Report - Biophysical and Socioeconomic Impact Assessment For Wasaga Beach Wind Park

Faculty of Environmental Studies
Wasaga Beach Wind Park

Biophysical & Socioeconomic Impact Assessment
Prepared for:
Greg Michalenko
Prepared by:
Kai Boodram Mathieu Cain Lyn Garrah Sarah Holzman Ashley LeMaistre
ID# 20146028 ID# 20069465 ID# 20103799 ID# 20105681 ID# 20094882
This report has not received previous academic accreditation and does not represent the views of the University of Waterloo or any other institution mentioned herein. November 23, 2005
Wasaga Beach Wind Park Biophysical & Socioeconomic Impact Assessment
Table of Contents
Executive Summary ......................................................................................................... iii Acknowledgements .......................................................................................................... iv 1.0 Introduction ........................................................................................................... 5 1.1 Proposed Wind Park Design .......................................................................... 6 2.0 Methods .................................................................................................................. 7 2.1 Literature Review........................................................................................... 8 2.2 Case Studies ................................................................................................... 8 2.3 Interviews ....................................................................................................... 8 3.0 Limitations and Boundaries ................................................................................. 9 3.1 Research Limitations ..................................................................................... 9 3.2 Scope .............................................................................................................. 9 4.0 Wasaga Beach...................................................................................................... 10 4.1 Wasaga Beach Provincial Park .................................................................... 11 4.2 Stakeholders ................................................................................................. 11 5.0 Wind Farm Site Selection and Specifications................................................... 12 5.1 Incentives ..................................................................................................... 14 6.0 Valued Ecosystem Components ......................................................................... 15 7.0 Alternative Sites .................................................................................................. 16 7.1 Alternative Site 1 ......................................................................................... 18 7.2 Alternative Site 2 ......................................................................................... 19 7.3 Alternative Site 3 ......................................................................................... 20 7.4 No Wind Park .............................................................................................. 21 8.0 Case Studies ......................................................................................................... 21 8.1 Erie Shores Wind Farm ................................................................................ 22 8.2 Ferndale Wind Park ..................................................................................... 23 8.3 Pickering Wind Generating Station ............................................................. 23 9.0 Socioeconomic Impacts and Concerns .............................................................. 24 10.0 Addressing Socioeconomic Concerns and Impacts.......................................... 28 11.0 Biophysical Impacts ............................................................................................ 30 12.0 Criteria for Site Selection ................................................................................... 34 13.0 Preferred Alternative.......................................................................................... 38 14.0 Recommendations and Conclusion ................................................................... 38 15.0 Bibliography ........................................................................................................ 40 Interviews: ....................................................................................................................... 42
ERS 339
Boodram, Cain, Garrah, Holzman, Lemaistre
Table of Contents
Appendices
A B C D Construction Procedures Selection of Turbine Companies RETScreen Analysis Maps
Tables
Table 1: Valued Ecosystem Components ........................................................................ 16 Table 2: Socioeconomic impacts associated with wind farms......................................... 25 Table 3: Socioeconomic impacts of a wind farm at Alternative Site 1 ........................... 26 Table 4: Socioeconomic impacts of a wind farm at Alternative Site 2 ........................... 27 Table 5: Socioeconomic impacts of a wind park at Alternative Site 3 ............................ 28 Table 6: Techniques and times for public involvement ................................................... 29 Table 7: Ecological Land Classification .......................................................................... 30 Table 8: Biota found at Wasaga Beach ............................................................................ 32 Table 9: Sample of Birds Using Parts of Flyways ........................................................... 33 Table 10: Alternatives Cost-Benefit Analysis Matrix ..................................................... 35 Table 11: Explanation of Ratings Given in Cost-Benefit Matrix .................................... 36 Table 12: Weighted Cost-Benefit Analysis ..................................................................... 38
Figures
Figure 1: Approximate Turbine Spacing ......................................................................... 13 Figure 2: Linear turbine arrangement .............................................................................. 17 Figure 3: Triangular turbine arrangement ........................................................................ 17 Figure 4: Alternative site locations .................................................................................. 18 Figure 5: Alternative site location 1................................................................................. 19 Figure 6: Alternative site location 2................................................................................. 20 Figure 7: Alternative site location 3................................................................................. 21 Figure 8: Piping Plover .................................................................................................... 31 Figure 9: Eastern Hog-Nosed Snake ................................................................................ 31 Figure 10: North American Migration Flyways (Nutty Birdwatcher, 2002) ................... 33
ERS 339
ii
Table of Contents
Executive Summary
The Town of Wasaga Beach has the potential to be home to an industrial sized wind farm, since it has a good wind resource and is looking for new business development. The wind park would consist of three 80 metre wind turbines and generate a total of six megawatts of electricity. Three different sites were identified and examined for their potential to host the proposed wind farm at Wasaga Beach. The three sites are found in Wasaga Beach Provincial Park, in a commercial district of the Town of Wasaga Beach, and in a residential area in the Town. The socioeconomic and biophysical impacts of wind farms are examined with respect to the three sites, and a preferred site for the development of a wind farm was found to be at the location in Wasaga Beach Provincial Park.
ERS 339
iii
Executive Summary
Acknowledgements
The development of this document, Wassaga Beach Wind Park: Biophysical and Socioeconomic Impact Assessment, has been a joint undertaking of the following people: Kai Boodram, Mathieu Cain, Lyn Garrah, Sarah Holzman and Ashley LeMaistre. The document was prepared under the direction of Nabeela Rahman, the Teaching Assistant for this course.
We would like to take this opportunity to thank a number of key people for their advice, information, and direction throughout the course of this project. A special thanks goes to Greg Michalenko for his instruction in the course and for providing the key concepts of the Scoping and Environmental Impacts Assessment process. Many of the evaluation methods and analyses used in this report were covered in lecture.
Among the people who contributed their time providing background information and data for this report are Eva Dodsworth, Library Assistant for the University of Waterloos Map Library, David Featherstone, biologist and Manager for the Watershed Monitoring Program at the Nottawasaga Valley Conservation Authority, Mark Shoreman, superintendent at Wasaga Beach Provincial Park, Paul Trace, engineer and Manager of Planning & Technical Services at Wasaga Beach Disribution Inc., and Sandra Mooibroek, from Community Renwable Energy Waterloo.
We also wish acknowledge the Town of Wasaga Beach, the Ontario Ministry of National Resources, the University of Waterloos S.T.E.P., and the Canadian Wildlife Service for answering numerous questions throughout the data collection phase.
Without the contributions of the aforementioned people this report could not have been prepared. Thank you.
ERS 339
iv
Executive Summary
1.0 Introduction
Modern society depends largely on fossil fuels and other large-scale, nonrenewable sources of energy. As human societies have expanded, the demand for energy resources has increased, stressing the finite nature of fossil fuels. The burning of fossil fuels for electricity also contributes to air pollution and global climate change. Humanity now needs to utilize renewable energy sources to protect the environment and to meet the demands of society. Although the concept of using wind energy has been in existence for centuries, current technologies have further developed clean, cost effective, and sustainable wind turbines (Natural Resources Canada, 2002). Currently, Ontario is only producing fifteen megawatts (MW) of wind energy, lagging behind most other provinces (Canadian Wind Energy Association, 2005). There are countless benefits to the construction of a wind farm. The Canadian Wind Energy Association (2005) gives the following examples:
Wind energy does not produce any air pollution. Wind energy is completely renewable, highly reliable and very efficient. Wind energy is one of the most economical sources of renewable large-scale electricity generation. Wind energy has few environmental impacts compared with traditional sources of energy. Wind energy reduces our contribution to global climate change (Canadian Wind Energy Association, 2005).
ERS 339
Boodram, Cain, Garrah, Holzman, LeMaistre
The proposed area for a newly constructed wind farm is to be located on Wasaga Beach in Ontario, Canada. An environmental assessment must be completed to identify and prevent or mitigate environmental and socioeconomic damages of the project (Gibson, 2001). By conducting a thorough environmental impact assessment, it is possible to ensure public satisfaction, identify alternatives to the development, and make informed decisions. This allows for sustainable development and transparency between all parties involved, including the proponents, key stakeholders, and the community (Gibson, 2001).
1.1 Proposed Wind Park Design

The proposed wind park development will consist of three wind turbines. Three turbines were chosen because they produce enough energy to be significant yet are still small enough to serve as a test case so that the project can be expanded if the first three turbines are successful. They will produce two megawatts of electricity per turbine, totalling six megawatts for the wind farm. Based on the energy curve data in the RETScreen analysis (see Appendix C) and a predicted average wind speed of 6.5 m/s from the wind resource atlas, an estimated 15,300 MWh/yr of energy will be produced by the wind park. However, out of the 8,760 hours in a year, wind turbines are more likely to operate an average of 6,000 hours (Gipe and Murphy, 2005). Using this estimate, a more accurate energy production figure might be roughly 10,500 MWh/yr. Wasaga Beach is home to 9,700 houses and 750 commercial units (Wasaga Beach Distribution, Inc., 2004). Each commercial unit spends on average 38,400 kWh/yr,
ERS 339
whereas each household spends an average of 7,500 kWh/yr, giving a rough estimate of over 100,000 MWh/yr for the Town of Wasaga Beach. From these figures, the wind park would produce a tenth of the power requirements for the town, or a third of the power for commercial use. The initial three turbines will be owned and operated by the proponent, Wasaga Beach Wind Park Inc., until the wind farm generates revenue equivalent to the proponents investment in the project, when ownership will be transferred to the Town of Wasaga Beach. This allows the Town to play an active role in the development of the project, while also providing direct economic benefits to Wasaga Beach in the long term. The RetScreen analysis showed that the project would have an initial start up cost of approximately $15 million, with a pay back period greater than 25 years. There is a possibility of adding more turbines after the original three are installed and monitored for biophysical, economic and social impacts, and the acceptance of support of the local community is secured. The energy produced by the wind park will be put directly into the electricity grid for simplicity.
2.0 Methods
This study was based on a qualitative approach and used triangulation, which is a way of using different sources to collect and gather information (Booth, Colomb and Williams, 2003). The three methods used to research the project were a literature review, informal interviews, and case studies.
ERS 339
To facilitate group coordination, create interaction, as well as data and information accessibility, a webboard was created at: http://ca.groups.yahoo.com/group/wasagabeachwindpowerassessment/
2.1 Literature Review

In order to gain more knowledge about the importance of wind energy in Canada and worldwide, a number of different sources were consulted. Literature sources include technical documents that provided information to make decisions about the design specifics, government documentation, which provided information on strategies and initiatives, and Internet sources which proved useful for background information about the alternative sites and their surroundings.
2.2 Case Studies

Case studies were used to gain insight into the logistics of other wind farms. Details involved various resident concerns for wind farm development, such as social concerns regarding wind energy, and the potential for community involvement in the decision process. This aided in designing the social study section of the impact assessment, and in identifying potential impacts and Valued Ecosystem Components.
2.3 Interviews
Interviews were conducted informally by e-mail throughout the research process to gain specific information that was unavailable through the literature review. Key
ERS 339
informants from the Town of Wasaga Beach, Wasaga Beach Provincial Park, and wind energy experts were contacted to obtain quantitative and qualitative data.
3.0 Limitations and Boundaries

3.1 Research Limitations
The three proposed sites for wind parks in the town of Wasaga Beach were researched using the methods described in Section 2.0. However, much of the specific information on the three alternative sites was unavailable as there has not been a study conducted with the intention of actually constructing a wind park on these chosen sites. Another limitation of the project was identifying the cost of the development. Exact information on bird and vegetation species or soil structures at the alternative sites was unavailable. Further, because the project is hypothetical, no local residents views were involved in the development of the report. The socioeconomic information and public acceptance of the project are based on the available literature and case studies.
3.2 Scope
This research paper has been scoped to make the project a manageable size. The decommissioning and construction specifics for wind farms were not part of the project. Due to the limitations of the project, this report addresses the proposed development from both socioeconomic and biophysical aspects but does not go into deep detail for either because the information was not available. Legislative policies and zoning permits were
ERS 339
considered outside the scope of the report. The specific needs for the construction phase of the project also falls outside the scope of the report, as the focus is on assessing the potential for a wind park at Wasaga Beach.
4.0 Wasaga Beach

The Town of Wasaga Beach is a large four-season tourist destination situated in Nottawasaga Bay of Georgian Bay, on the shore of the Nottawasaga River. The Town of Wasaga Beach covers an area of 61.13 km2 and has a population of 12,500 (Town of Wasaga Beach, 2005). However, Wasaga Beach was reported by Statistics Canada in the 1996 Census as the fastest growing community in southwestern and central Ontario and the 11th fastest growing community in Canada (Town of Wasaga Beach, 2005). Over two million people visit the Town every summer, which boasts activities for all types, including outdoor recreation, shopping, and sight-seeing. Much of the area is known for the recreational activities: trails for hiking, cycling, cross-country skiing and snowmobiling. The Nottawasaga River offers game fishing and great canoe routes to explore. The Town of Wasaga Beach is currently seeking more economic development to boost the economy and encourage more full-time residents to live in the Town, and decrease the number of fluctuating seasonal residents (Gregg, 2005). One of the main contributors to the Towns economic portfolio is tourism, which is why a wind park would be well-suited for Wasaga Beach. The wind park brings business development to the area and creates another tourist attraction.
ERS 339
10
4.1 Wasaga Beach Provincial Park

Wasaga Beach Provincial Park includes a strip of shoreline and a dune ecosystem that is home to approximately 700 different types of plants, of which four are rare in Canada. The beach section of the park is divided into eight Beach Areas that stretch along 14 kilometres of the Georgian Bay shoreline (Town of Wasaga Beach, 2005). The park is 1844 hectares and operates year round (Ontario Parks, 2005). It offers many activities such as hiking, boating, fishing, swimming, canoeing, wildlife viewing, education opportunities, biking, winter activities. They also have a number of facilities such as a day use area, visitor centre, barrier free access, washrooms, rentals, a park store, and finally a boat launch (Ontario Parks, 2005).
4.2 Stakeholders
The development of a wind farm at Wasaga Beach involves many people, agencies and organizations. The Ministry of Natural Resources will be involved at three levels: through head office for project approvals, with Wasaga Beach Provincial Park staff, and with Ontario Parks. Local and seasonal residents of Wasaga Beach will be involved in the project development, as will local business owners. The Wasaga Beach Town Council is a stakeholder as well, and all interested community groups such as Friends of Wasaga Beach Provincial Park, Nottawasaga Valley Conservation Authority and the Georgian Triangle Tourist Association, as well as interested non-governmental organizations will be invited and encouraged to participate in the development of the wind park.
ERS 339
11
5.0 Wind Farm Site Selection and Specifications

While many of the earliest wind farms in Canada comprised large arrays of small turbines with similarly low electrical outputs (Canadian Hydro Developers Inc., 2005), this project uses a different approach. The most adequate way to minimize the turbines ecological footprint is to reduce the number of turbines, while maintaining an adequate level of power production. For this purpose, large industrial sized turbines were selected with voltages ranging in the megawatts. Since wind is the driving force of the turbines, its quantity and location were important factors in determining both the type of turbine and its placement. An online wind resource atlas showed acceptable wind speeds at heights of 80 metres or higher along the shoreline and out into Nottawasaga Bay (Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, 2005). These findings reaffirmed the decision to install industrial sized turbines, since they will be over 70 metres high and make best use of the wind resource. A medium sized turbine requires approximately 1.8 hectares of land around it (Pimentel et al, 1994). Turbines should be spaced three to five rotor diameters apart, perpendicular to prevailing winds, and 5 to 9 rotor diameters apart, in the direction of the prevailing winds (see Figure 1). Canada manufactures mainly small, household-level wind turbines (Canadian Wind Energy Association, 2005). Though numerous Canadian distributors would be willing to work between manufacturing industries and Wasaga Beach Wind Park Inc., dealing directly with the turbine manufacturer would be more beneficial for the Wasaga
ERS 339
12
Beach Wind Park both in terms of cost and expertise. For this reason, a large wind turbine manufacturer with a distribution branch in Ontario was chosen to provide for the wind farm. A selection of companies has been included in Appendix B, based on a minimum 80 metres hub height.
Figure 1: Approximate Turbine Spacing
The V90-2.0 MW turbine, provided by the Danish company Vestas, was selected. Though its next best alternative, Siemens AN BONUS 2.3 MW had a larger power rating, the Vestas model was chosen due to its larger rotor diameter; the larger the sweep area, the more constant the supply of electricity. Furthermore, because Wasaga Beach is located on the lake shoreline, the option exists for the installation of offshore turbines at a later date and Vestas produces an offshore model, whereas Siemens does not. Finally, at
ERS 339
13
least three other wind energy developments in Ontario use Vestas turbines, including at Port Albert, Ferndale and Pickering, which indicates the reliability of the model. A major premise for the project was that the cost of the project would be the responsibility of the project proponents. The proponents would maintain ownership and operation of the turbines until the cost had been fully recovered, at which point the project would be completely turned over to the Town of Wasaga Beach. Given the above analysis, the projected turnover date would be 25 years after the turbines had become active. Given from past experience a 30 to 35 year life span of a turbine, the Town could expect to make a profit from the turbines over the span of a decade before major turbine replacements would need to be considered.
5.1 Incentives
The Governments of Canada and Ontario are both promoting wind energy through a variety of financial incentives. In 2001, Natural Resources Canada initiated the Wind Power Production Incentive (WPPI) to encourage the development of 1000 megawatts of wind energy capacity over five years (Natural Resources Canada, 2005). To be eligible for the incentive, the prospective producer must meet the following criteria: 1. The wind farm must be commissioned between April 1, 2002, and March 31, 2007; 2. The wind farm must be independently metered at the point of interconnection with the electricity grid; and 3. The wind farm must have a minimum nameplate capacity of 500 kilowatts. In northern and remote locations, the minimum capacity is 20 kilowatts
ERS 339
14
4. The Eligible Recipient (ER) must be a business, institution or organization (i.e., an independent power producer, provincial Crown corporation, electrical utility or energy cooperative) that owns a qualified wind farm located in Canada to produce electricity for sale in Canada or for use by co-op members (Natural Resources Canada, 2005).
The Wasaga Beach Wind Park meets these criteria and is therefore eligible for the financial incentive. Those who take part in the WPPI receive financial incentives of approximately one cent for every kilowatt-hour produced during the first 10 years of activity of their new wind farms (Natural Resources Can, 2005). This amount represents about one half of the current cost premium charged for wind energy in Canada for facilities where conditions provide good feasibility (Natural Resources Canada, 2005). There are also two income tax incentives for wind farm investments that may apply to this wind energy project: the Class 43.1 capital cost allowance and the Canadian Renewable and Conservation Expense (CRCE). The Federation of Canadian Municipalities (FCM) helps link Canadian cities together in promoting green initiatives. Through FCM, the Wasaga Beach Wind Park may access some of the allotted $250 million in Green Municipal Funds, as the proposed wind park meets the FCM criteria of reducing greenhouse gas emissions, while improving quality of life from its citizens (Federation of Canadian Municipalities, 2005).
6.0 Valued Ecosystem Components

These components are those that are important to the development of a wind farm, and thus important to be addressed in an impact assessment.
ERS 339
15
Table 1: Valued Ecosystem Components

Biophysical Environment Aquatic habitats (ponds, streams, lakes, rivers) / fauna / vegetation Water quality Terrestrial habitats (forests, grasslands, beaches) / flora / fauna (including local & migratory birds) / endangered species Climate / air quality Socio-Economic Environment Land use (existing, planned & adjacent) Recreation areas (e.g. tourism) Heritage sites / archaeological sites / cultural resources (e.g. aboriginal) Visual landscape Existing noise levels Safety issues
7.0 Alternative Sites

The selection of potential sites for the wind park would be chosen after public consultation and in conjunction with other stakeholders. For this project, no actual public consultation was conducted and therefore the alternative sites were chosen based on other criteria. The alternatives were selected based on their different land uses in order to examine the different impacts that the land uses would have on the feasibility for the wind park in Wasaga Beach. Site 1 is located within the Provincial Park and along the coastline. Site 2 is situated along the beach, but next to a commercial area. Site 3 is placed in a highly residential area inland. Depending on the land use and space availability at each site, the three turbines were arranged in one of two ways. Sites 1 and 2 were located along the shoreline with space constraints on their width, but greater flexibility lengthwise. Consequently sites 1 and 2 had the turbines placed in a row. The dimensions (in metres) are provided below, where the ovals represent the turbines locations and their 90m rotor blade diameter.
ERS 339
16
Figure 2: Linear turbine arrangement
Site 3 was located in a fairly dense urban setting. The linear turbines approach was therefore abandoned in favour of a triangular approach, as outlined below.
Figure 3: Triangular turbine arrangement
The three potential sites for the wind park can be seen in Figure 4 below. The locations for the alternatives sites are depicted by the red circles.
ERS 339
17
Figure 4: Alternative site locations
7.1 Alternative Site 1

Site 1 is located on the north-western shoreline of Wasaga Beach and in Wasaga Beach Provincial Park. The wind turbines would be evenly spaced between the north end of Jenetta Street and the west end of Main Street. A residential area is found east of the potential wind park site. Site 1 is not a well travelled area and is set apart from the tourist areas of the beach area. The wind resource for this area is rated as acceptable. Figure 5 illustrates the recommended turbine placements.
ERS 339
18
Figure 5: Alternative site location 1

Site 2 is located along the south-western shoreline of Wasaga Beach. Site 2 is located in front of a commercial strip in the Town of Wasaga Beach. The turbines would be evenly placed be along Shore Lane starting midway between 33rd Street North and 34th Street North and would end at 41st Street North. The wind source for this are is rated as being acceptable.
ERS 339
19

Site 3 is located in north-eastern Wasaga Beach inland, within a residential area. One turbine would be located on the south west corner of Royal Beach Drive, another would be located on the south west corner of Bush Crescent and the third turbine would be located on the corner of Evergreen Crescent and Silver Birch Avenue. The wind resource for this area is rated as marginal.
ERS 339
20
7.4 No Wind Park

A fourth alternative is not to develop a wind park at Wasaga Beach at all. This would have no change on environmental, social or economic impacts but would also not contribute to the local economy or aid in decreasing the release of greenhouse gases or help Canada meet its commitment to the Kyoto protocol. If the other alternatives are found to be unfeasible, this would be the preferred alternative.
8.0 Case Studies

Three case studies were examined to aid in the development of the Wasaga Beach Wind Park project. These were used to identify Valued Ecosystem Components, socioeconomic and biophysical impacts, and the measures taken to address them.
ERS 339
21
8.1 Erie Shores Wind Farm

The Erie Shores Wind Farm is 13,000 acres along a 29 kilometre stretch of shoreline on the north shore of Lake Erie. The three turbines at the site are 120 metres high with a diameter of 77 metres, and will have the capacity to generate 1.5 MW each. There are few residences in the immediate area and because of the high winds that are found in the area, most houses have windbreaks which minimizes the view of the turbines and the noise levels (AIM PowerGen Corporation, 2005). Multiple avian baseline studies were conducted to determine the impacts on birds; these studies showed that the turbines had little impact on bird mortality. There is ongoing consultation with the public, key stakeholders, special interest groups and agencies to identify issues or concerns. The communities around the wind farm are small; the Village of Port Burwell has a population of 900 though it is also a popular tourism destination and has a Provincial Park, and Tillsonburg has a population of 15,000 (AIM PowerGen Corporation, 2005). This makes the findings of the environmental assessment for the project comparable to the proposed Wasaga Beach Wind Park. The land for the wind farm is used primarily for agriculture. There are no native settlements in the area and no recreational use areas are on the affected or immediately adjacent lands. Visual impacts of the turbines are mitigated by using white or grey turbines and siting the turbines away from the residents in a non-linear layout (AIM PowerGen Corporation, 2005).
ERS 339
22
8.2 Ferndale Wind Park

Ferndale is developing a Wind Park to contain three turbines, each producing 1.8 MW of electricity, for a total of 5.4 MW of electricity. There will be a total of six turbines installed close to the Lake Huron coast. The turbines are on 78 metre tubular towers, and have three 40 metre blades. The fields where the turbines are located are on private property and are used for beef pasture and for hay production. There are some trees, but not many, and a few small woodlots (SkyGeneration, 2005). The population of permanent residents is 3599, but it more than triples in the summer, with campers and cottagers. The primary sources of income are beef farming, and tourism (SkyGeneration, 2005). The impacts on tourism in this environmental impact assessment can be compared to those predicted for the Wasaga Beach Wind Park. The existing noise level at the turbine locations would be higher than normal for a rural agricultural area because the winds are higher than the provincial average, which creates noise as it passes through grass and trees. To provide for safety, during high winds, the turbines cease operation. The bird studies conducted have found that birds generally exhibit very effective avoidance behaviour, and so the impact of the wind turbine is virtually none existent. Fewer turbines with slower turning speed are expected to reduce the impact on birds, bats, and insects (SkyGeneration, 2005).
8.3 Pickering Wind Generating Station

The Pickering site has only one turbine, which generates 1.8 MW of electricity. It is about 120 metres high with a blade length of 39 metres. There is low noise with the
ERS 339
23
turbine and it produces enough energy to supply about 600 average households throughout the year (Ontario Power Generation, 2002). The turbine was built as a prototype for the Huron Wind facility that was later built. A study conducted on birds in the area found that the effects are negligible and the turbine has generated much public interest and thus increased tourism in the area, proving that wind turbines can be a tourist attraction.
9.0 Socioeconomic Impacts and Concerns

The main socioeconomic impacts are summarized in Table 2. Each of these will be explained in more detail below with respect to their effects at each alternative site. Community support is a major factor in socioeconomic impacts, but is has been omitted because of a lack of information.
ERS 339
24
Table 2: Socioeconomic impacts associated with wind farms

Type of Impact Visual Impacts Noise Impacts Potential Effects Not aesthetically pleasing Turbine lights interfere with night views May be distracting if turbines are much louder than background noise levels Flying ice Safety Issues Climbing tower Turbine parts breaking and becoming projectiles May decrease tourism Economic Impacts May increase tourism Agricultural uses Land Use Impacts Other land uses Recreational uses Cultural Impacts Turbines may disturb or distract from important heritage sites
Visual impacts are subjective and so not necessarily negative in the eyes of Wasaga Beach residents or visitors to the area. The visual impacts will be minimized by installing three large turbines, since fewer turbines have less aesthetic impact. Because they are larger, the turbine blades will turn fewer times a minute to produce electricity which will further decrease their aesthetic impact. The turbines will be built so that they automatically shut themselves off if the wind speed grows too strong (>90 km/h) and might break the blades. Economic benefits will be maximized as much as possible by hiring local members of the community for construction and operation of the wind park. Although this will not provide a large increase in employment because wind parks generally do not generate many new jobs beyond the construction phase, the community can operate visitor centres and tours of the wind park, and therein generate more employment. The
ERS 339
25
most important factor in socioeconomic impacts is to ensure that the community supports the project. Working with the municipal government, landowners, and other stakeholders is critical as well, but without the support of the community the development will never be accepted and should not even be attempted. The specific socioeconomic impacts at each of the alternatives sites are examined in Tables 3, 4 and 5 below.
Table 3: Socioeconomic impacts of a wind farm at Alternative Site 1 Alternative Site 1

Socioeconomic Impact Implications and effects at the site
Visual Impacts
There is little in the background to detract from the turbines, and the area is used frequently by visitors to the park. However, it will not always be seen because there are no residents in the area so the impacts are only moderate. Turbine lights may affect park visitors view of the stars. The ambient noise at Site 1 will be low, so the noise impact will be high. The distance from residences will minimize the effects that the noise has on people in the area.
Noise Impacts
Safety Impacts
There are few residences in the area and there will be few people in the park during icy conditions and so few people will be affected by the potential for ice fly off. Tourism is likely to increase at Site 1 with a wind park. It is an added attraction to the park that does not affect recreational uses of the area. Other businesses in Wasaga Beach are not near enough to be affected. Those visiting the park to enjoy nature may dislike the wind park. The land is used for recreational purposes largely, and these uses will not be affected by the development of the wind farm. There are no cultural sites, and thus no cultural impacts of the development in this area.
Economic Impacts
Land Use Impacts
Cultural Impacts
ERS 339
26
Table 4: Socioeconomic impacts of a wind farm at Alternative Site 2 Alternative Site 2

Socioeconomic Impact Implications and effects at the site There is commercial build up in the background which makes the turbines less noticeable. However, those who work in the commercial area may oppose the wind park because it may affect their view. The lights on the turbines will have little effect because there will be other lights in the area from businesses and streetlights or traffic lights. The ambient noise at Site 2 is moderate because of the traffic and industry in the area, so the noise from the turbines will not be as noticeable. However, the higher number of people in the area means that more people will be affected by the noise created by the turbines. The high number of people and infrastructure in the area of Site 2 increase the safety risk of the wind farm.
Visual Impacts
Noise Impacts
Safety Impacts
Economic Impacts
The wind turbines should have little to no effect on the businesses in the area. Hotels, motels or bed and breakfasts may be impacted and because of the impact on the view and the increased noise. Used mainly for commercial purposes and these uses which will not be impacted by the creation of a wind farm. There are no significant cultural sites in the area of Site 2.
Land Use Impacts
Cultural Impacts
ERS 339
27
Table 5: Socioeconomic impacts of a wind park at Alternative Site 3 Alternative Site 3

Socioeconomic Impact Visual Impacts Implications and effects at the site The turbines will be a contrast to their background. The lights on the turbines may also affect the residents in the area to sleep at night. There is little ambient noise so the turbine noise will seem more significant. Many people will be impacted by the turbine noise regularly. Ice may damage the infrastructure in the area or pose a health risk to the local residents. This site will likely have the most opposition from local residents as well due to Not In My Backyard Syndrome (NIMBY). The residential nature of the area also poses a threat because children may be tempted to climb the ladder on the side of the turbine. There is no industry or business so the negative economic impacts will be minimal. The area stands to gain from marketing the site as a tourist attraction, although the needed infrastructure to develop the site as a tourist attraction may be difficult to construct. Getting zoning permission from the municipality to build in this location will be very difficult because it is a residential area. The location of turbines in the residential area may affect peoples use of their yards as well. There are no known heritage sites in the area.
Noise Impacts
Safety Impacts
Economic Impacts
Land Use Impacts Cultural Impacts
10.0 Addressing Socioeconomic Concerns and Impacts

The development of a wind park will impact the community and the environment where the wind turbines are be installed, so the public has a right to be involved in the decision making process (OBrien, 2000). Because Wasaga Beach is a growing tourist community it is imperative that the public be involved in the identification of potential wind park locations. Public consultation and involvement would be done throughout the
ERS 339
28
project development. Table 6 includes the various methods for public consultation and the timeline in which the methods would be arranged.
Table 6: Techniques and times for public involvement

Public Involvement & Communication Techniques Consultation with public and stakeholders To develop the alternative sites for the development of a wind farm Information brochures Available at public information centres, Town Hall, libraries, Recreation Centres and Complexes Web site Regular newsletters Distributed to local residents and applicable agencies Public information session with question and answer Development of advisory committee Draft environmental assessment available Surveys To determine public concerns and public acceptance Public Information Centre / Open House Advertised through local newspaper and radio, on the web site and in newsletters Workshops To increase public knowledge on how wind farms operate Field Trips To nearby by wind farms that are operating successfully Beginning January 2006 Ongoing September 2005
Date
Ongoing
November 16, 2005 November 18, 2005 November 23, 2005 November 28 - December 2, 2005 November 28, 2005 November 29, 2005 February 8, 2006 February 9, 2006 February 12, 2006 February 13, 2006 March 20, 2006 March 21, 2006 February 16, 2006 February 20, 2006 March 10, 2006 March 14, 2006
ERS 339
29
Using a variety of methods for public consultation will increase the exposure of the project to the public, thus increasing general awareness, and provides different opportunities and mechanisms for meaningful public participation and input. Involvement of the public creates better support for the project and allows the proponent to address issues and concerns related to the project and mitigate or address impacts that they were not aware of (Whitelaw, 2004). The local communities may also provide valuable local knowledge to the proponent to aid in the development of the project. It is the support of the public that will ultimately determine whether the project will be supported and therefore viable at Wasaga Beach (Whitelaw, 2004).
11.0 Biophysical Impacts

The following table summarises the Ecological Land Classification (ELC) for Wasaga Beach, as provided by Wasaga Beach Provincial Park.
Table 7: Ecological Land Classification Sites

1 - Open Sand Dune Ecosystem - Cultural Woodland 2 - Cultural Woodland - Mineral Meadow Marsh 3 - Mixed Forest - Coniferous Forest - Mixed Swamp - Dry-Fresh White Pine Oak Mixed Forest (Eastern edge)
ERS 339
30
Site 1 The mouth of Nottawasaga River consists of intact shoreline dunes east of the urban beach strip. Piping plover were observed last spring and summer. The shoreline on the south side of the river is urban, including cottages and houses. There is little remaining swamp and forest cover to the south. The park is a key natural heritage feature supporting a variety of forest types, including swamps and fresh-moist and dry forests, as well as rare barren tallgrass prairie associations. The significant forest interior habitat supports habitat for the threatened hog-nosed snake.
Figure 8: Piping Plover
Figure 9: Eastern Hog-Nosed Snake
Site 2 There is little forest cover to the south. The area of Provincial Park on the west side is locally known as Oakview Woods, the last intact forest area within the Town. Rosss Woods, located a bit further west, is smaller and has drainage constructed through it. Both areas support rare vascular plants. The beach shoreline has some unique vegetation communities and species, some of which appear in Table 8.
Site 3 The wetlands and forest covered in the northeast quadrant of the site (see Natural Features map in Appendix D) is now subdivision. Areas west and south of the park boundary are still intact. The biophysical environment has already been disturbed by the
ERS 339
31
development of the residential area so most impacts from turbine construction will be minimized.
Table 8: Biota found at Wasaga Beach

Birds (232 species) Shore birds: ring-billed gulls, plover, sandpipers, sanderling, killdeer Inland birds: warblers, sparrows, owls, pileated woodpecker Rare or Historical nesting species: red-throated loon, surf scoter, pectoral sandpiper, Animals Reptiles & Amphibians (32 species) Insects Fish Plants (700 species) white-tailed deer, snowshoe hare, porcupine, raccoon Rare: stinkpot, northern map turtle, blanding's turtle, milksnake, eastern hog-nosed snake, eastern foxsnake, five-linked skink mayflies Game fish: rainbow trout, smallmouth bass, splake, pickerel wormwood, marram grass, yellow puccoon, ground juniper, butterfly weed, New Jersey tea Rare: Hobell's rock cress
(Wasaga Beach Provincial Park, 2005).
Figure 10 shows that Wasaga Beach belongs to the wider Mississippi Flyway, and that the Atlantic Flyway may cross Wasaga Beach as well (The Wilderness Society, 2005). Some of the species that may use parts of these two flyways are shown in Table 9.
ERS 339
32
Figure 10: North American Migration Flyways (Nutty Birdwatcher, 2002) Table 9: Sample of Birds Using Parts of Flyways Flyways
Mississippi - White-fronted Goose - American Golden-Plover (in Spring) - Semipalmated Sandpiper (in Spring) - Pintails - Tundra Swan - Nighthawks - Barn Swallows - Black Warblers - Tundra Swan - Red-throated Loon - American Golden-Plover - Semipalmated Sandpiper Atlantic
(The Wilderness Society, 2005).
ERS 339
33
The shoreline provides staging habitat for waterfowl and shorebirds. There are deer yarding areas within the provincial park and in mixed and conifer forests or swamps in other parts of the Town (Ministry of Natural Resources, 2005). Other wildlife observed within the Town of Wasaga Beach includes black bear, moose and fishers (Nottawasaga Valley Conservation Authority, 2005). The wind park is not expected to have any adverse effects on the terrestrial fauna and flora at the sites. The construction phase is short and contained (see Appendix A). Studies on avian mortality show that birds have excellent avoidance techniques for turbines and so are not a great concern for most wind farms (Kingsley et al, 2003). Nevertheless, several measures will be taken to safeguard the flight of birds, including lights on the tips of the turbine blades for visual warning, and a mechanism allowing for the shut down of the system should large groups of migrating birds approach them. Monitoring, including camera and/or site inspections, will be conducted both during and after the installation of the turbines to allow for ongoing mitigation should issues arise. This would help contribute to the gap in research on night-time flights of bird and bats.
12.0 Criteria for Site Selection

To determine which site is best for the development of a wind farm at Wasaga Beach, a set of criteria was used for evaluation. Criteria were divided into four categories: biophysical impacts, social impacts, economic impacts, and technical impacts. The impacts of each alternative site were evaluated using a scale of one to five, one
ERS 339
34
meaning very little negative impacts and five meaning very high negative impacts. Table 10 illustrates the criteria with the ratings for each alternative.
Table 10: Alternatives Cost-Benefit Analysis Matrix

Criteria Biophysical Impact - 25% Landscape changes Loss of visibility Air quality Water quality Soil stability Social Impact - 30% Human health changes Sound quality Safety Historical / cultural site Economic Impact - 23% Changes in town layout Population growth Labour market Income distribution Economic activities Adjacent land use Technical Impact - 22% Construction accessibility Construction phase impact Operation phase impact Legal / regulatory constraints Community support TOTAL Alternative Sites 2 4 1 1 3 n/a 2 3 1 1 2 3 2 3 4 4 3 4 1 2 4 47
1 5 4 1 4 n/a 2 3 1 3 1 2 2 3 2 2 2 3 1 2 1 44
3 1 3 1 1 n/a 2 4 4 1 4 4 2 3 1 5 5 5 1 5 5 57
The cost-benefit matrix, when unweighted, shows Site 1 as the best alternative with Site 2 a close second choice for wind energy development. Table 11 provides an explanation for why each criteria was rated with the rating it was given.
ERS 339
35
Table 11: Explanation of Ratings Given in Cost-Benefit Matrix
Criteria Landscape Changes Loss of Visibility
Reason for given rating Since Site 1 is in an area of the least development the wind farm would have the greatest impacts there Since Site 1 has the least development the wind farm will decrease the visibility currently available there. Site 2 will have the least impacts on visibility because there is not much visibility there anyway. Site 3 has moderate impacts on visibility as they will block views within the residential area Minimal impacts on air quality will occur during the construction phase. Following the construction phase air quality will improve because of lack of reliance on other more polluting forms of creating electricity. Site 1 is closest to a wetland and could therefore impact the water quality there. Sites 1 and 2 are both on the shoreline and impacts on water quality are possible during the construction phase. Site 3 is separate from water bodies. Soil stability data unavailable at this time. Minimal impacts on air quality will occur during the construction phase. Following the construction phase air quality will improve because of lack of reliance on other more polluting forms of creating electricity. Site 1 has a moderate rating for sound because of the isolation of the site. Sound will be more apparent, however it affects fewer people. Site 2 is a busier area impacting a greater number of people however it is a much busier area and the sound will likely be lost in the background noises. Site 3 has the greatest rating because the sound could disturb residence living near the turbines. Sites 1 and 2 are away from the public and should not cause any safety problems. Efforts to maintain turbines and reduce ice build up will be use to mitigate any safety concerns. Site 3 has more potential for impacts if problems occur with the turbines because or the many residence living in the area. Site 1 is the only site near a cultural site however impacts should be moderate if not positive. Site 1 will have little impacts on town layout because it is in a provincial park, site two should not impact the town layout much as business should continue just as it always has. Site 3 could impact town layout if residents do not wish to live near wind turbines.
36
Air Quality
Water Quality
Soil Stability Human Health Changes
Sound Quality
Safety
Historical/Cultural Sites Changes in Town Layout
ERS 339
Criteria Population Growth
Labour Market Income Distribution
Economic Activities Adjacent Land Use Construction Accessibility
Construction Phase Impacts Operation Phase Impacts Legal/Regulatory Constraints Community Support
Reason for given rating Site 1 will have the least impact on population growth as it is isolated. Site 2 and 3 could have a greater impact if residents reject the turbines. Turbines should have very little impacts on the labour market. Moderate impacts on income distribution because most of the work will be contracted out to the wind turbine company providing little benefits to the town Site 2 is at the greatest risk of impacting economic activities where it is less likely at Sites 1 and 3 Site 2 could have impacts on the commercial area and site three could decrease the value of residential area Residential roads for site three would be the most difficult to modify because it is the most developed. Site 1 is the simplest Greatest impacts will occur on site three because of the accessibility and location, fewest impacts will occur at site one because of the openness and isolation Minimal impacts will occur once operation begins. Maintenance will occur every six months Regulatory restraints highest in residential area Community support found in favour of wind turbines in provincial park and least favourable in the backyards of residents of Wasaga Beach
Through a consensus process weights were given to each category of criteria. It was determined that social impacts should be weighted the highest and technical impacts the least. Table 9 provides the numbers after weights were given to each category. The lower the number the more favourable the alternative. Table 12 shows the ratings with weights, and determines that Site 1 is the preferred site for the wind farm project.
ERS 339
37
Table 12: Weighted Cost-Benefit Analysis
Alternatives Criteria Biophysical Impacts-25% Social Impacts-30% Economic Impacts-23% Technical Impacts-22% Total
Site 1 3.5 2.7 2.76 1.98 10.94
Site 2 2.25 2.1 4.14 3.08 11.57
Site 3 1.5 3.3 4.37 4.62 13.79
13.0 Preferred Alternative

Based on the evaluation of criteria it is apparent that alternative Sites 1 and 2 are very close with Site 1 coming out slightly ahead. The alternative for Site 1 is the most favourable and therefore the one that would be chosen for the development of Wasaga Beach Wind Park. If in the future the wind park on site one is successful perhaps a second wind park phase could occur on Site 2.
14.0 Recommendations and Conclusion

We recommend that the Town of Wasaga Beach look into wind industries to construct the wind park for the town. However, public consultations would need to be completed in order to ensure public support prior to commencing the project. Further studies need to be completed in order to verify that a wind park would benefit the town of Wasaga Beach. For future projects, we do recommend assessing alternative sites with
ERS 339
38
different land uses to determine which one is optimal, but we would also recommend that more than one site with the same land uses be considered to determine which of those sites is best suited for wind energy development in a municipality. For wind energy development industries, Wasaga Beach has potential for wind farm development but the preferred site in Wasaga Beach Provincial Park should be compared to sites from other municipalities as well.
ERS 339
39
15.0 Bibliography
AIM PowerGen Corporation. (2005). Environmental impact statement / Environmental screening report for the Erie Shores Wind Farm. http://www.aimpowergen.com/files/EIS_Final_Jan27_%2005.pdf Anderson, S.; Featherstone, D.; and Moran, L. (2005). Town of Wasaga Beach Natural Heritage System Background Review and Landscape Model. Nottawasaga Valley Conservation Authority. Booth, W.C.; Colomb, G.G.; and Williams, J.M. (2003). The Craft of Research. Chicago & London: The University of Chicago Press. Canadian Hydro Developers Inc. (2005). Cowley Ridge Wind Plants. Canadian Hydro. http://www.canhydro.com/plantsabout_wind.html Canadian Wind Energy Association. (2005). Wind Energy. http://www.canwea.ca/en/ Dooling, R. (2002). Avian Hearing and the Avoidance of Wind Turbines. National Renewable Energy Laboratory. http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy02osti/30844.pdf Featherstone, D. (2005). Town of Wasaga Beach Beach and Dune Conservation and Protection Discussion Paper. Nottawasaga Valley Conservation Authority. Federation of Canadian Municipalities. (2005).Green Municipal Funds. http://kn.fcm.ca/project/search/Search.aspx?lang=e Fitzpatrick. T. (2004). Introduction to Environmental Assessment: Public Participation. ERS 241. Lecture June 3. Gibson, R. (2001). The outer limits of environmental assessment: current trends and recent innovations. Gipe, P.; and Muphy, J. (2005). Ontario Landowners Guide to Wind Energy. Ontario Sustainable Energy Association. http://www.wind-works.org/articles/OSEALandowners-2005-r1-v3.pdf Gregg, N. (2005). Personal Communication. The Town of Wasaga Beach. Kingsley, A.; and Whittam, B. (2003). Wind Turbines and Birds: A Guidance Document for Environmental Assessment. Canadian Wildlife Services, Environment Canada. http://canwea.ca/downloads/en/PDFS/BirdStudiesDraft_May_04.pdf
ERS 339
40
Momentum Technologies LLC (2005). Source Guides. Large Wind Turbine Businesses in Canada. 1995-2005. http://energy.sourceguides.com/businesses/byGeo/byC/Canada/byP/wRP/lwindturbi ne/lwindturbine.shtml Natural Resources Canada. (2003). Environmental Impact Statement Guidelines for Screenings of Inland Wind Farms Under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. Natural Resources Canada. http://www.canren.gc.ca/programs/index.asp?CaId=190&PgId=1155 Natural Resources Canada. (2005). Wind Power Production Incentive. Natural Sources Canada. http://www.canren.gc.ca/programs/index.asp?CaId=107&PgId=622 OBrian. M. (2000). The essential features of an Alternatives Assessment from Making Better Environmental Decisions. Environmental Research Foundation. Pp. 191-202. Ontario Conserves. (2005). Rebates and Incentives. Government of Ontario. http://www.ontarioconserves.gov.on.ca/english/rebates.asp Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. (2005). Wind Resource Atlas. Ministry of Natural Resources. http://www.ontariowindatlas.ca/ Pimentel, D.; Rodrigues, G.; Wane, T.; Abrams, R.; Goldberg, K.; Staecker, H.; Ma, E.; Brueckner, L.; Trovato, L.; Chow, C.; Govindarajulu, U.; and Boerke, S. (1994). Renewable Energy: Economic & Environmental Issues. BioScience. Vol. 44, No. 8. http://dieoff.org/page84.htm RETScreen International (2004). Wind Energy Project Model. Natural Resources Canada. http://www.retscreen.net/ang/g_win.php Environment Canada. (2004). Species at Risk. Eastern Hog-nosed Snake. http://www.speciesatrisk.gc.ca/search/speciesDetails_e.cfm?SpeciesID=301 SkyGeneration. (2005). Draft screening report: Ferndale Wind Farm. http://www.skygeneration.com/projects/enviroassessment.doc South Dakota Ecological Services Field Office. Piping Plover. South Dakota Ecological Services Field Office. http://southdakotafieldoffice.fws.gov/PLOVER.HTM The Nutty Birdwatcher. North American Migration Flyways (with Principal Routes). 1998-2002. birdnature.com. http://www.birdnature.com/allupperflyways.html The Wilderness Society. (2005). Migration Flyways: From Alaska to Our Backyards. http://earthday.wilderness.org/backyard/flyways/index.htm
ERS 339
41
Town of Wasaga Beach. (2005). Wasaga Beach, Ontario, Canada. http://www.wasagabeach.com/ Whitelaw, G. (2004). Lecture notes from ERS 241. University of Waterloo. Spring term 2004. Vestas. (2005). V90-1.8 MW & 2.0 MW: High output in modest winds. Vestas. http://www.vestas.com/pdf/produkter/BrochureArkiv/updates_160904/V90_2_UK. pdf
Interviews:
Administration Office. Town of Wasaga Beach. Phone interview. Featherstone, D. Nottawasaga Valley Conservation Authority. E-mail & phone interview. Information Centre. Ontario Ministry of National Resources. Phone interviews. McWilliam, M. S.T.E.P University of Waterloo. E-mail interview. Mooibroek, S. Community Renewable Energy Waterloo. E-mail interview. North, N. Canadian Wildlife Service. E-mail. Shoreman, M. Wasaga Beach Provincial Park. E-mail & phone interview. Trace, P. Wasaga Beach Distributions Inc. E-mail interview.
ERS 339
42
Appendix A
Construction Procedures
Wasaga Beach Wind Park Biophysical & Social Impact Assessment
The three turbines are Vestas V90s. Each turbine has three blades, 44 meters in length giving it a rotor diameter of 80 meters, or a swept area of 6,362 square meters. The turbine stands 80 meters tall upon a tubular tower structure. The turbines will be connected to the grid by underground cabling. Maps showing the location of grid power lines are regarded as confidential information by the Wasaga Beach Distribution Inc. electricity distributor. Access roads need to be at least 5 meters wide and be able to support 15 tons/axle, approximately the size of a gravel truck. The roads must also have wide bends to allow for the turning radius of the transport trucks. Depending on the current condition of the roads, the roads may need to be upgraded or repaired. The towers base is about 4 meters in diameter and rests on a reinforced concrete foundation. The foundation is roughly 15 meters in diameter and approximately three meters deep below ground. The backfill around the inverted T shaped foundation walls should consist of topsoil for strength, reinforcement and natural visual appeal. The only other necessary external units are the telecommunications and meters cabinet located at the substation by the power mains. Each turbine has a capacity of 2.0 MW, giving the wind park a total capacity of 6.0 MW. A buried trench, 1.2 meters deep and 0.5 to 1 meters wide, carries the four underground cables from the turbines to the substation. The cables include three phases and a ground, and operate at 13.8 kV. The voltage is then transformed into 44 KV at the substation where it is connected to the transmission grid through an overhead wire. Wasaga Beach Distribution Inc. assured that all power lines were less than 50 kV. Two cranes, one large and the other small, are required to erect the tower. The large crane is assembled on location and can weight up to 385 tons. It is delivered on 21 transport trucks. The tower, turbine blades and rotor are delivered on long specialized trucks. The cranes are used to raise the components. Based on the Bruce Peninsulas Ferndale wind farm, the construction period should take place over 1 month, weather permitting. A rough time line has been drawn up. It is anticipated that the road and crane pad construction would take about 2 weeks. The foundation and cement should take 1 week. The cement takes about 1 month to set. Power cables can be buried within a couple of days. Tower and turbine assembly takes approximately 1 week. Turbine commissioning, including full safety inspections, takes a last 2 to 4 weeks. Heavy machinery used during the construction period include cement trucks (roads & foundation), bulldozers (roads), gravel trucks (roads), dump trucks (roads & foundation), high hoe (power cables), transport trucks (large crane), long specialized trucks (turbine blades, rotor & tower sections).
ERS 339
ERS 339 Cement drying & settling Bury power cables Tower & turbine assembly Commissioning & safety inspections
Road & Crane pad construction
Foundation & Cement
Appendix B
Selection of Turbine Companies

Source of Info RETScreen Supplier Enercon E-70 Model Rated Power kW 2,000 Hub Height m 58-113 Rotor Diameter m 71 Swept Area sqm 3,959 Location Otto-Lilienthal-Str. 25, D- 28199 Bremen, Germany Tel: (49-421) 244-1520 Fax: (49-421) 244-1539 Web: www.enercon.de One South Broad Street - 20th Floor, 19107 Philadelphia, PA, USA Tel: (215) 568-8005 Fax: (215) 588-8344 E-mail: bnegro@eolica.gamesa.es GE Energy, 4200 Wildwood Parkway, Atlanta, GA 30339, USA Origin Germany Notes Labour-intensive technology: job creation
RETScreen RETScreen RETScreen RETScreen RETScreen RETScreen RETScreen RETScreen RETScreen RETScreen RETScreen RETScreen
Enercon Enercon Gamesa Wind US Gamesa Wind US Gamesa Wind US Gamesa Wind US Gamesa Wind US General Electric (GE) General Electric (GE) General Electric (GE) General Electric (GE) Made Energias
E-82 E-112 G80-2MW G80 RCC G83-2MW G87-2MW G90-2MW GE Wind 1.5s GE Wind 1.5sl GE Wind 1.5sle GE Wind 2.3 MADE AE-90
2,000 4,500 2,000 1,800 2,000 2,000 2,000 1,500 1,500 1,500 2,300 2,000
70-108 124.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 80-85-100 80-85-100 80-85 100-120 90.0
82 114 80 80 83 87 90 71 77 77 94 90
5,281 10,207 5,027 5,027 5,411 5,945 6,362 3,904 4,657 4,657 6,940 6,362
Spain
USA
RETScreen RETScreen RETScreen RETScreen RETScreen RETScreen RETScreen
Nordex USA, Inc. Nordex USA, Inc. Nordex USA, Inc. Nordex USA, Inc. Siemens Siemens Siemens
NORDEX N 60 NORDEX N90 NORDEX S70 NORDEX S77 AN BONUS 1.3 MW AN BONUS 2 MW AN BONUS 2.3 MW
1,300 2,300 1,500 1,500 1,300 2,000 2,300
85-120 80-100-105 85-98-114.5 85-90-96.5-100111.5 80-90 80.0 80.0
60 90 70 77 62 76 82
2,828 6,362 34,848 4,657 3,019 4,500 5,330
RETScreen RETScreen RETScreen RETScreen RETScreen
Vestas Vestas Vestas Vestas Vestas
NM 1,500/64 NM72C VESTAS V80-2.0 MW VESTAS V90-1.8 MW VESTAS V90-2.0 MW
1,500 1,500 2,000 1,800 2,000
80.0 80.0 100.0 80.0 80-105
64 72 80 90 90
3,217 4,072 5,027 6,362 6,362
Paseo de Castellana, 95 Planta 29 (Torre Europa), 28046 Madrid, Spain Tel: (91) 598-3719 Fax: (91) 597-4893 E-mail: info@made.es Carrier/360 Office Building, 2080 N. Highway 360, Suite 140, Grand Prairie, Texas 75050, USA Tel: (972) 660-888 Fax: (972) 660-2220 E-mail: usa@nordex-online.com Siemens Canada Ltd., Toronto Office 2185 Derry Road West, Mississauga, ON L5N 7A6, Canada Tel: (905) 819-8000 Fax: (905) 819-5703 Vestas Canada R.R. no. 5, 1475 Concession 5, Kincardine, ON N2Z 2X6, Canada Tel: (519) 396-6922 Fax: (519) 396-6158 e-mail: vestas-canada@vestas.com
Spain
Germany
Germany
Denmark
has offshore model too
ERS 339

Source of Info Sourceguide Supplier EIC (Canada) Enviro Impact Consultants Model Rated Power kW Hub Height m Rotor Diameter m Swept Area sqm Location 137 Nickolas Crescent, Cambridge, ON N3C 3L7, Canada Tel: (519) 658-2185 Alt: 011-92-21-663-0426 Fax: (519) 658-2185 E-mail: info@eic.lynks.biz Web: www.eic.lynks.biz 207 Bank Street, Box 173, Ottawa, ON K1R 5J3, Canada Tel: (819) 775-2760 Fax: (819) 775-43-15 E-mail: info@gpeks.com #14 2057 Barsuda Dr., Mississauga, ON L5J 1V6, Canada Tel: (416) 871-0791 E-mail: mick@indigowindenergy.com Origin Notes website is still under construction
Sourceguide
GPEKS Constructions Inc.
don't seem to manufacture their own turbines, only facilitate
Sourceguide
Indigo Wind Energy Systems inc
does not manufacture own
ERS 339
Appendix C
RETScreen Analysis
ERS 339
Appendix D
Maps
ERS 339
ERS 339
ERS 339
ERS 339
ERS 339

Report - Biophysical and Socioeconomic Impact Assessment For Wasaga Beach Wind Park

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Judul Asli

Hak Cipta

Format Tersedia

Bagikan dokumen Ini

Bagikan atau Tanam Dokumen

Opsi Berbagi

Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Report - Biophysical and Socioeconomic Impact Assessment For Wasaga Beach Wind Park

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Faculty of Environmental Studies

Wasaga Beach Wind Park

Wasaga Beach Wind Park Biophysical & Socioeconomic Impact Assessment

Wasaga Beach Wind Park Biophysical & Socioeconomic Impact Assessment

Wasaga Beach Wind Park Biophysical & Socioeconomic Impact Assessment

Wasaga Beach Wind Park Biophysical & Socioeconomic Impact Assessment

Wasaga Beach Wind Park Biophysical & Socioeconomic Impact Assessment

Wasaga Beach Wind Park Biophysical & Socioeconomic Impact Assessment

1.1 Proposed Wind Park Design

Wasaga Beach Wind Park Biophysical & Socioeconomic Impact Assessment

Wasaga Beach Wind Park Biophysical & Socioeconomic Impact Assessment

2.1 Literature Review

2.2 Case Studies

Wasaga Beach Wind Park Biophysical & Socioeconomic Impact Assessment

3.0 Limitations and Boundaries

Wasaga Beach Wind Park Biophysical & Socioeconomic Impact Assessment

4.0 Wasaga Beach

Wasaga Beach Wind Park Biophysical & Socioeconomic Impact Assessment

4.1 Wasaga Beach Provincial Park

Wasaga Beach Wind Park Biophysical & Socioeconomic Impact Assessment

5.0 Wind Farm Site Selection and Specifications

Wasaga Beach Wind Park Biophysical & Socioeconomic Impact Assessment

Figure 1: Approximate Turbine Spacing

Wasaga Beach Wind Park Biophysical & Socioeconomic Impact Assessment

Wasaga Beach Wind Park Biophysical & Socioeconomic Impact Assessment

6.0 Valued Ecosystem Components

Wasaga Beach Wind Park Biophysical & Socioeconomic Impact Assessment

Table 1: Valued Ecosystem Components

7.0 Alternative Sites

Wasaga Beach Wind Park Biophysical & Socioeconomic Impact Assessment

Figure 2: Linear turbine arrangement

Figure 3: Triangular turbine arrangement

Wasaga Beach Wind Park Biophysical & Socioeconomic Impact Assessment

Figure 4: Alternative site locations

7.1 Alternative Site 1

Wasaga Beach Wind Park Biophysical & Socioeconomic Impact Assessment

Figure 5: Alternative site location 1

7.2 Alternative Site 2

Wasaga Beach Wind Park Biophysical & Socioeconomic Impact Assessment

Figure 6: Alternative site location 2

7.3 Alternative Site 3

Wasaga Beach Wind Park Biophysical & Socioeconomic Impact Assessment

Figure 7: Alternative site location 3

7.4 No Wind Park

8.0 Case Studies

Wasaga Beach Wind Park Biophysical & Socioeconomic Impact Assessment

8.1 Erie Shores Wind Farm

Wasaga Beach Wind Park Biophysical & Socioeconomic Impact Assessment

8.2 Ferndale Wind Park

8.3 Pickering Wind Generating Station

Wasaga Beach Wind Park Biophysical & Socioeconomic Impact Assessment

9.0 Socioeconomic Impacts and Concerns

Wasaga Beach Wind Park Biophysical & Socioeconomic Impact Assessment

Table 2: Socioeconomic impacts associated with wind farms

Wasaga Beach Wind Park Biophysical & Socioeconomic Impact Assessment

Table 3: Socioeconomic impacts of a wind farm at Alternative Site 1 Alternative Site 1

Land Use Impacts

Wasaga Beach Wind Park Biophysical & Socioeconomic Impact Assessment

Table 4: Socioeconomic impacts of a wind farm at Alternative Site 2 Alternative Site 2

Land Use Impacts

Wasaga Beach Wind Park Biophysical & Socioeconomic Impact Assessment

Table 5: Socioeconomic impacts of a wind park at Alternative Site 3 Alternative Site 3

Land Use Impacts Cultural Impacts