During grubbing and excavation there is the potential for intersecting the groundwater table.
Excavation to a depth of 8m will be required for the construction of each turbine base. During
construction, excavation will be completed in a step-wise fashion to ensure minimal risk of
groundwater contamination. There is also the potential for silt and other to debris to enter the
wetland area adjacent to the site of turbine 7. This issue will be mitigated by adhering to the
provincial guideline and working at least 20m from the wetland boundary.
The operation of excavators, large trucks, cranes and other construction equipment at the project
site has the potential to create dust and noise, which may disturb nearby humans and wildlife. In
order to minimize disturbances due to noise, construction will be limited to regular working hours
and vehicles will be properly maintained. The transportation of turbine components and the
movement of cranes and other construction equipment to and from the project site may cause short
delays in traffic. However, the site is in a rural area with minimal road traffic (approximately 12
cars per hour) and any delays in traffic will not likely exceed 5-10 minutes. If dust becomes an
issue, access roads will be watered down. Table 5.1 shows typical noise levels from various types
of construction equipment.
42
In order to address the possible occurrence of fire that may start from road construction and tree
harvesting, the PEI Energy Corporation has submitted a draft Forest Fire Management Plan to the
Department of Environment, Energy and Forestry. The goal is to minimize the possibility of
initiating a forest fire.
Wildlife may also be impacted through increased mortality due to heavy traffic and possible
relocation if habitat is disturbed by project activities. The Project Manager will initiate any
reasonable action to reduce the chance of disruption or injury to wildlife. Should disruption or
injury to wildlife occur, the Project Manager will contact the local Conservation Officer through the
Department of Environment, Energy and Forestry at 902-368-5000 during regular work hours to
initiate an appropriate action plan. If other than normal business hours, the Coast Guard will be
contacted at 1-800-565-1633 so that it can page the Conservation Officer on call.
The breeding season for Neo-tropical migrants (wood warblers, etc.) extends from April to August
depending on various factors, primarily the species. “Any disturbance to breeding birds in the area
will be temporary and not significantly impact populations at the species level” (Dibblee,
pers.com.). In order to minimize the disturbance, clearing of woodland and road construction will
not occur before July 18th. By then, the majority of birds will have finished nesting and the greatest
disturbance will have been mitigated. Fortunately, there was an early spring this year and many
birds started and finished nesting a little earlier than usual, but some individuals will still be
negatively affected.
For bats, habitat fragmentation caused by the expansion and intensification of human land use is a
central issue in conservation biology (Corning, 2005). Unfortunately, there is little known about
the dynamics of the interactions of bats and turbines, so this will be an important subject for
monitoring during the construction of the 10 turbine wind plant as well as for further detailed
habitat studies in any areas proposed for future expansion of the wind plant.
Although there have been no prior archaeological studies within the proposed corridor, coastal
studies in the nearby area indicate a significantly rich local archaeological record of First Nations
and Acadian settlement prior to the English colonial period. Therefore, the proponent will follow
the procedure outlined below to deal with the discovery of any artifact during construction:
43
• All heritage resources, including archaeological objects and sites of archaeological or
historical interest or significance, discovered on the site will be deemed to be the
property of the Crown, and will not be removed or disturbed;
• All work in the immediate area of the discovery will cease, and Harry Holman, the
Director of Culture, Heritage and Libraries, Department of Community and Cultural
Affairs, will be contacted at 902-368-4787.
• Archaeological materials encountered should be reported to the Director along with
any pertinent information, including the nature of the activity resulting in the
discovery, nature of the materials discovered, the precise location of the find and the
names of persons witnessing the discovery.
5.1.2 Operation & Maintenance
The operation of the East Point Wind Plant will have a positive impact on the local and global
environment through the displacement of greenhouse gas emissions created by conventional petroleum
fuelled power sources. Emissions associated with conventional electricity include SOx, NOx, CO2 and
many other harmful gases. These gases contribute to global warming and can also cause problems
related to acid rain. Each megawatt-hour generated by the operation of the East Point Wind Plant will
help reduce greenhouse gas emissions by as much as 0.8 to 0.9 tonnes per year (NRCan, 2002). Based
on calculations performed with RET Screen International, the East Point Wind Plant is expected to
result in a net GHG reduction of 1,864,918 tCO2 over its lifetime.
One of the major environmental concerns surrounding the operation of wind plants is avian mortality,
especially during migration periods. When installed, wind turbines can attract birds if they create
potential perching or nesting sites. This behavior increases the risk of tower and blade collisions that
can result in death. A fall avian migration study was conducted at the project site to determine the
types and numbers of birds present and any areas that would not be suitable for turbines. The results of
this study indicate that the area east of East Lake extending to the tip of East Point is the most
frequented by birds, and that turbines in this area may pose some risk to birds. The proponent has
responded to these concerns and has relocated turbines west of East Lake for this phase. A spring
migration survey was also conducted at the project site. Results of the spring survey, as seen in Table
4.6, show fewer observations and significantly fewer birds than the fall survey. In addition, the
number of birds per count is more consistent than seen in the fall. The spring migration is of adults
heading north in a short two month time frame and they may choose a different route. The fall
44
migration is at peak population, adults and offspring, and is a more leisurely migration from August
to December (Curley, pers.com.).
There are at least four known cases where Short-eared Owls were killed by wind turbine collisions.
Two were at McBride Lake, AB, one was at Foote Creek Rim and one occurred at Nine Canyon,
Wyoming (Stewart, pers.com.). So there is some potential for such a collision at the East Point
Wind Plant. However, although the potential seems small, it certainly bears further surveillance as
indicated below.
The proponent will further investigate the interaction between birds and the turbines installed for the
project to better assess the risks that the turbines, installed in the East Lake area, might pose to birds. In
addition, the risk to birds at the East Point Wind Plant is minimized through the use of tubular towers
which prevent perching. Risks to birds and bats will also be minimized through the use of flashing
white strobe lights which make the turbines more visible to flying birds. Strobe lights will be installed
on sufficient turbines to comply with Transport Canada regulations.
The proponent conducted avian mortality studies at North Cape in conjunction with that wind farm
facility. These studies revealed few incidences of bird mortality which is the basis of the above
statement. These studies have also noted the high level of avoidance behaviour of avian species to the
turbines. In 2002 one bird mortality was attributed to a tower or blade collision and three dead Little
Brown Bats (Myotis lucifuscus) were found. No bat mortalities were found in the 2004 North Cape
survey, and one bird carcass was located within a turbine plot although it was inconclusive if it died as a
result of a collision. However, a carcass persistence study documented a high level of scavenging, so it
is possible that as many as 80% of any fatalities may have not been detected because of prompt removal
by scavengers. Even with the standard 80% correction factor, mortality due to collisions at North Cape
wind farm is considered as low (PEIEC, 2005). It is reasonable to anticipate similar results for the East
Point Wind Plant at the proposed level of 10 turbines.
Noise from operating could have impact on birds during mating season. Singing males need to be heard
by females in order to attract a mate. Female birds are attracted to males with a strong, high-quality
mating song, so a male may miss out on mating if his tune is distorted or doesn’t travel far enough
through the forest. Nelson’s Sharp-tailed Sparrows nest at East Lake and have a quiet song (Curley,
DEEF), so it could easily be impacted by turbine noise..
45
The sites will be monitored for wildlife, primarily bird and bat mortality throughout the operation of
the wind plant. In order to get more accurate numbers regarding bird mortality, a comprehensive
survey is required since 90% of carcasses placed at North Cape were removed after four days in
tests conducted. Otherwise, possible mortalities from turbines may not be detected accurately
(PEIEC, 2005). Monitoring will also be conducted on the rare plant locations to determine their
status and if they have remained undisturbed as a result of the wind plant operation. Such
monitoring of plants and wildlife is important in confirming environmental assessment predictions
regarding effects on organisms and in detecting any deleterious effects on birds or bats that may
require adaptive management approaches to mitigation.
As there is documented concern in other locations on the effects on birds from sounds produced
from other industries such as compressor stations on oil and gas pipelines, this is something that
needs to be monitored at East Point. Male songbirds need to have their song heard by female birds
in order to successfully attract a female during mating season.
In general, the operation of wind turbines has the potential to reduce the land acreage available for
agricultural and forestry use. The area requirements for the project can be broken down as follows:
• Turbine sites (area required for turbine erection. Approximately 90% of this can be returned to
original use once turbines are installed. ) ~10000m2 each (10 sites) ~ 10ha
• Access road ~ 25 meters width ~ 25000m2/km (3.5km) ~ 10ha
• Substation site ~ 2ha
• Distribution Lines: Included in access road
• Underground Cables: Buried cables will have no impact on land usage.
The project footprint covers approximately 2.5km2 or 25ha, compared to the study area which
encompasses three watersheds and a total area of approximately 6815ha. Within the study area, there is
approximately 70% (4770 ha) forested land and 30% (2045 ha) of agricultural land. Therefore, land use
restrictions are not a concern due to the small project footprint relative to the extensive land area
available for both agriculture and forestry.
46
Turbine operation also creates concerns with regard to the impact of noise on nearby residents. A noise
analysis model was incorporated into the wind plant design to place the turbines far enough from nearby
homes to ensure the noise levels are within acceptable levels. For siting purposes, the maximum noise
level at a residence was considered to be 45 dB (A). In addition, the design is in compliance with set
back distances in the Prince Edward Island Planning Act, which states that turbines cannot be located:
• Closer than the distance equal to three times the total height of the turbine tower from any existing
habitable building
• Closer than the distance equal to the total height of the turbine tower from the nearest boundary of:
o A public road, private road or right-of-way, except for access roads being used as a part of
the proposed project
o A lot line that is not owned by the proponent unless written permission is obtained from the
landowner
Each turbine will be located at least 400m from the nearest home, therefore noise levels reaching
residential areas are expected to be less than the commonly acceptable level of 45dB(A). The maximum
expected noise will be approximately 43.9dB (A) at a distance of 488m from the project site. This is
comparable to the noise level inside an average household. Figure 5.1 shows the noise emissions
created by the V90 3.0MW turbine at various wind speeds. Table 5.2 shows the typical noise levels
associated with various sources at specific distances. The noise analysis report for the East Point Wind
plant can be seen in Appendix L.
In order to address potential problems related to turbine noise impacts, the proponent will establish a
noise monitoring and resolution system once the wind plant is operational. The proponent will meet
with any complaining parties and will provide to DEEF a report of complaints and outcomes of these
meetings.
There will also be visual or aesthetic impacts associated with the operation of wind turbines. The
presence of wind turbines on the horizon will change the view in the direction of the wind turbines.
However, experience has shown that these visual disruptions are temporary and people quickly adapt to
the altered viewscape. Additionally, efforts to keep the wind turbines from blocking scenic coastal
views by installing all turbines inland will mitigate most concerns over the visual impact of the turbines.
It should also be noted that many people find turbines to be visually attractive and most communities
47
take great pride in their wind plants. The tourism industry in west Prince County is benefiting from the
tourism promotion of the wind farm at North Cape.
Shadow flicker is another visual effect often associated with the operation of wind turbines. This
phenomenon occurs when the sun shines through the rotor of a wind turbine, and the moving shadow of
the blades crosses a dwelling for an extended period of time. Generally accepted wind plant design
practices indicate that dwellings exposed to less than 30 hours per year should not be affected by
shadow flicker. Efforts are required to ensure that individual dwellings are not exposed to excessive
flicker. Shadow flicker analysis has been carried out for this project and included 29 residences within
1.5km of the project site. The results of this study indicate that 80% of the flicker events last for 30
minutes or less. In addition, 76% of the flicker events occur during between November and February,
periods of the year when people tend to be outside less. Shadow flicker is the most significant at certain
times of day, specifically, 84% of flicker events occur before 9am or between 4pm and 6pm.
At the East Point Wind Plant, eight (8) primary receptors were identified as being exposed to greater
than 30 hours of shadow flicker per year. Due to the timing and duration of shadow flicker events, it is
not expected that these receptors will be significantly impacted by this phenomenon. Within the first
year of operation of the wind plant, the effects of shadow flicker will be known. Depending on
complaints, the operation of any offending turbines will be modified to mitigate this potential
impact. At the North Cape Wind Farm, several nearby residences are exposed to over three times the
level of shadow flicker predicted at East Point, and there have been no complaints to date. However,
mitigation measures have been developed in the event that shadow flicker becomes problematic for any
of the eight primary receptors. These residents will be individually consulted to discuss the potential
impacts of shadow flicker and to develop receptor specific mitigation plans. If shadow flicker becomes
a serious issue, the proponent agrees to limit the operational hours of problem turbines to bring shadow
flicker occurrences to an acceptable level. There is not expected to be any long term environmental
impacts resulting from shadow flicker; however, the proponent will monitor this potential impact. The
full shadow flicker analysis report can be seen in Appendix K. No other visual impacts, such as
reflection, are expected to result from the project.
The presence of wind turbines at the project site may also have a potential impact on aviation. In order
to minimize the risk of interactions with avian traffic, a lighting plan has been developed according to
the requirements set out by Transport Canada. Turbine lighting has also been designed to minimize the
48
potential interactions with birds in the area by using the minimum number of flashes per minute and
flash duration. Please refer to the site specific EPP in Appendix E for further details.
For ongoing management of the road system, the proponent will utilize minimal ditching and the road
surface will be hard-packed select borrow. Other than patching potholes with shale and light grading,
no other management is anticipated. The crucial times for the road system are during the construction
and decommissioning phases. Between these activities, the integrity of the road system is not crucial.
This will minimize the impact on the Valued Ecosystem Components (VEC).
The operation of the East Point Wind Plant is likely to have a positive impact on nearby communities
through the development of tourism and economic opportunities. The North Cape Wind Plant and the
Atlantic Wind Test Site at North Cape have attracted many visitors to the site. It is expected that the
East Point Wind Plant will also attract public attention and interested visitors. Increased human activity
at the project site could result in more tourism and therefore greater business opportunities for nearby
communities. In addition, the project will provide $25,000 annually in local initiatives and landowners
will be splitting 2.5% of the gross revenue from the site.
There are also health and safety concerns associated with the operation of the wind plant. In order
to minimize the risk to human health and safety, turbine site and road access will be controlled by a
gate located on the main access road near the service building.
49
Table 5.1. Noise levels associated with construction equipment at various distances (PEI
Energy Corporation, 2003)
Noise Level (decibels) Equipment
30m 250m 500m 1000m
Dump Truck 67.1 58.1 55.1 52.1
Front End Loader 80.2 71.2 68.2 65.2
Bulldozer 80.2 71.2 68.2 65.2
Crane 81.3 72.3 69.3 66.3
Excavator 81.3 72.3 69.3 66.3
Cement Truck 85.2 76.2 73.2 70.2
Table 5.2. Noise levels of wind turbines compared to other common noise sources (LHH, 2006)
Noise Sources Noise Levels (dBA)
@ Selected Distances
Vestas V90-3.0MW <43.9Db @ 500m
Softest sound a person can hear 0
Normal breathing 10
Soft Whisper 30
Quiet office, library or residential area 40
Rainfall, large office, refrigerator 50
Conversational speech 60
Shouting in ear 110
Figure 5.1. Predicted noise level contours resulting from wind plant operation
50
5.1.3 Decommissioning & Abandonment
As previously mentioned, site decommissioning is not likely to occur for at least 25 years. At this
time is also possible that the turbines will be replaced with newer equipment in order to allow the
site to continue generating electricity. During decommissioning or equipment replacement, there is
the potential to impact the following environmental components: noise levels, soils and
topography, vegetation, terrestrial and avian wildlife, and human health and safety.
The use of heavy machinery would result in elevated noise levels during site decommissioning,
potentially disturbing nearby humans and wildlife. The nearest home is approximately 370m from
the project site; therefore the slight increase in noise is not expected to cause a significant
disturbance to nearby residents. In order to prevent unnecessary disruption, if decommissioning is
required, this project phase will be completed during regular working hours. The movement of
machinery and other vehicles to and from the project site may also increase local traffic and
potentially cause short delays. The site is located in a rural setting with a low population density;
therefore traffic on adjacent roads is sparse (approximately 12 cars per hour). These impacts will be
short term and any delays in traffic will not likely be longer than 5-10 minutes. In order to
minimize disturbances to the surrounding environment, the decommissioning phase will be
completed as quickly as possible.
Soils and vegetation at the project site may also be impacted by decommissioning. The use of
heavy machinery and any excavation work may adversely affect soils by compaction, erosion or
mixing. Decommissioning activities may also result in the disruption of surrounding agricultural
lands, native vegetation or rare plant species. Most of the turbines (No’s 2, 3, 4, 6, 9 &10) are
located on previously disturbed agricultural land. There will be no risk to rare plants or native
vegetation at these sites. As previously mentioned, a data search was conducted through ACCDC to
determine the presence of any rare plant species in the project area. Data from ACCDC and
COSEWIC does not show the presence of any rare or endangered plant species within 5km of the
project site. However, within the project area there are some species that are considered rare
throughout their range in the province (details in Section 5.1.1). To confirm these results, a rare
plant survey will be conducted at the project site prior to construction.
51
In general, the impacts on agricultural lands and forested areas are not expected to be significant
due to the relatively small project footprint, approximately 25 hectares. In order to further minimize
impacts on soils and vegetation, decommissioning will not occur during periods of rain or wet soils.
In addition, the laydown areas will be returned to their original land use and the project site will be
re-vegetated or allowed to re-grow naturally after decommissioning is complete.
At the time of decommissioning, the utilization of the areas of the properties affected by the project
will be entirely at the discretion of the landowners. At the landowners’ request, roads on
agricultural ground may be stripped of shale and deep ploughed to lessen compaction. Roads
through forested areas will be left for natural re-seeding.
Decommissioning activities may also have an impact on human health and safety. The presence of
and use of heavy equipment at the project site may result in injury or death if accidents were to
occur. All employees will be equipped with appropriate personal protective equipment and all
OH&S policies will be followed. First Aid kits will also be available on site.
5.1.4 Malfunctions & Accidents
The wind turbines used in this project have been designed to comply with rigorous standards and
have been certified by Germanischer Lloyd, one of the world’s largest and most reputable
independent certification agencies. Turbines automatically remove themselves from service when
wind speeds exceed 25m/s and remain out of service until the wind speeds drop to 20 m/s. During
extreme winds the turbines remain out of service with their blades feathered into the wind. The
turbines are designed to withstand the most extreme weather event encountered over a fifty year
period. It is unlikely that highs winds will cause any problems with these turbines.
Icing events, particularly during the early spring, do have the potential to cause operational
problems and create safety hazards at a wind plant. The sensors mounted on the nacelle will be
equipped with heating elements to minimize the risk of malfunction during icing events. If
significant icing occurs, the V90 turbines will automatically shut down and the turbines will not be
re-started until the blades are free of ice. Nonetheless, these are large structures and enormous
52
amounts of ice can accumulate on the blades and towers. Technicians will need to ensure public
access is limited during icing events.
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 could be shed from
moving turbine components which would create a safety risk for people using the wind turbine site.
The presence and use of heavy equipment, operational activities, accidental events/spills of
hydrocarbon products, as well as load/equipment loss during the duration of the project could also
create a risk to human health. Construction workers or wind plant technicians could be injured or
killed if accidents occur. These risks will be mitigated by following all applicable safety guidelines,
ensuring workers are properly trained and using appropriate personal protective equipment.
To limit public access to the project site, the main access road into the wind plant will be gated at
the service building. However, farmers will have access to the portions of the site located on their
property. There are currently no plans to fence individual turbine sites. The turbines are equipped
with lockable hatches, have 50 mm wall thickness and all ladder accesses are internal. It is not
anticipated that further security will be required.
53
Table 5.3. Potential Project /Environment Interactions Matrix
Project Phases & Related Activities Hyd
rolo
gic
al
Res
ou
rces
So
ils
an
d T
op
og
rap
hy
Veg
eta
tio
n
Wil
dli
fe (
incl
ud
ing
Bir
ds
&
Fis
h a
nd
Aq
ua
tic
Lif
e &
En
da
ng
ered
Sp
eci
es)
Her
ita
ge
an
d A
rch
aeo
log
ica
l
Res
ou
rces
Hea
lth
/ S
afe
ty
Cli
ma
te
La
nd
Use
Vis
ua
l Im
pa
cts
No
ise
Lev
els
So
cio
-Eco
no
mic
Co
nd
itio
ns
Cu
mu
lati
ve E
ffec
ts
Construction
Site Grubbing P P P P P P E P P
Excavation P P P P P E P P
Access road construction P P P P P P E P P
Turbine Installation P E P P
Site Restoration P P P P P P
Operation and Maintenance
Operation of V90 Wind Turbines P P P/E P P P P
Regular Turbine Maintenance P E P
Decommissioning/Abandonment P P P P P E P P
Malfunctions/Accidents P P P P P E P P P
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.
Natural Resources Canada (NRCan). 2002. Technologies and Applications – Wind Energy.
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
Trust, Charlottetown, PE.
