GUIDELINES FOR SASKATCHEWAN WIND ENERGY PROJECTS

Transcription

1 GUIDELINES FOR SASKATCHEWAN WIND ENERGY PROJECTS Saskatchewan Ministry of Environment No FWB 01 May 2016 Fish and Wildlife Branch Ministry of Environment 3211 Albert Street Regina, Saskatchewan S4S 5W6 Guidelines for Saskatchewan Wind Energy Projects Working Draft V5.0 May 5, 2016 ii

2 GUIDELINES FOR SASKATCHEWAN WIND ENERGY PROJECTS PUBLISHED BY: First Edition 2016 SUGGESTED CITATION FOR THIS MANUAL Saskatchewan Ministry of Environment. No FWB Guidelines for Saskatchewan Wind Energy Projects Albert Street, Regina, Saskatchewan. xxpp. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Alberta s Environment and Sustainable Resource Development Ministry is gratefully acknowledged for provision of their Sensitive Species Inventory Guidelines April 2013 document and permission to adapt the guidelines for Saskatchewan. The document provided a base reference and content source for personnel conducting respective species surveys in Saskatchewan. COVER PHOTO CREDITS If needed for any in report or cover. CONTACT For more information, please contact our Client Service Office: centre.inquiry@gov.sk.ca Tel (toll free in North America): Tel (Regina): COPYRIGHT Brand and product names mentioned in this document are trademarks or registered trademarks of their respective holders. Use of brand names does not constitute an endorsement. Except as noted, all illustrations are copyright 2016, Ministry of Environment. DOCUMENT REVISION HISTORY Version Date Author Comments /31/2015 D. Phillips Initial draft /03/2016 D. Phillips Revised draft (SaskPower and CanWEA input) /04/2016 D. Phillips Revised draft for SEARP review /05/2016 D. Phillips Revised draft with SEARP comments included Guidelines for Saskatchewan Wind Energy Projects Working Draft V5.0 May 5, 2016 iii

3 Table of Contents 1.0 POLICY OVERVIEW Intent Scope and Application Regulatory Framework WILDLIFE ISSUES AND RISKS RELATED TO WEPS Collisions with Wind Turbines Disturbance/Displacement of Wild Species (Including Species at Risk) Habitat Loss and Disturbance GUIDELINES Site Selection (Avoidance) Pre-development Planning and Surveys POST-CONSTRUCTION WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT AND ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT Wildlife Monitoring Standard Operation Measures Mitigation Thresholds Turbine Modification Mitigation... 9 LITERATURE CITED List of Appendices Appendix A. Avoidance Zones Appendix B. Potential Species Detection Surveys Required for Wind Energy Projects: Pre-Construction 14 Guidelines for Saskatchewan Wind Energy Projects Working Draft V5.0 May 5, 2016 iii

4 1.0 POLICY OVERVIEW 1.1 Intent These guidelines were developed to assist proponents to mitigate impacts on biodiversity and minimize public concerns over potential environmental impacts resulting from the establishment and operation of wind energy projects (WEP) in Saskatchewan. The guidance contained here may assist wind energy proponents to enhance environmental performance; avoid environmental risks and associated liabilities; expedite environmental approvals and reduce costs associated with operational restrictions or other measures that may be required to manage preventable impacts on biodiversity. Risks impacts to migratory birds, bats and species at risk are risks that may result in significant economic consequences and public opposition to proposed WEPs. These guidelines should be regarded as recommended best practices. Utilizing these guidelines will enable proponents to more effectively mitigate the potential effects of WEPs on biodiversity and result in more efficient environmental screening and approvals under The Environmental Assessment Act, potentially reducing the requirement for an environmental impact assessment (EIA). Good mitigation planning alone does not remove the proponent s responsibility to ensure compliance with other requirements under federal and provincial statutes. Since avoidance and minimization are risk reduction approaches that are encouraged by the Government of Canada, following the guidance herein may reduce the likelihood of federal intervention or legal action under the federal Migratory Bird Convention Act or the Species at Risk Act. Impact mitigation should be regarded as only one element of the proponent s broader environmental management efforts. 1.2 Principles These guidelines are based upon the Ministry of Environment principles favoring: i) Outcomes based approach to development approvals that encourages proponent innovation and enables informed business decisions based on environmental risk. ii) A hierarchy of impact mitigation effort wherein avoidance of environmental impacts is the preferred means to optimize the economic benefits and environmental outcomes of development while minimization and impact offsets secondary considerations where impacts cannot be avoided. iii) Precautionary adaptive management approaches whereby development approvals are implemented based on the best available information, subsequent outcomes are monitored, and actions are adjusted based on a thoughtful analysis of documented experience. 1

5 1.3 Scope and Application These guidelines are a planning and decision support tool for proponents and operators of WEPs in Saskatchewan. They set out ministry standards, expectations and advice related to mitigation to avoid, minimize and offset impacts to biodiversity, pre- and post-construction monitoring, and reporting requirements aimed at achieving regulatory compliance. The guidelines may also assist operators of existing WEPs to adjust their operations to enhance environmental performance and reduce potential liability. 1.4 Regulatory Framework These guidelines complement the Saskatchewan Environmental Code (code) and align with the ministry s transition to results-based regulation and outcomes-based approaches that enable acceptable development in balance with the conservation and sustainable use of natural resources. Divergence from the best practices set out in these guidelines is likely to require increased regulatory scrutiny, a more extensive environmental review, and may increase the potential for public concern. Wildlife and their habitats are protected in Saskatchewan under a combination of provincial and federal legislation including The Environmental Management and Protection Act, 2010 (EMPA, 2010), The Environmental Assessment Act (EAA), The Wildlife Habitat Protection Act (WHPA), The Water Security Agency Act (WSAA), the federal Species at Risk Act (SARA), Canadian Environmental Protection Act (CEPA), Fisheries Act, and Migratory Birds Convention Act (MBCA). The power to enforce the requirements of these various statutes lies with the ministry or agency responsible for their administration. The Environmental Assessment Act requires that a proponent receives the approval of the Minister of Environment (the Minister) before proceeding with a development that is likely to have significant environmental impacts. The Act authorizes Ministerial Determinations to be made on whether a project is a development, as defined in the Act. The Ministerial Determination provides legal certainty concerning the requirement to undergo an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA). The Act defines development to mean any project, operation or activity, or any alteration or expansion of any project, operation or activity, which is likely to: i) have an effect on any unique, rare or endangered feature of the environment; ii) substantially utilize any provincial resource, and in doing so, preempt the use, or potential use of that resource for any other purpose; iii) cause the emission of any pollutants or create by products, residual or waste products which require handling and disposal in a manner that is not regulated by any other Act or regulation; iv) cause widespread public concern because of potential environmental changes; v) involve a new technology that is concerned with resource utilization and that may induce significant environmental change; or vi) have a significant impact on the environment or necessitate a further development, which is likely to have a significant impact on the environment. 2

6 Renewable energy projects will be screened by the Ministry of Environment s Environmental Assessment Process to determine whether or not they are developments within the meaning of The Environmental Assessment Act. If renewable energy projects are determined to be developments they will be required to conduct an environmental impact assessment to identify and characterize the potential environmental impacts that may occur as a result of the project. If projects are determined not to be developments the Ministry of Environment will issue a Ministerial Determination that could include legally binding terms and conditions for mitigation, monitoring, mortality thresholds and anything else considered necessary to effectively regulate the activities. The Planning and Development Act, 2007 (PDA) and its associated regulations such as The Statements of Provincial Interest Regulations (SPI) and The Dedicated Lands Regulations (DLR) are also relevant during the land development process at both the municipal and provincial levels. The PDA and regulations noted above provide for: The authorized development of land for any and all development purposes; Municipality s to issue development permits pursuant to the definition of development in the PDA. Development is defined in the PDA as: development means, the carrying out of any building, engineering, mining or other operation in, on or over land or the making of any material changes in the use or intensity of the use of any building or land ; The dedication and protection of environmentally sensitive lands and wildlife habitat as Environmental Reserve (ER); and The province to have an interest in ensuring the identification and protection of Biodiversity and Natural Ecosystems and Shore Lands and Water Bodies pursuant to the SPI. 2.0 WILDLIFE ISSUES AND RISKS RELATED TO WEPS 2.1 Collisions with Wind Turbine generators (WTG) Direct mortality occurs when birds and bats collide with WTGs, associated infrastructure, or the electrical transmission lines associated with WEPs. A range of variables are known to affect the measured rates of collision mortalities including location of WTGs, time of year, weather, and scavenger removal rates. Bird Studies Canada indicates that site selection is the key determinant of collision mortality in birds. Most research has shown that direct impacts on birds and bats increase significantly when WTGs are situated within or near major migration corridors or natural features that attract or concentrate flying species (large river valleys, and the edge of ridge-tops and bluffs) (Drewitt and Langston 2008, Kunz et al. 2007). Staging areas and migration stopover sites such as wetlands and lakes are also at higher risk for collision mortalities. 3

7 2.2 Disturbance and displacement of wild species (Including Species at Risk) Sensory disturbance from increased noise and light is associated with construction and operation of WEPs. Bird Studies Canada indicates that the greatest adverse effects that wind energy facilities may have on birds is disturbance to breeding and wintering birds disturbance is an especially important concern in prairie habitat where certain susceptible bird species breed (Kingsley and Whittam 2005). Displacement due to turbines is variable, but significant and sustained effects have been well documented for many species, including Species at Risk (Drewitt and Langston 2006, Shaffer and Buhl 2015, Leddy et al. 1999). Delayed effects were more prevalent for species with breeding site fidelity (Shaffer and Buhl 2015). Displacement effects exceeded 300 metres for Grasshopper Sparrows and up to 800 metres for waterfowl. Greater Sage-grouse breeding success was significantly affected by displacement (Lebeau et al. 2014). Displacement has also been documented for many bat species that breed and migrate through areas where wind turbines have been erected. WEP construction and operation may result in the direct removal or avoidance of previously used breeding, roosting and foraging habitat (OMNR 2011). 2.3 Habitat Loss and Disturbance WTGs need to be spaced hundreds of meters apart to avoid interference between the turbulence wakes of adjacent WTGs producing very large WEP footprints from even small numbers of WTGs. Habitat loss or degradation from WTGs and associated infrastructure, can impact all species in an impacted area, including those that are not subject to mortality from collisions with turbines. Construction of roads, towers, turbine pads, and other infrastructure within a WEP can physically destroy suitable habitat from an impacted area and/or displace species from otherwise suitable habitat near a WTG or associated infrastructure. Migratory bats with high site fidelity inhabiting the boreal forest and aspen parkland that migrate through the grasslands are vulnerable to habitat loss and disturbance in many habitat types (Baerwald et al. 2009). Native habitats are particularly vulnerable to these effects and to fragmentation of intact habitat areas into smaller patches that are insufficient to sustain populations of sensitive species. The environmental costs of these indirect impacts are often greater than direct mortality from collisions with WTGs. Effects of habitat loss due to turbines are more pronounced in less common habitat types, especially for rare and sensitive species and habitats such as native prairie and wetlands (Zimmerling et al. 2013). Direct habitat loss in Canada was estimated to be 1.23 hectares per turbine, which represents habitat for about 5700 nests of all species (Zimmerling et al. 2013). This habitat loss estimate is for turbines only and does not include fragmentation effects. Native prairie is of special concern in Saskatchewan. Native prairie is an area of unbroken or undisturbed grassland or parkland dominated ( 51 per cent) by perennial native plant and wildlife species (Adapted from Petroleum Industry Activity in Native Prairie and Parkland Areas: Guidelines for 4

8 Minimizing Surface Disturbance, Native Prairie Guidelines Working Group, January 2002.) Saskatchewan is continuing to experience ongoing native prairie loss triggering growing concerns over the amount of native prairie remaining in the province, the crucial habitat it represents for a large number of species (including Species at Risk), and its ability to provide important ecosystem services (e.g. erosion protection, water retention and filtration, carbon storage). These ecosystem services are increasingly difficult to sustain in small residual patches of native prairie are once converted to other uses, native prairie is almost impossible to restore to pre-disturbance condition and function. For these reasons avoidance of native prairie is strongly encouraged in all WEP development proposals. 3.0 OTHER WEP SITING CONSIDERATIONS Health Canada has published a report, The Potential Health Impact of Wind Turbines, which should be consulted for consideration of any potential health impacts from the siting and operation of wind turbines. Ontario Ministry of Environment has established minimum setback distances of wind turbines from receptors, setbacks requirements are based on the number of turbines and the sound level rating and range from meters. Minimum setbacks from receptors are used with the intent of minimizing the sound at the nearest receptor to no more than 40 decibels. Natural surface water drainage patterns should be maintained where possible. If the surface water drainage patterns are altered temporarily for construction or permanently as part of the project works, an Approval to Operate Drainage Works will be required from the Water Security Agency Regional Office. 4.0 GUIDELINES 4.1. Site Selection (Avoidance) New WEPs achieve the most ecologically effective and economically efficient outcomes when project sites are selected to avoid preventable impacts on wildlife habitats, birds, bats and other biodiversity. The Ministry of Environment has identified WEP avoidance zones which generally carry the probability of high risk of ecological impacts and significant public concern. These areas should be avoided when selecting potential sites for wind energy projects (Appendix A). The avoidance zones include: i) A prescribed set back of five kilometers from designated environmentally sensitive areas including: national parks provincial parks federal migratory bird sanctuaries Important Bird Areas Western Hemispheric Shorebird Reserve Network sites Representative Areas Network sites 5

9 ecological reserves Last Mountain Lake North and South Saskatchewan Rivers ii) iii) Areas without prescribed setbacks from designated lands including: Fish and Wildlife Development Fund lands conservation easement areas The Wildlife Habitat Protection Act lands critical habitat for Species at Risk Other avoidance zones to consider: Known cultural or heritage sites (e.g. Wanuskewin Heritage Park) Airports; Urban municipalities; Known mining areas or underground mine shafts due to the potential for subsidence (e.g. potash mines) 4.2. Pre-construction Planning and Surveys Local differences in wildlife populations and movement patterns, habitat, area topography, facility design, and weather, result in each proposed development site being unique and requiring detailed evaluation. Data on wildlife use and mortality at one wind energy facility may not be applicable to others. Detailed pre-construction planning and surveys will identify potential problems and how they may be mitigated before a project is constructed. The following planning steps should be followed: i) Search the Saskatchewan Conservation Data Centre (SKCDC) and other conservation databases to help determine the presence of historical species occurrences and habitat features and to guide species detection surveys. (Appendix B) ii) Conduct database search(es) of the project area plus a one kilometer buffer zone surrounding the proposed project footprint as well as any areas where expansion of the project footprint is anticipated to occur. The buffer zone is based upon the maximum setback distance likely to be recommended in the Activity Restriction Guidelines for Sensitive Species (ARGs). Review available literature and resources to determine any significant landscape features that may act as an attractant or serve as important habitat for wildlife. Significant landscape features in Saskatchewan include native grasslands, areas that attract, funnel or serve as travel corridors such as passes, peninsulas, prominent ridges, the tops of steep river valley breaks, coulees, riparian areas along streams, wetlands, sites between closely spaced wetlands, and small mammal colonies. WEP siting should be done to avoid potential losses of connectivity between significant landscape features. 6

10 Data searches, literature searches and interviews should be conducted to determine land tenure and to evaluate the significance of the proposed project area to migrating, wintering, and breeding birds and bats as well as any species contained in the ARGs. iii) Conduct field investigations to ground truth habitat types identified in Steps i and ii and to determine any additional relevant habitat features. Ministry of Environment Landscape Stewardship Branch should be consulted if any part of the project may be located on Crown land. iv) Following consultation with the Ministry of Environment s Fish and Wildlife Branch Conservations Standards Specialist, conduct appropriate pre-construction species detection surveys within the proposed project area and associated buffer zone. Plant and wildlife surveys must be conducted in all areas of suitable habitat that may be impacted by the proposed project using the Ministry of Environment Species Detection Survey Protocols. If the ministry does not have a protocol, the method to be used must be approved by the Fish and Wildlife Branch. Applicable surveys may include those listed in Appendix B, which will be customized for the proposed project based on consultation with the Conservation Standards Specialist. Surveys must be conducted by personnel who meet requirements contained in the Protocols. Data for all surveys must be submitted in loadform format, to the Conservation Data Center (env.researchpermit@gov.sk.ca) with an accompanying narrative summary describing any deviations from survey protocols. Results are to be submitted in accordance with submission requirements contained on the Species Detection webpage and in a format consistent with requirements of the Wind Energy Bird and Bat Monitoring Database. 5.0 POST-CONSTRUCTION WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT AND ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT 5.1. Post-Construction Wildlife Monitoring The Post Construction Wind Energy Survey Protocol (PCWESP) has been prepared specifically for WEPs to detect wildlife casualties and report findings in a standardized manner. Monitoring the survey area extent for rare and sensitive species includes the WEP area plus the setback distances found in the ARGs. The PCWESP provides specific instructions on the procedures for conducting casualty searches and survey efficiency trials. A Before-After- Control-Impact (BACI) approach to monitoring is included (Schwarz 2012, SNH 2009, Shaffer and Buhl 2015). Casualty surveys are to be carried out around selected turbines using instructions in the Post Construction Wind Energy 7

11 Project Survey Protocol to detect most casualties (New et al. 2015, OMNR 2011, Hein et al. 2014, Zimmerling et al. 2013). The protocol has commonly used efficiency, area search and casualty estimates (OMNR 2011, Drake et al. 2012, Zimmerling et al. 2013). Directions are included for submitting the ministry survey loadforms and casualties to the appropriate recipients Standard Operation Measures Several operational changes at WEPs may reduce casualties with little economic loss. Operational mitigation changes include changing the wind-speed tripper, altering blade angles and delaying start for ten minutes after low wind speed stoppage ) (Cryan et al. 2014, OMNR 2011, Rydell et al. 2012, Arnett et al. 2013, Hein et al 2014, Baerwald et al. 2009). Some of these cost effective modifications have been pre-programmed into new turbines. Some types of existing turbines may be re-programmed to reduce casualties. 5.3 Potential Mitigation measures Curtailing turbine operations during high risk periods such as fall migration for bats is sometimes recommended to significantly reduce mortalities (OMNR 2011, AMEC 2013, Drouin 2014, M. Brigham pers. comm.). The vast majority of bat casualties occur during this period and curtailing turbine operations may prevent excessive bat casualties. Alternatively, changing the cut in speed to 5.5 or 6 metres per second at hub height from sunset to sunrise during bat migration, July 15 to September 30 and or feathering the blades and slowing the rotor speed have been shown to significantly reduce casualties at turbines (Baerwald et. al. 2009, OMNR 2011, Rydell et al. 2012, Arnett et al. 2013, Hein et al 2014). 5.4 Mitigation Thresholds At specific thresholds of detected casualties WEP operators are required to notify the Ministry of Environment and implement measures to mitigate the risk of further casualty from turbine operations. Thresholds currently in effect are as follows: For bats, mitigation is required if casualties of 4 bats (AESRD 2013), per turbine per year, or 8 bats at any one turbine during a single monitoring survey are found to be occurring. For birds other than those species listed in Saskatchewan s The Wild Species at Risk Regulations under The Wildlife Act, 1998 or the federal Species at Risk Act, mitigation is required if monitoring detects casualties greater than: i) 14 birds/turbine/year at individual turbines or turbine groups; ii) 0.2 raptors/ turbine/year (all raptors) across the WEP; iii) 0.1 raptors/turbine/year (provincially tracked raptors) across the WEP; iv) 10 or more birds at any one turbine during a single monitoring survey; or v) 33 or more birds (including raptors) at multiple turbines during a single monitoring survey at one WEP. 8

12 For any species listed under Schedule 1, schedule 2, or Schedule 3 of the Species at Risk Act tracked provincially by the Saskatchewan Conservation Data Centre and; those listed in the ARGs, any casualty must be reported to the ministry and to Environment and Climate Change Canada within 24 hours of observation or the next business day and mitigation approved during project review must be immediately implemented. 5.5 Turbine Modification Mitigation Mitigation measures will need to be evaluated for efficacy in reducing impacts to birds and bats through ongoing monitoring. Adjustments to the mitigation program will be required if monitoring shows that mitigation measures are not effective. Adjustments may include modifying or changing equipment; adding deterrents, wildlife detection, or strike detector equipment to turbines; and altering operating schedules. 9

13 LITERATURE CITED Alberta Environment and Sustainable Resource Development (AESRD) Wildlife Management - Bat mitigation framework for wind power development. 8pp. Revised June 19, BatMitigationFramework-Jun pdf Alberta Environment and Sustainable Resource Development (AESRD) Wildlife Guidelines for Alberta Wind Energy Projects. 11pp. Revised Sep 19, AMEC Environmental and Infrastructure (AMEC) Bird and bat mortality monitoring plan for the Hermanville/Clearspring 30 MW wind farm. Prepared for Prince Edward Island Energy Corporation. Charlottetown. PE. 22pp. Arnett, E.B., G.D. Johnson, W.P. Erickson, and C.D. Hein A synthesis of operational mitigation studies to reduce bat fatalities at wind energy facilities in North America. A report submitted to the National Renewable Energy Laboratory. Bat Conservation International. Austin, Texas, USA. DATED.pdf Baerwald, E.F., J. Edworthy, M. Holder, and R.M.R. Barclay A large-scale mitigation experiment to reduce bat fatalities at wind energy facilities. Journal of Wildlife Management. 73(7): Cryan, P.M., P.M. Gorresen, C.D. Hein, M.R. Schirmacher, R.H. Diehl, M.M. Huso, D.T.S. Hayman, P.D. Fricker, F.J. Bonaccorso, D.H. Johnson, K. Heist, and D.C. Dalton Behavior of bats at wind turbines. Proc. Of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. 111(2) Doi: /pnas Drake, D., S. Schumacher, and M. Sponsler Regional analysis of wind turbine-caused bat and bird fatality. Final Report. December Environmental and economic research and development program. Wisconsin Focus on Energy. 35pp. Drewitt, A.L. and R.H.W. Langston Assessing the impacts of wind farms on birds. Ibis. 148, Drewitt, A.L., and R.H.W. Langston Collision effects of wind-power generators and other obstacles on birds. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 1134(1): Drouin, R ways to keep bats away from wind turbines. Scientific Americnan. 311(3). Environment Canada Recovery Strategy for Little Brown Myotis (Myotis lucifugus), Northern Myotis (Myotis septentrionalis), and Tri-colored Bat (Perimyotis subflavus) in Canada 2015 {Proposed]. 10

14 Hammermeister, A. M., D. Gauthier, and K. McGovern Saskatchewan s native prairie: statistics of a vanishing ecosystem and dwindling resource. Native Plant Society of Saskatchewan Inc., Saskatoon, Saskatchewan. Hein, C.D., A. Pritchard, T. Mabee, and M.R. Schirmacher Efficacy of an operational minimization experiment to reduce bat fatalities at the Pinnacle Wind Farm, Mineral County, West Virginia An annual report submitted to Edison Mission Energy and Bats and Wind Energy Cooperative. Bat Conservation International. Austin, Texas, USA. %20Minimization%20Experiment%20to%20Reduce%20Bat%20Fatalities%20at%20the%20Pinnacle%20 Wind%20Farm,%20Mineral%20County,%20West%20Virginia,% pdf Kigsley, A. and B. Whittam Wind turbines and birds, a background review for Environmental Assessment. Draft report prepared by Bird Studies Canada for Canadian Wildlife Service, Gaitneau, Quebec. 81 pp Kunz, T.H., E.B. Arnett, W.P. Erickson, A.R. Hoar, G.D. Johnson, R.P. Larkin, M.D. Strickland, R.W. Thresher, and M.D. Tuttle Ecological impacts of wind energy development on bats: Questions, research needs, and hypotheses. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 5(6): LeBeau, C.W., J.L. Beck, G.D. Johnson, and M.J. Halloran Short-term impacts of wind energy development on Greater Sage-Grouse fitness. Journal of Wildlife Management. 78(3): Term_Impacts_of_Wind_Energy_Development_on_Greater_Sage-Grouse_Fitness. Leddy, K.L., K.F. Higgins, and D.E. Naugle Effects of wind turbines on upland nesting birds in Conservation Reserve Program grasslands. Wilson Bulletin. 111(1): New, L., E. Bjerre, B. Millsap, M.C. Otto and M.C. Runge A collision risk model to predict avian fatalities at wind facilities: an example using Golden Eagles, Aquila chrysaetos. Plos one. DOI: /journal.pone New, L., E. Bjerre, B. Millsap, M.C. Otto and M.C. Runge A collision risk model to predict avian fatalities at wind facilities: an example using Golden Eagles, Aquila chrysaetos. Plos one. DOI: /journal.pone New Brunswick (NB) Fish and Wildlife Post-construction bat and bird mortality survey guidelines for wind farm development in New Brunswick. PostConstructionBatAndBirdMortalitySurveyGuidelinesForWindFarmDevelopment.pdf 11

15 Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources (OMNR) Bats and bat habitats: guidelines for wind power projects. 2 nd Edition. MNR Number Rydell, J., L. Bach, M.J. Dubourg-Savage, M. Green, L. Rodrigues and A. Hedenström Bat mortality at wind turbines in Northwestern Europe. Acta Chiropterologica. 12(2): Rydell, J., H. Engstrom, J. K. Larsen, J. Pettersson, and M. Green The effect of wind power on birds and bats: a synthesis. Report August VINDVAL. Swedish Environmental Protection Agency pdf. Accessed July 16, Samson, F., and F. Knopf Prairie conservation: preserving North America s most endangered ecosystem. Island Press, Washington, D.C., 339 pp. Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH) Guidance on methods for monitoring bird populations at onshore wind farms. January Schwarz, C.J Design and analysis of BACI experiments. PowerPoint. Simon Fraser University. Vancouver, BC /Notes/MyPrograms/BACI/BACITalk UBC/baci.pdf. Shaffer, J.A. and D.A. Buhl Effects of wind-energy facilities on breeding grassland bird distributions. Conservation Biology. 00(0):1-13. Contributed paper. DOI: /cobi Zimmerling, J.R., A.C. Pomeroy, M.V. d Etremont and C.M. Francis Canadian estimate of bird mortality due to collisions and direct habitat loss associated with wind turbine developments. Avian Conservation and Ecology. 8(2) Art Accessed June 22,

16 Appendix A. Avoidance Zones 13

17 Appendix B. Potential Species Detection Surveys Required for Wind Energy Projects: Pre-Construction SURVEY TYPE PROTOCOL TIMING DETAILS Land Cover Mapping When environmental conditions permit the accurate identification of land cover types and wetland margins. Determine and quantify land cover types according to categories Map and land cover table to be developed for Technical Proposal and updated as required. Wetland Surveys Stewart and Kantrud Wetland margins to be delineated based on vegetation composition (hydrophytic vs upland vegetation). Raptors Protocol to be submitted for approval* Spring: mid-day 3 surveys Fall: mid-day 3 surveys Surveys must be designed to detect early, mid and late migrants in both survey periods. Songbirds Bats Protocol to be submitted for approval* ESRD Bat Mitigation Framework for Wind Power Development 2013 and ABAT Pre-Construction Protocols for bats (Lausen et al. 2010). Spring: dawn, night and dusk 3 surveys Fall: dawn, night and dusk 3 surveys Fall as per protocols Surveys must be designed to detect early, mid and late migrants in both survey periods. 14

18 SURVEY TYPE PROTOCOL TIMING DETAILS Birds Protocol to be combined and submitted for approval* 2 Surveys: Early (Dec 1 to Jan 15) and Late (Jan 16 to Feb 28). Surveys to be conducted between one hour after sunrise and one hour before sunset. Do the same survey times apply for mammals? Mammals Refer to Snow Track Protocol SK-ENV F&W Richardson s Ground Squirrel Amphibian (Auditory) Amphibian (Visual) AB-ESRD Species at Risk Report No. 69 (Survey Protocol for the Richardson s Ground Squirrel). SK-ENV F&W-1.0 SK-ENV F&W Greater Short- SK-ENV F&W Horned Lizard Snake Hibernacula SK-ENV F&W Burrowing Owl SK-ENV F&W Discretionary. Amphibian Auditory surveys, in particular, are recommended to determine the presence of amphibian listed in the ARGs. Visual surveys are recommended as a follow-up. Should we require these as some amphibians are listed in the ARGS. Best way to preclude translocations is to avoid areas used by amphibians. Short-eared Owl SK-ENV F&W Prairie Raptors SK-ENV F&W Boreal Raptors SK-ENV F&W

19 SURVEY TYPE PROTOCOL TIMING DETAILS Grassland Birds SK-ENV F&W Forest Birds SK-ENV F&W Sharp-tailed Grouse SK-ENV F&W Western Grebe SK-ENV F&W Piping Plover SK-ENV F&W Yellow Rail SK-ENV F&W Common Nighthawk SK-ENV F&W Marsh Birds SK-ENV F&W Bats SK-ENV F&W Swift Fox SK-ENV F&W Ord s Kangaroo Rat SK-ENV F&W Rare Prairie Plant SK-ENV F&W *Use the Species Detection Application Form and the Species Detection Survey Protocol Template to submit protocols for approval. 16