saint-cyprien wind farm project environmental impact study · saint-cyprien wind farm project...

SAINT-CYPRIEN WIND FARM PROJECT

Environmental Impact Study Volume 7 – Summary

Document number: 800152-CAMO-R-07 Date: 16 February 2015

In collaboration

GL Garrad Hassan inc.

Page ii

IMPORTANT NOTICE AND DISCLAIMER

1. This document is intended for the sole use of the Customer as detailed on the front page of this document to whom the document is addressed and who has entered into a written agreement with the DNV GL entity issuing this document (“DNV GL”). To the extent permitted by law, neither DNV GL nor any group company (the "Group") assumes any responsibility whether in contract, tort including without limitation negligence, or otherwise howsoever, to third parties (being persons other than the Customer), and no company in the Group other than DNV GL shall be liable for any loss or damage whatsoever suffered by virtue of any act, omission or default (whether arising by negligence or otherwise) by DNV GL, the Group or any of its or their servants, subcontractors or agents. This document must be read in its entirety and is subject to any assumptions and qualifications expressed therein as well as in any other relevant communications in connection with it. This document may contain detailed technical data which is intended for use only by persons possessing requisite expertise in its subject matter.

2. This document is protected by copyright and may only be reproduced and circulated in accordance with the

Document Classification and associated conditions stipulated or referred to in this document and/or in DNV GL’s written agreement with the Customer. No part of this document may be disclosed in any public offering memorandum, prospectus or stock exchange listing, circular or announcement without the express and prior written consent of DNV GL. A Document Classification permitting the Customer to redistribute this document shall not thereby imply that DNV GL has any liability to any recipient other than the Customer.

3. This document has been produced from information relating to dates and periods referred to in this document.

This document does not imply that any information is not subject to change. Except and to the extent that checking or verification of information or data is expressly agreed within the written scope of its services, DNV GL shall not be responsible in any way in connection with erroneous information or data provided to it by the Customer or any third party, or for the effects of any such erroneous information or data whether or not contained or referred to in this document.

4. Any energy forecasts estimates or predictions are subject to factors not all of which are within the scope of the

probability and uncertainties contained or referred to in this document and nothing in this document guarantees any particular wind speed or energy output.

KEY TO DOCUMENT CLASSIFICATION

Strictly Confidential : For disclosure only to named individuals within the Customer’s organisation.

Private and Confidential : For disclosure only to individuals directly concerned with the subject matter of the document within the Customer’s organisation.

Commercial in Confidence : Not to be disclosed outside the Customer’s organisation.

DNV GL only : Not to be disclosed to non-DNV GL staff

Customer’s Discretion :

Distribution for information only at the discretion of the Customer (subject to the above Important Notice and Disclaimer and the terms of DNV GL’s written agreement with the Customer).

Published : Available for information only to the general public (subject to the above Important Notice and Disclaimer).


Page iii

Project name: Saint-Cyprien Wind Farm Project DNV GL - Energy

Renewables Advisory 4100, Molson St., suite 100 Montreal, H1Y 3N1 Canada Tel: (514) 272-2175 Enterprise No.: 94-3402236

Report title: Environmental Impact Study Volume 7 - Summary

Customer: Kahnawà:ke Sustainable Energies C.P. 1110, Kahnawà:ke (Québec) J0L 1B0

Contact person: Lynn Jacobs Date of issue: 16 January 2015 Project No.: 800152 Document No.: 800152-CAMO-R-07

Task and objective: To summarize the results of an environmental impact study for the Saint-Cyprien Wind Farm Project, including the interdepartmental analysis leading to the admissibility of the study. Prepared by: Verified by: Approved by:

F. Gagnon Environmental specialist

S. Dokouzian Senior engineer

M. Roberge Team leader – Environmental and permitting

☐ Strictly Confidential Key words : St-Cyprien, Environmental Impact Study ☐ Private and Confidential

☐ Commercial in Confidence ☐ DNV GL only ☒ Customer’s Discretion ☐ Published

© DNV GL Entity. All rights reserved.

Reference to part of this report which may lead to misinterpretation is not permissible. Issue Date Reason for Issue Prepared by Verified by Approved by

A 16 February 2015 Initial issue for review F. Gagnon S. Dokouzian M. Roberge


Page iv

Production team Kahnawà:ke Sustainable Energies – Developer Bud Morris President Stéphane Poirier Project coordinator Lynn Jacobs Environmental Coordinator & Spokesperson Kyle Delisle VP Finances Amy Rice VP Corporate affairs DNV GL – Energy Division – Responsible for the environmental impact study Frédéric Gagnon, B.Sc., M.Env. Environment specialist Project manager, analysis and review Michael Roberge B. Sc. Team leader – Environment and permits Revision and approval Chrystel Alzin, Eng. Engineer Noise impacts

Aren Nercessian, Eng. Engineer Impacts on communication systems and radars; visual simulations

Shant Dokouzian, Eng. Engineer Shadow flicker, noise impacts Francis Langelier Team leader - Geomatics Cartography SNC-Lavalin – Responsible for biological analysis Jérôme Beaulieu, B.Sc. Biologist Project director Claudie Latendresse, M Sc. Biologist Project manager Isabelle Cartier, M.Sc. Biologist Analyst Annie Maloney, Eng., B.Sc. Biologist Analyst Christine Martineau, M.Sc. Biologist Analyst Catherine Eng., M. Sc., Biologist Analyst Martin Meunier, M.Eng. Sound Engineer Responsible for noise monitoring Maryse Trudeau GIS specialist Cartography Louis-Pierre Couillard GIS specialist Cartography Alain Chouinard GIS specialist Cartography Groupe Hémisphères – Biological inventories (birds, ecosystems, fish, reptiles and amphibians) Hugo T. Robitaille, M.Sc.Env. Biologist Inventory and revision Marie-Ève Dion, M.Sc. Env. Biologist Analysis and writing Simon Barrette, M.Sc. Biol. Biologist Analysis and writing Enviro Science – Biological inventories (bats) Michel La Haye, M.Sc.Env. PDG Enviro Science Revision and approval Fabienne Côté Project manager Analysis, writing and revision PleineTerre – Agronomy Samuel Comptois Agronomist Analysis and writing


Page v

Table of contents

1 BACKGROUND ............................................................................................................................. 1 1.1 Project Proponent ...................................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Consultants .............................................................................................................................. 1 1.2.1 DNV GL – Energy Division 1 1.2.2 SNC-Lavalin 1 1.3 Context and Project Rational ....................................................................................................... 1

2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ................................................................................................................ 2

3 ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIAL SETTING ......................................................................................... 4 3.1 Description of the physical environment ....................................................................................... 4 3.2 Description of the biological environment ...................................................................................... 4 3.3 Description of the human environment ......................................................................................... 6

4 CONSULTATION PROCESS ............................................................................................................. 9 4.1 Landowners .............................................................................................................................. 9 4.2 Citizens ................................................................................................................................... 9 4.3 Municipality and RCM ............................................................................................................... 10 4.4 Government agencies .............................................................................................................. 10 4.5 Groups and organizations ......................................................................................................... 10 4.6 Consultations assessment ......................................................................................................... 11

5 IMPACTS ANALYSIS .................................................................................................................... 12 5.1 Methodological approach .......................................................................................................... 12 5.2 Assessment of impacts on the physical environments ................................................................... 15 5.3 Assessment of impacts on the biological environment ................................................................... 16 5.4 Assessment of impacts on the human environment ...................................................................... 18 5.5 Cumulative impacts ................................................................................................................. 28

6 ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING AND EMERGENCY MEASURES .......................................................... 29

7 ENVIRONNEMENTAL MONITORING ............................................................................................... 30

8 EFFECTS OF THE ENVIRONNEMENT ON THE PROJECT ...................................................................... 31

9 REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................. 32

List of tables Table 5-1 Mitigation and compensation measures .............................................................................. 12 Table 5-2 Summary of potential impacts analysis .............................................................................. 22

Appendices Appendix A Maps


Page vi

List of abbreviations Abbreviation Definition BAPE Bureau d'audiences publiques sur l'environnement (Office of Public Hearings on the Environment)

CDPNQ Centre de données sur le patrimoine écologique du Québec (Data centre on the ecological heritage of Quebec)

CPTAQ Commission de protection du territoire agricole (Agricultural Land Protection Commission) CWS Canadian Wildlife Service dB Decibel frequency weighted according to Curve A DNV GL DNV GL Entity or GL Garrad Hassan Inc. KSE Énergies Durables Kahnawà:ke HQD Hydro-Québec Distribution km/h Kilometres per hour ha Hectare Leq Equivalent average level m Metre m/s Metres per second

MCC Ministère de la Culture et des Communications (formerly Ministère de la Culture, des Communications et de la Condition féminine (MCCCF))

MDDELCC Ministère du Développement durable, de l’Environnement et de la Lutte contre les changements climatiques (may refer to the MDDEFP and to the MDDEP)

MFFP Ministère des Forêts, de la Faune et des Parcs (can refer to the MDDEFP and to the MNRF) MRNF Ministère des Ressources naturelles et de la Faune (formerly known as, see MFFP) RCM Regional County Municipality MW Megawatt UPA Union des producteurs agricoles (Union of agricultural producers) VEC Valued environmental component

DNV GL – Document number: 800152-CAMO-R-07, Issue: A, Status: Final Page 1www.dnvgl.com

1 BACKGROUND

1.1 Project Proponent

The developer of the Saint-Cyprien Wind Farm Project (“Project”) is Kahnawà:ke Sustainable Energies (KSE). KSE falls under the responsibility of Tewatohnhi’saktha, an organization created by the Mohawk Council of Kahnawà:ke to launch economic development initiatives on behalf of the Kahnawà:ke community. Its mission is to “stimulate and reinforce Kahnawà:ke’s economic growth by investing in people and enterprises, as well as in seizing other economic opportunities”.

1.2 Consultants

1.2.1 DNV GL – Energy Division In the context of this project, DNV GL – Energy Division (DNV GL) is responsible for the general management of the environmental impact study (EIS), the preparation of EIS sections on physical and human components, as well as the integration of sections on biological components. DNV GL also assisted KSE in the technical optimization of the Project and in KSE’s consultation efforts.

1.2.2 SNC-Lavalin In the context of this project, SNC-Lavalin Inc., Environment division (SLE), is responsible for preparation of the EIS sections on biological and agricultural components and the initial sound environment.

1.3 Context and Project Rational

In Canada, as elsewhere in the world, wind energy has been experiencing remarkable growth in recent years. The Quebec government has also recognized the importance of wind resources in the province as well as the potential of the ensuing regional economic benefits. The Quebec government issued two decrees in October 2009 (A/O 2009-02) to install two 250 MW blocks of wind energy from Aboriginal projects and community projects [1]. The Saint-Cyprien Wind Farm Project, as described in this study, was selected by Hydro-Québec Distribution (HQD) in 2010 as part of this tender.


2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

The Project is located in Les Jardins-de-Napierville Regional County Municipality (RCM) in the Montérégie region, within the municipal boundaries of Saint-Cyprien-de-Napierville. More specifically, the area is located approximately four kilometers from the Town of Lacolle, two and a half kilometres from Saint-Bernard-de Lacolle, and six and a half kilometres from the municipality of Napierville and from the urbanized perimeter of Saint-Cyprien-de-Napierville. The Project area covers approximately 568 ha (5.7 km2). The location of the Project area is shown in Map 1 in Appendix A of this volume.

The Project involves the installation and operation of an 18.8 MW wind farm, with eight Enercon E-92 2.35 MW wind turbines. Two alternate positions are also planned. The Project would also require the development of access roads, a 25 kV electricity collection grid, a switchyard, a service building housing the control, protection and measuring instruments, as well as a 100 m meteorological mast. The Project would be connected to HQD’s electric grid bordering the Grande Ligne du Rang Double and would not require a transmission line. The proposed configuration is presented on Maps 2 and 3 in Appendix A of this volume. All planned infrastructure is located on private land. TCI, the initial developer, held meetings with the owners of the lots in question, in order to procure infrastructure implementation agreements.

The proposed configuration maximizes energy production while considering the technical, physical, biological and human constraints. The Project also complies with all applicable municipal, state or federal regulations, as well as the population’s concerns.

The Project activities would be separated in three phases: construction, operations and decommissioning. Activities of the construction phase would include installation of the work areas, temporary soil storage and cleaning areas, improvement or building of access roads, installation of infrastructures (wind turbines, electric grid, switchyard, service building and meteorological mast), as well as reclamation of some of the affected areas.

Activities of the operations phase would include operation of wind turbines, maintenance of all Project infrastructure, as well as environmental monitoring activities. An advisory committee will be created to allow satisfactory dialogue with the interested parties, to see to the diffusion of important information and to follow up on complaints received in relation to the Project.

Activities of the decommissioning phase would include the dismantling of wind turbines and other infrastructure, disposal of materials and equipment, and reclamation of all areas affected by the Project with the possible exception of some access roads pursuant to discussions with the landowners.

The physical footprint of the Project during the operations phase would be approximately 8.2 ha. This would include areas available for other uses, such as farm roads. The footprint of areas used uniquely for the Project would be approximately 0.5 ha, equivalent to 0.32 ha per wind turbine, including a parking space at the base of the turbines, as well as 0.01 ha for the meteorological mast and 0.17 ha for the switchyard.

Construction activities would begin in the spring of 2016 and would continue over a period of 18 months. It is expected that the construction and decommissioning work would be limited to a daily schedule of 7 am to 5 pm, although it is possible that certain activities could take place outside of these hours.


Approximately 50 to 75 different trade workers would be involved in the development and construction of the Project. The adjusted cost of the Project using the E-92 wind turbines is valued at approximately $55 million. As required by HQD’s tender, at least 30% of the amount related to wind turbines would be spent in the Matane RCM and the administrative region of Gaspésie-Îles-de-la-Madeleine. Overall, at least 60% of the overall costs of the Project must be spent in Quebec.

The Project is subject to a power purchase agreement with HQD for a duration of 20 years.


3 ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIAL SETTING

3.1 Description of the physical environment

The region benefits from a temperate climate typical of interior continental zones, with rather long and rigorous winters, hot summers, dry or wet depending on the year. The average annual temperature measured by the temporary meteorological mast was 7.3° C, the region receives approximately 892 mm of rain and 202 cm of snow annually [2]. In the region, the radial annual ice accumulation (ice radius measured on a 2.54 cm transmission line) is approximately 25 mm [3]. The length of the frost-free period varies from 110 to 140 days. A wind speed of 7.1 to 7.3 m/s at 99 m above ground level [4] was extrapolated from the data measured by the temporary 60 m meteorological mast.

The Project is located in the physiographic region known as the Montreal Plain and the undulating plain sub-region [5]. The geological formations of St. John County are part of the St. Lawrence Bassin. There are calcareous mudstones from the Stony Point Formation (Upper Ordovician) and sandstone, shale and limestone from the Laval Formation (Middle Ordovician) [5].

Surface deposits are primarily composed of granular materials (sand and gravel). The soil is mainly clay and loam with a high agricultural potential (mainly Class 2). According to the classification of the Canada Land Inventory, 66% of the municipality of Saint-Cyprien-de-Napierville consists of soil classes 1 to 3. No contaminated land was identified in the Project area [6].

The Project area lies within the Richelieu River watershed, an integral part of the Lake Champlain watershed. No major watercourse passes through the Project area. Only a few intermittent headwater streams are present.

The quality of the ground water in Montérégie is generally good. [7]. No contaminated groundwater was identified in Project area [7]. All municipalities adjacent to the Project area have waterworks and a drinking water intake. Les Jardins-de-Napierville RCM supplies approximately 32% of its population through public waterworks, while 68% of the population get its water from individual wells [8]. According to the Hydrogeological Information System of the Ministère du Développement durable, de l’Environnement et de la Lutte contre les changements climatiques (MDDELCC)(Ministry of Sustainable Development, Environment and the Fight against Climate Change), three wells potentially used for drinking water are listed in the Project area [9].

3.2 Description of the biological environment

The study area is within the St-Jean-sur-Richelieu landscape unit [10]. This landscape unit belongs to the sugar maple hickory bioclimatic zone. The vast majority of the Project area consists of crops, nearly 92% (522.5 ha) of the total area. Only 3% (17.3 ha) are covered in inhabited areas, mostly by farm buildings, and less than 4.3% (24.5 ha) forested areas.

In the Project area, there are six types of forest stands, occupying areas ranging from 0.8 ha to 8.2 ha. The maple stands cover a total of 9.5 ha, of which one has an area of more than 4 ha. No sign of maple grove exploitation was identified in the Project area.


Two wetlands totaling 0.7 ha were identified in the area of the Project: a 4 ha swamp leading to a red ash stand and a wet meadow situated between a sugar maple grove maple and red maple grove. No protected areas and no biological or exceptional forest ecosystem are present within or along the boundaries of the Project area.

According to the Centre de données sur le patrimoine naturel du Québec (CDPNQ) [11], 48 special status plant species have been recorded within 20 km of the study area. Five special-status plant species were found during the inventory: Canada wild ginger (Asarum canadense), northern maidenhair fern (Adiantum pedatum), ostrich fern (Matteuccia struthiopteris), large-flowered bellwort (Uvularia grandiflora), and butternut tree (Junglans cinerea).

The specific surveys conducted in 2010 and 2011 in the Project area during breeding periods and during spring and fall migration, determined that at least 120 species of birds (waterfowl, land birds and birds of prey) frequent the area at one time or another during the year: 28 in winter, 109 during migration and 69 during the nesting period. Waterfowl species constituted the majority of observations during spring migration, while land birds represented the majority of observations during fall migration, and during nesting and wintering seasons.

Seven special-status bird species were identified in the study area during the inventory: least bittern (Ixobrychus exilis), bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus), golden eagle (Aquila chrysaetos), peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus anatum), barn swallow (Hirundo rustica), bobolink (Dolichonyx oryzivorus), and rusty blackbird (Euphagus carolinus) [12] [13] [14]. Furthermore, two bird species observed during the inventory have recently been evaluated by the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC) as being at risk, namely Eastern wood pewee (Contopus virens) and wood thrush (Hylocichla mustelina).

The eight bat species recorded in Quebec are potentially present in the Montérégie region. Acoustic surveys conducted from 2009 to 2011 have confirmed the presence of Eastern red bat (Lasiurus borealis), hoary bat (Lasiurus cinereus), big brown bat (Eptesicus fuscus), as well as species of the Myotis genus, including little brown bat (Myotis lucifugus), Northern long-eared myotis (Myotis septentrionalis) and Eastern small-footed myotis (Myotis leibii). The big brown bat is the species most often detected, representing 39% of the recordings. Most of the recordings were made during the breeding period (92% of detections) and were associated with resident species (76%). The special status species whose presence was confirmed during surveys are the Eastern red bat and the hoary bat [15]. The little brown bat and the Northern long-eared myotis were added to the Canadian Species at Risk Public Registry in November 2014 as endangered species [16]. The inventory did not identify any important migration corridor within the Project area.

The presence of white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) was confirmed in the study area [17], although no white-tailed deer yard was identified. The Project area is also located within the ranges of the moose (Alces alces) and the black bear (Ursus americanus), but it is unlikely that these species frequent the study area due to the absence of extensive forests.

Several species of furbearers are present in the Montérégie region (UGAF 84) since the conditions are conducive to the establishment of a rich and abundant small fauna [15]. Quebec trapping statistics for 2010-2011 and 2011-2012 confirm the presence of 13 furbearing species in the general Project area [19].


Eighteen mammal species are likely to be present in the general Project area [20]. According to the data obtained from the CDPNQ, no special-status species were identified in the Project area [21]. Three species are likely to be designated threatened or vulnerable in Quebec, namely Southern bog lemming (Synaptomys cooperi), rock vole (Microtus chrotorrhinus), and woodland vole (Microtus pinetorum).

The most common fish species possibly present in the Project area are the central mudminnow (Umbra limi), brook stickleback (Culaea inconstans), fathead minnow (Pimephales promelas), creek chub (Semotilus atromaculatus), common shiner (Luxilus cornutus), golden shiner (Notemigonus crysoleucas), and white sucker (Catostomus commersoni) [11] [22]. The 2011 experimental fishing study identified three species of fish in the rivers of the Project area: brook stickleback, creek chub and central midminnow. These are species commonly found in the streams of the St. Lawrence bassin. No special-status species are listed for the Project area; however, the CDPNQ mentioned the presence of river redhorse (Moxostoma carinatum) in the Richelieu River and bridle shiner (Notropis bifrenatus) in the Lacolle River, at distances of 0 to 8 km from the Project area.

Sixteen amphibian species and nine reptile species potentially use the Project area. Eight of these are special-status species, including the western chorus frog (Pseudacris triseriata) and the spiny softshell turtle (Apalone spinifera) [23] [24]. Field inventories identify six species of frogs in the Project area, none of which have special status. No snake or salamander species was identified.

3.3 Description of the human environment

The socioeconomic context was evaluated for Les Jardins-de-Napierville RCM, including the municipality of Saint-Cyprien-de-Napierville. Since 1996, the population of the MRC’s 11 municipalities increased by 7%, reaching 26,122 inhabitants in 2011. The RCM has a population density of 32 people per km2 [25]. With its 1,754 citizens, the municipality of de Saint-Cyprien-de-Napierville represents approximately 6.7% of the RCM’s population [26].

The age group distribution within the RCM and within the main municipality concerned by the Project is similar. The dominant age group, representing approximately 27% of the population, is the 25- to 44-year-old group [27] [28]. The RCM’s population distribution is similar to that of the province. The 25- to 65-year-old age group comprises the majority of the population, both at the municipal and RCM levels.

In 2006, the proportion of the MRC’s population with an income was similar to the provincial average (77% et 78%, respectively), while the unemployment rate in the municipality of Saint-Cyprien-de-Napierville was half the provincial average (3.7% and 7.0%, respectively) [27] [28]. The economy in Les Jardins-de-Napierville’s RCM is mainly based on farming, and the Richelieu River’s tourism potential area is also exploited. About 16% of workers in the study area were employed in the primary sector. The secondary sector employed about 22% of workers, while approximately 62% of workers were employed in the tertiary sector [27] [28].

Several socio-economic organizations are active in promoting the region, including the Saint-Jean-Valleyfield chapter of the UPA, the Jardins-de-Napierville’s local development centre, the Saint-Rémi/Hemmingford’s regions trading centre and the Chamber of Commerce of the Haut-Richelieu.


Health services in the region are provided by the Health and Social Services Agency of Montérégie [29]. The RCM is served by a hospital, local community service centres, hosting centres and long-term residences. Police services are provided by the Quebec Provincial Police from stations in Napierville [30] and Les Jardins-de-Napierville.

RCM has seven fire service points [31]. Four school boards provide education services and vocational training [32].

The region has numerous parks, historical and touristic sites, maple groves, orchards, cheese factories, beaches, marinas, golf courses, bike paths, snowmobile and cross-country skiing trails, as well as numerous architectural tourist attractions [33].

The Project location’s environment, typical of Montérégie, is characterized by vast agricultural expanses dotted with homes and farm buildings mainly along roads, as well as a few village centres. Within a 10 km radius, a few urbanized sectors are found, namely Lacolle, Saint-Cyprien-de-Napierville and Napierville. There is also a concentration of shops and community facilities in Lacolle and Napierville, as well as an industrial activity [34].

The closest Aboriginal community to the Project, is Kahnawà:ke, located on the south shore of Montréal, at a distance of 35 km. To date, there is no pending territorial claim in the RCM Les Jardins-de-Napierville [35].

Cereals and protein crops occupy the largest area (approx. 26,000 ha) of land under cultivation in the RCM of Les Jardins-de-Napierville, representing approximately 37% of the plant production of the RCM. Fresh vegetables are the most important, however, in terms of the number of farms (188 farms) and income ($160M) [36] [37]. The main livestock production in the RCM is milk production, both in terms of income ($19M) and number of farms (60).

Cropland in Saint-Cyprien-de-Napierville accounts for 88% of the 9,538 ha under agricultural zoning and the municipality’s main source of agricultural revenues comes from grain ($6.2M) and vegetable ($5.1M) production.

The land of the Project area is essentially devoted to crops (93%), mainly corn, soybeans, straw cereals, hay and canning vegetables. According to the Canadian Land Inventory (ARDA), the Project area is mainly composed of high potential agricultural land. According to the Financière agricole du Québec, the reference yields for cereals, feed corn, grain corn and soybeans are lower for the municipality of Saint-Cyprien-de-Napierville (Zone 07-09) than the regional average (Zone 7) [38].

The main roads surrounding the Project area include Routes 10, 15 and 35, as well as regional roads 202, 217, 219 and 221 [39]. The RCM of Les Jardins-de-Napierville is further served by a Canadian Pacific railway line that passes near the Project [39]. The only airfield near the Project area is at the Saint-Jean-sur-Richelieu military base, while the Montréal-Trudeau International Airport on the island of Montreal is located 45 km northeast.

A 750 kV power line runs through the north of RCMs Le Haut-Richelieu and Les Jardins-de-Napierville and connects the Chateauguay, Hertel and Montérégie stations. In addition, the region is served by several substations and 120 kV lines as well as an extensive network of lower tension lines [40].


The RCM Les Jardins-de-Napierville supplies about 32% of its population through public waterworks, while 68% of the population gets its water from individual wells [8]. According to the MDDELCC’s hydrogeological information system database, three wells potentially used for drinking water are listed on the territory of the Project [9]. The Saint-Cyprien-de-Napierville serves about 15% of the population through public waterworks [41].

According to Industry Canada’s database, no radiocommunication or radar system is located within the Project area [42]. On the other hand, the Project area intersects a microwave link. The analysis of “protected”1 systems indicates that the Project area overlaps a National Defence primary surveillance radar, as well as two Canadian Coast Guard marine traffic navigation systems. NAV CANADA predicts that the Project would be located in the line of site of the Montréal-Trudeau International Airport’s primary surveillance radar and would be marginally visible from Mirabel’s primary surveillance radar. In addition, NAV CANADA would lift its objection if technical mitigation measures were applied to eliminate the interference caused to the systems.

No cultural object listed in the Quebec cultural property [43] and Canadian Heritage directories was identified within the Project area [44]. The closest cultural property is located in Lacolle. No archaeological sites were identified within the perimeter of the Project area. However, eight sites were located within an approximately 5 km radius around it, of which six are shipwrecks located at the bottom of the Richelieu River. The other two are artefacts reflecting a prehistoric Indigenous presence [45]. The archaeological potential study resulted in 14 areas of potential being located, including some within the Project area (Map 4 in Appendix A of this document).

The study area for the landscape analysis covers a radius of about 15 km around the wind turbines’ positions. Three landscape units were identified: village, agricultural plain, and riparian.

Six sensitive viewpoints were identified for the preparation of visual simulations. These viewpoints reflect the proportions of each landscape unit in the study area and offer a realistic range of possible views. Consultation meetings with individuals living in and using the area have confirmed the choice of viewpoints.

The noise climate in the study area was measured in October and November 2011 as well as in June and July 2012, in four representative sampling points considered "sensitive." Minimum hourly daytime noise levels ranged from 31 to 75 dBA while the minimum hourly nighttime noise levels measured ranged from 22 to73 dBA. The identified noise sources were mainly traffic (roads with posted speed limits of 80 km/h at measurement points 2 and 3), frogs, agriculture-related activities and the wind in the trees.

1 Protected frequencies for national, provincial or municipal public security systems. These systems are not included

in the Industry Canada database.


4 CONSULTATION PROCESS

From the earliest moments of planning the Project, KSE sought to identify and meet the stakeholders to discuss the Project and to identify their concerns. It was planned to build a lasting relationship of trust with the community and stakeholders through various consultation activities, such as:

Preparing a study on the social profile of the municipality;

Establishing a steering committee;

Establishing an advisory committee comprising local and regional stakeholders;

Providing information through newspapers, social media and a website;

Meeting with local and regional stakeholders; and

Inviting the public to information sessions and workshops.

4.1 Landowners

KSE maintained close communication with landowners throughout the development of the Project. KSE considers the owners as partners in the Project and strived to harmonize the Project with agricultural activities.

Numerous individual meetings were held in order to keep the owners abreast of Project development. KSE and participating landowners visited the facilities of the Montérégie Wind Farm. This contributed to a better understanding of the concerns associated with the reality of a wind Project. Five priority themes were identified: agriculture, property value, landscape, health, and noise.

4.2 Citizens

KSE held three public meetings. The first was held in 2007 to present a draft Project to the population and collect first impressions. The second was held in 2010 to consult the public on a proposal for a community project. The third was held in 2014 to present the details of an advanced project prior to the submitting the environmental impact study. Participants in this third meeting were mainly in favour of wind energy development in the municipality, as long as certain conditions were met, namely with respect to noise levels and minimum distances. A minority of participants were against wind development in the municipality or elsewhere, and, the most common reasons were perceived health impacts, loss of agricultural land, and quality of the landscape.

A telephone survey was conducted in 2010 to verify the state of knowledge of the population regarding the Project. The majority of respondents claimed to be aware of the development of a wind project in the municipality, but wished to have more information. Following this survey, KSE published press releases summarizing the main Project development activities.


A comprehensive social study was conducted in 2011 to understand and anticipate the needs of the municipality and other interested parties. The study led to the development of a consultative approach designed to build a constructive relationship with the municipality.

An advisory committee was formed and began its functions in January 2015 to provide stakeholders with practical tools to ensure community awareness regarding the anticipated impacts of the Project and proposed mitigation measures. The committee is composed of stakeholder representatives.

KSE considers that the majority of the population and stakeholders have been consulted or at least received the information available about the Project, although some citizens or groups have chosen not to take part in the consultation process, either out of a lack of interest or by principle.

4.3 Municipality and RCM

The participation of the municipal government in the development of a wind project is fundamental due to planning regulations that govern the Project.

From the first stages, KSE sought to engage the municipality in an open and honest consultation process. In the initial meetings, the municipality appeared to support a community wind project. In 2010, the municipality advised that it no longer wished to participate in the development of a community project.

Many efforts were subsequently made to maintain a dialogue with city officials, including meeting requests and offers of mediation, but municipal authorities chose not to involve themselves in the Project. In 2014, KSE met a new council to present the Project and continue consultation processes with the population.

KSE recognizes that consultation efforts with the municipality encountered difficulties and a productive dialogue was only re-established in February 2014, following the election of a new council. This new openness has allowed a public meeting to be held and enhanced the list of issues to be considered.

4.4 Government agencies

A number of federal and provincial government agencies were consulted in order to present the Project and to discuss concerns as well as the monitoring programs. These agencies include the MDDELCC, the Ministry of Forestry, Wildlife and Parks (MFFP) and the Canadian Wildlife Service (CWS) for discussions on the protocols used to identify wildlife survey programs; and the Ministry of Culture and Communication (MCC) regarding the different archaeological studies; and the Agricultural Land Protection Commission (CPTAQ) for the agricultural component.

4.5 Groups and organizations

KSE has consulted other stakeholders, including land users, environmental groups, as well as the Community of Kahnawà:ke. The issues raised were varied and generally in line with the particular interests of the specific groups, while in general reflecting the issues of the population.


The Fédération de l’Union des producteurs agricoles (UPA) of Montérégie indicated being in favour of wind development that was respectful of agricultural resources and of the farmers, which would result in no net loss of agricultural use. Recommendations to minimize such impacts were proposed.

4.6 Consultations assessment

The entire proactive consultative approach has taken stock of the important issues in order to better manage them and effectively integrate them into the Project. Among the issues raised by the many stakeholders met during the consultation, KSE retains that the main concerns pertain to the use of agricultural land for purposes other than agriculture, separation distances with the wind turbines, health effects and changes to the landscape. All issues raised were integrated into this EIA.

The consultative process was also used to make adjustments to the configuration of the Project and to refine the analysis of impacts as well as sectorial studies.

KSE will continue to make information about the Project available on its website. Any individual or group wishing to obtain information may also address questions and concerns directly to KSE. Moreover, the impact study will be made available to the public for consultation following the MDDELCC’s evaluation. KSE agrees to notify the surrounding population and stakeholders of the availability of documents in a timely manner.


5 IMPACTS ANALYSIS

5.1 Methodological approach

The methodology used is based on the evaluation of the interrelations between the environmental components and the components of the Project. The process consists of four main steps.

First, the potential interrelations between sources of impact (Project’s activities and infrastructures) and valued environmental components (VECs) (physical, biological and human) are identified.

Second, the potential impacts for each significant interrelation are evaluated. The methodology considers the value placed on the VECs as well as the characteristics of potential impacts: their duration, their scope and their intensity. In addition, the assessment includes the application of standard mitigation measures (Table 5-1). Each potential impact is assigned a degree of importance (minor, moderate or major).

Third, for moderate or major potential impacts, specific mitigation or compensation measures are identified to further minimize the anticipated impacts (Table 5-1). Residual impacts can then be considered important or non-important.

Lastly, monitoring programs are proposed for a VEC for which a residual impact is considered important. Monitoring programs may also be required for VECs which are particularly sensitive or have a high value.

Furthermore, the assessment of the impact on the landscape is primarily adapted from methods described by Hydro-Québec, the Ministry of Natural Resources and Wildlife (MRNF) and the MAMROT [46] [47] [48]. The method is based on the degree of sensitivity of the landscape units in the Project area and the degree of perception of the Project’s infrastructure. The evaluation of the degree of sensitivity considers the value placed on each landscape unit and the latter’s capacity to absorb and integrate new infrastructure. The degree of perception of the Project infrastructures is assessed through a visibility analysis, which helps determine the importance, ranging from none to high.

Table 5-1 Mitigation and compensation measures

Mitigation and compensation measures Standard mitigation measures

MC1 Use dust controls on unpaved roads as necessary, and more frequently during dry weather.

MC2 Limit the speed of trucks on unpaved paths.

MC3 Use vehicles and equipment in good condition and comply with the Regulation respecting environmental standards for heavy vehicles [49].

MC4 Develop and implement a plan for transportation and flow efficiency in order to inform the local population, and limit the distances and time vehicles and heavy machinery are used. Wherever possible, the work will be performed during the day during the week.

MC5 Implement all standards prescribed in the Guide Aménagement des ponceaux en milieu agricole [50] for culvert construction.

MC6 Strip only the necessary areas for the construction and operation of structures and rehabilitate temporary work areas immediately after the construction phase in order to limit the areas left bare.


Mitigation and compensation measures

MC7 Minimize the construction of new roads, using existing roads wherever possible.

MC8 Provide workers with an emergency plan to follow in case of an oil spill, and provide emergency response kits (absorbents and others), in strategic places on the work site, at all times, to recover contaminants discharged before their infiltration into the soil or their migration to watercourses.

MC9 Regularly inspect and maintain in good condition all vehicles and machinery used, in order to avoid the risk of breakage.

MC10 Quickly remediate contaminated soil. The latter must be excavated and disposed of at an appropriate treatment site. Any major spill would be reported to the appropriate agencies; where applicable, hydrocarbons and contaminated soil will be recovered and disposed of by a specialized firm according to laws and regulations.

MC11 Do not locate wind turbines within 10 m of a river, lake or wetland (measure considered in the optimization). With the exception of a few water crossings, new roads and roads to be upgraded have been planned in this regard.

MC12 Apply Fisheries and Oceans Canada’s recommendation for watercourse crossings design and mitigation measures.

MC13 Maintain sufficient and minimal areas around the turbines.

MC14 Do not connect ditches to streams; rather, make a diversion in the forest or wetland according to the directive of the Guide des saines pratiques : voirie forestière et installation de ponceaux (Best practice guide: forest roads and installation of culverts). When this is not possible, install filtering berns and sediment traps in the ditch before its connection to the river.

MC15 In existing roads with slopes greater than 15% requiring upgrading, pay particular attention to the capture of surface water. Install sedimentation basins to collect surface water before it arrives at streams.

MC16 Minimize the number of new water crossings.

MC17 Clear only the necessary areas for the construction and operation of structures and rehabilitate temporary areas immediately after the construction phase.

MC18 Implement preventive measures, such as ensuring that (re)fueling is done at a distance equal to or greater than 30 m from the banks of a river.

MC19 Consult with stakeholders in order to plan the work and consider uses.

MC20 Control access to certain areas of the territory for brief periods.

MC21 Inform the local population of the potential impacts of the wind farm on TV reception.

MC22 Establish mitigation measures including, but not limited to: the replacement of antennas or the installation and monthly costs of cable or satellite TV, for the duration of Project operations.

MC23 Stop work in the event an underground archaeological resource is discovered, in accordance with the Cultural Property Act, and notify the Ministry of Culture and Communications.

MC24 Barring exceptional circumstances, limit work to weekdays between 07:00 and 17:00.

MC25 Develop and implement an emergency plan and harmonize it with the municipality’s plan.

MC26 To the extent possible, limit work on water crossings and culverts to between August 1 and March 1.

MC27 Collect and transport cleaning wastewater to an authorized disposal site.

MC28 Perform additional inventory if the infrastructure must be located in or near wetlands.

MC29 In consultation with the MFFP, identify mitigation measures in relation to a critical threshold of bat mortality.

MC30 Characterize streams crossed by roads to be constructed or improved, and protect spawning areas found downstream, if any.

MC31 Implement a communication plan to address the concerns and complaints of interested parties.


Mitigation and compensation measures

MC32 Implement a protocol for the reclamation of arable land to minimize the impact during the construction of wind turbines on farmland.

MC33 Pay the fees stemming from technical mitigation measures required by NAV CANADA.

MC34 Carry out an archaeological survey on areas of archaeological potential affected by the Project.

Specific mitigation measures

MP1 Rehabilitate work areas with native plant species to allow the canopy to close quickly.

MP2 Seed temporarily scoured areas with a mixture of grasses to hold the soil.

MP3 Cover top soil piles left in place for an extended period with a geogrid or tarp.

MP4 Perform soil stripping and deforestation work outside the general nesting period, from May 1 to August 15.

MP5 Specific mitigation measures defined in collaboration with the MDDELCC regional office according to the results of the mortality monitoring during the operations phase. This may include increasing the cut-in wind speed, in consultation with the MFFP, if this is shown to be desirable in the context of the Project and monitoring results.

Specific compensation measures

MPc1 Payments to farmers.


5.2 Assessment of impacts on the physical environments

The physical components considered having significant interrelations with the activities or components of the Project are:

Atmospheric and meteorological conditions;

Soil and surface deposits;

Surface water.

Construction and decommissioning activities (access roads, infrastructure, transportation, and traffic) could temporarily affect the air quality due to dust emissions. This impact would be felt mainly near houses along road 221 and the Grande Ligne du Rang-Double. The use of dust suppressants on unpaved roads, especially in dry weather and imposing of a speed limit for trucks on unpaved paths would help reduce the impact.

The air quality could also be temporarily reduced due to emissions of greenhouse gases and air pollutants from the burning of fossil fuels by vehicles and machinery. These emissions are considered similar to those produced for other large-scale construction projects. It is important to mention that, considering the potential reductions in greenhouse gases and air pollutants by displacing fossil energy sources, the Project could have a positive impact on air quality in the long term. The total energy required to produce the components and carry out the construction of the Project would be offset within a few months of operation. The use of vehicles and equipment in good condition and complying with the standards in place [49] and the development of an effective transportation and traffic plan would help to reduce the impact.

During the construction and dismantling phases, the movement of trucks and other equipment could result in erosion or compaction of soil and surface deposits (ruts in the roads and temporary work areas).

The presence of vehicles and machinery as well as maintenance equipment could result in accidental spills and the contamination of soil, surface deposits and surface waters. The infrastructures provide for retention systems to prevent spills and accidental leaks from spreading into the environment. The management of waste oils and other contaminants, which are subject to strict regulations and submitted to several controls, would be carried out according to the standards in effect.

The transport of suspended solids in the water may change the surface water runoff pattern and affect the quality of nearby streams. The work was planned to limit, to the extent possible, the expanse of the area disturbed by the presence of access roads, as well as by the number of stream crossings. Further, the stabilization of roadsides and of water crossings would help protect water quality. When underground power lines must cross a watercourse, the crossing would be made through the culvert’s embankment.


Residual impacts on the physical environment

Following application of common mitigation measures, the importance of the potential impacts is considered minor for all components of the physical environment. Therefore, the residual impacts of the Project on these components are considered non-important. A summary of the analysis of potential impacts is presented in (Table 5-2).

5.3 Assessment of impacts on the biological environment

The biological components having a significant interrelation with the activities or components of the Project are:

Vegetation;

Birds;

Bats;

Terrestrial fauna;

Fish; and

Reptiles and amphibians.

The stripping of work areas are believed to be the main cause of the disappearance of plant communities, but affected areas would consist mainly of land under cultivation. No wooded area, wetland, fallow or special status plant community would be affected.

During the preparation and construction phase, truck traffic and soil stripping are likely to create significant amounts of sediment that could cover the immediate vicinity of the work area and end up in streams.

The Project’s infrastructure would be located primarily outside of the natural environments present on the site, so disturbed habitats would mainly be cultivated fields. Bird species inhabiting open areas may incur a loss of habitat. The Project could also affect birds by being a source of disturbance, or a cause of collision mortality.

Sensitivity to disturbance by wind turbines varies depending on the bird type: with seabirds and grassland birds being the most easily disturbed [51] [52] [53] [54] [55] [56] [57] [58] [59] [60]. It appears that some birds nesting or living near a wind farm can get acclimated to the presence of wind turbines [61] [62]. Most migratory birds change their trajectory to avoid wind turbines [54] [57] [62] [64] [65] [66] [67] [68] [69] [70]. Considering the fact that the study area does not appear to represent a migratory corridor or a major resting area for migrating birds, and that it is not used by species particularly sensitive to disturbance by wind farms (seabirds and grassland birds), this disturbance is not expected to be very pronounced. Theoretically, the risk of collision is significantly higher during periods of massive nocturnal migrations and in inclement weather [51]. Also, although nocturnal migratory birds generally fly at altitudes much higher than wind turbines [71] [72] [73] [74], the majority of birds killed by collision with wind turbines in eastern North America are passerines, which are nocturnal migrants [72] [75].


The presence and operation of wind turbines could result in a risk of death or injury due to collision or barotrauma for bats. Wind turbines located in open environments only slightly affect bats during the breeding season (mid-June to mid-July) [62]. Also, it appears that the majority of bats colliding with wind turbines are arboreal and migratory [76] [77] [78] [79] [80] [81] [82] [83] [84] [85] [86]. In Quebec, estimates of bat fatalities at wind farms currently in operation range from 0.000 to 0.007 fatality/turbine/day (data collected between 2005 and 2009), or 0.000 to 2.620 fatalities/turbine/year [87]. Estimated annual mortality ranges from 0 to 191 bats/wind farm [88]. The Project’s infrastructure would be located outside of the natural environment, so there would not be any loss of potential bat habitats. In addition, the turbines would be located more than 150 m from any woodland, wetland or important waterway, thereby limiting the potential impacts of the Project on this component.

The study area has good potential for the presence of terrestrial wildlife, including deer and small mammals. Terrestrial wildlife can be affected by the installation of wind turbines through habitat loss, increased human presence, and fragmentation of forest areas. As the study area contains no critical or sensitive habitats, the Project would not result in any impact in this regard. In addition, no deforestation is expected. Planned access roads would be built on agricultural land, thus avoiding habitat fragmentation. Truck traffic, noise from equipment and increased human presence may temporarily disturb wildlife present close to work areas. The inconvenience caused by the work would have a negligible impact on wildlife present within the study area, especially since it can easily adapt to human activities.

The small streams within the Project area offer no potential habitat for sport fish such as brook trout. Fish species present in the study area are fairly tolerant of periods of turbidity. Furthermore, no special status species is listed within the study area. However, the species typical of these small streams are ecologically important, as they constitute the basic diet of sport fish species.

The Project would cause a modification of fish habitat, namely by the crossing of three intermittent streams by access roads and the electric network. The risk of erosion and sediment production during the construction and decommissioning activities could affect fish habitat. The standards prescribed in the guide Aménagement des ponceaux en milieu agricole (Installation of culverts in agricultural areas) [50], as well as the RNI and the Guide des saines pratiques : voirie forestière et installation de ponceaux (Best practice guide: forest roads and installation of culverts) [89], would be applied where possible. The streams crossed by roads to be constructed or upgraded will be surveyed for the presence of spawning areas downstream of the crossings. Identified spawning areas will be protected.

Reptile and amphibian habitat could be affected by construction and decommissioning activities. Considering that the Project’s infrastructure would be located outside natural areas such as wetlands and streams required by reptiles and amphibians, potential impacts would be minor. Encroachment in the fields that provide habitat for some species would also be minimized.

Truck traffic, equipment noise and increased human presence are also likely to temporarily disturb reptiles and amphibians near work areas. Noise is likely to alter the reproductive behaviour of frogs and toads, which respond differently to sound stimuli depending on the species [90]. Some species seem to increase their singing rate during the breeding season, while others reduce it when aircraft or vehicle sounds are heard nearby. Since the most important period of activity of these species is the evening, construction and traffic noise is not likely to influence their behaviour.


Residual impacts on the biological environment

Following the application of common mitigation measures, the importance of potential impacts is considered minor for terrestrial fauna, fish, reptiles and amphibians. Therefore, the residual impacts of the Project on these components are considered non-important.

The importance of some potential impacts on the vegetation and birds is also considered minor. The application of specific mitigation measures for vegetation is nonetheless planned in order to favour the regeneration of the affected areas. Thus, residual impacts are considered non-important.

Despite the implementation of common mitigation measures, the importance of potential impacts on bats is considered moderate, as are some potential impacts on vegetation and birds. Therefore, specific mitigation measures are planned to further reduce potential impacts. Thus, the residual impacts are considered non-important.

A summary of the analysis of potential impacts is presented in (Table 5-2).

5.4 Assessment of impacts on the human environment

The biological components having a significant interrelation with the activities or components of the Project are:

Socioeconomic context ;

Land use;

Agriculture;

Transport infrastructure and utilities;

Communication systems and radars;

Archaeological and cultural heritage;

Landscape;

Noise environment;

Human health and safety.

At least 60% of the overall costs of the Project ($ 55 million) would be spent in Quebec, and at least 30% of the total amount would be spent in the administrative region of Gaspésie─îles-de-la-Madeleine. Furthermore, it is estimated that the Project would employ approximately 50 to 75 people during the construction phase. The developer is committed to spend as much as possible in the Montérégie region by retaining consultants and companies in the region and to favor the hiring of local contractors and workers. The Project aims to achieve the greatest possible spending in the Montérégie region.

During the operational phase, approximately two to four specialized permanent jobs are planned, mainly for the operation and maintenance of the wind farm. KSE would pay voluntary contributions to municipalities and compensations to land owners where the turbines would be located during the operational phase. Following the decommissioning of the wind farm, the region would lose those two to four permanent jobs, as well as direct economic benefits associated with the operation of the wind


farm. The negative impact of decommissioning on the regional economy would be felt especially after the first year of the decommissioning and particularly at the local level.

Machinery traffic and work on the roads and turbine sites would limit accessibility to the area during certain periods of the construction and decommissioning phases. The main potential impacts concern the density of occupation, the total number of workers that could potentially be found in the same area, as well as increased traffic in the area. Construction activities would be planned in consultation with the affected property owners in order to harmonize the work with current activities. A communication plan would be developed and managed by the advisory committee.

During the operations phase, the interrelation between wind turbine operations and the presence of snowmobile and ATV trails is deemed significant due to the possibility of ice throw from the blades. This could compromise the safe use of snowmobile and ATV trails. The presence of wind turbines could therefore limit the safe access to snowmobile and ATV trails during icing periods.

Activities related to the construction of wind turbine areas and access roads could affect the drainage of agricultural fields and cause ponding or drying in some areas. Construction activities could be planned in consultation with the landowners and farm operators, as recommended by an agronomist.

The developer will comply with the Cadre de référence relatif à l’aménagement de parcs éoliens en milieux agricole et forestier (Reference framework for the development of wind farms in agricultural and forested areas), as defined in Annex 9 of HQD’s call for tenders (A/O 2005-03). This document provides private owners and wind farm developers with intervention principles, methods and mitigation measures to significantly reduce or eliminate impacts on agricultural land.

An arable land rehabilitation protocol will be implemented during wind turbine installation to minimize impacts to arable soil. This protocol would include, to the extent possible, an evaluation of the initial state of the soil prior to construction, including the collection of performance data over a five-year reference period, as well as agronomic monitoring for seven years following Project commissioning and decommissioning.

The temporary reduction in land area available for farming due to infrastructure would be in the order of 14.1 ha. The permanent reduction would be approximately 8.2 ha; however, this includes existing farm roads, which are not cultivated.

It is estimated that about 1,494 trucks, organized in convoys, could pass through the region to transport equipment, concrete and other materials, as well as to transport workers to work sites during the construction phase. The potential increase in traffic density would be observed on Route 221, as well as on access roads to the work areas, especially on the Grande Ligne du Rang Double. A transportation plan will be presented to the Ministère des Transports du Québec (MTQ) for approval. The aim will be to inform the local population, and limit the travel distance and time use of vehicles and heavy machinery.

To protect groundwater drinking water catchment areas (i.e. wells) and rock aquifers, a separation distance of 300 m between wind turbines and wells would be respected. In addition, a hydrogeological study would be conducted to characterize the underground drinking water (i.e. wells).


Wind turbines can disrupt radiocommunication systems and radars by interfering with the propagation of electromagnetic waves. The inventory shows that the consultation zone of several systems overlap with the Project area, and the analysis showed that the Project infrastructure may cause interference to TV reception for about 100 homes around the Project area.

Activities requiring soil alteration could affect archaeological heritage resources. The analysis has identified areas within the Project that present potential for Aboriginal and Euro-Canadian archeological resources [45]. However, this area has already been disturbed largely because it was converted to agricultural purposes. Therefore, no new archaeological sites were identified in the study. However, as a precaution, an archaeological survey will be carried out on areas of potential affected by the Project.

To assess the impacts on the landscape, six visual simulations were prepared. Overall, visual impacts vary from minimal to average. Typically, the panoramic views and the character of the agricultural environment, the predominant type of landscape in the region of the Project, accentuate the impact of wind turbines. However, the flat topography and mixture of human elements found in the area make for varied and dynamic landscapes. Ubiquitous traces of human activities help to reduce the impact. The constraints used in the determination of the configuration help to distance the wind turbines from inhabited and frequented areas, thereby reducing the scale contrast between the wind turbines and the visual environment of the viewpoints.

The acoustic environment near work areas and roads used by heavy vehicles would be partially affected during the day. It is estimated that the noise impact generated by the construction of the Project would be below the levels prescribed by the MDDELCC, namely a 12 h equivalent average level (Leq) of 55 dBA during the day (07:00 to 19:00) and a 1 hour Leq of 45 dBA in the evening and at night (19:00 to 07:00).

Noise produced by wind turbines in operation may also affect the acoustic environment. The projected noise levels were calculated for 120 homes and school located near the Project. The analysis predicts that the highest noise level would be 37.1 dBA at Receptor 27 (see Map 5 in Appendix A of this volume), which is consistent with sound levels prescribed in MDDELCC’s Note d’instruction 98-01 [91]. Although the predicted noise levels are below 40 dBA for residences in and around the Project area, other land users could hear higher sound levels in some places on site. Depending on the location, noise levels would range from less than 35 dBA to around 60 dBA at the base of a wind turbine.

Aside from noise, air quality and drinking water issues that have been discussed above, residents' quality of life can be affected by shadow flicker from operating wind turbines. The potential shadow flicker was calculated for all residences located within a distance equivalent to 10 times the total turbine height (1,440 m). According to the analysis, the maximum number of hours per year of shadow flicker a residence could receive is 18 hours, at residence ID119 (see Map 6 in Annex A of this document). The maximum number of days per year of shadow flicker a residence could receive is 72 days, at residence ID119. The maximum number of minutes per day of shadow flicker a residence could receive is 22 minutes, on May 18 at residence ID119.

Accidents and injuries during the construction, operation and decommissioning of the Project are a possibility for the workers and staff on the Project site, as well as all persons accessing the site. Preventive measures have been planned, such as the preparation of a transportation plan,


identification of work areas and the use of clear and adequate signs on site. Environmental monitoring measures and the emergency plan are described in Section 6.

Residual impacts on the human environment

Following the application of common mitigation measures, the importance of potential impacts is considered minor for Transportation and Utility Infrastructure, Radiocommunication Systems and Radars, Archaeological and Cultural Heritage, Acoustic Environment, as well as Human Health and Safety. Therefore, the residual effects of the Project on these components are considered non-important.

Pursuant to application of common mitigation measures, the importance of certain potential impacts on land use and agriculture is also considered minor. Thus, these residual impacts are considered to be non-important.

The importance of the potential impacts is considered moderate or major for the socio-economic context. No common or specific mitigation measures are planned, resulting in important residual impacts. It is important to mention that two of the residual impacts on the socio-economic environment are positive. The third residual impact (loss of permanent jobs, economic benefits, and local royalties) would occur at the end of the useful life of the Project.

Despite the implementation of common mitigation measures, the importance of some potential impacts is considered to be moderate for land use and for agriculture. The implementation of a specific compensation measure is planned for the agriculture component to further reduce potential impacts. Residual impacts are considered non-important.

The importance of the potential impact on the landscape varies from very mild to average, depending on the viewpoint. No current or specific mitigation measures are planned. The residual impact therefore also varies from very mild to average.

A summary of the analysis of potential impacts is presented in (Table 5-2).

DN

V G

L –

Doc

umen

t nu

mbe

r: 8

0015

2-CAM

O-R

-07,

Iss

uanc

e: A

, Sta

tus:

Fin

al

Pa

ge 2

2w

ww

.dnv

gl.c

om

Tab

le 5

-2 S

um

mar

y of

pot

enti

al im

pac

ts a

nal

ysis

Com

pon

ent

Pro

ject

act

ivit

y P

oten

tial

imp

act

Com

mon

m

itig

atio

n

mea

sure

s

Ch

arac

teri

zati

on o

f im

pac

t Im

po

rtan

ce

of i

mp

act

Sp

ecif

ic

mit

igat

ion

m

easu

res

Res

idu

al

imp

act

Phys

ical

env

iron

men

t

Met

eoro

logi

cal a

nd

atm

osph

eric

co

nditi

ons

Acc

ess

road

con

stru

ctio

n an

d im

prov

emen

t;

Inst

alla

tion

and

dism

antli

ng o

f in

fras

truc

ture

s.

Red

uctio

n in

air

qua

lity

due

to

the

stirring

up

of d

ust

MC1 ,

M

C2

Val

ue:

M

oder

ate

Inte

nsity

: M

oder

ate

Dur

atio

n:

Sho

rt

Ran

ge:

Fo

otpr

int

Min

or

- N

on-

impo

rtan

t

Tran

spor

t an

d tr

affic

. Red

uctio

n in

air

qua

lity

by

gree

nhou

se g

as e

mis

sion

s an

d at

mos

pher

ic p

ollu

tant

s

MC3 ,

M

C4

Val

ue:

M

oder

ate

Inte

nsity

: M

oder

ate

Dur

atio

n:

Sho

rt

Ran

ge:

Lo

cal

Min

or

- N

on-

impo

rtan

t

Soi

ls a

nd s

urfa

ce

depo

sits

Str

ippi

ng;

Acc

ess

road

con

stru

ctio

n an

d im

prov

emen

t;

Inst

alla

tion

and

dism

antli

ng o

f in

fras

truc

ture

s;

Tran

spor

t an

d tr

affic

.

Soi

l com

pact

ion

and

eros

ion

M

C1,

MC2,

MC

3 M

C4,

MC5,

MC

6 M

C7,

MC32

Val

ue:

Mod

erat

e In

tens

ity:

Low

D

urat

ion:

M

oder

ate

Ran

ge:

Fo

otpr

int

Min

or

- N

on-

impo

rtan

t

Con

tam

inat

ion

of s

oil a

nd

surf

ace

depo

sits

by

acci

dent

al

hydr

ocar

bon

spill

MC8,

MC9,

M

C10

, M

C27

Val

ue:

M

oder

ate

Inte

nsity

: L

ow

Dur

atio

n:

Sho

rt

Ran

ge:

Fo

otpr

int

Min

or

- N

on-

impo

rtan

t

Win

d fa

rm m

aint

enan

ce

Con

tam

inat

ion

of s

oil a

nd

surf

ace

depo

sits

fro

m

acci

dent

al h

ydro

carb

on s

pills

MC8,

M

C9,

M

C10

Val

ue:

M

oder

ate

Inte

nsity

: L

ow

Dur

atio

n:

Sho

rt

Ran

ge:

Fo

otpr

int

Min

or

- N

on-

impo

rtan

t

Sur

face

wat

er

Str

ippi

ng;

Acc

ess

road

con

stru

ctio

n an

d im

prov

emen

t;

Inst

alla

tion

and

dism

antli

ng o

f el

ectr

ical

grid;

Tr

ansp

ort

and

traf

fic.

Tran

spor

t of

sus

pend

ed m

atte

r in

wat

er

MC5,

M

C11

, M

C12

Val

ue:

M

oder

ate

Inte

nsity

: L

ow

Dur

atio

n:

Mod

erat

e Ran

ge:

Fo

otpr

int

Min

or

- N

on-

impo

rtan

t

Sur

face

wat

er c

onta

min

atio

n fr

om a

ccid

enta

l hyd

roca

rbon

sp

ills

MC8,

MC9,

M

C10

, M

C11

, M

C12

Val

ue:

M

oder

ate

Inte

nsity

: L

ow

Dur

atio

n :

Sho

rt

Ran

ge:

Fo

otpr

int

Min

or

- N

on-

impo

rtan

t

DN

V G

L –

Doc

umen

t nu

mbe

r: 8

0015

2-CAM

O-R

-07,

Iss

uanc

e: A

, Sta

tus:

Fin

al

Pa

ge 2

3w

ww

.dnv

gl.c

om

Com

pon

ent

Pro

ject

act

ivit

y P

oten

tial

imp

act

Com

mon

m

itig

atio

n

mea

sure

s

Ch

arac

teri

zati

on o

f im

pac

t Im

po

rtan

ce

of i

mp

act

Sp

ecif

ic

mit

igat

ion

m

easu

res

Res

idu

al

imp

act

Win

d fa

rm m

aint

enan

ce

Sur

face

wat

er c

onta

min

atio

n fr

om a

ccid

enta

l hyd

roca

rbon

sp

ills

MC8,

MC9,

M

C10

, M

C11

, M

C12

Val

ue:

M

oder

ate

Inte

nsity

: L

ow

Dur

atio

n:

Sho

rt

Ran

ge:

Fo

otpr

int

Min

or

- N

on-

impo

rtan

t

Bio

logi

cal e

nvir

onm

ent

Veg

etat

ion

Str

ippi

ng;

Acc

ess

road

con

stru

ctio

n an

d up

grad

es.

Loss

of

plan

t co

mm

uniti

es

MC5 ,

M

C6 ,

M

C28

Val

ue:

M

oder

ate

Inte

nsity

: L

ow

Dur

atio

n:

Long

Ran

ge:

Fo

otpr

int

Mod

erat

e M

P1

Non

-im

port

ant

Soi

l ero

sion

aff

ectin

g pl

ants

M

C5 ,

M

C6

Val

ue:

M

oder

ate

Inte

nsity

: M

oder

ate

Dur

atio

n:

Sho

rt

Ran

ge:

Lo

cal

Min

or

MP1

M

P2

MP3

Non

-im

port

ant

Birds

Str

ippi

ng;

Acc

ess

road

con

stru

ctio

n an

d up

grad

es;

Inst

alla

tion

of in

fras

truc

ture

s;

Tran

spor

t an

d tr

affic

.

Loss

of

pote

ntia

l hab

itats

M

C6,

M

C13

Val

ue:

H

igh

Inte

nsity

: L

ow

Dur

atio

n:

Long

Ran

ge:

Fo

otpr

int

Mod

erat

e M

P4

Non

-im

port

ant

Pres

ence

of

infr

astr

uctu

re;

Ope

ratio

n of

win

d tu

rbin

es.

Dis

turb

ance

and

mor

talit

y -

Val

ue:

H

igh

Inte

nsity

: L

ow

Dur

atio

n:

Long

Ran

ge:

Fo

otpr

int

Mod

erat

e M

P5

Non

-im

port

ant

Con

stru

ctio

n m

obili

zatio

n;

Dis

man

tling

of

infr

astr

uctu

res;

Tr

ansp

ort

and

traf

fic.

Dis

turb

ance

fro

m n

oise

and

hu

man

pre

senc

e M

C2,

M

C4

Val

ue:

Str

ong

Inte

nsity

: L

ow

Dur

atio

n:

Sho

rt

Ran

ge:

Fo

otpr

int

Min

or

- N

on-

impo

rtan

t

Bat

s In

fras

truc

ture

pre

senc

es;

Ope

ratio

n of

win

d tu

rbin

es.

Ris

k of

dea

th o

r in

jury

due

to

colli

sion

s w

ith w

ind

turb

ines

or

baro

trau

ma

MC29

Val

ue:

H

igh

Inte

nsity

: L

ow

Dur

atio

n:

Long

Ran

ge:

Fo

otpr

int

Mod

erat

e M

P5

Non

-im

port

ant

DN

V G

L –

Doc

umen

t nu

mbe

r: 8

0015

2-CAM

O-R

-07,

Iss

uanc

e: A

, Sta

tus:

Fin

al

Pa

ge 2

4w

ww

.dnv

gl.c

om

Com

pon

ent

Pro

ject

act

ivit

y P

oten

tial

imp

act

Com

mon

m

itig

atio

n

mea

sure

s

Ch

arac

teri

zati

on o

f im

pac

t Im

po

rtan

ce

of i

mp

act

Sp

ecif

ic

mit

igat

ion

m

easu

res

Res

idu

al

imp

act

Terr

estr

ial W

ildlif

e

Str

ippi

ng;

Acc

ess

road

con

stru

ctio

n an

d up

grad

es;

Inst

alla

tion

and

dism

antli

ng o

f in

fras

truc

ture

s;

Tran

spor

t an

d tr

affic

.

Hab

itat

mod

ifica

tion

and

dist

urba

nce

MC6,

M

C13

Val

ue:

H

igh

Inte

nsity

: L

ow

Dur

atio

n:

Sho

rt

Ran

ge:

Fo

otpr

int

Min

or

- N

on-

impo

rtan

t

Tran

spor

t an

d tr

affic

D

istu

rban

ce

MC2,

M

C4

Val

ue:

H

igh

Inte

nsity

: L

ow

Dur

atio

n:

Sho

rt

Ran

ge:

Fo

otpr

int

Min

or

- N

on-

impo

rtan

t

Fish

Str

ippi

ng;

Acc

ess

road

con

stru

ctio

n an

d up

grad

es;

Inst

alla

tion

of in

fras

truc

ture

s;

Tran

spor

t an

d tr

affic

.

Hab

itat

mod

ifica

tion

MC1,

MC3,

M

C5,

MC6,

M

C7,

MC8,

M

C9,

MC10

,

MC11

, M

C12

,

MC12

, M

C14

,

MC15

, M

C16

,

MC17

, M

C18

,

MC26

, M

C30

Val

ue:

M

oder

ate

Inte

nsity

: M

oder

ate

Dur

atio

n:

Sho

rt

Ran

ge:

Fo

otpr

int

Min

or

- N

on-

impo

rtan

t

Liza

rds

and

Am

phib

ians

Str

ippi

ng;

Acc

ess

road

con

stru

ctio

n;

Inst

alla

tion

of in

fras

truc

ture

s.

Hab

itat

mod

ifica

tion

MC1,

MC3,

M

C5,

MC6,

M

C7,

MC8,

M

C9,

MC10

,

MC11

, M

C12

, M

C14

, M

C15

, M

C16

, M

C17

, M

C18

Val

ue:

M

oder

ate

Inte

nsity

: L

ow

Dur

atio

n:

Sho

rt

Ran

ge:

Fo

otpr

int

Min

or

- N

on-

impo

rtan

t

Str

ippi

ng;

Acc

ess

road

con

stru

ctio

n;

Inst

alla

tion

of in

fras

truc

ture

s;

Tran

spor

t an

d tr

affic

.

Dis

turb

ance

M

C2,

M

C4

Val

ue:

M

oder

ate

Inte

nsity

: L

ow

Dur

atio

n:

Sho

rt

Ran

ge:

Fo

otpr

int

Min

or

- N

on-

impo

rtan

t

DN

V G

L –

Doc

umen

t nu

mbe

r: 8

0015

2-CAM

O-R

-07,

Iss

uanc

e: A

, Sta

tus:

Fin

al

Pa

ge 2

5w

ww

.dnv

gl.c

om

Com

pon

ent

Pro

ject

act

ivit

y P

oten

tial

imp

act

Com

mon

m

itig

atio

n

mea

sure

s

Ch

arac

teri

zati

on o

f im

pac

t Im

po

rtan

ce

of i

mp

act

Sp

ecif

ic

mit

igat

ion

m

easu

res

Res

idu

al

imp

act

Hum

an e

nviron

men

t

Soc

io-e

cono

mic

Con

text

All

activ

ities

Cre

atio

n of

tem

pora

ry job

s an

d ec

onom

ic r

etur

ns

-

Val

ue:

H

igh

Inte

nsity

: M

oder

ate

Dur

atio

n:

Sho

rt

Ran

ge:

Reg

iona

l

Maj

or

- Im

port

ant

(Pos

itive

)

Pres

ence

of

infr

astr

uctu

res;

W

ind

farm

mai

nten

ance

Cre

atio

n of

per

man

ent

jobs

and

lo

cal r

oyal

ties

-

Val

ue:

H

igh

Inte

nsity

: M

oder

ate

Dur

atio

n:

Long

Ran

ge:

Lo

cal

Maj

or

- Im

port

ant

(Pos

itive

)

All

activ

ities

Lo

ss o

f pe

rman

ent

jobs

, ec

onom

ic r

etur

ns a

nd lo

cal

roya

lties

-

Val

ue:

H

igh

Inte

nsity

: L

ow

Dur

atio

n:

Mod

erat

e Ran

ge:

Lo

cal

Mod

erat

e -

Impo

rtan

t

Land

Use

Acc

ess

road

con

stru

ctio

n an

d up

grad

es;

Tran

spor

t an

d tr

affic

Li

mita

tion

of a

cces

s an

d us

e M

C19

, M

C20

Val

ue:

H

igh

Inte

nsity

: L

ow

Dur

atio

n:

Sho

rt

Ran

ge:

Fo

otpr

int

Min

or

- N

on-

impo

rtan

t

Win

d tu

rbin

e pr

esen

ce

Lim

itatio

n of

acc

ess

to

snow

mob

ile a

nd A

TV t

rails

M

C20

Val

ue:

H

igh

Inte

nsity

: M

oder

ate

Dur

atio

n:

Mod

erat

e Ran

ge:

Fo

otpr

int

Mod

erat

e -

Non

-im

port

ant

Agr

icul

ture

Str

ippi

ng;

Acc

ess

road

con

stru

ctio

n an

d up

grad

es;

Inst

alla

tion

of in

fras

truc

ture

s;

Tran

spor

t an

d tr

affic

Lim

itatio

n of

acc

essi

bilit

y to

fa

rms

MC19

, M

C27

,

MC31

, M

C32

Val

ue:

H

igh

Inte

nsity

: L

ow

Dur

atio

n:

Sho

rt

Ran

ge:

Fo

otpr

int

Min

or

- N

on-

impo

rtan

t

Acc

ess

road

con

stru

ctio

n an

d up

grad

es;

Inst

alla

tion

of in

fras

truc

ture

.

Cha

nges

to

agri

cultu

ral f

ield

dr

aina

ge

MC6,

MC32

Val

ue:

H

igh

Inte

nsity

: L

ow

Dur

atio

n:

Sho

rt

Ran

ge:

Fo

otpr

int

Min

or

- N

on-

impo

rtan

t

DN

V G

L –

Doc

umen

t nu

mbe

r: 8

0015

2-CAM

O-R

-07,

Iss

uanc

e: A

, Sta

tus:

Fin

al

Pa

ge 2

6w

ww

.dnv

gl.c

om

Com

pon

ent

Pro

ject

act

ivit

y P

oten

tial

imp

act

Com

mon

m

itig

atio

n

mea

sure

s

Ch

arac

teri

zati

on o

f im

pac

t Im

po

rtan

ce

of i

mp

act

Sp

ecif

ic

mit

igat

ion

m

easu

res

Res

idu

al

imp

act

Pres

ence

of

win

d tu

rbin

es.

Red

ucin

g th

e ar

ea a

vaila

ble

for

farm

ing

MC6

MC6

Val

ue:

H

igh

Inte

nsity

: L

ow

Dur

atio

n:

Long

Ran

ge:

Fo

otpr

int

Mod

erat

e M

Pc1

Non

-im

port

ant

Tran

spor

tatio

n an

d Pu

blic

Ser

vice

s In

fras

truc

ture

Tr

ansp

ort

and

traf

fic.

Traf

fic d

elay

s an

d in

crea

sed

traf

fic d

ensi

ty

MC4

MC4

Val

ue:

M

oder

ate

Inte

nsity

: M

oder

ate

Dur

atio

n:

Sho

rt

Ran

ge:

Lo

cal

Min

or

- N

on-

impo

rtan

t

Rad

ioco

mm

unic

atio

n an

d Rad

ars

Sys

tem

s Pr

esen

ce o

f w

ind

turb

ines

. D

isru

ptio

n of

ele

ctro

mag

netic

w

aves

M

C21

, M

C22

, M

C31

, M

C33

Val

ue:

M

oder

ate

Inte

nsity

: L

ow

Dur

atio

n:

Long

Ran

ge:

Fo

otpr

int

Min

or

- N

on-

impo

rtan

t

Arc

heol

ogic

al a

nd

Cul

tura

l Her

itage

Str

ippi

ng;

Acc

ess

road

con

stru

ctio

n an

d im

prov

emen

t;

Inst

alla

tion

of in

fras

truc

ture

.

Dis

turb

ance

to

arch

aeol

ogic

al

heri

tage

res

ourc

es

MC23

, M

C34

Val

ue:

M

oder

ate

Inte

nsity

: L

ow

Dur

atio

n:

Sho

rt

Ran

ge:

Fo

otpr

int

Min

or

- N

on-

impo

rtan

t

Land

scap

e Pr

esen

ce o

f w

ind

turb

ines

. La

ndsc

ape

mod

ifica

tion

-

Sen

sitiv

ity d

egre

e:

Low

to

mod

erat

e de

pend

ing

on

view

poin

t D

egre

e of

per

cept

ion:

Lo

w t

o m

oder

ate

depe

ndin

g on

vie

w

poin

t

Ver

y m

inor

to

med

ium

de

pend

ing

on

the

view

poi

nt

-

Ver

y lo

w

to

mod

erat

e de

pend

ing

on

view

poin

t

Aco

ustic

En

viro

nmen

t

Tran

spor

t an

d tr

affic

. In

crea

sed

nois

e fr

om t

raff

ic a

nd

tran

spor

t eq

uipm

ent

MC2,

MC3,

M

C4,

MC24

,

MC31

Val

ue:

M

oder

ate

Inte

nsity

: M

oder

ate

Dur

atio

n:

Sho

rt

Ran

ge:

Lo

cal

Min

or

- N

on-

impo

rtan

t

Win

d tu

rbin

es o

pera

tion

Incr

ease

d no

ise

from

win

d tu

rbin

es

MC31

Val

ue:

M

oder

ate

Inte

nsity

: L

ow

Dur

atio

n:

Mod

erat

e Ran

ge:

Lo

cal

Min

or

- N

on-

impo

rtan

t

DN

V G

L –

Doc

umen

t nu

mbe

r: 8

0015

2-CAM

O-R

-07,

Iss

uanc

e: A

, Sta

tus:

Fin

al

Pa

ge 2

7w

ww

.dnv

gl.c

om

Com

pon

ent

Pro

ject

act

ivit

y P

oten

tial

imp

act

Com

mon

m

itig

atio

n

mea

sure

s

Ch

arac

teri

zati

on o

f im

pac

t Im

po

rtan

ce

of i

mp

act

Sp

ecif

ic

mit

igat

ion

m

easu

res

Res

idu

al

imp

act

Hum

an H

ealth

and

Saf

ety

Str

ippi

ng;

Acc

ess

road

con

stru

ctio

n an

d up

grad

es;

Inst

alla

tion

and

dism

antli

ng o

f in

fras

truc

ture

s;

Tran

spor

t an

d tr

affic

.

Red

uctio

n in

air

qua

lity

MC1,

MC2,

M

C3,

MC4,

M

C31

Val

ue:

Hig

h In

tens

ity:

Mod

erat

e D

urat

ion:

Sho

rt

Ran

ge:

Fo

otpr

int

Min

or

- N

on-

impo

rtan

t

Wat

er c

onta

min

atio

n fr

om

acci

dent

al h

ydro

carb

on s

pills

MC8,

MC9

MC10

, M

C11

M

C12

Val

ue:

H

igh

Inte

nsity

: L

ow

Dur

atio

n:

Sho

rt

Ran

ge:

Fo

otpr

int

Min

or

- N

on-

impo

rtan

t

Acc

iden

ts a

nd in

juries

M

C25

, M

C25

Val

ue:

H

igh

Inte

nsity

: L

ow

Dur

atio

n:

Sho

rt

Ran

ge:

Foot

prin

t

Min

or

- N

on-

impo

rtan

t

Win

d tu

rbin

e op

erat

ion.

Acc

iden

ts a

nd in

juries

M

C25

, M

C25

Val

ue:

H

igh

Inte

nsity

: M

oder

ate

Dur

atio

n:

Sho

rt

Ran

ge:

Fo

otpr

int

Min

or

- N

on-

impo

rtan

t

Nui

sanc

e ca

used

by

shad

ow

flick

er

MC31

Val

ue:

H

igh

Inte

nsity

: L

ow

Dur

atio

n:

Mod

erat

e Ran

ge:

Fo

otpr

int

Min

or

- N

on-

impo

rtan

t

DNV GL – Document number: 800152-CAMO-R-07, Issuance : A, Status: Final Page 28www.dnvgl.com

5.5 Cumulative impacts

The process to assess the cumulative impacts involves four main steps. VECs having a significant interrelation with the activities or infrastructure of the Project are first identified. Among these, the components that can undergo an accumulation of impacts due to other activities (past, present and projected) are then identified. Then, other activities and projects to be considered in the study area are identified. Lastly, the impacts of the Project combined with the other activities are assessed.

The only other wind farm in the immediate area of the Project is the Montérégie Wind Farm in the municipality of Saint-Rémi. Other activities that may have environmental impacts similar to those of a wind project are agricultural activities, construction of new roads, as well as some commercial and tourism activities.

The Project has minimal effects on physical components and natural habitats. It is estimated that the Project’s contribution to impacts on agriculture and vegetation would represent only a small percentage of the total impacts in the RCM, mainly due to the expanse of residential areas.

Regionally, the impacts of the Project on birds and bats could be added to those of the Montérégie Wind Farm. It is important to document the impact of wind farms on birds and bats, which has been the subject of recommendations by the Bureau d’audiences publiques sur l’environnement (BAPE). [90] Mortality monitoring for bats and birds conducted at all wind farms helps provide a better understanding of their effects on the populations of these species, especially during their migrations.

The Project would contribute significantly to the economy of the region. The jobs created by the Project would help to maintain a skilled and diverse workforce in the region, including most professions related to this sector of activities, such as technologists and technicians in mechanical engineering, machinists and tooling inspectors, electricians, power line and cable installers, etc. Local contractors would be hired during the construction and decommissioning phases.

Locally, there are few tall structures (communication towers, electricity transmission towers, silos, etc.) that might contribute to a cumulative visual impact. Co-visibility and successive visibility with the Montérégie Wind Farm, located over 25 km to the northwest, would be minor.

In addition to Project construction activities, noise sources that can contribute to a cumulative impact on the acoustic environment would include agricultural operations and some leisure activities (snowmobile, ATV, etc.). Contribution to the cumulative impact from Project construction would be of short duration. In the operation phase, it is projected that the Project would comply with the MDDELCC‘s Note d’instruction 98-01 (less than 40 dBA for sensitive receptors) and the residual noise impact would be non-important. These low intensity noise levels would be combined at times with sporadic noise from agricultural activities having a stronger intensity. The cumulative noise impact and the contribution of wind turbines to the increase in ambient noise levels are considered non-important.


6 ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING AND EMERGENCY MEASURES

An environmental monitoring program would be set up to ensure the smooth operation of the work, equipment and facilities, and to monitor any environmental disturbance caused by the construction, operation, and decommissioning of the Project. The program also describes the management of solid and hazardous waste.

A person would be designated for implementing and managing the environmental monitoring program during the construction and decommissioning phases. This person would, among other things, communicate the requirements to the various stakeholders and ensure compliance with the mitigation measures and provisions of the emergency plan.

During the operations phase, the operations manager or a designee would be responsible for environmental monitoring, including the carrying out of environmental monitoring activities, compliance with occupational health and safety standards and other standards and regulations.

The emergency response plan would describe the preventive measures, training of stakeholders, intervention protocols in the event of an accident, malfunction or spill, emergency procedures and communication and warning procedures with internal and external stakeholders. The emergency response plan would take effect at the beginning of the Project’s construction phase. This plan would be reviewed annually and, if necessary, re-evaluated after an intervention.


7 ENVIRONNEMENTAL MONITORING

Environmental monitoring would be conducted to verify through field experience the accuracy of the assessment of certain impacts and the effectiveness of certain mitigation or compensation measures proposed in the EIA.

The environmental monitoring program would be developed in preparation for the Certificate of Authorization applications. The terms of the program would be consistent with those of the decree. Monitoring protocols are based on those established by government authorities, where applicable, and submitted to the Ministry for consultation.

The program would include bird monitoring with a particular focus on migratory birds and endangered species potentially present in the study area, bats, radiocommunication and radar systems, landscape, acoustic environment, as well as soil and agricultural activities.

The program would also describe the procedures to be followed when receiving complaints related to the Project’s activities and infrastructure. The complaint assessment protocol and the responsibility for its implementation would be detailed.

The results of the monitoring and the processing of complaints would be presented to MDDELCC.

DNV GL – Document number: 800152-CAMO-R-07, Issuance: A, Status: Final Page 31www.dnvgl.com

8 EFFECTS OF THE ENVIRONNEMENT ON THE PROJECT

Certain weather conditions and other natural phenomena could have an impact on the Project.

No areas of extreme winds have been identified in the area of the Project. Although all wind turbine components are designed to withstand high wind speeds, wind turbine rotation speed can be slowed or even stopped automatically when needed, through blade feathering.

When ice storms occur, ice can build up on the blades and reduce the energy performance of the wind turbine. The change in shape of the blades due to ice causes an energy loss through friction. The blades are equipped with a de-icing system to prevent the formation of ice. Also, the remote control system would stop the wind turbine if a rotor imbalance were detected.

The wind turbine model proposed for the Project is designed to operate in extreme cold (-30°C). In the event that the temperature exceeded the threshold tolerated by the wind turbines, they would stop automatically and resume power production when temperatures returned to within established limits.

To prevent damages caused by lightning, the wind turbines are equipped with a lightning rod on the end of each of the three blades and on the hood of the nacelle.

Areas at risk of erosion have been avoided in the configuration of the wind farm.

All Project infrastructure is designed to withstand seismic activity in the region of installation.


9 REFERENCES

[1] Hydro-Québec. Call for Tenders A/O 2009-02. Wind – 2 X 250 MW. http://www.hydroquebec.com/distribution/fr/marchequebecois/ao-200902/index.html

[2] Environment Canada. 2012. Canadian Climate Normals 1971-2000 Station Data. Iberville. http://climate.weather.gc.ca/climate_normals/results_e.html?stnID=5376&lang=f&dCode=1&province=QUE&provBut=Go&month1=0&month2=12

[3] Canadian Standards Association (CSA), 2001. Canadian Standard CSA-S37 Antennas, Towers and antenna-Supporting Structures. Ice and Wind Loads, contributed by R. Morris, T. Yip and H. Auld. Canadian Standards Association, Rexdale, Ontario.

[4] Génivar. St. Cyprien Wind Power Project Resource Assessment. July 2010.

[5] Lamontagne, L., Martin, A. and Nolin, C. 2014. Étude pédologique du comté de Napierville (Québec). Laboratoires de pédologie et d'agriculture de précision, Centre de recherche et de développement sur les sols et les grandes cultures, Research Branch, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Québec City, Quebec. 403 pages + 1 map at a scale of 1: 40,000.

[6] Ministère du Développement durable, de l’Environnement, de la Faune et des Parcs. Répertoire des terrains contaminés. Municipalité: Saint-Cyprien-de-Napierville. Consulted January 2013. http://www.mddep.gouv.qc.ca/sol/terrains/terrains-contamines/recherche.asp?nom_dossier=&adresse=&municipalite=&RCM=&nom_region=&contaminant=&eau_contaminant=&sol_contaminant=

[7] Ministère du Développement durable, de l’Environnement, de la Faune et des Parcs. Portrait régional de l’eau - Montérégie (Région administrative 16). Consulted November 2012. http://collections.banq.qc.ca/ark:/52327/bs43861

[8] Ministère du Développement durable, de l’Environnement, de la Faune et des Parcs. Portrait régional de l’eau - Montérégie (Région administrative 16). Type d’alimentation en eau de consommation par RCM. Consulted November 2012. http://www.mddep.gouv.qc.ca/eau/regions/region16/annexe.htm#a2

[9] Ministère du Développement durable, de l’Environnement, de la Faune et des Parcs. Système d'information hydrogéologique (SIH) – Saint-Cyprien-de-Napierville: Les Jardins-de-Napierville.

[10] Robitaille, A., Saucier, J.-P. 1998. Paysages régionaux du Québec méridional. MRN, Gouvernement du Québec. Ed. Les Publications du Québec. 213 p.

[11] Groupe Hémisphère. 2012. Inventaires des écosystèmes de la zone d’étude du parc éolien de Saint-Cyprien. Rapport finalt. N/A: M217-01-10.

[12] Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. 2012. Canadian Wildlife Species at Risk. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada [Online]. http://www.cosepac.gc.ca/fra/sct5/index_f.cfm

[13] SOS-POP. 2012. Banque de données sur les oiseaux en péril du Québec, mai 2012. Consulted 20 June 2012.

[14] Centre de données sur le patrimoine naturel du Québec. 2012. Ministère des Ressources naturelles et de la Faune (MRNF) Lettre du 10 mai 2012 N/Réf.: 6264, Numéro de dossier: 000 9003 03 00.

[15] Ministère des Forêts, de la Faune et des Parcs. Faune vertébrée du Québec - Liste des espèces désignées menacées ou vulnérables au Québec. [Online] http://www3.mffp.gouv.qc.ca/faune/especes/menacees/liste.asp

[16] Government of Canada. Species at Risk Public Registry. Factsheet on the Emergency Listing Order for the Little Brown Myotis, the Northern Myotis and the Tri-colored Bat. 14 February 2015. [Online] http://www.registrelep-sararegistry.gc.ca/default.asp?lang=En&n=42E533D4-1


[17] Société de la faune et des parcs du Québec. 2002. Plan de développement régional associé aux ressources fauniques de la Montérégie. Direction de l’aménagement de la faune de Montréal, de Laval et de la Montérégie, Longueuil. 127 p.

[18] Huot, M., Lamontagne, G., Goudreau, F. 2002. Plan de gestion du cerf de Virginie 2002-2008. Société de la faune et des parcs du Québec, Direction du développement de la faune, Québec.

[19] Ministère des Ressources naturelles et de la Faune. 2012. Statistiques de chasse et de piégeage au Québec. Consulted August 2012. http://www.mrnf.gouv.qc.ca/faune/statistiques/chasse-piegeage.jsp

[20] Desrosiers, N., Morin, R., Jutras, J. 2002. Atlas des micromammifères du Québec. Société de la faune et des parcs du Québec. Direction du développement de la faune, Quebec, 92 p.

[21] Ministère des Ressources naturelles et de la Faune. 2012. Request for wildlife information to MRNF. Results obtained 10 May 2012. MRNF, Estrie-Montréal-Montérégie et de Laval-Lanaudière-Laurentides, Unité de gestion des Ressources Naturelles et de la faune de Montréal-Montérégie.

[22] Ministère des Ressources naturelles et de la Faune. 2009. Letter from Jean Dubé - Protection de la faune ichthyenne des petits cours d'eau.

[23] Atlas des amphibiens et reptiles du Québec. 2012. Atlas des amphibiens et reptiles du Québec: banque de données active depuis 1988 alimentée par des bénévoles et professionnels de la faune. Société d'histoire naturelle de la vallée du Saint-Laurent et ministère des Ressources naturelles et de la Faune du Québec. Consulted 13 August 2012. http://www.atlasamphibiensreptiles.qc.ca/

[24] Desroches, J.-F., Rodrigue, D. 2004. Amphibiens et reptiles du Québec et des Maritimes. Éditions Michel Quintin, 288 p.

[25] Institut de la statistique du Québec. 2012. Population selon le groupe d'âge, sexes réunis, MRC et territoire équivalent de la Montérégie, 1996, 2001 et 2006-2011. Consulted October 2012. http://www.stat.gouv.qc.ca/regions/profils/profil16/societe/demographie/demo_gen/pop_age16_RCM.htm

[26] Institut de la statistique du Québec. 2012. Données démographiques régionales – Municipalité. Consulted October 2012. http://www.stat.gouv.qc.ca/donstat/societe/demographie/dons_regnl/regional/index.htm

[27] Statistics Canada, 2011. 2006 Community Profiles - Saint-Cyprien-de-Napierville. Consulted December 2012. http://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2006/dp-pd/prof/92-591/details/page.cfm?Lang=E&Geo1=CSD&Code1=2468035&Geo2=PR&Code2=24&Data=Count&SearchText=Saint-Cyprien-de-Napierville&SearchType=Begins&SearchPR=01&B1=All&Custom=

[28] Statistics Canada, 2011. 2006 Community Profiles – Les Jardins-de-Napierville. Consulted December 2012. http://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2006/dp-pd/prof/92-591/details/page.cfm?Lang=E&Geo1=CD&Code1=2468&Geo2=PR&Code2=24&Data=Count&SearchText=Jardins-de-Napierville&SearchType=Contains&SearchPR=24&B1=All&Custom=

[29] Agence de la Santé et des Services Sociaux de la Montérégie (ASSSM). 2012. Répertoire des services. Consulted November 2012. http://www.santemonteregie.qc.ca/index.en.html.

[30] Sûreté du Québec. 2012. Poste de la RCM des Jardins-de-Napierville. Consulted November 2012. http://www.sq.gouv.qc.ca/monteregie/effectifs-ressources.jsp

[31] Sécurité Publique du Québec. 2012. Bottin des services de sécurité incendie. Consulted November 2012. http://www.securitepublique.gouv.qc.ca/securite-incendie.html

[32] Ministère de l’Éducation, Loisir et Sport du Québec (MELS). 2007. Les nouvelles commissions scolaires linguistiques: Dénomination et territoires. Consulted November 2012. http://www.mels.gouv.qc.ca/ADMINIST/nouv-cs/inter.htm

[33] RCM des Jardins-de-Napierville. 2010. Portrait du territoire. Consulted November 2012. http://RCMjardinsdenapierville.ca/page/portrait-du-territoire


[34] Municipalité de Lacolle. 2012. Our town. Consulted November 2012. http://www.lacolle.com/en/town-hall/our-town/

[35] Government of Canada. 2009. Claims and Treaties: Aboriginal Canada Portal. Consulted November 2012. http://www.autochtonesaucanada.gc.ca/acp/site.nsf/fr/ao20009.html

[36] Ministère de l’agriculture, des pêcheries et de l’alimentation du Québec. 2010. Fiches d’enregistrement des exploitations agricoles 2007.Updated 2 February 2010.

[37] Statistics Canada, 2007. 2006 Census of Agriculture. Farm Data and Farm Operator Data, catalogue no. 95-629-XWE. Consulted January 2008. http://www.statcan.ca/francais/freepub/95-629-XIF/95-629-XIF2007000.htm.

[38] La financière agricole du Québec. Rendements de référence 2011 en assurance agricole. Direction de la recherche et du développement, 40 p.

[39] Transport Québec. 2012. Infrastructures ferroviaires au Québec. Consulted November 2012. http://www.mtq.gouv.qc.ca/portal/page/portal/entreprises/transport_ferroviaire/infrastructures_ferr_qc

[40] Hydro-Québec Trans-Énergie. 1998. Carte des installations de transport d’énergie au Québec. July 1998.

[41] Ministère du Développement durable, de l’Environnement, de la Faune et des Parcs. 2002. Répertoire de tous les réseaux municipaux de distribution d’eau potable. Consulted November 2012. http://www.mddep.gouv.qc.ca/eau/potable/distribution/index.asp

[42] Industry Canada. Technical and Administrative Frequency Lists. Consulted September 2012. http://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/tafl-ltaf.nsf/eng/home

[43] Ministère de la Culture et des Communications. Répertoire du patrimoine culturel du Québec. [En ligne] Consulted December 2012. http://www.patrimoine-culturel.gouv.qc.ca/rpcq/rechercheProtege.do?methode=afficherResultat

[44] Canadian Heritage. [Online] Consulted December 2012. http://www.pch.gc.ca/fra/1266244718424/1266201273544

[45] Pintal, J.-Y. 2008 Parc éolien de Saint-Cyprien. Étude de potentiel archéologique. Étude remise à Hélimax, Montréal.

[46] Hydro-Québec, 1992. Méthode d’évaluation environnementale lignes et poste: le paysage. 155 p.

[47] Ministère des Ressources naturelles et de la Faune (MRNF). 2005. Guide pour la réalisation d’une étude d’intégration et d’harmonisation paysagères - Project d’implantation de parc éolien sur le territoire public. http://www.mrnf.gouv.qc.ca/publications/territoire/programme/Project-eolien.pdf

[48] Ministère des Affaires municipales, Régions et Occupation du territoire (MAMROT), 2007. Guide d’intégration des éoliennes au territoire – Vers de nouveaux paysages. Direction des politiques municipales et de la recherche, 40 p. http://www.mamrot.gouv.qc.ca/pub/amenagement_territoire/orientations_gouvernementales/guide_integration_eoliennes_territoire.pdf

[49] Ministère du Développement durable, de l’Environnement, de la Faune et des Parcs. 2006. Règlement sur les normes environnementales applicables aux véhicules lourds.

[50] Ministère de l’Agriculture, des Pêcheries et de l’Alimentation. 2006. Aménagement des ponceaux en milieu agricole.

[51] Kingsley, A., Whittam, B. 2007. Les wind turbines et les oiseaux, Revue de la littérature pour les évaluations environnementales. Étude provisoire préparée pour Environnement Canada, 94 p.

[52] Winkelman, J.E. 1995. “Bird-wind turbine investigations in Europe”. In Proceedings of the National Avian-Wind Power Planning Meeting. Report DE95-004090. RESOLVE, Inc. Washington, D.C., p. 43-47.


[53] Guillemette, M., Larsen, J.K., Clausager, I. 1998. Impact assessment of an offshore wind park on sea ducks. NERI Technical Report 227. National Environmental Research Institute. Kalo.

[54] Mossop, D.H. 1998. Five years of monitoring bird strike potential at a mountain-top wind turbine, Yukon Territory. Prepared for CanmetENERGY energy technology centre, Natural Resources Canada.

[55] Guillemette, M., Larsen, J.K., Clausager I. 1999. Assessing the impacts of wind farms and other aerial structures upon birds. Scottish Natural Heritage Review. No 21.

[56] Tulp, I., Schekkerman, H., Larsen, J.K., Van Der Winden, J., Van De Haterd, R.J.W, Van Horssen, P., Dirken, S., Spaans, A.L. 1999. Nocturnal flight activity of sea ducks near the windfarms Tuno Knob in the Kattegat. IBN-DLO Report No. 99.30.

[57] Dirksen, S., Spaans, A.L., Van Der Winden, J. 2000. Studies on nocturnal flight paths and altitudes of waterbirds in relation to wind turbines: A review of current research in the Netherlands. Proceedings of National Avian-Wind Power Planning Meeting III. Prepared by LGL Ltd., Environmental Research Associates. King City, Ontario.

[58] Larsen, J.K., Madsen J. 2000. “Effects of wind turbines and other physical elements on field utilization by pink-footed geese (Anser brachyrhynchus): A landscape perspective”, Landscape Ecology 15, p. 755-764.

[59] Hickin, P., K. Bunker-Popma, 2003. “The Spring and Fall Migrations of Scoters, Melanitta spp., at Confederation Bridge in the Northumberland Strait between New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island”. Canadian Field-Naturalist 115, p. 436-445.

[60] Pruett, C.L., Patten, M.A., Wolfe, D.H. 2009. “It’s not easy being green: wind energy and a declining grassland bird”. BioScience 59, p. 257-262.

[61] James, R.D., Coady, G. 2003. Exhibition Place. Wind Turbine Bird Monitoring Program in 2003. Report presented to Toronto Hydro Energy Services Inc. and to Windshare.

[62] Hötker, H., Thomsen, K.-M., Jeromin, H. 2006. Impacts on biodiversity of exploitation of renewable energy sources: the examples of birds and bats – facts, gaps in knowledge, demands for further research, and ornithological guidelines for the development of renewable energy exploitation. Michael-Otto-Institut in NABU, Bergenhusen, 65 p.

[63] Rogers, S.E., B.W. Cornaby, C.W. Rodman, P.R. SticKSEl, and D.A. Tolle. 1977. Environmental studies related to the operation of wind energy conversion systems. Prepared by Battelle’s Columbus Laboratories. Prepared for the U.S. Department of Energy, Division of Solar Technology, Wind Systems Branch.

[64] Howell, J.A. 1990. Summary of site differences between Montezuma Hills and Altamont Pass. Report prepared for U.S. Windpower Inc. Livermore, California James, R.D. and G. Coady. 2003. Exhibition Place. Wind Turbine Bird Monitoring Program in 2003.

[65] Howell, J.A., and J. Noone. 1992. Examination of avian use and mortality at a U.S. Windpower wind energy development site, Solano County, California. Final Report to Solano County Department of Environmental Management. Fairfield, California.

[66] Orloff, S. 1992. Tehachapi wind resource area avian collision baseline study. Prepared by Biosystems Analysis inc., for California Energy Commission, Sacramento, California.

[67] Orloff, S. and A. Flannery. 1992. Wind turbine effects on avian activity, habitat use and mortality in Altamont Pass and Solano County wind resource areas, 1989-1991. Prepared by BioSystems Analysis, Inc. for the California Energy Commission, Sacramento, California.

[68] Still, D., B. Little, S. Lawrence and H. Carver. 1994. “The birds of Blyth Harbour”. In G. Elliot, ed. Wind Energy Conversion 1994, Proceedings of the 16th British Wind Energy Association Conference, Sterling, p. 241-248.


[69] Winkleman, J.E. 1994. “Bird/wind turbine investigations in Europe”. In Proceeding of the National Avian-Wind Power Planning Meeting, Lakewood, Colorado. Prepared by LGL Ltd, Environmental Research associates, King City, Ontario, p. 43-47.

[70] Young, J.R., D. P., Erickson, W. P., Strickland, M. D., Good, R. E. and K.J. Sernka. 2003. Comparison of Avian Response to UV-Light-Reflective Paint on Wind Turbines. National Renewable Energy Laboratory, NREL/SR-500-32840, 38 p.

[71] Richardson, W.J. 2000. “Bird migration and wind turbines: Migration timing, flight behaviour, and collision risk”, in Proceedings of National Avian - Wind Power Planning Meeting III, San Diego, California, May 1998. Prepared by the Avian Subcommittee of National Wind Coordinating Committee by LGL Ltd. King City (Ontario), 202 p.

[72] Cooper B. A, T.J. Mabee, A.A. Stickney and J.E. Shook. 2003. A visual and radar study of 2003 spring bird migration at the proposed Chautauqua wind energy facility, New York. Final report prepared for Chautauqua Windpower LLC.

[73] Cooper, B. 2004. “Radar studies of nocturnal migration at wind sites in the eastern U.S.”, in Proceedings of the wind energy and birds/bats workshop understanding and Savitt Schwartz (ed.), Washington, D.C., p. 66-71.

[74] Mabee, T.J., B.A. Cooper, J.H. Plissner and D.P. Young. 2006. “Nocturnal bird migration over an Appalachian ridge at a proposed wind power Project”. Wildlife Society Bulletin 34.

[75] Erickson, W.P., G.D Johnson, M.D. Strickland, D.P. Young, Jr., K.J. Sernka and R.E. Good. 2001. Avian Collisions with Wind Turbines: A summary of Existing Studies and Comparisons to Other Sources of Avian Collision Mortality in the United States. [Online]. [www.nationalwind.org] (consulted in 2009).

[76] Kerns, J., Kerlinger, P. 2004. A Study of Bird and Bat Collision Fatalities at the Mountaineer Wind Energy Center. FPL Energy and Mountaineer Wind Energy Center Technical Review Committee, Tucker County, West Virginia, 39 p.

[77] Brinkmann, R.D. 2006. Survey of possible operational impacts on bats by wind facilities in Southern Germany. Administrative District of Freiburg – Department 56 Conservation and Landscape Management, Gundelfingen, 63 p.

[78] Illinois Department of Natural Resources. 2007. The Possible Effects of Wind Energy on Illinois Birds and Bats. Illinois Department of Natural Resources, Springfield, Illinois, 20 p.

[79] Kunz, T.H., Arnett, E.B., Cooper, B.M., Erickson, W.P., Larkin, R.P., Mabee, T., Morrison, M.L., Strickland, D.M., Szewczak, J.M. 2007. Assessing Impacts of Wind-Energy Development on Nocturnally Active Birds and Bats: A Guidance Document. The Journal of Wildlife Management, 71 (8): 2449-2486.

[80] Côté, F. 2007. Impacts des éoliennes sur les chauves-souris. Quebec Ministry of Natural Resources and Wildlife, Direction de la recherche sur la faune, 23 p.

[81] Erickson, W., G. Johnson, D. Young, D. Strickland, R. Good, M. Bourassa, K. Bay ET K. Sernka. 2002. Synthesis and Comparison of Baseline Avian and Bat Use, Raptor Nesting and Mortality Information from Proposed and Existing Wind Developments. West Inc., Portland, Oregon, 129 p.

[82] Ahlén, I. 2003. Wind turbines and bats - a pilot study. Sweden National Energy Administration, Sweden, 5 p.

[83] Hester, S.G., Grenier, M.B.. 2005. A conservation plan for bats in Wyoming. Wyoming Game and Fish Department, Nongame Program, Lander, WY, Wyoming, 307 p.

[84] Jain, A.A. 2005. Bird and bat behavior and mortality at a northern Iowa windfarm, Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa, 113 p.

[85] Arnett, E.B., Brown , W.K., Erickson, W.P., Fielder, J.K., Hamilton, B.L., Henry, T.H., Jain, A., Johnson, G.D., Kerns, J., Koford, R.R., Nicholson, C.P., O'Connell, T.J., M.D. Piorkowski. 2008.


Patterns of Bat Fatalities at Wind Energy Facilities in North America. Journal of Wildlife Management, 72(1): 61-78.

[86] Fiedler, J.K., Henry, T.H., Tankersley, R.D., Nicholson, C.P. 2007. Results of Bat and Bird Mortality Monitoring at the Expanded Buffalo Mountain Windfarm, 2005. Tennessee Valley Authority, Tennessee, 42 p.

[87] Ministère des Ressources naturelles et de la Faune. 2008. Protocole de suivi des mortalités d’oiseaux de proie et de chiroptères dans le cadre de projects l’implantation d’wind turbines au Québec – 8 January 2008. MRNF, Secteur Faune Québec. 18 p. and appendices.

[88] Tremblay, J.A. 2011. Réponses aux questions soumises par le Bureau d’audience publique sur l’environnement – étude du parc éolien Montérégie. Ministère des Ressources naturelles de la Faune, 9 p.

[89] Ministère des Ressources naturelles, de la Faune et des Parc, 2001. Saines pratiques: voirie forestière et installation de ponceaux. Gouvernement du Québec, Ministère des Ressources naturelles, de la Faune et des Parcs, Direction régionale de la Gaspésie-Îles-de-la-Madeleine. 27 p.

[90] Sun, J.W.C. and P.M. Narins. 2005. “Anthropogenic sounds differentially affect amphibian call rate”. Biological Conservation 121 (2005), p. 419-427.

[91] Ministère du Développement durable, de l’Environnement, de la Faune et des Parcs. Traitement des plaintes sur le bruit et exigences aux entreprises qui le génèrent - Note d’instruction 98-01 [Online] http://www.mddefp.gouv.qc.ca/publications/note- instructions/98-01.htm

[92] Bureau d'audiences publiques sur l'environnement (BAPE), 2011. Projet d’aménagement du parc éolien Montérégie. Rapport d’enquête et d’audience publique. [Online] Consulted December 2012. http://www.bape.gouv.qc.ca/sections/rapports/publications/bape275.pdf

ST-CYPRIEN WIND FARM PROJECT

Volume 7 - Annexe A Maps

ABOUT DNV GL

Motivated by the objective of safeguarding life, property and the environment, DNV GL allows organizations to advance the safety and sustainability of their businesses. We provide classification and technical assurance services, as well as software and the consulting services of independent experts in maritime, oil and gas, and energetically industries. We provide further assurance services to clients working across a broad range of sectors. Present in over a hundred countries, our 16,000 professionals are dedicated to helping our customers create a more secure, smarter and greener world.

saint-cyprien wind farm project environmental impact study · saint-cyprien wind farm project...

Documents