Wildlife and Wind Turbines in Prince Edward County
Prepared for
The Alliance to Protect Prince Edward County
Draft
March 3, 2008
Page 2
Executive Summary
Planning for wind turbines in Prince Edward County’s South Marysburg must take into account the
following facts:
• Environment Canada’s environmental assessment guidelines stress that proper siting of wind
turbines is the key to reducing bird collision fatalities and habitat disturbance.
• PEC’s south shore has been variously designated as a Provincial Wildlife Area, National Wildlife
Area, and Important Bird Area.
• Environment Canada assigns “very high sensitivity” (or risk) to wind turbines which would be
adjacent to National Wildlife Areas and Important Bird Areas and for areas through which birds
migrate, such as the PEC South Shore.
• Bird Studies Canada states that most of the specific risks associated with turbines require further
research in Canada and eastern North America. However, the number of bird fatalities rises in
proportion to the number of wind turbines.
Consequently, proposals for wind turbine installations near PEC’s south shore conflict with recognized
land usage and environmental standards. Predictions about avian risk, whether high or low, cannot be
made because of the inadequate research base. But one thing is clear: It is inadvisable to set up multiple
hazards in a high traffic area for birds.
Page 3
CONTENTS
Executive Summary ………………………………………………………………………………………2
1.0 Introduction……………………………………………………………………………………………4
2.0 Legal Status of PEC South Shore ……………………………………………………………………4
3.0 Species and Ecosystems affected by Wind Turbines ……………………………………….............7
3.1 Number and Variety of Birds in PEC South Shore7…………………..……………………7
3.2 Bird Species at Risk …………………………………………………………………………..8
3.3 Bat Species at Risk ……………………………………………………………………………9
3.4 Other Species at Risk …………………………………………………………………………...…9
4.0 Environmental Assessment of Avian Risks ………………………………………………………...10
5.0 Causes of Adverse Effects by Wind Turbines ……..………………………………………………11
5.1 Number of Turbines …………………………………………………………………………11
5.2 Tower Dimensions and Turbine Design …………………………………………...……….11
5.3 Wires ………………………………………………………………………………………….12
5.4 Limited Effects: Construction Disturbance ……………………………………………….12
5.5 Unknown Effects: Turbine Lighting, Blade Speed, and
Facility Configuration ………………………………………………………………………12
5.6 Meteorological Conditions and Physical Features of the Landscape ………………….....12
6.0 Limits of Knowledge …………………………………………………………………………...…....12
7.0 Environmental Laws ………………………………………………………………………………...12
8.0 Environmental Assessment Standards ………………………………………………………..……13
9.0 Conclusion ………………………………………………………………………………………...….14
10.0 References…...…………………………………………………………………………...………….15
Page 4
1.0 Introduction
Twice a year, March through May, and late August into November, Prince Edward County experiences
one of Nature’s wonders, the spring and fall bird migrations. Although birds migrate across Canada taking
different routes (flyways), those flying over the Great Lakes concentrate in unique geographic areas so as
to lessen the flight distance over open water. Prince Edward County serves the same purpose for Lake
Ontario as Point Pelee does on Lake Erie. Both provide staging and recovery areas on shore and in the
surroundings waters for birds as large as ducks and geese and as small as nuthatches and warblers. In
season, large numbers of birds may be found feeding and resting as they prepare for or recuperate from
their journey.
Industrial wind turbines and the associated infrastructure (power lines, access roads, construction, sub-
stations) would have extensive negative ecological impacts on Prince Edward County’s flora, wildlife and
migratory species, as well as their food sources, resting and breeding habitats and community corridors.
2.0 Legal Status of PEC South Shore
The Natural Heritage Information Centre (NHIC) has identified several natural heritage areas within
southern Prince Edward County (southward and eastward of Wellington). These include (Table 1): seven
provincially significant wetlands (e.g. Salmon Point and Soup Harbour), a National Wildlife Area, five
provincially significant Areas of Natural and Scientific Interest (ANSI’s), two regionally significant
ANSI’s ( McMahon Bluff Escarpment and Black Creek Valley Marsh and Forest).
In the County migrating birds congregate along the south shore between Points Petre and Prince Edward.
Municipal, provincial and federal governments have recognized the importance of the location through
special environmental designations and reserves. The PEC official plan zones the shoreline as
“Environmental Protection.” The Province of Ontario established the Point Petre Provincial Wildlife
Area, bounded by Hwy. 24 and Army Reserve and Duetta roads.
The Government of Canada purchased the southeast tip of Long Point peninsula and set up the Prince
Edward Point National Wildlife Area, managed by the Canadian Wildlife Service and protected under the
regulations of the Canada Wildlife Act of 1973. It is a concentration point for migrating songbirds and
birds of prey, as well as for diving waterfowl, loons, and grebes which gather in huge numbers off the
coast.
The National Wildlife Area is home to the Prince Edward Point Bird Observatory (PEPBO), a non-profit
organization which operates a banding station that collects vital scientific data on bird population densities,
longevity, and migratory routes. A member of the Canadian Migration Monitoring Network, the observatory
operates with a licensed bird bander assisted by local volunteers and university students gaining field and
research experience, some having come from Europe and South America. Each May, in cooperation with
local naturalist clubs, PEPBO hosts a birding festival that attracts birdwatchers from across North
America.
Most significantly, the 1998 designation of Important Bird Area (IBA) applies to all the land south of
Army Reserve, Hilltop, and Babylon Roads and all of Long Point; and the IBA extends into Lake Ontario
5 kilometers offshore from Soup Harbor round to South Bay (Figure 1). It comprises approximately 26 square kilometres of land (about 45 percent publicly owned) and 65 square kilometres of nearshore waters.
Page 5
Table 1. Significant natural areas in southern Prince Edward County, as identified by NHIC.1
Page 6 IBA’s are part of the Natural Legacy 2000 program, a nation-wide initiative to conserve wildlife and habitats
on private and public lands. The Vision statement for the Prince Edward County South Shore IBA is as follows.
To conserve, manage and enhance the values of Prince Edward County South Shore Important
Bird Area for all migratory and resident birds, contribute to bird habitat conservation, science,
stewardship and education, and maintain, and restore the wild and natural character of the area for
the citizens of Prince Edward County and beyond.2
According to the standards for IBA’s, PEC South Shore “has been designated as globally significant
under the congregatory species category and nationally significant under the threatened species
category.”3 The IBA species and landbird migrants are protected under the Migratory Bird Convention
Act of 1917; the birds of prey and turkey vulture are protected in Ontario under the Fish and Wildlife
Conservation Act of Ontario, and bald eagle and peregrine falcon are also protected under the Endangered
Species Act of Ontario.
Figure 1. Boundaries of Prince Edward Important Bird Area.
4
Page 7 3.0 Species and Ecosystems affected by Wind Turbines
The several proposed turbine sites include areas of:
1. species-at-risk
2. threatened species
3. rare plant species
4. rare and protected insects
5. rare reptiles
6. globally rare alvar habitat several marine archeology sites
3.1 Number and Variety of Birds in PEC South Shore. The total number and variety of birds inhabiting
or migrating through the IBA can only be estimated, but the data available is impressive:
In January 1996 and 1997, one-day peak numbers of Long-tailed Ducks totalled about 37,700,
almost 2 percent of the global population (Canadian IBA Database 1998). On 17 April 2000, there
were an estimated 150,000 Long-tailed Ducks in the waters of this IBA, 7.5 percent of the global
population (Bain and Shanahan 2000). About 5,000 White-winged Scoters occur regularly in
winter with recent one-day peak numbers of 12,800 in 1995 and 15,000 in 1996 (Canadian IBA
Database 1998). This latter number represents 1.5 percent of the global population. The Greater
Scaup overwinters regularly in numbers estimated at 10,000, 1.4 percent of the global population;
however, a one-day peak of 39,000 in January 1995 represents more than 5 percent of this
population (ibid.).
Other waterfowl regularly occurring during winter in large numbers include Common Goldeneye,
Common Merganser, and Red-breasted Merganser. As well, Common Loon and Horned Grebe
occur regularly in large numbers in the waters of this IBA during winter.
During the fall, large numbers of raptors move along the mainland shoreline of Lake Ontario.
Winds from the west or northwest push these raptors into Prince Edward County, southward into
the IBA, and eastward to Prince Edward Point (Sprague 1987). The western end of the IBA, Point
Petre, is also a concentration point as some raptor species and Turkey Vultures hesitate and shift
flight directions to avoid the open waters of Lake Ontario. As many as 2,000 hawks per day have
been regularly recorded in the skies over Prince Edward County South Shore IBA, including large
numbers of Sharp-shinned Hawks, Red-shouldered Hawks, and Red-tailed Hawks (Canadian IBA
Database 1998). A total of 17 species of raptors have been observed, including Bald Eagle and
Peregrine Falcon. Vagrants include Swainson’s Hawk and Ferruginous Hawk. Daily maximum
estimates for selected species during fall migration are described in Sprague and Weir (1984) and
the Canadian IBA Database (1998): Red-tailed Hawk, 1,000; Broad-winged Hawk, 1,000; Turkey
Vulture, 350; Sharp-shinned Hawk, 510; Red-shouldered Hawk, 100.
Prince Edward Point National Wildlife Area is unequalled in North America for the numbers of
Northern Saw-whet Owl migrating during fall (Levesque 1985). Between 1975-81, for example,
2700 Northern Saw-whet Owl were banded (Harris 2000).
A total of 162 species (excluding raptors) have been recorded, including 36 species of warblers, 20
species of sparrows and 12 species of flycatchers (Canadian IBA Database 1998). Hooded
Warbler, a Threatened species in Canada, and Yellow-breasted Chat, a warbler of Special Concern
Page 8
nationally and Vulnerable provincially, are observed annually on migration. Daily censuses
conducted during the migration period have recorded peak numbers of 200 to 500 individuals of
common migrants in Ontario including Tree Swallow, Blue Jay, Black-capped Chickadee,
Golden-crowned Kinglet, Ruby-crowned Kinglet, Yellow-rumped Warbler, White-throated
Sparrow and Dark-eyed Junco. Migration events, here as elsewhere, are often weather dependent.
When conditions cause particularly large fallouts of migrants, numbers in excess of 2,000 birds
can occur. Numbers of Tree Swallow, Yellow-rumped Warbler and White-throated Sparrow may
be as high as 10,000; 70,000 Dark-eyed Juncos have been recorded (ibid.).5
These are phenomenal numbers for a relatively small area, 30 kilometers of shoreline separating the two
points. Indeed, a well-known local naturalist, Terry Sprague, sums up PEC South Shore’s importance:
“With 336 species of birds recorded in Prince Edward County and 92 percent of those observed within the
IBA, this site has the highest concentration and abundance of any site on the Canadian side of Lake
Ontario (Sprague 2000a).”6
3.2 Bird Species at Risk. In 2002 NHIC, along with the Committee on the Status of Endangered
Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC) and the Committee on the Status of Species-at-Risk in Ontario
(COSSARO), identified nineteen species-at-risk in southern Prince Edward County. PEC South Shore
also offers potential for their recovery.
Table 2. Bird Species identified by the NHIC as species-at-risk7
Page 9
3.3 Bat Species at Risk. Bats play a crucial role in the ecosystem. They eat their body weight in insects
daily: insects that threaten crops and those that spread disease, such as mosquitoes. Bats are not
endangered, but they reproduce very slowly. Bats identified so far in Prince Edward County are Little
Brown Bats, Big Brown Bats and Red Bats.
High bat fatality rates at wind turbine sites have been documented worldwide. One turbine facility in
Alberta alone kills close to 500 bats per year (Lapka 2005).8 Understanding the reason for collision
mortality at turbines is far less understood for bats than birds since bats, unlike birds, have no broad-based
legal protection. However, the potential for devastating cumulative impacts is clear (Bat Conservation
International 2004). “Take the most conservative estimates of mortality and multiply them out by the
number of turbines planned and you get very large, probably unsustainable kill rates”. (Tuttle 2005).
Over 90 percent of bat mortalities currently recorded at wind energy developments involve migratory
species, especially during the fall (Johnson et al).9 Also, more bats seem to die before and after storms and
on warmer nights when wind speeds are lower (Blum 2005).10
3.4 Other Species at Risk. The southern shoreline from Pt. Petre to Prince Edward Pt. within the IBA is a
vast plain of limestone bedrock (Ross 1999). The limestone plateau is covered with a shallow layer of
loam topsoil or exposed bedrock creating globally RARE alvar-like conditions (ibid.). These surfaces
have distinctive flowering plants, mosses, lichens and animal life as well as their own suite of birds (Reid
1996). RARE plants such as Ontario Aster, Downy Woodmint and Clammyweed, requiring largely
undisturbed sites, thrive within the IBA (Sprague, pers. comm).
Southern Prince Edward County is on the migration route of certain groups of migratory insects. The most
significant butterfly of the area is the Juniper Hairstreak, a VERY RARE species in Ontario. In 1995
Prince Edward Point was declared an International Monarch Butterfly Reserve because of the large
numbers of PROVINCIALLY PROTECTED Monarchs migrating through the area.
Rare reptiles and amphibians are found within the IBA, including the Blandings Turtle, which is
considered RARE in Ontario. The forest habitat of the Point Petre area is known to host two species of
RARE terrestrial snail: Vallonia parvula and Triodopsis tridentate.
Besides bats, many other mammals have been observed within the IBA (Table 3).
Page 10
Table 3. Mammals recorded in Prince Edward County11
4.0 Environmental Assessment of Avian Risks
Mortality has generally been the main focus of avian research at wind turbine installations, but just as
important is the disturbance these machines cause to birds, bats and other wildlife breeding, staging or
over-wintering in the area. This disturbance could be in the form of habitat loss (as a result of tower and
road construction), obstruction of regular flight paths, or human activity around breeding sites. Although
waterfowl and shorebirds may show avoidance behavior to turbines, significant numbers have been
known to collide with associated power lines causing fatal injuries due to both electrocution and collision.
Raptors are especially affected.
In 2007 Bird Studies Canada (BSC) updated a 2005 review, prepared for Environment Canada and the
Canadian Wildlife Service, of worldwide research on wind turbines and bird populations. The report
outlines the complexity of predicting the effects of wind farms because of differences in turbine design
and layout and in local topography and flight patterns. Many studies record low numbers of collision
fatalities except for raptors in California, where contributing factors may be unusually high raptor
densities, topography, and possibly older turbine technology. In North America, songbirds are most at risk
from factors such as topography, turbine lighting, turbine height, the presence of guy wires, weather, and
numbers of birds moving through an area on migration. BSC stresses: “Appropriate site selection appears
to be the key factor in preventing negative impacts on birds.”12
BSC’s report acknowledges: “critics contend that mortality has been underestimated due to the inherent
difficulties in locating carcasses, especially those of small birds, in the vicinity of turbines. In addition,
even a relatively small number of deaths per turbine can have significant population impacts if the number
of turbines at a wind energy installation is large.”13
Moreover, as “The number of wind energy facilities,
and the overall number of turbines, is expected to rise sharply in the next few years, . . . the potential
for cumulative effects on birds increases.”14
Page 11
Among the areas for further research, BSC asks these questions relevant to County wind farms:
1. What is the ‘height threshold’ of towers or turbines that cause mass collision events? How does
this threshold relate to other factors such as lighting, weather and siting?
2. Are there specific, identifiable migration pathways in Canada that should be avoided when
siting wind energy installations?15
The greatest adverse effect that wind energy facilities may have on birds is disturbance to breeding and
wintering birds, although this has received little attention. Disturbance is an especially important concern
in offshore areas that are important feeding areas or movement corridors.
5.0 Causes of Adverse Effects by Wind Turbines
BSC’s report indicates the difficulty of precisely determining effects because of differences in the design,
construction, size and siting of wind turbine installations.
5.1 Number of Turbines. The effect of turbines must be related to their number within a site and
cumulatively within an area, but in general, more turbines, more fatalities:
The scale of the facility can impact the amount of bird mortality and disturbance. Simply put,
under comparable conditions, a large facility has the potential to affect more birds than a small
one. . . . more dead birds will be found at a site as the number of turbines (or number sampled)
increases. . . . A small properly sited wind energy installation is not likely to kill a large
number of birds. If one takes the estimated average number of birds killed per turbine per year in
the United States, as reported by the National Wind Coordinating Committee (NWCC 2004), a
ten-turbine facility may be expected to kill approximately 23 birds per year if the average is
extrapolated. . . . Considered in isolation, it is unlikely that small numbers of fatalities per year
at a wind energy installation each year would be considered significant, unless some of those
fatalities were of species at risk. However, a larger facility with more than 100 turbines may kill
many more birds, approaching or exceeding levels that could affect the broader population
(especially when vulnerable species are impacted). The number and siting opportunities of
existing and future wind energy installations in an area is a factor that will affect the overall risk to
birds. It would, for example, be better to have one very large wind energy installation in one well-
sited location instead of many small poorly-sited installations. As such, it is important to consider
both the average effect of each turbine and the cumulative effect of the total number of turbines in
the area. The total should include existing and proposed turbines associated with other projects
within the same area.
As the size of the facility increases, the potential for adverse effects other than fatalities also
increases. Larger facilities may cause more bird habitat to be lost or disturbed, and foraging and
breeding birds may more readily avoid the area.16
5.2 Tower Dimensions and Turbine Design. According to BSC’s study, the height of turbine towers is
critical because “objects less than 150m in height appear to pose less of a threat to nocturnal migrants (see
Section 3.6), but taller objects can cause mass bird kills, as found at communication towers and
skyscrapers.”17
Page 12
5.3 Wires. However, BSC states it is well known that “Even if the wiring required for wind turbines is
minimal, an increase in the number of power lines will cause higher mortality. . . . Several groups of
birds appear to be the most susceptible to collision with wires, most notably waterfowl, shorebirds and
raptors. . . . Powerline strikes are the cause of up to 64% of collision fatalities for certain waterfowl
species . . . .”18
Since wind farms usually require construction of more power lines to relay electrical
production, these may be a greater cause of bird mortality than the turbines.
5.4 Limited Effects: Construction Disturbance. BSC states that disturbance due to construction on
land, though high, is temporary and therefore less significant than offshore construction, which may upset
local birds and disturb prey fish populations when pilings are being drilled/driven and if hazardous materials
such as oil are spilled.19
5.5 Unknown Effects: Turbine Lighting, Blade Speed, and Facility Configuration. BSC reports that
there is little information about lighting as a cause of collision fatalities. Blade speed, causing motion
smear (the degradation of visibility of rapidly moving objects), is also an uncertain factor. Nor has any
research examined how overall wind energy installation configuration may affect birds.20
5.6 Meteorological Conditions and Physical Features of the Landscape. According to BSC, “Even in
poor weather conditions, however, it is worth noting that there have been very few multiple-bird kills
reported at wind energy sites.” Prince Edward County’s landform, however, may have the most
significance in determining risk because “diurnal migrants tend to follow shorelines of lakes, rivers,
ridges and other linear features. During the day, peninsulas and islands can host concentrations of
nocturnal migrants that had been migrating over large bodies of water.”21
6.0 Limits of Knowledge
As the BSC report make clear, many questions about the interaction of birds and wind turbines have yet to
be answered in Canada and eastern North America with respect to flight patterns, weather conditions,
turbine lighting and nocturnal migrants, and turbine height. For offshore installations, further
uncertainties involve turbine layout and spacing, buffer distance from migration pathways, turbine size,
and even collision rates. But this is the key question: “Are there specific, identifiable migration pathways
in Canada that should be avoided when siting wind energy installations?”22
It would be unfortunate if the
answer reveals the misplacement of turbines in Prince Edward County. There are no comparable studies
of avian mortality that have been done on wind turbine facilities in bird migration pathways, as they are
generally not located in these areas.
7.0 Environmental Laws
The installation of wind turbines in southern PEC may violate Canada’s and Ontario’s responsibilities
under numerous international treaties and provincial laws.
In 1992 Canada signed the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity at the Rio Earth Summit,
but it took until 2002 for Canada to pass Bill C-5, the Species-at-Risk-Act (SARA).Legally protecting
biodiversity through the protection of Canada’s species-at-risk and their critical habitat is Canada’s
obligation under this Act. This legislation prohibits the killing, harming, harassment or capturing of any
species in Canada officially listed as threatened, endangered or extinct. The Accord for the Protection of
Species-at-Risk implies the partnership of federal, provincial and territorial governments.
Page 13
The regulations of the international Migratory Birds Convention Act (1994) protect migratory birds, their
eggs and nests. This is the most important legal protection of birds in Canada and the United States.
Under this Act, the federal government can designate an area of importance to migratory birds as a
Migratory Bird Refuge to limit hunting and physical disturbance. The Act calls for cooperative and
responsible stewardship to ensure that “cumulative incidental effects on migratory birds from all activities
can be managed to avoid significant impacts and maintain sustainable populations.”
Ontario’s Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR), in reviewing wind farm applications, also must take into
account several pieces of legislation. Specifically, the Public Lands Act, which regulates the
management, sale and disposition of Crown land, requires MNR to ensure that significant environmental
concerns have been addressed before approving a disposition. The Fish and Wildlife Act includes
specific provisions for the protection of nests and eggs of all bird species not covered by the Migratory
Birds Convention Act. Under the Lakes and Rivers Improvements Act, wind developments in lakes and
rivers must provide for the management, perpetuation and use of the fish, wildlife, and other natural
resources dependent on the lake or river. Finally, the Endangered Species Act makes it illegal to willfully
attempt to kill, injure, interfere with, or take any species of flora or fauna threatened with extinction under
ESA regulations.
8.0 Environmental Assessment Standards
In light of the knowledge gap and the irreversible results of misjudgment, Environment Canada is
cautious in determining the risk of wind farms, but its 2007 environmental assessment guidelines place
PEC’s south shore in the HIGH and VERY HIGH Sensitivity classifications for risk (Table 4).
Table 4. Site sensitivity23
Potential Sensitivity Determining factor
Very high • The presence of a bird species listed as “at risk” by the SARA,
COSEWIC or provincial/territorial threat ranking, or the presence of the
residence(s) of individuals of that species if listed under the SARA, or of its
critical habitat. To be of concern, either the bird or its residence or critical
habitat must be considered to be potentially affected by the project.
• Site contains, or is adjacent to, a large or important bird colony, such as
herons, gulls, terns and seabirds.
• Site contains significant staging or wintering area for waterfowl or
shorebirds, or significant areas of bird concentrations.
• Site is in, or is adjacent to, an area recognised as nationally important for
birds (e.g., by being located in or adjacent to a National Wildlife Area, Migratory Bird Sanctuary, Important Bird Area,
National Park, Western Hemisphere Shorebird Reserve Network (WHSRN)
site, or similar area specifically designated to protect birds).
Page 14
• Site contains large concentrations of raptors.
• Site is on a known migration corridor.
High • Site contains one or more landform factors that concentrate birds (e.g.,
islands, shoreline, ridge, peninsula or other landform that may funnel bird
movement) or significantly increase the relative height of the turbines.
• Site is located between habitats where large local bird movements occur,
or is close to significant migration staging or wintering area for waterfowl
or shorebirds.
• Site contains, or is adjacent to, a small colony of colonial birds, such as
herons, gulls, terns, or seabirds.
• Site is subject to increased bird activity from the presence of a large
heron, gull, tern or seabird colony located in the vicinity of the site.
• Site is subject to increased bird activity from the presence of an area
recognised as nationally important for birds (e.g., a National Wildlife Area,
Migratory Bird Sanctuary, Important Bird Area, National Park, or similar
area protected provincially or territorially because of its importance to
birds).
• Site contains species of high conservation concern (e.g., birds known to
have aerial flight displays, PIF/CWS priority species, etc.).
For projects of Very High Sensitivity, Environment Canada’s guidelines are clear: “. . . proponents
whose projects fall into this category may be encouraged or even required to seek alternative locations if
significant adverse effects on birds are anticipated.”24
In a report prepared for the Union of Nova Scotia Municipalities, consulting firm Jacques Whitford
describes two proposed Texas wind farm projects, which “violate the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s
Interim Guidance for siting wind energy facilities” by their siting in “one of the most significant
migratory bird corridors which connects Canada and the United States to Mexico and South America.”25
The projects have been disallowed.
How, then, can any wind turbine installation meet environmental guidelines and pass an environmental
assessment if it is located on or near Prince Edward County’s south shore?
9.0 Conclusion
Industrial wind turbine installations, as well as the associated power lines, access roads, construction, sub-
stations, are inappropriate for PEC’s south shore because they conflict with a protected area for birds and
they have the potential for high collision fatalities and habitat disturbance. They may also have a negative
Page 15
ecological impact on bats, protected butterflies, and flora. Environment Canada’s “Guidance Document
for Environmental Assessment” recognizes the incompatibility of wind turbines with designated natural
areas. It is illogical to set aside nature preserves and establish environmental standards, and then to
discount their significance. Wind farm development should not be determined simply by favorable wind
conditions. It must be restricted or prohibited when other land usages have already been given priority
and when environmental risks are either high or incalculable.
10.0 References
1 Jacques Whitford, “Proposed Wind Turbine Site, Royal Road Site, Prince Edward County.” Final Report
for Vision Quest Windelectric Inc.. July 15, 2002. p. 10.
2 Prince Edward County South Shore Important Bird Area Conservation Plan (PEC SS IBA CP) by
William G. Wilson and Edward D. Cheskey. July 2001. p. 4. http://www.ibacanada.com/pdf/princeedwardsouthshore.pdf 3 PEC SS IBA CP, p. 4.
4 PEC SS IBA CP, p. 6.
5 PEC SS IBA CP, pp. 8- 9.
6 PEC SS IBA CP, p. 24.
7 Jacques Whitford, “Proposed Wind Turbine Site, Royal Road Site, Prince Edward County,” p. 17.
8 Stephanie Lapka, “Bat Mortality by Wind Turbine Collisions: A Literature Review of North American
Research.” University of Calgary, 2005.
9 Johnson, G.D., Perlik, Erickson & Strickland. 2004. “Bat activity, composition and collision mortality at
a large windplant in Minnesota.” Wildlife Society Bulletin 32:1278-1288.
10
Blum, J. 2005. Researchers Alarmed by Bat Deaths from Wind Turbines. 11
Jacques Whitford, “Proposed Wind Turbine Site, Royal Road Site, Prince Edward County,” p. 21. 12
Bird Studies Canada. Andrea Kingsley and Becky Whittam. “Wind Turbines and Birds: A Background
Review for Environmental Assessment.” Draft report for Environment Canada/Canadian Wildlife Service.
April 2, 2007. p. 3. www.nationalwind.org/workgroups/wildlife/canada/Wind_Turbines_and_Birds_Background_Review_2007.pdf 13
Bird Studies Canada, p. 3. 14
Bird Studies Canada, p. 4. 15
Bird Studies Canada, p. 4. 16
Bird Studies Canada, pp. 22-4.
Page 16
17
Bird Studies Canada, p. 24. 18
Bird Studies Canada, p. 29.
19
Bird Studies Canada, p. 30.
20
Bird Studies Canada, pp. 27-29. 21
Bird Studies Canada, pp.31-32.
22
Bird Studies Canada, pp. 32-34.
23
Environment Canada/ Canadian Wildlife Service. “Wind Turbines and Birds: A Guidance Document
for Environmental Assessment.” FINAL. February 2007. pp. 21-22.
http://www.cws-scf.ec.gc.ca/publications/eval/index_e.cfm
24
Environment Canada/ Canadian Wildlife Service, pp. 25-26
. 25
Jacques Whitford. “Model Wind Turbine By-laws and Best Practices for Nova Scotia Municipalities.”
Final Report for Union of Nova Scotia Municipalities. January 28, 2008. p. 13. <http://www.unsm.ca/pdf/UNSM%20Wind%20By-Laws%20Best%20Practices%20January%202...>