wildlife and wind turbines in prince edward county · 2008. 10. 30. · wildlife and wind turbines...

Wildlife and Wind Turbines in Prince Edward County

Prepared for

The Alliance to Protect Prince Edward County

Draft

March 3, 2008

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.

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

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.

Table 1. Significant natural areas in southern Prince Edward County, as identified by NHIC.1

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

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

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

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).

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

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

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.

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).

• 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

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, pp. 22-4.

17


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...>

wildlife and wind turbines in prince edward county · 2008. 10. 30. · wildlife and wind turbines...

Documents