REPORT
Draft HRM Wind Energy
Generation Master Plan
Halifax Regional Municipality
JW PROJECT NO.1008690
REPORT NO. 1008690
REPORT TO
Steven Higgins
Planning and Development
West End Mall
6960 Mumford Road
PO Box 1749
Halifax NS, B3J 3A5
FOR
Halifax Regional Municipality
ON
HRM Wind Energy Generation Master Plan
April 11, 2006
Jacques Whitford
3 Spectacle Lake Drive
Dartmouth, Nova Scotia,
B3B 1W8
Phone: 902-468-7777
Fax: 902-468-9009
www.jacqueswhitford.com
In association with
Terrain Group Inc.
26 Union Street, 3rd Floor
Bedford, Nova Scotia,
B4A 2B5
Phone: 902-835-9955
Fax: 902-835-1645
www.terraingroup.com
i
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Halifax Regional Municipality, in accordance with its commitment to environmental quality including the
promotion of clean and renewable forms of energy, is putting in place a Wind Energy Generation
Master Plan. Taking into account the recent advancements in wind turbine technology, the physical,
cultural and environmental characteristics of the region, and existing regulations on wind turbines in a
variety of jurisdictions, this report puts forward a set of recommendations to HRM as to the appropriate
regulatory tools and standards to be introduced as part of the Wind Energy Generation Master Plan.
While wind characteristics in HRM make it a generally opportune region for wind development, the
suitability of HRM lands for the development of commercial wind turbines varies greatly throughout the
region. A Wind Energy Suitability Model was created for HRM using a Geographic Information System
tool. Incorporating dozens of layers of data on wind energy, land-use considerations, and construction
considerations the Suitability Model was used to rank all areas of HRM according to their relative
suitability for wind energy development into a Green Zone (highly suitable), Amber Zone (caution), Red
Zone (least suitable), and Black Zone (prohibited). Generally speaking, the most suitable regions within
HRM are along the coast, except where these same areas are inhabited by human populations or other
species of concern. However, suitable areas also exist in nearly all other parts of the region in smaller
patches. Wind Energy Suitability Maps for HRM are presented in Appendix A of this document.
Even when placed in the most suitable areas of the region, wind energy developments may have some
potential negative impacts that need to be controlled through municipal regulations in order to ensure
the safety and comfort of HRM citizens. Various potential impacts of commercial wind energy
development are explored in this report and a review is presented in the Summary of Potential Impacts
of Commercial Wind Turbines table below.
Based on a review of other Canadian municipal regulations as well as the existing Federal and
Provincial regulations, a set of recommendations are presented to HRM on how to best regulate wind
development. It is suggested that regulatory approaches will vary based on the location of the proposed
development within the Green, Amber, Red of Black Zones identified above, and also based on the size
of the development. Generally, small scale wind developments in suitable areas should be enabled
provided they meet a number of standards, while large scale wind development in less suitable areas
should be examined and controlled more strictly. This approach is depicted in the Summary of
Recommended Regulatory Approaches table below. Furthermore, the appropriate set of standards is
presented in the Summary of Recommended Standards for Commercial Wind Turbines in HRM table.
© 2006
PROJECT 1008690. April 11, 2006
i
Summary of Potential Impacts of Commercial Wind Turbines
Impact
Comments Regarding Regulating
Visual Impacts
A single tower at a certain height may not be as imposing on the landscape as having more
than one and therefore may be permitted in some environments. Height plays an important role
regarding the visual dominance of the structure(s), but the challenge with placing restrictions on
height is that it can lead to a requirement for more turbines to generate the same amount of
power.
Shadow Flicker
Fire Damage
Blade Throw
Oil Spills
Ice Throwing
Traffic Impacts
Impacts on Human Safety
Noise Impacts
Electromagnetic
Interference
Impacts on Bats
Impact on Birds
Erosion
Decommissioning
More than one tower requires a qualitative assessment to minimize the visual impact in certain
areas. The development of wind turbines needs to be monitored to gauge the cumulative visual
impact on the environment.
Impact can be calculated.
Controls regarding operation to mitigate impact can be implemented.
Setbacks based on the height of the tower can be required.
Modern turbines have built in temperature sensors.
Setback controls between 1.25 and 3 times the total height of the turbine setback from a road
or property boundary.
Require towers to be designed to contain any spills or leaks.
Scientific calculations for establishing a setback from property boundaries including roads with
a generic rule of thumb being 1.5 times the total height of the turbine.
Requirement for a traffic management plan.
25 ft or 7.5 m blade clearance from ground level, fencing off access to turbines.
When measured from a property boundary no greater than 45 dBA in an urban area or 40 dBA
in a rural area.
Alternatively, require turbines to be setback from property boundaries in the order of 200 m –
350 m.
This is not a Municipality responsibility, but it may be appropriate to ensure the developers are
aware of their responsibilities in this regard and ensure a mechanism is established to forward
an application through to the appropriate regulatory body.
This is a Provincial regulatory issue.
This is a Provincial and Federal regulatory issue.
Requirement for silt sediment control plans for both the management of construction and
ongoing maintenance.
Removal of wind turbine equipment and remediation work required to generally return the site
to its natural state prior to the installation of the wind turbines.
Summary of Recommended Regulatory Approaches
Single Turbine
Small facility
(2-10 turbines)
Large Facility (10+
turbines)
Green Zone
(Suitable)
As-of-right
Amber Zone
(Cautious)
Site Plan Approval
As-of-right
Development
Agreement
Development
Agreement
Site Plan Approval
Red Zone
(Not suitable)
Development
Agreement
Development
Agreement
Not Allowed
Black Zone
(Prohibited)
Not Allowed
Not Allowed
Not Allowed
Summary of Recommended Standards for Commercial Wind Turbines in HRM
Aspect
Total Height
Setback from Boundaries
Recommended Standards
No wind turbine to be erected within HRM should be permitted to exceed a total height of 90
meters.
A wind turbine should be setback from any adjoining boundary of a property, three times the total
height of the turbine as measured from the closest edge of the base of the structure.
If wind turbines are being erected on two adjoining property this setback should be wavered along
the boundary where the wind turbines adjoin one another, or the lots may be consolidated.
© 2006
PROJECT 1008690. April 11, 2006
ii
Aspect
Blade Clearance
Cable Layout
Lighting
Equipment Shelters
Colour
Noise Levels
Signage
Tower Access Safety
Abandonment or
Discontinuation of Use
Electromagnetic
Interference
Compliance with all other
Regulations
Recommended Standards
The minimum vertical blade clearance from grade should be 7.5 m (24.6 ft) where the wind turbine
employs a horizontal axis rotor.
All cables used for the transfer of power from the property to the main grid or buildings consuming
the energy generated should be placed underground.
No lighting should be placed on the exterior of the wind turbine unit above a height greater than 5
m, except as required by Transport Canada for aviation safety purposes. Any other lighting used
shall be directional lighting towards the ground.
All equipment necessary for monitoring and operating the wind energy conversion facilities should
be contained within the turbine tower. If this is not feasible, ancillary equipment may be located
outside the tower subject to existing standards for auxiliary structures.
The colouring of all wind turbines should conform with Transport Canada regulations for aviation
safety (white and orange stripes). The colouring should provide a non-reflective matte finish.
When measured from the boundary of the site the noise level should comply with the Noise ByLaw of the Halifax Regional Municipality, which forbids “activity that unreasonably disturbs or
tends to disturb the peace and tranquility of a neighborhood”.
Signage should only be permitted on the nacelle unit and relate to the owner, operator or
manufacturer of the wind turbine.
To ensure public safety, the developer should construct a security fence with a lockable gate
around the wind turbine tower not less than 1.8 m (5.9 ft) in height if the tower is climbable. The
use of tubular towers, with locked door access, would preclude this requirement.
Upon abandonment or discontinuation of use, the owner should physically remove the wind
energy conversion facility within 90 days from the date of abandonment or discontinuation of use.
This period may be extended at the request of the owner and at the discretion of the Development
Officer.
Developers should be responsible for obtaining permits from Federal/Provincial authorities
demonstrating that the wind turbine will not interfere with electromagnetic signal or any
interferences will be corrected by the developer.
Proposed development of wind turbines should be consistent with all applicable provincial and
federal requirements, including but not limited to aviation and environmental assessment
legislation.
© 2006
PROJECT 1008690. April 11, 2006
iii
Table of Contents
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................ i
1.0
1.1
1.2
INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................... 1
Wind Energy in the HRM Context ............................................................................................ 1
Project Methodology................................................................................................................ 2
2.0
2.1
2.2
2.3
GIS WIND ENERGY SUITABILITY MODEL & MAPPING ...................................................... 3
GIS Wind Energy Suitability Model Methodology ..................................................................... 3
Suitability Factors and their Relative Importance ..................................................................... 6
Model & Mapping Results...................................................................................................... 11
3.0 POTENTIAL WIND ENERGY GENERATION IMPACTS ...................................................... 12
3.1 Visual Impacts ....................................................................................................................... 12
3.1.1 Siting and location .............................................................................................................. 13
3.1.2 Spatial extent and scale ..................................................................................................... 13
3.1.3 Cumulative effects .............................................................................................................. 14
3.1.4 Spacing of turbines ............................................................................................................. 14
3.1.5 Height of Turbines .............................................................................................................. 15
3.1.6 Colour................................................................................................................................. 15
3.1.7 Lighting............................................................................................................................... 15
3.2 Shadow Flicker ...................................................................................................................... 16
3.3 Blade Throw .......................................................................................................................... 17
3.4 Ice Throw .............................................................................................................................. 18
3.5 Noise ..................................................................................................................................... 19
3.6 Electromagnetic Interference ................................................................................................. 20
3.7 Fire Damage ......................................................................................................................... 21
3.8 Oil Spills ................................................................................................................................ 21
3.9 Tower Collapse ..................................................................................................................... 21
3.10 Erosion .................................................................................................................................. 22
3.11 Traffic Impacts ....................................................................................................................... 22
3.12 Impacts on Human Safety ..................................................................................................... 22
3.13 Impacts on Birds.................................................................................................................... 23
3.14 Impacts on Bats..................................................................................................................... 25
3.15 Summary of Potential Impacts of Commercial Wind Turbine ................................................. 28
4.0 HRM WIND REGULATORY APPROACHES ........................................................................ 29
4.1 Purpose of Municipal Regulations ......................................................................................... 29
4.2 Existing HRM Regulatory Mechanisms .................................................................................. 30
4.3 Regulations Used by other Municipalities .............................................................................. 31
4.4 Federal and Provincial Regulations ....................................................................................... 37
4.4.1 Federal Regulations ........................................................................................................... 37
4.4.2 Provincial Regulations ........................................................................................................ 40
4.5 Summary of Planning Regulatory Land Use Tools ................................................................ 41
4.5.1. Municipal Planning Strategy (MPS) ...................................................................................... 41
4.5.2. Land Use Bylaw (LUB) ......................................................................................................... 42
© 2006
PROJECT 1008690. April 11, 2006
iv
4.5.3 Development Permit .............................................................................................................. 42
4.5.4 Variance Application ............................................................................................................. 42
4.5.5 Site Plan Approval ................................................................................................................. 43
4.5.6 Development Agreement....................................................................................................... 44
4.5.7 Monitoring ............................................................................................................................. 44
4.6 Recommendations on Wind Turbine Regulations .................................................................. 45
4.6.1. Definitions ............................................................................................................................ 45
4.6.2. Regulatory Processes .......................................................................................................... 47
4.6.2.1 Development Permit ........................................................................................................ 47
4.6.2.2 Variance Applications ...................................................................................................... 52
4.6.2.3 Site Planning Approval .................................................................................................... 54
4.6.2.4 Development Agreement ................................................................................................. 55
4.6.2.5 Prohibited Areas .............................................................................................................. 56
4.6.2.6 Monitoring ....................................................................................................................... 56
4.7 Recommendations on Small Wind Turbines .......................................................................... 57
5.0
5.1
5.2
5.3
5.4
5.5
5.6
5.7
SUITABILITY ANALYSIS FOR SELECTED PUBLIC PROPERTIES ................................... 63
Lake Watershed .................................................................................................................... 63
Pockwock Watershed ............................................................................................................ 65
Tomahawk Lake Watershed .................................................................................................. 68
Otter Lake Landfill ................................................................................................................ 69
Sackville Landfill ................................................................................................................... 70
Mainland Commons ............................................................................................................. 70
Western Commons................................................................................................................ 71
6.0
FUNDING AND PARTNERSHIP OPPORTUNITIES ............................................................. 74
7.0
CONCLUSION ...................................................................................................................... 80
8.0
REFERENCES ...................................................................................................................... 82
List of Tables
TABLE 2.1
TABLE 2.2
TABLE 3.1
TABLE 3.2
TABLE 3.3
TABLE 3.4
TABLE 3.5
TABLE 3.6
TABLE 3.7
TABLE 3.8
TABLE 4.1
TABLE 4.2
TABLE 4.3
WESM Scoring Guidelines ........................................................................................ 7
Wind Energy Model Suitability Score Classification ................................................. 11
Typical Noise Level for Wind Turbines .................................................................... 19
Typical Noise Levels of Familiar Activities ............................................................... 19
Typical Noise Levels in Residential Areas ............................................................... 19
Comparison of Typical Causes of Bird Mortality ...................................................... 24
Summary of Wind Turbines Impacts on Birds ......................................................... 25
Species of Bats in Nova Scotia ............................................................................... 26
Estimated bat collision fatality rates at United States wind farms ............................ 26
Summary of Potential Impacts of Commercial Wind Turbines ................................. 28
Comparison of Four Municipal Regulatory Approaches .......................................... 32
Summary of Potential Federal Requirements .......................................................... 37
Components of A Federal EA.................................................................................. 38
© 2006
PROJECT 1008690. April 11, 2006
v
TABLE 4.4
TABLE 4.5
TABLE 4.6
TABLE 4.7
TABLE 4.8
TABLE 4.9
TABLE 4.10
TABLE 5.1
TABLE 5.2
TABLE 5.3
TABLE 6.1
TABLE 6.2
Strengths and Challenges of Variance Application Process .................................... 42
Strengths and Challenges of Variance Application Process .................................... 43
Strengths and Challenges of Variance Application Process .................................... 44
Strengths and Challenges of Development Agreemnt Process ............................... 44
Strengths and Challenges of Implementing a Monitoring System ............................ 45
Summary of Recommended Regulatory Approaches .............................................. 47
Summary of Recommended Standards for Commercial Wind Turbines in HRM ..... 48
Relative Suitability of Seven Public Properties ........................................................ 63
Lake Major Watershed Provincial Regulations ........................................................ 64
Pockwock Watershed Provincial Regulations.......................................................... 68
Excerpts from the Municipal Government Act ......................................................... 74
Summary of Funding Opportunities ......................................................................... 76
List of Figures
FIGURE 2.1
FIGURE 2.2
FIGURE 4.1
FIGURE 5.1
FIGURE 5.2
FIGURE 5.3
FIGURE 5.4
GIS Data Layer Tree ................................................................................................. 4
GIS Geo-Processing Tasks....................................................................................... 5
Turbine Height ........................................................................................................ 46
View of Potential Wind Turbines on Lake Major Watershed (1) ............................... 66
View of Potential Wind Turbines on Lake Major Watershed (2) ............................... 67
View of Potential Wind Turbines on Mainland Commons (1) ................................... 72
View of Potential Wind Turbines on Mainland Commons (2) ................................... 73
List of Appendices
APPENDIX A GIS Layers and HRM Wind Suitability Maps
APPENDIX B Wind Suitability Maps of Specific Public Properties
© 2006
PROJECT 1008690. April 11, 2006
vi
1.0
INTRODUCTION
1.1
Wind Energy in the HRM Context
Given the heightened global awareness of renewable energies and sustainable development, the wind
energy sector has grown substantially worldwide, and has reportedly become the world's fastest
growing source of new electricity generation (Nova Scotia Government 2004). Wind energy is also the
fastest-growing form of electricity production in Canada. In accordance with Project Green, the
Government of Canada’s broad environmental vision, the Government of Canada quadrupled its
investment in wind in the 2005 Budget. Over the next 15 years, the Government of Canada will invest
at least $920 million in promoting wind power. Additionally, with the proven success of wind energy
technologies, property owners, organizations, cooperatives, and individual investors are considering
sponsoring wind energy developments.
Nova Scotia, recognized as having one of the best wind regimes in Canada is expected to benefit from
the new opportunities that this investment presents. In October 2004, the government of Nova Scotia
passed legislation that will require a minimum portion of all new electricity generation to come from
renewable sources, such as wind, and seeks to make wind projects more attractive for developers by
guaranteeing a market for the energy they produce. Nova Scotia’s first wind farm opened in May 2005
at Pubnico Point, and the first commercial wind turbine in Halifax Regional Municipality (HRM) followed
shortly after in August 2005, near Goodwood Industrial Park. In addition, the provincial utility, Nova
Scotia Power Inc. (NSPI), recently awarded electrical generation contracts to private sector operators
proposing wind energy facilities, which has been welcome news for the wind energy industry.
Within HRM, fostering renewable energy have been recognized as a priority. The HRM Corporate Theme
of Healthy, Sustainable, Vibrant Communities highlights clean energy as an environmental prority along
with clean water, clean air, and clean soil. There are already a variety of energy related initiatives
underway at HRM, falling generally under three categories: cleaner energy, energy efficiency and
renewable energy. The renewable energy file is focusing on initiatives to encourage the development of
alternative sources of energy such as wind and methane, as well as geothermal, photo-voltaic, solar
and bio-diesel. The links between climate change and the need for changing our energy production
sources are well understood, as are the concerns with energy security.
On the planning side, HRM is currently in the final stages of finalizing a Regional Plan to guide the
development and growth of the regional municipality over the next 25 years. The draft HRM Regional
Plan has called for a Community Energy Functional Plan in order to inform the necessary changes to
the ways that HRM obtains and uses energy. Within this Community Energy Functional Plan HRM
expects to consider “the viability of using renewable energy sources”. More specifically, the Community
Energy Function Plan shall identify “appropriate measures for the siting of wind turbines” in cooperation
with the Province and industry stakeholders. While the Community Energy Function Plan has not yet
been developed for HRM, the decision was made to pursue the creation of a Wind Energy Master Plan
as a parallel process.
The need for a Wind Energy Master Plan has emerged out of the recognition of the Municipality’s role
to better direct, manage and regulate wind energy generation developments. The majority of land-use
zoning and bylaws for HRM were developed years ago when wind turbines were not being considered as
an energy generation source on a larege scale, and therefore the siting of these large structures was not
© 2006
PROJECT 1008690.
April 11, 2006
1
a concern to municipal planners. Currently there is no regulatory mechanism to enable the construction of
wind turbines within the municipality, and the zoning does not appropriately address the question of
where wind turbines should and should not be located. Given the multiple interests and priorities in the
region, HRM needs to ensure that the development of wind energy enhances, rather than interferes with,
the overall vision of creating a healthy, vibrant and sustainable community. The Wind Energy Master Plan
has been produced to better prepare the municipality for engaging with the wind energy industry and
facilitating its growth within the region.
1.2
Project Methodology
In early 2006, Jacques Whitford Limited (Jacques Whitford) was contracted to conduct a study on the
potential for wind energy development in HRM, and to produce draft recommendations for regulatory
changes. This study is to provide the backbone of a Wind Energy Master Plan for the municipality.
The study was carried out in two parallel streams. The first stream concentrated on the constructing a
Geographic Information System (GIS) tool that maps and integrates dozens of layers of information
regarding the physical, environmental, and cultural characteristics of different areas of HRM. The GIS
tool, which is provided to the municipality along with this report, aided in performing a Constraint
Mapping Exercise, which identified the relative suitability of wind energy development throughout HRM,
creating a new Wind Zone map. Detailed information on the approach and results of this exercise are
presented in Section 2. GIS tools also aided in assessing the suitability of a number of selected public
properties within HRM. Details on these selected properties appear in Section 5.
A second stream within the study focused on regulatory approaches, and resulted in recommendations
to modify HRM municipal regulations to better accommodate wind energy generation. This stream
started with the premise that municipal regulations are only appropriate so long as they address
undesired impacts on society, without overlapping with other regulatory jurisdictions such as Federal
and Provincial. An in-depth analysis of potential impacts of wind energy development was conducted,
approaches taken by other municipalities to regulate wind energy development were considered and
compared, Federal and Provincial regulations were explored, and the information was utilized to
develop a set of recommendations. The analysis of impacts is presented in Section 3, while the review
of regulations and formulation of recommendations are presented in Section 4.
It should be noted that the focus of this study has been on small and large scale commercial wind
energy development. Small individually-owned and operated wind energy operations have also been
addressed in the assessment of impacts and regulations.
To complete this study, the consultant engaged the expertise of a number of professional practitioners
within Jacques Whitford in areas such as environmental biology, land-use planning, and GIS. The
Terrain Group was subcontracted to provide further expertise in the area of municipal regulations. The
consultants worked closely with HRM, most specifically with three project representatives from
Environmental Management Services, Planning and Development, and Governance. In addition, a
presentation of the proposed approach of the project took place early on in the study, where a group of
30 stakeholders from industry, government, academia, and non-governmental organizations attended
and provided input. Follow up correspondence and meetings took place between the consultants and
several organizations including Environment Canada and NS Department of Environment and Labour.
Several groups have also been consulted individually by the consultants including the Halifax Regional
Water Commission and HRM Regional Planning.
© 2006
PROJECT 1008690.
April 11, 2006
2
2.0
GIS WIND ENERGY SUITABILITY MODEL & MAPPING
Suitability studies within a geographic context involve the determination of the level of appropriateness
of a designated area for a particular activity in question. Such studies are conducted through the
spatial analysis of the contributing factors associated with the activity in question. In reference to this
study, Jacques Whitford has conducted a study addressing the suitability of lands within HRM for wind
energy projects, namely wind turbine development. An in-house Geographic Information System (GIS)
model has been developed that investigates a series of variables that directly impact an area’s
suitability for turbine placement. This section presents the methodology and results of the Jacques
Whitford wind energy suitability study.
2.1
GIS Wind Energy Suitability Model Methodology
The wind energy suitability model (WESM) was used to spatially model all lands in HRM on their
suitability for turbine placement. WESM is a GIS-based model. Jacques Whitford designed,
developed, and operated the model using the ArcGIS 9.1 software package published and distributed
by the Environmental Systems Research Institute, Inc. (ESRI).
As discussed in detail in Section 2.2, WESM applies three groups of spatial data (Wind Energy, Land
Use Considerations, and Construction Considerations) to explore contributing factors of wind energy
project suitability. The spatial data are input as data layers. Dozens of data layers were used in this
model as are depicted in Figure 2.1.
Figure 2.2 displays the general methodology and geo-processing tasks explained below.
The first step to creating the model was locating the data and compiling the data layers. The results of
any model assessment are limited by the quality of their input data. Data acquisition often forms the
greatest challenge to any spatial analysis. The availability, quality, and format of data can vary per
dataset. Accuracy and scale are also important considerations that may impact model results.
Fortunately, there were several datasets available for the HRM wind energy study.
HRM provided Jacques Whitford with several datasets for the region that were extremely useful in
creating the model. HRM Regional Planning and the Halifax Regional Water Commission both provided
their own datasets for use in this model. Planimetric data was obtained from Service Nova Scotia
through their online GeoNova services providing free access to the 1:10,000 scale Nova Scotia
Topographic Database (1997). Additional in-house datasets acquired by Jacques Whitford were used
to complete required data layers.
© 2006
PROJECT 1008690.
April 11, 2006
3
FIGURE 2.1
GIS Data Layer Tree
© 2006
PROJECT 1008690.
April 11, 2006
4
FIGURE 2.2
GIS Geo-Processing Tasks
© 2006
PROJECT 1008690.
April 11, 2006
5
Once the data was assembled, it was prepared for use within the GIS environment. Datasets were
grouped together into appropriate data layers and merged into single point/line/polygon features. All
data layers were constructed to completely cover the project area. A stringent quality control routine
was developed and conducted to catch any error associated with the acquired datasets (i.e.
overlapping polygons, open polygons, broken lines, etc.) All datasets were similarly geo-referenced to
the Average Terrestrial System of 1977 (ATS 77) and projected to Modified Transverse Mercator –
Zone 5 (MTM Z5).
Manipulation of the data layers within the GIS is called geo-processing. While the geo-processing
tasks varied for each data layer, the general process can be broken down into three basic stages:

STAGE 1 – Attribute table population & wind energy project suitability scoring;

STAGE 2 – Grid (Raster) Creation; and

STAGE 3 – Grid (Raster) Calculation & Result Compilation.
During the first stage, all data layers were assigned appropriate wind energy project suitability scores
according to the scoring guidelines outlined in Section 2.2. This was carried out in the attribute tables
associated with each data layer according to the variable descriptions also contained in the attribute
tables. Any features that were scored using a buffering system (all point and line features) were
buffered first (converted to polygon features) and then scored. By the end of Stage 1, all features in the
data layers had a wind energy suitability score.
During the second stage, data layers were converted into grid (raster) format. This reduced each data
layer into a series of equally-sized cells across the entire project area. The cell size of each grid was
identical. Each cell retained the suitability score assigned to its original polygon coverage.
Intermediate mapping results depicting wind energy development suitability according to data layer is
the graphic representation of each of these grids.
During the third and final stage, the sum of the suitability scores for all overlapping grid cells was
calculated. Once summed, the resultant grid is the cumulative suitability of any area (geographical size
determined by the grid cell size) for turbine placement. This final summed grid is referred to as the
Total Wind Master Plan Score grid.
2.2
Suitability Factors and their Relative Importance
As discussed in Section 2.1, suitability for wind development in different areas of HRM was determined
from a range of variables within three general categories; Wind Energy, Land Use Considerations, and
Construction Considerations. The wind energy category accounted for the potential to harvest wind
energy in an area. The land use category considered the natural and anthropogenic uses of the land
that would either interfere with or become impacted by local turbine placement. The construction
considerations category incorporated the environmental and infrastructural setting of an area that could
potentially complicate turbine construction.
© 2006
PROJECT 1008690.
April 11, 2006
6
While several variables within these categories could directly impact an area’s suitability for wind energy
projects, the GIS-based model was limited to those that could be assessed spatially and by general data
availability. WESM was designed to include the following 12 variables, listed according to category:
Wind Energy

Wind Speed Data
Land Use Considerations

Airport Approach Routes

Environmentally Protected Lands

Parklands

Proximity to Archaeological Sites

Proximity to Bird Nesting Sites

Proximity to Buildings

Potential Habitat
Construction Considerations

Construction Hazards

Proximity to Roads

Proximity to Utility Transmission Lines

Surficial Geology
These variables were used in the GIS-based model as spatial data layers. The model’s GIS Data
Layer Tree is depicted in Figure 2.1. Each layer was then assigned a scoring guideline that assessed
the suitability of the various variable features for wind energy projects. The Scoring guidelines are
presented below in Table 2.1. Jacques Whitford developed the initial scoring guidelines, which were
then discussed with the client and revised according to their comments and recommendations. Certain
layers that were considered more important than others in the suitability study are weighted through the
scoring guideline to have more impact on model results.
TABLE 2.1 WESM Scoring Guidelines
Wind Energy
Wind Speed
Average Speed over ground
Land Use Considerations
Airport Approach Routes
Type
Environmentally Protected Lands
Type
Scoring Guideline
> 6.5 m/s
5.5 - 6.5 m/s
< 5.5 m/s
10
5
0
Scoring Guideline
Outside
Poor
Very Poor
Prohibited
0
-5
-10
NO GO*
Outside
Water Supply
© 2006
0
-1
PROJECT 1008690.
April 11, 2006
7
TABLE 2.1 WESM Scoring Guidelines
Parklands
Type
Proximity to Archaeological Sites
Distance from Archaeological Site
Proximity to Bird Nesting Sites
Distance from Bird/Bat Nesting Site
Proximity to Buildings
Distance from Building
Potential Habitat
Type
Construction Considerations
Construction Hazards
Type
Proximity to Roads
Distance to All Season Road
Proximity to Transmission Lines
Distance to Power Line
Surficial Geology
Type
Protected Area
-5
Outside
Protected Parkland
0
-3
> 200 metres
< 200 metres
0
-5
> 1.5 kilometres
1 - 1.5 kilometres
< 1 kilometre
0
-10
NO GO*
> 1 kilometre
300 metres - 1 kilometre
< 300 metres
0
-5
NO GO*
Outside
Species/Wetlands
Old Growth Forest
0
-5
-10
Scoring Guideline
Outside
Slope
Underground Infrastructure
Prohibited
0
-5
-10
NO GO*
< 500 metres
500 metres - 1 kilometre
> 1 kilometre
1
0
-1
< 500 metres
500 metres - 1 kilometre
> 1 kilometre
1
0
-1
Silty
Stony
Rocky
Maximum Possible Score
Minimum Possible Score
Minimum Possible Score (numeric)
* NO GO - Means turbine placement is prohibited in the area, regardless of other variables
1
0
-1
13
NO GO*
-61
Negative scores were assigned to variable features that would interfere with or become negatively
impacted by local turbine placement. A neutral score (0) was assigned to any variable feature that was
impartial or not applicable in any given layer. A positive score was assigned to a variable feature that
indicated positive suitability for a wind energy project.
The following sections present each of the data layers and the methodology behind their scoring
guidelines.
Wind Speed Data
Wind speed data was obtained from the Environment Canada Weather Stations in HRM. Data is
recorded in metres per second (m/s). Areas of higher wind speeds are more suitable to wind energy
© 2006
PROJECT 1008690.
April 11, 2006
8
projects than those with lower wind speeds. Therefore a scoring guideline was developed to assign a
higher score (10) to those areas receiving higher wind speeds (greater than 6.5 m/s) and a lower score
(0) to those areas receiving lower wind speeds (less than 5.5 m/s).
Airport Approach Routes
Low flying aircraft may pose a threat to turbine development and vice versa. Therefore the model had
to account for any airports and their designated airport approach routes. The runway areas themselves
are off limits for turbine development and are therefore assigned a “NO GO” scoring in the guidelines.
WESM assigns a neutral score (0) to all areas outside of airport approach routes and a negative score
to any direct approach route, graded according to its proximity to the runway. The helicopter flight
routes at 12 Wing Shearwater were the only routes that WESM had to account for during this project.
Environmentally Protected Lands
This variable accounts for all lands with a designated environmental agenda (with the exception of
parklands) that are protected on the municipal, provincial, or federal level. The following are examples
of lands included in this variable: First Nations Reserves, water supply areas, game reserves,
wilderness reserves, breeding areas, etc. All protected areas are assigned a negative score (-5) for
wind energy project suitability with protected watershed receiving a higher score (-1) and all
unprotected areas receiving a neutral score (0).
Parklands
This variable accounts for all municipal, provincial, and federal parkland within the HRM. The scoring
guidelines assign a negative score (-3) to all parklands while everything outside receives a neutral
score (0). This methodology is similar to the environmentally protected lands.
Proximity to Archaeological Sites
WESM is designed to include all designated archaeological sites and those designated with
archaeological potential. The model introduces a 200 metre distance buffer around any such site and
assigns a negative value to the area inside the buffer. All areas greater than 200 metres from an
archaeological site are assigned a neutral score (0).
Proximity to Bird Nesting Sites
This variable is intended to represent areas that are known to be bird nesting sites and primary bird
and/or bat habitats. The model uses another buffer to account for bird/bat nesting sites. Any lands
within a one kilometre buffer of a known bird nesting site are assigned a “NO GO” scoring in the
guidelines. The lands that fall directly outside of this buffer (1 km to 1.5 km from a known bird nesting
site) are also assigned a low negative number (-10). All lands outside of this final 1.5 km buffer are
assigned the neutral score (0).
Proximity to Buildings (all buildings)
The model is designed to account for existing building infrastructure. Wind turbines must be located
within a certain distance of all buildings and residences. WESM again uses a buffering system to
account for residential areas and other areas of high building concentration. Any lands within 300
metres of a building are assigned a “NO GO” scoring in the guidelines. The lands that fall directly
© 2006
PROJECT 1008690.
April 11, 2006
9
outside of this buffer (300 m to 1 km from a building site) are also assigned a low negative number (10). All lands outside of this final one kilometre buffer are assigned the neutral score (0).
Potential Habitat
This general variable includes a series of lands conducive to particular species’ favourable habitat,
including such areas as wetlands, prime breeding areas, and feeding areas. Areas populated with old
growth forest are valued in the model and are assigned a low negative score (-10) while all other
desirable habitat areas are assigned a slightly higher negative score (-5). All areas determined to not
be of recognized habitat significance are assigned the neutral score (0).
Construction Hazards
This general variable includes a series of potential construction hazards including slope, underground
infrastructure (pipelines, buried cables, mine shafts, etc.), and bedrock.
Certain locations are completely unsuitable for turbine placement due to a combination of the
aforementioned construction hazards. These areas are assigned a “NO GO” scoring in the guidelines.
Bedrock refers to the solid consolidated rock lying beneath surface deposits of soil and unconsolidated
sediments. Certain bedrock are more favourable to foundation construction that others. Unsuitable
bedrock and the presence of underground infrastructure have been assigned a negative score (-10) in
the scoring guidelines.
Slope is how the ground diverges from the horizontal; it defines the steepness of variance found in
ground elevation. Areas with a hazardous amount of slope has been assigned a negative score (-5) in
the scoring guidelines.
Areas with no apparent construction hazards are assigned the neutral score (0).
Proximity to Roads
WESM uses a buffering system to determine turbine location suitability relative to road proximity. The
model includes only all season roads, as coded in the provincial 1:10,000 topographic mapping
database. Established road networks are essential to wind energy projects for ease of accessibility
during turbine construction and for post construction maintenance. Areas greater than one kilometre
from a road are assigned a negative score (-1) while areas less than 500 metres from a road are
assigned a positive score (1). Scores assigned to road proximity are weighted less than other
construction variables since roads may be built to accommodate areas lacking sufficient infrastructure
that are favourable to wind energy projects.
Proximity to Utility Transmission Lines
The model applies the same buffering system used in determining road proximity to determine utility
transmission line proximity. WESM includes only major transmission lines. Areas greater than one
kilometre from a major transmission line are assigned a negative score (-1) while areas less than 500
metres from a major transmission line are assigned a positive score (1). Scores assigned to
transmission line proximity are weighted less than other construction variables since power lines may
be built to accommodate areas lacking sufficient infrastructure that are otherwise favourable to wind
energy projects.
© 2006
PROJECT 1008690.
April 11, 2006
10
Surficial Geology
Surficial geology refers to the description of the types and distributions of unconsolidated sediments
near the surface of the earth. The formations that comprise the surficial geology of a site are generally
combinations of the following particles, listed in order of size from smallest to largest: Clay, Silt, Fine
sand, medium sand, coarse sand, and gravel. The finer the surficial composition, the more suitable a
location is for turbine placement. Therefore areas with clay or silt surficial geologies are assigned a
positive score (1) while the more rocky areas are assigned a negative score (-1). Surficial geologies
scores are lightly weighted because an area’s surficial composition may be altered to better
accommodate a wind energy project.
2.3
Model & Mapping Results
WESM produced total suitability scores in the range of -36 through +13, the lowest of which is
considered very poor suitability, the highest of which is considered good suitability. Scores were then
divided into categories of suitability using the classification system shown in Table 2.2.
TABLE 2.2 Wind Energy Model Suitability Score Classification
Minimum Score
NO DATA (“NO GO” Score)
Maximum Score
-36
-11
-10
-1
0 (including)
13
Classification
Prohibited Area
(Black Zone)
Least Suitable Areas
(Red Zone)
Caution Area
(Amber Zone)
Highly Suitable Area
(Green Zone)
Model results are best communicated in map format. Mapping results are included in Appendix A.
Wind energy project suitability is depicted according to data layer and according to the total wind
master plan score.
The most suitable locations in HRM according to WESM can be determined from Figure A-1 in
Appendix A. The Total Wind Master Plan Score grid is depicted and colour-coded according to total
suitability score. The figure displays most suitable areas, caution areas, least suitable areas, and
prohibited areas.
© 2006
PROJECT 1008690.
April 11, 2006
11
3.0
POTENTIAL WIND ENERGY GENERATION IMPACTS
In order to put into place appropriate regulations around wind energy development, it is first crucial to
understand the potential impacts of the industry which the regulations aim to control. This section
provides a review of available information on the potential impacts of wind energy generation projects
on the landscape, the surrounding environment, and health and safety. Common practices or
approaches to controlling these impacts are presented throughout the Section where available. A
summary of impacts are presented in Section 3.15. Based on this information, a set of
recommendations on how HRM might control each impact are presented in Section 4.
The discussion of potential impacts presented in this Section tends to focus on the potential negative
impacts of wind energy development, because it is the negative impacts that might call for regulatory
controls. However, it must be stressed that wind energy development has many positive impacts, which
are generally well understood. The wind energy industry offers a clean and renewable alternative to
fossil fuels as an energy source, which could result in significant environmental improvements in the
areas of air quality and greenhouse gas emission reduction. Wind energy development can also
contribute to energy security in HRM, and provide economic development opportunities. Wind turbines
can be viewed by residents and visitors as a symbol of commitment to sustainability and have come to
be tourist attractions in many locations. The potential negative impacts of wind energy development
need to be considered against the backdrop of the many positive impacts already known.
3.1
Visual Impacts
The appeal of the visual appearance of a wind turbine or a wind farm is a subjective matter and
involves a qualitative assessment. It is also one of the more challenging aspects of wind development
to control because of its subjective nature. The trend for establishing wind turbines has been to locate
them in rural environments, coastal locations and along ridgelines to obtain the best locations for
harnessing the wind. Notwithstanding this, there is interest from local communities and businesses to
establish turbines within their neighbourhoods to provide self-sufficient power to meet their needs as a
result of ever-rising fuel prices. For example, developers in Calgary are relying on wind energy to
reduce energy expenses at six malls, and a proposed Wal-Mart in Vancouver included provision for onsite wind turbines to provide electricity to the store. A demand for establishing wind turbines in more
urban settings is growing, which will further place them within the view planes of local residents.
The international literature includes a wide range of material regarding the management of the visual
impacts of wind turbines, though to date this research has been largely focused on rural or peripheral
urban environments. A particularly intensive analysis regarding the visual impacts of wind farms is
included in the Irish Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government Draft Planning
Guidelines for Wind Energy in Rural Settings (2004) In context to this report the following were
considered important aspects in controlling the visual impact of wind turbines: Siting and location,
spatial extent and scale, cumulative effects, spacing of turbines, height of turbines, colour and lighting.
These aspects of visual impact are discussed further in sections 3.1.1 to 3.1.7.
© 2006
PROJECT 1008690.
April 11, 2006
12
3.1.1
Siting and location
Where possible, and particularly in relation to significant landscapes, the turbines should be located to
avoid visual corridor planes. It is important to wind energy proponents to identify sites that should be
avoided prior to them purchasing or leasing land for the installation of wind turbines. Significant visual
landscape features that may have greater sensitivity to the impact of wind turbines should be identified
early on in the feasibility analysis for wind development. The HRM Draft Regional Plan has indicated
some areas of significant landscape features where greater sensitivity may be required if wind turbines
are to be established within or near these environments.
3.1.2
Spatial extent and scale
The spatial extent of a wind farm should be in context with the existing landscape. An installed wind
farm should not overly dominate a landscape, but instead should be in line with what exists in the
landscape, such as numbers of other human-made structures.
Too small in context of the landscape
Considered a good balance to the landscape
Too many turbines relative to the physical scale of the landscape
© 2006
PROJECT 1008690.
April 11, 2006
13
3.1.3
Cumulative effects
Cumulative effects are the perceived effects on the landscape of two or more wind farms and/or other
human-made structures visible from any one place. The potential crowding impact of cumulative effect
has been one of the reasons for rising opposition to wind energy in some parts of Europe. There are
situations where multiple wind farms may co-exist based on the characteristics of the surrounding
environment, which can break up the appearance of wind farms from a single viewpoint. Illustrative
examples are provided below.
Turbines dominating the rural landscape
3.1.4
Spacing of turbines
The spacing of turbines largely depends on the surrounding environment. Where the wind farm is
surrounded by vegetation or a complex and/or irregular landscape pattern, irregular spacing may be
more appropriate. Where turbines are located on a regular landscape, turbines may have less visual
impact if they are in turn spaced in a regular (e.g., linear) or uniform manner.
Uniformly spaced turbines
© 2006
PROJECT 1008690.
April 11, 2006
14
3.1.5
Height of Turbines
Turbines are getting progressively taller since wind speeds are much greater at higher elevations. The
largest turbine of which we are currently aware is 182 m in height from the base to the top of the blade,
and can produce enough energy for 5,000 homes (Parfit 2005). This turbine is to be located off the
coast of Germany. The higher the turbine the more energy it can generate possibly resulting in the
requirement for fewer turbines. The height of the turbine also plays an important aspect regarding the
visual components indicated above. The key challenge with the height of the turbines is the dominating
effect it can have on the landscape and/or surrounding properties.
3.1.6
Colour
Colour plays an important role on the visual impact of wind turbine structures on the environment. The
key international trend has been to ensure consistency in the colour of the turbines and a neutral nonreflective matte colour. Some professionals advise against dark colour (e.g., grey or black), but instead
promote using white to give a positive appearance to the turbines (Ireland Department of the
Environment, Heritage and Local Government 2004). The potential impact of the turbines being used
for advertising has also been considered, which may result in dominating the rural landscape.
Currently, international controls on wind turbines include limited signage to the nacelle unit and the
company who is operating the turbine(s).
As presently written, Canadian federal aviation laws require the turbines to be painted in orange and
white stripes, which could result in the turbines being more visually present within their environment
than what might otherwise be expected. To date we are not aware of any existing wind turbines that
actually have this colour scheme.
3.1.7
Lighting
In some cases, safety lighting installed at the top of the turbines can result in an impact on the
landscape during the night. From investigations undertaken in Canada, the only lighting that appears to
have been installed on the towers relates to a flashing red beacon at the top of the nacelle unit as
required by aviation regulations. Industry representatives are working with Transport Canada and
Environment Canada to establish clear and practical guidelines for turbine lighting to minimize nighttime
lights overall.
Summary
As discussed above, most wind turbines have been located in rural environments and form part of
establishing a wind farm that produces electricity for the main grid or large industrial premises. The
structures have a strong visual prominence in these landscapes and generally the trend has been to
avoid locating them in environments that are considered significant or sensitive. Alternatively, while the
structures are fairly new they currently attract interest from the general public and can increase tourism.
Visual impact of the turbines also needs to be balanced with the overall cost / benefit of generating a
clean form of energy compared to developing a coal or other form of non-renewable power source.
In an urban setting the general trend has been to establish a single wind turbine to support a localized
area. An example of this is the Lakeshore Exhibition turbine in urban Toronto. Though there is still a
© 2006
PROJECT 1008690.
April 11, 2006
15
visual impact associated with urban turbines, this is often not perceived as significant since the
landscape around the turbine is already built.
3.2
Shadow Flicker
Shadow flicker is the effect of the sun passing through the blades of the tower and creating a flickering
effect or pulsing change in light intensity based on the speed of the turbine (Botha 2005). The impact of
the flicker is dependent on the orientation of the tower and location of the sun. For example, if the sun
is low on the horizon and the turbine blades directly face the sun the impact will cover a larger area
compared to if it is parallel to the suns rays. In most cases the effect will fall on open countryside,
however, where towers are located closer to residential properties consideration needs to be given to
protect the residents from this impact. The impact is basically an annoyance and there are suggestions
that it can lead to inducing epilepsy in susceptible individuals, however the study team is not aware of
any recorded incidents of this actually occurring.
A considerable amount of international research has been undertaken on the impacts and management
of shadow flicker and the following summary is outlined in a comprehensive environmental impact
assessment (Awhitu Wind Farm 2004):
“The Danish Wind Energy Association reports that shadow flicker does not need to be assessed at
distances more than 500 – 1000 metres from a wind turbine.

Environmental assessments for other wind farms (e.g., by Renewable Energy Systems for the
Meikle Carewe project in Aberdeenshire, Scotland) state that shadow flicker is only a potential
problem at closer than 10 rotor diameters to the turbine.

The ministry for the Environment of Schleswig-Holstein, a northern German region with more than
1,000 MW of installed wind power, recommend the use of flicker timer if more than 30 hours of
theoretical flicker occurs per year.”
The above provides some guidance on how this impact may be managed. Based on consultations done
in Alberta, the Municipality of Pincher Creek advises that operators either shut down the machines
between the time the sun is rising and setting for approximately an hour, or that computers manage to
control the direction of the turbine so the blades are directly parallel to the sun. Access to information
on calculating and modeling the impacts of wind shadow is provided on the Danish Wind Industry
Association website.
In an urban environment, it will be more challenging to create a sufficient clearing around the turbine.
Notwithstanding this, one should not prohibit the ability to establish these structures in an urban
environment because there may be site circumstances that avoid this impact (e.g., parkland
area/industrial premises) or controls and technologies that manage the impact.
There has also been concern that wind turbines, in particular their shadow flicker, have an impact on
certain grazing animals. Studies have been undertaken in a number of countries to assess this potential
impact, and all indicate farm animals and horses adapt to the new environment within a brief
acclimatization period. In relation to horses, evidence indicates that generally horses should not be
ridden in these environments if they have not been acclimatized.
© 2006
PROJECT 1008690.
April 11, 2006
16
Shadow impact when the blades are facing the sun
Shadow impact when blades are perpendicular to the suns’ rays
3.3
Blade Throw
Recorded blade throws are very rare and from our research no recorded human accidents were
identified. In a report prepared for the California Wind Energy Collaborative (Larwood, 2005) looking
specifically at blade throw and possible setbacks to reduce the impact on humans, the following types
of blade failures were identified:

Root connection full blade failures;

Partial blade failure from lighting damage;

Failure at outboard aerodynamic device;

Failure from tower strike;

Partial blade failure due to defect; and

Partial blade failure from extreme load buckling.
Some of the causes of blade failures include:

Unforeseen environmental events outside the design envelope;

Failure of turbine control/safety system;

Human error;

Incorrect design for ultimate loads;

Incorrect design for fatigue loads; and

Poor manufacturing quality.
The research undertaken for the California study outlined that blade failure probability was 1/100 to
1/1000 per turbine per year. Generally, municipalities have been using a height distance to provide
© 2006
PROJECT 1008690.
April 11, 2006
17
some protection in the event of blade throw. This varies between 1.25 and 3 times the height of the
wind turbine (measured from ground level to the top of the blade). Though a number of models for
calculating blade throw were examined in the California study there was no conclusion on what was
considered an appropriate setback with a recommendation to undertake further study in order to
identify consistent standards.
Most modern turbines are now equipped with redundant safety systems to shutdown the rotor if the
turbines overspeed.
3.4
Ice Throw
Considerable research has been undertaken into ice throw that could result from ice building up on the
blades and flying off while the turbine is operating. Ice build up on the nacelle units can also cause a
hazard to maintenance operators. As the gearbox warms up it can result in larger ice fragments falling
to the ground.
The distance of the ice being thrown from the turbine is variable based on the conditions at the time
and terrain; however, as a general rule, the smaller the ice particles the further they travel. Literature
suggests that in climates with generally moderate icing the effect diminishes with a distance greater
than 250m (Morgan et. al. 1998). In determining the distance there are a number of models readily
available and the trend in Europe has been to request the developer to demonstrate the potential
impact of ice throw. The technology has improved to reduce the risk of ice throw considerably through
the use of ice sensors to detect when ice is building up, resulting in a shut down to the units.
Experiments have also been occurring with installing black blades to reduce the build up of ice, through
heat retention.
A Public Heath & Safety Guide (Global Energy Concepts 2005) prepared in the United States provides
a best practice approach to reducing the possibility of ice throw.

Turbine Controls: If the sensors become iced up, the control computer detects no wind speed
and/or no change in the wind direction and then stops turbine operation automatically. Icing on the
blades also results in reduced performance, unusual loads, or vibrations that are detected by the
control system and trigger an automatic stop.

Operators Intervention: Project operators can halt operation of certain turbines (or the entire project)
during icing events to prevent ice throws and equipment damage.

Safety Zones: For moderate icing conditions (5 icing days per year) setback distances of 750 ft to
1150 ft (approximately 230 m to 350 m) correspond to potential strike risks of 1-in-10,000 to 1-in1,000,000 per year, respectively. The study assumes a wind turbine with a 164 ft (50 m) rotor.
A research paper presented at BOREAS, Finland (Seifert et. al. 2003) provides a simplified empirical
equation representing a risk circle for ice throw without detailed calculations. Effectively the basic
calculation is maintaining the tower at least 1.5 times the total height (i.e., to the tip of the blade) from
the nearest property boundary.
© 2006
PROJECT 1008690.
April 11, 2006
18
3.5
Noise
Sound will be produced from the operation of wind turbines as a result of the machinery operating
within the nacelle at the top of the turbine, and as a result of the turning blade cutting through the air.
While concerns around the noise associated with wind turbines are frequently cited by citizens,
numbers suggest that the impacts of noise pollution are much less than is often feared.
The amount of noise disturbance associated with a wind turbine depends on several factors including
the type of turbine, distance from residences, and the ambient noise levels. Table 3.1 below
summarizes observed noise levels at various distances from various wind turbines.
TABLE 3.1 Typical Noise Level for Wind Turbines
Type of Turbine
(Vestas) V47-660kW
Total Height
63.5 – 7.8 m
(Tacke) TW 600
71 m
(NEG Micon) NM 750/48
69.1-94.1 m
Noise Level (dBA) at Select Distances
46.5 @ 200m
44.4 @ 250m
42.7 @ 300m
37.4 @ 500m
44.3 @ 200m
39.0 @ 300m
35.6 @ 400m
43.8 @ 200m
43 @ 250m
38 @ 300M
35 @ 500m
After: CBCL Limited 2003
To put these numbers in context one might consider the following summary of familiar noise levels,
offered by the British Wind Energy Association summarized in Table 3.2.
TABLE 3.2 Typical Noise Levels of Familiar Activities
Source/Activity
Threshold of hearing
Quiet bedroom
Wind farm at 350 m
Car at 40mph at 100 m
Busy general office
Truck at 30mph at 100 m
Pneumatic drill at 7 m
Jet aircraft at 250 m
Threshold of pain
Indicative noise level dBA
0
35
35-45
55
60
65
95
105
140
These numbers also need to be considered against typical ambient noise levels. These are
summarized in Table 3.3 below.
TABLE 3.3 Typical Noise Levels in Residential Areas
Location
Rural Residential Environment
Suburban Residential
Urban Residential
Typical Sound Pressure Levels (dBA)
38-46
48-52
50-62
© 2006
PROJECT 1008690.
April 11, 2006
19
A comparison of the numbers suggest the noise from a typical wind turbine (of a height similar to what
may be expected in HRM) would be easily overshadowed by ambient noise given an appropriate
distance from the closest residents. The appropriate setback may vary depending on location (rural,
suburban and urban). Rural areas in Nova Scotia (Pubnico, Cape Breton) have used setbacks in the
order of 175-200 m. More conservative setbacks are used in Europe. The British Wind Energy
Association, for example, suggests 350 m.
Local noise regulations may also affect the required setbacks. The Province of Ontario’s noise
guidelines for wind turbines put in place a noise limit of 45 dBA for turbines placed within urban and
suburban areas and a limit of 40 dBA for rural areas (Province of Ontario, 2004). However, these sound
level limits increase with wind speed, acknowledging that the wind itself creates sound levels that
increase with speed. Nova Scotia has not established its own sound level limits for different land-uses,
but assuming that expectations are more or less similar to the Ontario context, wind turbines should
have a setback in the range of 300 m to 400 m in rural areas, and in the range of 200 m in urban areas
to avoid posing a considerable increase to ambient noise levels. The HRM Noise Bylaw (Bylaw Number
N-200) which forbids “activity that unreasonably disturbs or tends to disturb the peace and tranquility of
a neighbourhood” can also be satisfied with a conventional wind farm or wind turbine given appropriate
setbacks.
3.6
Electromagnetic Interference
A potential effect of a wind farm is interference with radio-electric signals, such as television, radio,
cellular telephone, microwave transmission and radar. The interference is most likely caused by
turbines physically blocking the line-of-sight between a transmitter and a receiver of signals. It should
first be noted that the effect is only a concern with regards to large utilities and not small-scale turbines
such as those sized for residential and farm use (CANWEA 2006). In fact small scale turbines are often
used to support and power telecommunication facilities such as cell phone towers, military radio
installations, wireless internets sites, and radio and television towers. Additionally, the concern is not
unique to wind turbines, since any large or tall development such as a tower or the chimney of a local
power plant would cause similar interference. As such, technical solutions for this problem are already
well developed and well understood (UK Sustainable Development Commission 2006)
The concerns around electromagnetic interference do not apply to a large sector of Canadian
telecommunications. Satellite television and radio, cable television and AM and FM radio signals are
not usually affected. In fact, it is only microwave frequencies (such as those used by cell phones) and
broadcasted television signals (using transmitters and local antennas) that have reportedly been
subject to interference with wind turbines. Interference with cell phone signals has not been a large
issue in the past. It appears that keeping a clearance distance of about 250 m from the transmission
towers is more than adequate in addressing the interference with cell phone signals (UK Sustainable
Development Commission 2006). Interruption to television services are also not a significant problem
largely because a vast majority of television service in Canada (and specifically in HRM) are provided
through Cable and Satellite with antenna TV servicing a relatively small population.
With regards to television signals received by an antenna, several concerns have emerged. These
include blockage and reflections (“ghosting”) to television reception. Blockage is caused by the physical
presence of the turbines between the television station and the reception points. Ghosting is caused by
multipath interference that occurs when a broadcast signal reflects off of a large reflective object—in
© 2006
PROJECT 1008690.
April 11, 2006
20
this case a wind turbine - and arrives at a television receiver delayed in time from the signal that arrives
via direct path (Polisky 2005). Good design and layout of wind farms can address many of these
issues, by ensuring that lines-of-sight are not obstructed. A number of other solutions can also be used
to overcome television transmission interference:

A more sensitive receiver antenna could be provided for affected households;

Antennae could be moved to receive from a different source transmitter;

A local community re-broadcast facility or repeater transmitter could be installed; and

Alternative means of transmission, such as satellite or cable, could be used by affected households.
Since technical solutions to address interference with electromagnetic signals are well in place, wind
development should not be prohibited due to such impacts. It is necessary to ensure that developers
have a clear idea of any such impacts and take measures to avoid them. It is customary for planning
authorities both in the UK and US, to require that developers conduct a study of electromagnetic fields
around the site, and produce a site plan that ensures wind turbines will not interfere with
telecommunication services. Some municipal jurisdictions also require that developers conduct
consultation with telecommunication service providers and gain their approval before proceeding with
the site planning.
3.7
Fire Damage
In the international literature, reports of wind turbines catching fire are extremely rare. This is expected
given that turbines are typically steel structures, with little combustible material used, especially in
newer turbines. Occasional fires have been restricted to the nacelle unit. Fires have been caused
through lightning strikes and overheating of the gear unit. PB Power, an international company that has
experience in the operation of 10,000 wind turbines at wind farms globally have only had two fires
recorded that destroyed the nacelle, but neither of the fires perpetuated themselves. Typically, a turbine
is allowed to burn itself out while personnel secure the surrounding area and ensure no ground fires
start up. Modern turbines are also now built with temperature sensors to alert the operators in the event
of fire. Where recorded fires have occurred, they have not lasted for any length of time.
3.8
Oil Spills
The majority of oil is contained in the gearbox located in the nacelle unit, though these amounts are
small. Any potential leakage of oil is either contained in the nacelle unit or leakage occurs down the
side of the tower. This impact is very low and is generally noticed and repaired before the oil reaches
the ground. However, to contain oil leaks some local authorities have recommended the tower
structures be designed to contain any spills or leaks (County of Barnstable Massachusetts 2004).
3.9
Tower Collapse
Reported instances of tower collapses are extremely rare and their reasons vary based on the
circumstances such as the type of tower and the operating conditions. Reasons for tower collapses
include:

Blade strikes;

Rotor overspeed;
© 2006
PROJECT 1008690.
April 11, 2006
21

Cyclonic winds; and

Poor or improper maintenance (torque bolts).
From the research there was no record of any incidents of death through the event of a tower collapse.
With greater interest in locating wind turbines closer to higher densities of residents, there may be a
need to place greater attention on avoiding tower collapse. Controls regarding the protection of people
from tower collapse have been related to providing restrictions on access and ensuring the towers are
located 1.2 – 1.5 times the total height of the turbine from the property’s boundary unless the adjoining
lot is owned by the operator.
3.10
Erosion
The location of wind turbines is important for harnessing the wind energy and can often result in towers
located on the slopes of hills. Though the construction area for a wind turbine is limited, it is often prone
to erosion because of the nature of the slope and possible exposure of the land area to weathering
elements. The access roads can become subject to erosion if not well maintained. Simple controls can
be implemented to manage these impacts and these should form part of an overall construction
management plan.
3.11
Traffic Impacts
The majority of wind turbines are currently located on farms in rural environments that can be
challenging to access. There are generally two types of traffic generated from a wind turbine project–
construction traffic and operational traffic. The impacts on the infrastructure are either small or for a
limited duration; however, they can have impacts on the road network and residential communities if
not appropriately managed. To keep down costs, the practice has been to utilize existing roads;
however, because of the size of the equipment these roads in some cases need to be altered.
Construction traffic generally exists for a short duration but has the potential to impact the road network
and related infrastructure if not well planned. In particular the delivery of the turbines themselves can
alter the nature of local traffic. A traffic management plan needs to be prepared and approved by the
regulatory authority with remediation requirements for any damage occurred during this period. The coordination of the traffic management plan needs to include utility operators such as power, telephone
and cable because the size of the structure when delivered can physically interfere with utility lines.
Operation and general maintenance of the wind turbines requires a low number of people and small
vehicles resulting in very little impact on the road network. However, the roads constructed for
servicing the turbines need to be well maintained to avoid the potential impacts of erosion and/or
generating a visual impact on a particular landscape.
3.12
Impacts on Human Safety
Wind turbines attract a lot of attention because of their size and operation. It is important that access to
these structures is limited to prevent damage to the structures and protect human safety. The
structures are designed to ensure safety in context of blade clearance and from the security
perspective in regards to access to the towers (i.e., internal stairwells or sufficient ground clearance to
exterior ladders). Modern turbines are now designed to standards to ensure safe clearance distance
© 2006
PROJECT 1008690.
April 11, 2006
22
between the blade and the ground and retain access via the tower. Smaller versions may still be
dependant on a lattice system making them more accessible to the general public.
So far there has been no evidence of health impacts from wind turbines on neighboring populations.
However, following a recent evacuation of a residential unit in Pubnico, Nova Scotia due to complaints
of health impacts, there has been some additional effort placed on studying the potential or perceived
impacts of wind turbines on health.
3.13
Impacts on Birds
There is a perception that wind turbines cause a great many bird deaths, and it has been highlighted by
regulatory agencies and non-governmental agencies as an issue that needs addressing. Unfortunately,
there is still much to learn about the factors influencing bird-turbine interactions, but general information
is presented below that provides background to this issue and summarizes possible impacts and their
causes.
Sensory Disturbance
Sensory disturbance of birds may occur during all phases of the Project as a result of on-site human
activities such as surveying, clearing, trenching, turbine assembly, equipment operation, site
inspections and site decommissioning. Operation of wind turbines may also result in visual and auditory
disturbance of wildlife, including birds. Breeding birds may avoid habitat within a zone surrounding the
immediate project footprint, although sensitivity is species-specific (Kingsley and Whittam 2004). Many
species will not avoid habitat near to rotating wind turbines, as has been noted by James (2003) and
James and Coady (2003), but other species show a reduction in breeding densities near turbines
(Johnson et al. 2000). Habitat avoidance will most likely occur during periods of construction, and may
be more intermittent during periods of operation, when human activities on-site are less frequent and
would be typically of short duration.
Flight Behaviour
The flight behavior of birds may be influenced by project development. Operation of the turbines may
affect bird movements through the partial obstruction of regular flight paths. Certain species (e.g.,
waterfowl) appear to exhibit avoidance behavior when flying close to an operating wind farm, while
others do not appear to be influenced by the presence of a wind farm (James 2003, Kingsley and
Whittam 2004). To the extent the project creates visual or auditory features that birds may wish to
avoid, this may have a constructive effect in that the birds will be less likely to accidentally collide with
them.
Mortality
A possible effect on birds is an increase in mortality due to collisions with the operating wind turbines.
Numerous studies during the last 20+ years have been conducted to estimate bird mortality at wind
farms, from a single turbine or small wind farms to larger wind farms with thousands of wind turbines
(Gill et al. 1996, Erickson et al. 2001, Percival 2001). This level of study effort is principally due to the
circumstances at one large site in California, Altamont Pass, which alerted the industry, government
and the public to this issue. Thousands of wind turbines installed in the early 1980s at Altamont Pass
were shown to cause elevated mortality in raptors (i.e., hawks, eagles and falcons) that occupy the
© 2006
PROJECT 1008690.
April 11, 2006
23
area. Collisions with the turbine structures were the primary cause of death, although electrocution and
wire collisions also played a part (Orloff and Flannery 1992).
Despite these early studies in California, very few raptors have been found killed at North American
wind farms (Erickson et al. 2001, Kingsley and Whittam 2005). Songbirds are the most frequent
casualties of wind farms in North America (10% to 90% of the overall bird fatalities), and tend to collide
with wind turbines particularly during migration. Breeding birds appear to adapt to the presence of wind
turbines near their nesting and/or foraging areas and avoid collision (Erickson et al. 2002, James 2003,
James and Coady 2003, Kingsley and Whittam 2004). Excluding California, 78% of bird casualties at
wind farms in the United States tend to be of migratory species (Kingsley and Whittam 2004). Many of
these collisions occur at night, when individuals may be attracted to lit structures and collide with
transmission wires, turbine towers or other structures in a wind farm. Further research is needed to
assess whether birds are actually attracted to typical turbine lighting, or whether this assumption, based
on studies at other lit structures (e.g., tall buildings, lighthouses, communication towers), is false.
Although fatalities occur at wind energy facilities, the number of fatalities is generally small. This is
especially noticeable when compared to the fatalities caused by other sources, such as communication
towers, roads and buildings, as suggested in Table 3.4.
TABLE 3.4 Comparison of Typical Causes of Bird Mortality
Fatality Cause
Wind Turbines
Buildings
Communication Towers
Vehicles
Bird Annual Mortality in the United States
10,000 – 40,0000 (2.19 birds per turbine)
98-980 million (1-10 birds per building)
4-50 million
60-80 million
Additionally, Kingsley and Whittam (2005) indicate that the effects are small compared to the millions of
birds that travel through existing wind power developments in the U.S. each year. This has been noted
for two sites in Washington and one site in Minnesota, where conservative estimates of mortality, using
surveillance radar and carcass surveys to determine passage rates and fatality rates, respectively, are
less than 0.01% of birds passing through each wind farm (Erickson et al. 2003). A study in Alberta
estimated that approximately 0.02% of individuals (birds and bats combined) flying through wind farms
may have resulted in a collision with a turbine. Similarly, studies in Ontario found four bird kills by a 1.8
MW turbine on Lake Ontario and 2 bird kills at the Toronto lakeshore despite its proximity to coastal
wetlands.
These data provide a better understanding of potential impacts on birds, which indicate that fatalities
caused by wind turbines is actually very low (Erickson et al. 2001, Percival 2001, Erickson et al. 2002,
Kingsley and Whittam 2005). However, it is important to reduce or eliminate fatalities to the extent
possible, and it is important to understand what factors may increase the collision risk of birds at a wind
farm. A number of factors may influence the potential for bird-turbine interactions that lead to bird kills,
including weather and lighting, landscape features, turbine design, and facility design. Table 3.5
summarizes the impacts of these factors.
© 2006
PROJECT 1008690.
April 11, 2006
24
TABLE 3.5 Summary of Wind Turbines Impacts on Birds
Factor
Weather and Lighting
Landscape Features
Turbine Design
Facility Design
Impact
When conditions are clear, there is low likelihood that birds will collide with wind turbines
(Crockford 1992, Kingsley and Whittam 2005). However, low visibility (<200 m) may cause
nocturnal migrants to fly at lower altitudes, and lights may attract individuals (Jones and Francis
2003, Kingsley and Whittam 2005). Birds may be attracted to red visibility beacons or other
lighting associated with turbine structures- which are currently required by Transport Canada
regulation. Environment Canada recommends that white strobe lights be used on towers at
night and that their number, light intensity and number of flasher per minute be minimized.
Siting a wind farm near landforms that concentrate birds, such as high ridges, slopes and
mountaintops, may increase the risk of avian collision.
Turbine height is believed to be a strong influence on the likelihood of collision with taller
structures having an increased risk of collision, while structures below 150 m cause minimal
mortality (Kerlinger 2000, Crawford and Engstrom 2001, Kingsley and Whittam 2005). Migratory
birds typically fly at altitudes greater than 150 m such that structures lower than 150 m in height
do not usually obstruct migratory bird movements or result in bird mortality (Kingsley and
Whittam 2005).
The nature of the support structure on which the rotor blades are mounted may also influence
bird-turbine collisions. Wind turbines can be mounted on either a lattice structure or tubular steel
towers. Limited information is available to identify the preferred support structure although some
data indicate that lattice towers encourage perching by raptors during hunting and, as a result,
may put these birds at risk of collisions.
The scale of the wind farm has a direct influence on the potential for bird-turbine collisions.
Facilities of 100 turbines or more are thought to more likely have a greater effect in terms of bird
mortality due to the increased number of vertical obstacles (potential collision hazards) in the
landscape (Environment Canada 2005).
Impacts on birds are controlled to a large degree by the Environmental Impact Assessment process.
Environment Canada has created a set of guidelines on birds for wind developers, and Natural
Resources Canada require proponents seeking Wind Power Production Incentive (WPPI) funding to
address potential bird impacts as part of a proposed project’s Screening pursuant to the Canadian
Environmental Assessment Act. There is little need for municipalities to regulate wind turbines in
relation with bird fatalities.
3.14
Impacts on Bats
Given the ability of bats to navigate in darkness, to avoid large obstacles and detect small insects in the
air using echolocation, it is interesting that bats would be found to collide with wind turbines and other
tall structures. However, this is indeed the case. Bat collision mortality has been identified to occur with
a number of tall structures including lighthouses, buildings, power lines, communication towers and
wind turbines. Bat collision with human structures appears to be an infrequent occurrence, but it has
the potential to be of concern, as discussed below.
The first report of bat fatalities at a wind farm was by Hall and Richards (1972). Over four years, 22
White-striped Mastiff-Bats (Tadarida australis) were found at the base of turbines at an Australian wind
farm. Since then, bat fatalities have been reported at several wind farms in the United States and at
one wind farm in Alberta (Brown and Hamilton 2002, Erickson et al. 2002, Johnson et al. 2002).
Reports prepared by Erickson et al. (2002) and Johnson et al. (2002) provide excellent summaries of
data available from a number of studies in the United States. These summaries show that the majority
of bat fatalities at wind farms in the United States occur in late summer and early fall, presumably
during southward migration. Of the 536 bat collision fatalities included by Erickson et al. (2002), nearly
© 2006
PROJECT 1008690.
April 11, 2006
25
90% of all the fatalities occurred from mid-July through mid-September, with over 50% in August
(Erickson et al. 2002), peaking during the first two weeks. Most fatalities were of migratory tree bats
with Hoary Bats being by far the most numerous, comprising approximately 61.7% of all fatalities.
Additionally, 17.2% of the fatalities were of Eastern Red Bats and 7.1% were Silver-haired Bats. Small
numbers of dead Big Brown Bat, Little Brown Bat, and Eastern Pipistrelle were also found during these
studies.
According to the Natural History Guide of Nova Scotia, there are six types of native bat species in the
province, including the species apparently more vulnerable to wind turbine collisions. Table 3.6
provides details on the six native Nova Scotia species.
TABLE 3.6 Species of Bats in Nova Scotia
Scientific Name
Myotis lucifugus
Myotis septentrionalis
Pipistrellus subflavus
Common Name
Little Brown Bat
Long-eared Bat
Eastern Pipistrelle
Lasionycteris
noctivagans
Lariurus borealis
Silver-haired Bat
Lasiurus cinereus
Hoary Bat
Distribution in NS
Common throughout
Uncommon throughout
Uncommon or rare,
western mainland NS
Once recorded,
southwest NS
Rare, probably
widespread
Uncommon throughout
Red Bat
Seasonal Activity
Hibernator
Hibernator
Hibernator
NSDNR Status
Yellow*
Yellow
Yellow
Probably Migratory/
Hibernator
Migratory/ Hibernator
Yellow
Migratory/ Hibernator
Yellow
Yellow
* Sensitive to human activity or natural events.
Table 3.7 summarizes bat fatality data at a number of wind farms in the U.S. Many facilities reported
few bat fatalities. As an example, and including factors correcting for carcass removal and searcher
efficiency, only 19 bat collisions were recorded at the Klondike Wind Project in Oregon, consisting of 16
turbines, during a one-year study (Johnson et al. 2003). The 16 turbines at this open field site are 1.5
MW turbines with a blade sweep approximately 30-100m above the ground. Based on the estimate of
19 bat collisions at the facility during the year, the average rate of collision is 1.2 bat fatalities per
turbine per year (Johnson et al. 2003). With the possible exception of Mountaineer (see below), there is
no current evidence that suggests populations are affected by wind farm mortality. The principal factors
adversely affecting bat populations are predation and habitat alteration/destruction, not collision with
wind turbines or any other human structure (Bat Conservation International 2001).
TABLE 3.7 Estimated bat collision fatality rates at United States wind farms
Wind Resource Area
Bat Mortalities per
Turbine per Year
Correction
Reference
1.2
Adjusted for search
biases
Johnson et al. 2003
2
Adjusted for search
biases
Johnson et al. 2003
4.3
-
Howe et al. 2002
Foote Creek Rim, Wyoming
(72 – 600 kW and 33 – 700 kW turbines)
1.3
Adjusted for search
biases
Johnson et al. 2000,
Young et al. 2001, Gruver
2002
Buffalo Mountain, Tennessee
(3 – 660 kW turbines)
28.5
-
Nicholson 2003
Klondike, Oregon
(16 - 1.5 MW turbines)
Buffalo Ridge, Minnesota
(Phases II & III)
(281 – 750 kW turbines)
Northeastern Wisconsin
(31 – 660 kW turbines)
© 2006
PROJECT 1008690.
April 11, 2006
26
TABLE 3.7 Estimated bat collision fatality rates at United States wind farms
Wind Resource Area
Vansycle, Oregon
(38 – 660 kW turbines)
Lake Benton, Minnesota
(354 - 660 kW turbines)
Mountaineer Wind Energy Centre, West
Virginia (44 - 1.5 MW turbines)
Nine Canyon, Washington (37 - 1.3 MW
turbines)
Bat Mortalities per
Turbine per Year
Correction
Adjusted for search
biases
Adjusted for search
biases
0.7
0.1 - 2.0
Reference
Erickson et al. 2000
Johnson et al. 2003
9.1
-
Lindsay and Kearns 2003
3.2
Adjusted for search
biases
Erickson et al. 2003
A more recent study proves to be an exception, in that large numbers of bats have been found to
collide with wind turbines. At the Mountaineer Wind Energy Centre on Backbone Mountain, West
Virginia, approximately 400 bats were found killed by 44 turbines during the first year of its operation
(Lindsay and Kearns 2003). Of the 232 that were identified to the species level, most of the bats killed
were Eastern Red Bats and Hoary Bats (Lindsay and Kearns 2003). Taking into consideration observer
effort and carcass removal by scavengers, researchers have estimated that more than 1000 bats were
killed at the site during a six-week period (Bat Conservation International 2005). This is the greatest
number of bats reported killed at any wind farm. The reasons why so many bats have been killed at the
Mountaineer site are poorly understood but may include its siting at a high elevation within the
Appalachian Mountains. A further recent example is from a site in Alberta, where 532 bat casualties
were found during August and September 2005. Further research this year will be undertaken to
identify whether this was an anomaly or if some factor(s) at the site are causing bats to be more
susceptible to collision with the turbines.
Bats are being killed at wind farms, or at least some wind farms, but the factors putting them at risk of
colliding with wind turbines are unknown. Without a clear understanding of what would place bats at
risk of collision, it is difficult to predict the frequency of bat-turbine collisions. For example, Erickson et
al. (2002) report on several instances where bats were observed foraging very close to turbines without
being struck by the turbine blades. This is further complicated by a lack of understanding of bat
ecology, especially on migration, and the paucity of data on abundance and movement of bats at
multiple spatial scales (continent-wide, provincial, regional). It has been suggested that bats follow
similar migratory routes as birds, but this theory has not been confirmed.
Given the amount of uncertainty about this subject, and considering that in a majority of cases numbers
of bat-turbine collisions are negligible, it is probably not appropriate for municipal authorities to place
constraints on wind energy development in connection with bats. As a precaution, the known bat
habitats within HRM including areas in the vicinity of caves and mines may be avoided. Known
examples of bat colonies in HRM include an abandoned gold mine at Lake Charlotte and Dutch
Settlement. Other areas to be avoided are clearings within, and edges of, old growth forests where
Nova Scotia’s “tree bats” tend to roost. It should be up to the Environmental Impact Assessment
process (provincially and/or federally mandated) to determine whether a specific site within HRM may
be unsuitable for wind development given local knowledge about bats.
© 2006
PROJECT 1008690.
April 11, 2006
27
3.15
Summary of Potential Impacts of Commercial Wind Turbine
Table 3.8 below provides a summary of the information described in Section 3.
TABLE 3.8 Summary of Potential Impacts of Commercial Wind Turbines
Impact
Visual Impacts
Shadow Flicker
Fire Damage
Blade Throw
Oil Spills
Ice Throwing
Traffic Impacts
Impacts on Human Safety
Noise Impacts
Electromagnetic
Interference
Impacts on Bats
Impact on Birds
Erosion
Decommissioning
Comments Regarding Regulating
A single tower at a certain height may not be as imposing on the landscape as having more
than one and therefore may be permitted in some environments. Height plays an important role
regarding the visual dominance of the structure(s), but the challenge with placing restrictions on
height is that it can lead to a requirement for more turbines to generate the same amount of
power.
More than one tower requires a qualitative assessment to minimize the visual impact in certain
areas. The development of wind turbines needs to be monitored to gauge the cumulative visual
impact on the environment.
Impact can be calculated.
Controls regarding operation to mitigate impact can be implemented.
Setbacks based on the height of the tower can be required.
Modern turbines have built in temperature sensors.
Setback controls between 1.25 and 3 times the total height of the turbine setback from a road
or property boundary.
Require towers to be designed to contain any spills or leaks.
Scientific calculations for establishing a setback from property boundaries including roads with
a generic rule of thumb being 1.5 times the total height of the turbine.
Requirement for a traffic management plan.
25 ft or 7.5 m blade clearance from ground level, fencing off access to turbines.
When measured from a property boundary no greater than 45 dBA in an urban area or 40 dBA
in a rural area.
Alternatively, require turbines to be setback from property boundaries in the order of 200 m –
350 m.
This is not a Municipality responsibility, but it may be appropriate to ensure the developers are
aware of their responsibilities in this regard and ensure a mechanism is established to forward
an application through to the appropriate regulatory body.
This is a Provincial regulatory issue.
This is a Provincial and Federal regulatory issue.
Requirement for silt sediment control plans for both the management of construction and
ongoing maintenance.
Removal of wind turbine equipment and remediation work required to generally return the site
to its natural state prior to the installation of the wind turbines.
© 2006
PROJECT 1008690.
April 11, 2006
28
4.0
HRM WIND REGULATORY APPROACHES
4.1
Purpose of Municipal Regulations
The role of regulation is to establish controls that are fair and reasonable to enable the operation of an
activity while safe-guarding the community and environment from significant impacts related to the
activity. HRM acknowledges the importance of the wind industry to the Province, and the wider
benefits, including economic, related to this relatively new industry.
To identify the nature of regulatory controls that may be imposed it is important to first identify what the
potential impacts are and identify those that are perceived impacts or impacts that technology has
already addressed. As described in Section 3, many of the potential impacts of wind energy generation
have already been “solved” within the industry and as such do not need to be separately regulated by
the Municipality.
In addition, though there are a number of potential impacts and mitigation methods it is important to
recognize the purpose of this study and how it provides recommendations on the nature of regulatory
controls for the management of wind turbines/farms in HRM. Wind farms are already subject to a
number of assessments at the Federal and Provincial level and a number of the potential impacts are
mitigated through this process. To avoid duplication, this report will identify those impacts that are
more appropriately controlled at the Municipal level.
The wind industry has largely been based on the development of wind farms in rural environments.
However, there has been increasing interest by communities to have the ability to establish a single
wind turbine within an urban environment to provide electricity to their facilities. In the rural
environment where there is lower population and greater land area, the majority of impacts are easier
to control. Often the major barrier to wind farms in rural communities is the visual impact on the
environment, compared to the urban environment where the issues relate more to controlling the noise
impacts, shadow flicker and general safety. It is important to recognize the difference between these
two types of developments because their controls and methods of management are likely to be
different.
Ultimately, caution must be taken so as not to prohibit the structures in certain areas based on present
perception of the structures, but rather establish thresholds relating to the impacts that by their very
nature currently prohibit the development of wind turbines in some areas. This approach does not
exclude their development in some areas but raises the bar or challenge for the developer to establish
ways to meet the threshold requirements.
People often think of wind turbines as larger structures, however, it is also important to recognize that
at the other end of the spectrum there is increasing interest in the purchase of small wind turbines that
sit on roof tops, or in their backyards. These smaller independent units have little impact on the
surrounding environment and it will be important not to create controls that prohibit them, but rather
manage their impacts (e.g., noise).
When reviewing this Section it is important to place wind turbines in context with other forms of
activities that generate energy, such as an oil, gas, coal or nuclear power plant. These activities are
non-renewable and contribute towards greenhouse gases. They also involve the development of large
© 2006
PROJECT 1008690.
April 11, 2006
29
structures that in some cases have large chimney stacks associated with them that can also have
dominating impacts on the landscape.
4.2
Existing HRM Regulatory Mechanisms
A review of all of HRM’s Land Use Bylaws was undertaken to identify any provisions relating to the
development of wind turbines/farms and to what extent the existing rules managed their development.
Effectively, this review identified that, although there were some Municipal Planning Strategies that
identified energy conservation, there was no direct indication on whether wind turbines or farms were
permitted. In some of the Land Use Bylaws there are zones that enable any activity to occur subject to
it not being obnoxious or hazardous. The current HRM “Wind Zone” map simply highlights these
categories of zoning as the only areas where wind development is permitted. Under the definitions
section of obnoxious or hazardous the following is provided:
“Obnoxious use means a use which, from its nature or operation creates
a nuisance or is offensive by the creation of noise or vibration, or by
reason of toxicity, the emission of gas, fumes, dust, oil or objectionable
odour, or by reason of the unsightly storage of goods, wares,
merchandise, salvage, refuse matter, waste or other materials and shall
include operations which produce effluents which cannot be disposed of
by means of an on-site sewage disposal system or which involves, as the
primary function, the processing, production, or warehousing of
dangerous goods or hazardous wastes.”
The definition poses some challenges in terms of defining whether a wind turbine or wind farm would
be allowed, however, to date it appears they have been considered a permitted activity under these
provisions (e.g., Goodwood wind turbine). Up until now, the Municipality has been considering wind
turbines under accessory use provisions. The associated reference to wind turbines in most of the
existing Land Use Bylaws is under the exclusion provision for the height regulations that for example
will state:
“4.17 Height Regulations
The height regulations of this By-law shall not apply to church spires,
water tanks, elevator enclosures, silos, flagpoles, television or radio
antennae, ventilators, skylights, barns, chimneys, clock towers, windmills,
solar collectors or home satellite dishes.”
(15, 18, 19 LUB)
The exclusion, which includes windmills and could be interpreted to include wind turbines for the
purposes of generating electricity, effectively excludes the structure from any height limitations.
Based on the current zoning, coupled with a lack of regulations that are specific to wind turbines, the
structure would only be required to comply with the setback provisions relating to structures if they are
located within favorable zoning. Based on consideration of the potential impacts identified in Section 3
of this report and the review of international standards, the existing HRM provisions are not considered
appropriate. The current provisions potentially create ambiguity for a wind developer in ascertaining
© 2006
PROJECT 1008690.
April 11, 2006
30
where they can develop wind farms or turbines, and as such is contrary to the spirit of facilitating the
expansion of the industry.
4.3
Regulations Used by other Municipalities
Four Canadian Municipalities (Argyle NS, Pincher Creek AB, Malahide ON, and Bruce County ON)
have been reviewed regarding how their land use bylaw regulations address the impacts identified in
Section 3 of this report. The case studies were chosen based on:
obtaining an example from Nova Scotia to see how the available local planning tools were applied
(Argyle, Nova Scotia);
Reviewing an authority that has had considerable experience of managing the development of wind
turbines (Pincher Creek, Alberta); and,
Reviewing two authorities that are experiencing rapid growth of wind energy development, from none or
nearly none to hundreds of megawatts (Malahide and Bruce County, Ontario).
The following is based on how each municipality has attempted to manage the impacts identified in
Section 3 through land use bylaw controls where applicable.
Background
Different Canadian municipalities are at different stages with regards to developing, adopting and
implementing regulation around wind energy generation. Accordingly, the review of the four selected
municipalities aimed to explore the current thinking and draft approaches to regulation, as well as what
is currently “on the books”. The approach described below was taken to access the most up-to-date
information:
The Terrain Group approached the Municipality of the District of Argyle and interviewed the Planning
Officer regarding their provisions for establishing wind turbines. The Officer also forwarded the relevant
sections of the Municipal Planning Strategy and Land Use Bylaw regarding their controls. In the
absence of controls in the Land Use Bylaw relating to such impacts as noise further inquiries were
made regarding any other Bylaws that may control these impacts.
Terrain undertook a similar process with Pincher Creek where consultation was undertaken with the
Development Officer along with a review of their planning documents that are accessible via the
internet.
For the Township of Malahide project, Jacques Whitford was provided with an amendment to the
Official Plan dated March 22, 2004, that was created for an existing wind farm. The Township planner
indicated that the same steps would be required for future projects in Malahide Township. Additionally,
where there are no requirements from the Township, provincial regulations will apply.
The County of Bruce has a section of its Official Plan that is devoted to wind energy production and the
County’s requirements for a wind energy facility. Direct correspondence with the senior planner
indicated that there were additional expectations of the County, not outlined in its Official Plan. Both of
these requirements are presented within the County of Bruce discussion.
Table 4.1 below summarizes the regulatory approach taken by each of the four above mentioned
municipalities in response to the various potential impacts of commercial wind turbines.
© 2006
PROJECT 1008690.
April 11, 2006
31
TABLE 4.1 Comparison of Four Municipal Regulatory Approaches
Municipality of Argyle,
Nova Scotia
Visual
The Municipality allows the establishment of wind turbine generators in all zones except for the Coastal Wetlands (CW) Zone. The rules
established seek to protect the visual intrusion of wind turbine generators from the Coastal Wetland areas – this is further enhanced where an
adjoining zone to the CW requires a more restrictive setback.
Municipality of Pincher
Creek, Alberta
There are no other significant controls regarding the locating or siting of wind turbines that could be linked to managing the visual impact on the
rural or urban environment.
The land use bylaw provides for two different types of activities related to harnessing wind energy – Wind Energy Conversion System (WECS)
that incorporate one or more structures designed to convert wind energy into mechanical or electrical energy, and Small Scale Wind Energy
Conversion System that is basically one structure used to generate electricity only for the property owners’ use and is less than 25m in height.
No use is permitted as-of-right and all applications are required to go through a public process.
Township of Malahide,
Ontario
An application requires a visual representation including scale elevations, photographs and/or digital information of the proposed wind turbine
showing the total height, rotor diameter, colour and the landscape. In addition, they have controls requiring that the WECS be finished in a nonreflective matte and in a colour that minimizes the obtrusive impact on the landscape. The only signage allowed on the tower is the
manufacturer or owner. Cumulative effects are also considered in the assessment of the application.
The Township of Malahide recommends that they be contacted prior to undertaking visual background studies, to determine the nature and the
scope of issues that will need to be addressed.
The Township requires a visual impact study be undertaken to determine the impact and mitigation measures required for wind turbines on the
landscape as viewed from Lake Erie, municipal roads or other public access lands.
Bruce County, Ontario
The Township indicates that wind farm sites will be separated from Urban Land Use areas in order to reduce the potential impact of visual
intrusions on these areas.
The County of Bruce expects that a visual impact assessment will be completed to provide a description of the visual effect of the proposed wind
turbine(s) on the locality. This may include illustration, photographs and other graphic representations of the appearance of the wind farms and
transmission lines from all significant vantage points.
A landscape analysis is likely to be required particularly in locations of high landscape quality.
Municipality of Argyle,
Nova Scotia
Municipality of Pincher
Creek, Alberta
In addition to the above noted expectations of the County, the County may potentially expect that the structures built will be finished in a natural
or neutral colour to ensure that visually, the area is not impacted by new facilities. Rock and soil excavated during construction will also need to
be removed from the site to ensure that the aesthetic environment is not affected.
Shadow Flicker
There are no requirements specifying any setback from buildings located on the property. The provisions do require a setback from the adjoining
zone to be equal to the total height of axis rotor or vertical axis rotator plus the applicable minimum yards required for the tower.
The wind turbines shall respect the required setback from roadways that govern the principal use, but the Municipality may increase these
setbacks if they are not considered sufficient. The structures are also required to be set back four times the height of the structure as measured
from the ground to the highest point of the rotor’s arc from any dwelling not belonging to the land owner and at least 7.5 m (measured from the
outer edge of the turbine arc) from a property boundary. These controls coupled with discretion provided to the Municipality enable reasonable
control over the effects of shadow flicker. In relation to the Small Scale Wind Energy Conversion Systems there is a requirement that the
application provide evidence that shadow flicker will not affect the enjoyment of the adjoining residences.
© 2006
PROJECT 1008690.
April 11, 2006
32
TABLE 4.1 Comparison of Four Municipal Regulatory Approaches
Township of Malahide,
Ontario
Bruce County, Ontario
Municipality of Argyle,
Nova Scotia
Municipality of Pincher
Creek, Alberta
Township of Malahide,
Ontario
Bruce County, Ontario
Municipality of Argyle,
Nova Scotia
Municipality of Pincher
Creek, Alberta
Township of Malahide,
Ontario
Bruce County, Ontario
Municipality of Argyle,
Nova Scotia
Municipality of Pincher
Creek, Alberta
The Township of Malahide recommends that they be contacted prior to undertaking shadow flicker studies, to determine the nature and the
scope of issues that will need to be addressed.
The Township requires a visual impact study will be undertaken to determine the impact and mitigation measures required for the shadow or
reflection of light coming from any part of the wind turbine on surrounding sensitive land uses.
Bruce County expects that shadow flicker will be included in an Application detailing the amenity of the surrounding area. Shadow flicker will be
modeled in advance and siting and design can mitigate this problem. This modeling will indicate how shadow flicker has been calculated and the
results of the modeling.
Oil Spills
It is the responsibility of the company to meet Department of Environment Standards.
It is the responsibility of the company to meet Department of Environment Standards.
It is the responsibility of the company to meet Ministry of the Environment Standards.
It is the responsibility of the company to meet Ministry of the Environment Standards.
Ice Throw
There are no specific provisions regarding mitigation in the event of ice throw occurring based on the review of the provisions. There are setback
requirements, but there are no provisions regarding setbacks to existing buildings located on the property.
The public process and discretionary aspects regarding the conditions that can be imposed on the developer enables ice throw to be considered.
Particularly the requirement of the towers being setback four times the distance from a dwelling, provide potentially excessive controls in the
event of ice throw. There is no specific reference however, to considering the impacts of ice throw in the Bylaw.
There are existing minimal setback requirements specifically calculated for wind farms within the Township of Malahide.
These setbacks are based on their proximity to residential areas and the number of residential units that could potentially be impacted. The
shortest distance is 1.25 times the size of the turbine to 250 m for onsite residential use to off-site units being 300 m away from a dwelling and as
far as 600 m from rural settlements.
While ice throw is not specifically outlined within the expectations of Bruce County, the County does expect that an environmental management
plan would be prepared and would detail the mitigation measures to address any adverse effects that may be discovered during operation of the
wind farm. This could potentially cover any issues related to ice throw.
Noise
There are no specific controls in the land use bylaw controlling noise effects and in discussions with local planning staff there is no specific noise
bylaw control.
Where the Small Scale Wind Energy Conversion Systems are allowed to be established the application must demonstrate that the noise levels at
the property line do not exceed 30 dB. In relation to the WECS the application is required to be accompanied by an analysis of the potential
noise at the site of installation; the boundary of the parcel containing the development; and at any habitable residence within a 2 km (1.2 miles)
distance.
© 2006
PROJECT 1008690.
April 11, 2006
33
TABLE 4.1 Comparison of Four Municipal Regulatory Approaches
Township of Malahide,
Ontario
The Township of Malahide recommends that they be contacted prior to undertaking noise studies, to determine the nature and the scope of
issues that will need to be addressed.
The Township requires a noise impact study be undertaken to determine setbacks from wind farms so that noise levels will not exceed the
Ministry of the Environment noise standards for sensitive land uses.
Bruce County, Ontario
Municipality of Argyle,
Nova Scotia
Municipality of Pincher
Creek, Alberta
Township of Malahide,
Ontario
Bruce County, Ontario
Municipality of Argyle,
Nova Scotia
Municipality of Pincher
Creek, Alberta
Township of Malahide,
Ontario
The Township also indicates that wind farm sites will be separated from Urban Land Use areas in order to reduce the potential impact of noise
intrusions on these areas.
The County of Bruce requires that the applicant review their approach with the Ministry of the Environment concerning noise attenuation, to
ensure that the proposal will comply with the Ministry’s requirements. The County expects that there will be further consultation between the
applicant, the County and the Ministry of the Environment to determine a suitable noise propagation model.
Tower Collapse
This is a rare event and there are no specific provisions regarding the protection of properties or general public in the event of a tower collapse.
The setback provisions are generally considered acceptable – specifically the requirement to have the towers located four times their height back
from any dwelling.
While there are no specific provisions for a possible tower collapse, the setback values should cover the appropriate distance, should there be a
collapse. The setback values for the wind turbines range from 1.25 times the height of the wind turbine or 250 m for on site residential units, or
300 m to 600 m for off site units, which should compensate for any sort of tower collapse.
The County encourages all commercial generating systems to locate in areas of limited agricultural activity. They do require that there be
separation distances of 400 m to 700 m for proximity to urban centres or multiple subdivision lots. These separation distances would ensure that
if a tower collapsed there would be little impact.
Traffic
The development of wind turbine generators is an as-of-right development in the District and there are no specific controls regarding the
management of traffic. Notwithstanding this, it should be noted the district is generally rural and low in population where traffic is unlikely to be
an issue.
The application for the WECS is required to be accompanied by an impact of the development on the local road system including required
approaches from public roads.
The Township of Malahide recommends that they be contacted prior to undertaking traffic studies, to determine the nature and the scope of
issues that will need to be addressed.
The focus of traffic with respect to wind farms in Malahide is primarily on air traffic and the Township requires a study to ensure that the siting
and operation of the turbines will not impact the operation or safety of airports.
Bruce County, Ontario
Municipality of Argyle,
Nova Scotia
Additionally, wind farms comprised of one or more large commercial turbines shall be subject to a site plan agreement, for the location of road
access and parking.
The focus of traffic with respect to wind farms in Bruce County applies primarily to air traffic. The County requires that a commercial generating
system not be constructed within a 10 km radius of the airport reference point of an airport unless there is an Aeronautic Study prepared that
concludes that the construction of one or more commercial generating systems within the 10 km radius does not adversely affect the Instrument
Approaches to the airport. This study requires the approval of Transport Canada.
Human Safety
The bylaw provisions do require a 25 ft (7.6 m) blade clearance from grade suggesting protection to people who may move around below the
structures.
© 2006
PROJECT 1008690.
April 11, 2006
34
TABLE 4.1 Comparison of Four Municipal Regulatory Approaches
Municipality of Pincher
Creek, Alberta
There are a number of measures regarding public safety that the Municipality may impose on the developer that include:
Vertical blade clearance of at least 7.5 m
Security fence with a lockable gate around the tower if it is climbable or subject to vandalism
No ladder or permanent tower access device to be located less than 3.7 m from grade
A locked device to preclude access to the tower
Township of Malahide,
Ontario
Bruce County, Ontario
Municipality of Argyle,
Nova Scotia
Municipality of Pincher
Creek, Alberta
Township of Malahide,
Ontario
Bruce County, Ontario
Municipality of Argyle,
Nova Scotia
Municipality of Pincher
Creek, Alberta
Township of Malahide,
Ontario
Bruce County, Ontario
The above requirements are precluded if the tubular tower with a locked door is used.
The Township indicates that wind farm sites will be separated from Urban Land Use areas in order to reduce the potential impact of safety
intrusions on these areas.
While human safety is not specifically outlined within the expectations of Bruce County, the County does expect that an environmental
management plan would be prepared and would detail the mitigation measures to address any adverse effects that may be result from operation
of the wind farm. This could potentially cover any issues related to safety.
Erosion
There are no specific controls under the Bylaw regarding the management of soil disturbance resulting from construction.
Application requires an assessment of the impacts of the local roads system, part of this would require consideration of the impacts that may
arise from erosion. Other government agencies also have input into the process such as the Department of Environment.
There are no specific controls by the Municipality regarding the management of soil disturbance resulting from construction.
Bruce County expects that prior to development, the applicant will submit to the Municipality detailed proposals for the control of silt-laden
discharges from the site arising from construction activities.
Birds and Bats
Though there is no reference in the Bylaws regarding this matter it is covered under the Provincial regulations.
The Municipality of Pincher Creek do not specifically cover impacts on birds and bats within their process but outline the requirement of other
Provincial and Federal authorities who need to be consulted. Any applications are also forwarded to the relevant agencies as part of the
notification process.
All wind turbines and development of wind farms are publicly notified and this process in itself will likely raise the issue of impacts of the
structures on Bats and Birds.
The Township of Malahide recommends that they be contacted prior to undertaking natural heritage studies, to determine the nature and the
scope of issues that will need to be addressed. The Township requires an environmental impact study to be undertaken to determine the
potential impact on the feature or function of the natural environment and the study shall identify measures to mitigate the impact as required.
Within the environmental assessment process, the Provincial government does require that the natural environment be studied, including birds
and bats, to determine the effect of the wind farm if it has a nameplate capacity of 2 MW or greater.
Birds and bats are not discussed in either the requirements of the Official Plan or the expectations of the County.
Within the environmental assessment process, the provincial government does require that the natural environment be studied, including birds
and bats, to determine the effect of the wind farm if it has a nameplate capacity of 2 MW or greater
© 2006
PROJECT 1008690.
April 11, 2006
35
TABLE 4.1 Comparison of Four Municipal Regulatory Approaches
Municipality of Argyle,
Nova Scotia
Municipality of Pincher
Creek, Alberta
Township of Malahide,
Ontario
Bruce County, Ontario
Municipality of Argyle,
Nova Scotia
Municipality of Pincher
Creek, Alberta
Township of Malahide,
Ontario
Bruce County, Ontario
Electromagnetic Interference
The Municipality of Argyle has no specific provisions or advice regarding the potential impact of electromagnetic interference and leaves the
responsibility up to the developer to ensure compliance with other Provincial and Federal legislation.
The Municipality of Pincher Creek require all applications to be publicly notified and prior to making a decision on a development application the
developer shall provide appropriate reports and/or approvals from the Energy and Utilities Board, Transport Canada, Navigation Canada.
The Township of Malahide recommends that they be contacted prior to undertaking electromagnetic interference studies, to determine the nature
and the scope of issues that will need to be addressed should a telecommunication system be present within the Study Area.
The Township requires a study to ensure that the siting and operation of the turbines will not impact the operation or safety of telecommunication
systems.
The County expects that the siting of wind turbines will be outside of the ‘line of sight’ between transmitters and receivers. A survey of the
installation that will likely be affected such as radio, television and sea transport navigation, will be expected. Furthermore, the facilities will be
installed at the developer’s expense to ensure that radio and television signals in the area are not interfered with by the development.
Consultation with the relevant authorities prior to commissioning should be completed and if there are any impacts once the wind farm is in
operation, mitigation measures will be required.
Decommissioning
The Bylaw requires that the wind turbine generators be removed from the site after two years of the date of decommissioning. There is no
reference to how re-instatement of the land should occur.
If the WECS discontinue to produce power for more than 2 years, a status report will be required to be produced for the Municipality. This may
result in a request to decommission the site. In context to what happens in the event of decommissioning, this will be dependent upon final
approval – part of an application to establish a WECS requires information on what would be done in the event of decommissioning.
There is no mention of the decommissioning of wind farms within the Municipality planning document.
Bruce County expects that before the development begins, the developer may have to lodge a cash deposit, a bond or other security with the
appropriate Municipality to secure the satisfactory reinstatement of the site once the project is completed. This will accompany an agreement
with the Municipality giving the power to apply the security to the satisfactory reinstatement of the site. This amount will be based on
consultation with the Municipality and the developer.
© 2006
PROJECT 1008690.
April 11, 2006
36
Summary
Based on the review of the requirements in other Municipalities within Canada there is a significant
difference between the ways these structures are managed. This could possibly be a reflection of
population densities and prosperity between the study areas resulting in a more restrictive and
thorough public input processes compared to allowing the structures as-of-right in most zones with
limited regulatory controls. Ultimately, it is difficult to strike a balance between enabling the developers
to establish wind farms and mitigating the potential impacts they create. If a use is over-regulated it
can result in the business activity failing to fully capitalize on the resource. This is an important issue
regarding wind energy because it would consequently place greater emphasis on the development of
non-renewable energy sources.
4.4
Federal and Provincial Regulations
4.4.1
Federal Regulations
Wind energy developments may be subject to a variety of Federal acts, laws and regulations. Table 4.2
summarizes the potentially applicable federal requirement based on information provided by CanWEA.
TABLE 4.2 Summary of Potential Federal Requirements
Departments or Agencies
Typically Involved
Common Approval Requirements
1. Environmental Assessment (EA)
(most likely a screening level
assessment) in accordance with the
requirements of the Canadian
Environmental Assessment Act

2. Fisheries Act
3. Navigable Waters Protection Act
4. Blasting Permit near fisheries
5. Species at Risk Act
6. Migratory Birds Convention Act
7. Marking and Lighting scheme
Canadian Environmental
Assessment Agency - acts as
Federal EA coordinator for
multi-jurisdictional assessments.
Involvement of other departments
depends on the trigger for EA. They
may be involved as Responsible
Authorities or to provide expert
advice:

Natural Resources Canada

Fisheries and Oceans
Canada

Environment Canada

Transport Canada
Yet other departments may be
involved based on Law List and
other triggers:
 Atlantic Canada Opportunity
Agency
Fisheries and Oceans Canada
Transport Canada
Environment Canada
Environment Canada
Environment Canada
Transport Canada
8. Aeronautical safety
NAV Canada
© 2006
Trigger for review




Construction on Federal land
Application for federal Wind Power
Production Incentive
Possible effect on freshwater fish
habitat
Possible effect on Navigable waterways
Possible effect on fish habitat
Potential effects on navigable waters
Possible effect on fished waters
Possible effect on species at risk
Possible effect on migratory birds
Any structure of taller than 90m above
ground level (AGL) but below 150 m AGL
Any structure of taller than 90m AGL but
below 150 m AGL
PROJECT 1008690.
April 11, 2006
37
Environmental Impact Assessment- Federal
The main federal approval and authorization required before the construction of wind turbines is an
Environmental Assessment (EA) in accordance with the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act
(CEAA). An EA requirement is triggered if a federal authority:

Carries out a project;

Provides financial assistance to enable a project to be carried out;

Sells, leases, or otherwise transfers control or administration of land to enable a project to be
undertake; or,

Permits, approves or takes any other action specified in the Law List Regulations authorizations for
the purpose of enabling a project to be carried out.
This would apply to projects that seek financial assistance from NRCan under the WPPI Program. As
with all EAs, a systematic screening is required. According to CEAA “A screening systematically
documents the anticipated environmental effects of a proposed project and determines the need to
modify the project plan or recommend further assessment to eliminate or minimize these
effects.”(CEAA Section 16(1)). It is possible that a proposed project will be disallowed after an EA has
been filed, if the impacts of the projects are unacceptable. In most cases, however, EAs provide
adequate mitigation measures to make the proposed project workable.
The scope of an EA, in other words, the number and depth of issues that an EA needs to encompass,
is usually determined on a project by project basis by the Responsible Authorities (RAs). However, to
facilitate and streamline EA considerations with respect to wind energy development, NRCan has
developed Environmental Impact Statement Guidelines for Screenings of Inland Wind Farms under the
Canadian Environmental Assessment Act (2003). This document acts as a guide to conducting a
complete assessment that addresses impacts associated with construction, operation and
decommissioning of wind turbines. A list of environmental components that have to be addressed at a
minimum are included in Table 4.3 below.
TABLE 4.3 Components of A Federal EA
4.1. GEOPHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT
4.2. AQUATIC ENVIRONMENT
4.3. TERRESTRIAL ENVIRONMENT
4.4. ATMOSPHERIC ENVIRONMENT
4.5. SOCIO-ECONOMIC CONDITIONS
4.1.1. Physiography and Topography
4.1.2. Soil Quality
4.1.3. Geology
4.1.4. Seismicity
4.1.5. Hydrogeology
4.1.6. Groundwater
4.2.1. Aquatic Habitats
4.2.2. Aquatic Fauna
4.2.3. Aquatic Vegetation
4.2.4. Surface Hydrology
4.2.5. Surface Water Quality
4.2.6. Sediment Quality
4.3.1. Flora
4.3.2. Fauna
4.3.3. Endangered Species
4.4.1. Climate
4.4.2. Air Quality
4.5.1. Population
4.5.2. Land Use
4.5.3. Cultural Resources
© 2006
PROJECT 1008690.
April 11, 2006
38
TABLE 4.3 Components of A Federal EA
4.5.4. Existing Noise Level
4.5.5. Heritage Sites, Archaeological Sites and Other Cultural Resources
4.5.6. Recreation Areas
4.5.7. Land and Resources Used for Traditional Purposes by Aboriginal Persons
4.5.8. Safety Issues
4.5.9. Visual Landscape
Fisheries, Species at Risk, and Migratory Birds
As with any project in Canada, wind turbines are subjected to Federal laws and regulations with respect
to protection of species and habitats. In particular wind energy proponents are obliged to abide by the
Species at Risk Act (SARA), Migratory Birds Convention Act (MBCA), and Fisheries Act. The planning
and design of the projects should be made in accordance with the intent and requirements of these
legislations. Environment Canada has produced a document called Wind Turbines and Birds- A
Guidance Document for Environmental Assessment. This document, still in draft format, provides some
specific directions on how best to protect birds, including migratory birds, when developing wind energy
projects.
Aviation Considerations- Transport Canada and NAV Canada
According to the Transport Canada, Canadian Aviation Regulations Standard 621.19 (Standards
Obstruction Markings) wind turbine towers and rotor blades require day markings of alternate bands of
orange and white according to the following specifications:
The width of bands on structures 3.2 m (10.5 feet) to 150 m (500 feet) in height
should be equal, provided that each band has a width not less than 0.5 m (1.5
feet) nor more than 30 m (100 feet). The bands should be perpendicular to the
vertical axis, and those at the top and bottom coloured orange. There should be
an odd number of bands on the structure. Each band should be approximately 1/7
of the height of the structure up to 213.5 m (700 feet) and 30.5 m (100 feet) in
width for structures over 213.5 m (700 feet). The width of all bands should be
equal and in proportion to the structure’s height.
Wind turbine rotor blades should be marked, front and back, with three bands of
orange and white paint beginning with an orange band at each tip, the bands
being approximately the same width as those on the supporting tower. The
remaining inner blade area may be any colour.
Standard 621.19 specifies that if the use of orange and white colours required
under above is considered to be aesthetically unacceptable, applications can be
made to the Minister of Transportation, who may approve an alternative colour
schemes that conform with the basic visibility criteria or the use of plastic wrap pole marking in lieu of
painting.
Canadian Aviation Regulations Standard 621.19 (Standards Obstruction Markings) also set
requirements on night time wind turbine lighting. Section 5.9 states that a wind turbine should have a
flashing red beacon mounted on the highest practical point of the turbine if the structure is taller than 90
m. This lighting requirement has raised some concerns as it is less than ideal from the perspective of
© 2006
PROJECT 1008690.
April 11, 2006
39
impacts on birds and nocturnal species. Transport Canada has been in discussions with Environment
Canada and the wind power industry in order to determine realistic requirements for the lighting of wind
turbines. Presently, although not yet listed in the regulations, there is the potential for only a portion of
the turbines to require lighting, with perhaps only corner turbines in a wind farm having a flashing red
beacon. Other considerations include changing the lighting requirements to a steady burning white
light. Talks are also underway to discuss setting completely separate regulations for wind turbines as
compared to other structures, in order to mitigate impacts on local landowners and birds.
It is important to note that although compliance to the Standards Obstruction Markings is voluntary, it is
recommended that persons planning to erect a structure likely to be hazardous to aviation safety
because of its height and location still abide by these standards as the Minister may, by Order, direct
the owner or persons in control of such building or structure found to be hazardous to aviation safety, to
mark it and light it in accordance with these standards.
By way of this Standard, Transport Canada asks that persons planning to erect an obstruction,
including a wind turbine, should contact the appropriate regional Civil Aviation authority and provide
information regarding location, size, surroundings, construction and decommissioning dates and
contact information for the owner.
Applications should be made both to Transport Canada, and NAV Canada. More information on these
is available at
(http://www.tc.gc.ca/pdf/26-0427.pdf) and
(http://www.navcanada.ca/ContentDefinitionFiles/Services/ANSPrograms/forms/NC10-0441_en.dot).
4.4.2
Provincial Regulations
Environmental Impact Assessment – Provincial
The main approval required for wind generation projects at the provincial level is a provincial EA. In NS,
a provincial EA is needed for a defined list (“Schedule A”) of undertakings. In the Energy category, the
legislation subjects to a Class 1 EA such undertakings as:

An electric generation facility which has a production rating of 2 megawatts or more derived from
wind energy.
A Class 1 EA applies to an undertaking that is usually “smaller in scale and may or may not cause
significant environmental impacts to be of sufficient concern to the public” (NSDEL). In comparison, a
Class 2 EA applies to undertakings that are “typically larger in scale and are considered to have the
potential to cause significant environmental impacts and concerns to the public”. A Class 2 EA will most
likely not apply to possible wind generation projects within HRM given the following criteria:

An electric generating facility with a production rating of 10 megawatts or more, including a
hydroelectric generation facility when the cumulative power generation capacity on any single river
system equals or exceeds 10 megawatts, but excluding an electric generation facility of any
production rating which uses wind energy as its sole power source.
A provincial EA in NS is often a less complicated process than a federal EA and generally has a quicker
processing time. The elements to be considered are defined by the Regulating Authorities often in
consultation with the public. In many cases, a wind energy project might involve both a provincial and a
© 2006
PROJECT 1008690.
April 11, 2006
40
federal EA. In these cases the EA branches of both levels of government coordinate or harmonize their
review where possible and practical. This is provided for under the Canada-wide Accord on
Environmental Harmonization and the Sub-agreement on Environmental Assessments between the
Government of Canada and the provinces (excluding Quebec). This means that certain aspects of the
project, for example public meetings, can address both the federal and the provincial requirements.
Other NS Regulations
There are no other regulations that necessarily and automatically apply to wind development projects in
NS. But depending on what the project involves (e.g., building close to wetlands, installation of a bridge,
maintenance of a culvert, etc.) other provincial departments and approval processes might become
involved. These may include:

Department of Environment and Labour

Department of Natural Resources

Department of Agriculture and Fisheries

Department of Transportation and Public Works

Service Nova Scotia and Municipal Relations

Department of Health

Department of Energy
4.5
Summary of Planning Regulatory Land Use Tools
In order to establish fair and reasonable regulations that enable the development of wind turbines there
is a need to have a full understanding of the regulatory planning tools. In Nova Scotia the regulatory
planning tools are outlined in the Municipal Government Act (MGA). The erection of wind turbines and
the use of land for the development of wind energy is considered to be a “development” under the
Municipal government Act and therefore, subject to municipal land use policy and regulations. The
following provides a summary of the available tools with supporting commentary on their strengths and
challenges.
4.5.1. Municipal Planning Strategy (MPS)
The MPS lays out the vision, goals, objectives and overall policies that direct growth and development
in the Municipality. A MPS typically includes a set of policies that guide the Land Use Bylaw (LUB), and
is accompanied by a variety of maps (future land-use, transportation, open space etc.). The MPS is the
key document in determining when a rezoning, development agreement or site plan approval is
required and the conditions under which the approval of a rezoning, development agreement or site
plan approval may be considered by a municipality. It may also outline what variances the Municipality
will consider granting as stipulated by the MGA.
Currently there are twenty-one MPS documents in existence for different areas of HRM. HRM is also
developing a new Regional Plan, which, subject to adoption by Regional Council, will begin to guide the
Municipality as a whole. A review of these documents suggests that there are some indirect policies on
energy issues within the existing MPS documents, and more specific recognition of the wind energy
industry within the Draft Regional Plan. According to the second draft of the Regional Plan, “HRM
© 2006
PROJECT 1008690.
April 11, 2006
41
recognizes the importance of renewable energy and shall encourage its development within the region”,
and “HRM shall enable the development of wind energy while safeguarding the general public from
their related impacts through maintaining a clear area around wind turbines.”
As the MPS documents (which may also include Secondary Planning Strategies and Neighbourhoods
Plans) are updated in the near future to conform to the Regional Plan, policies will be required in these
documents to enable wind turbine use in HRM. In particular the MPS(s) must outline whether or not
wind turbines should be permitted as-of-right, or if rezoning, site plan approval or development
agreement can be considered in order to permit their development.
4.5.2. Land Use Bylaw (LUB)
The LUB is the document that stipulates the activities that can be undertaken within certain zones and
sets out the conditions under which a municipal development permit may be issued for each land use
permitted within a particular zoning designation. Key parts of the LUB are the zoning designations and
zoning maps that determine the land use categories permitted on each area of land. The MPS policies
are also implemented through the LUB, which also sets out the circumstances under which
development agreements, site plan approval and variances may be considered.
4.5.3 Development Permit
The LUB identifies uses of land that are permitted within certain zones subject to compliance with a set
of prescribed standards. A Municipal Development Permit confirms whether a development proposed
for an area of land can meet the requirements of a land use by-law and is permitted under the land use
by-law. A wind turbine can be identified as a permitted use in a zone and therefore can be permitted
“as-of-right” (subject to compliance with prescribed standards). The challenges and strengths of this
planning tool in relationship to wind turbines and farms are included in Table 4.4:
TABLE 4.4 Strengths and Challenges of Variance Application Process
Strengths

Permitting wind turbines to develop as-of-right in particular zones provides certainty to developers.

Approvals can be obtained within a relatively short period of time.
Challenges

This is a more generic approach that can exclude areas from development which on a case-by-case basis may be
suitable for wind turbines/farms. Alternatively, it can allow wind turbine development in areas that some residents may
perceive as being unsuitable.

When allowing wind turbines to develop as-of-right it is difficult to articulate quantitative regulations that will adequately
apply to all situations and manage the visual and other impacts of wind energy development projects.

It can be extremely difficult to establish regulations regarding structures, given the pace of change of recent technology.
Fixed regulations based on today’s technology can suddenly become redundant and potentially burden the further
development of wind energy.

No public input process enabled.
4.5.4 Variance Application
A property developer may, under specified circumstances, make an application to vary specific
regulations of the LUB. The variance tool is limited in its use and the specific regulations that can be
varied are set out in the MGA. In relation to the development of wind turbines a variance process could
be useful for the following types of regulations:

Percentage of land that may be built upon;
© 2006
PROJECT 1008690.
April 11, 2006
42

Size or other requirements relating to setbacks;

Number of parking spaces and loading spaces;

Height of structures; and

Signage.
The strengths and challenges of variance applications as a planning tool appear in Table 4.5.
TABLE 4.5 Strengths and Challenges of Variance Application Process
Strengths

A variance provides a useful tool in circumstances where the activity is permitted as-of-right but the site conditions or
technological circumstances may result in a proposed development not being capable of strictly complying with the LUB.

The public within the surrounding area can appeal a Development Officer’s decision to grant a variance if they do not
agree with it.
Challenges

Ensuring staff have the correct skill set to make an evaluation and informed decision.
4.5.5 Site Plan Approval
This planning regulatory tool enables a Municipality to assess specific components of a development
and impose conditions on the approval. Development that requires site planning approval is a
permitted activity, but it is assessed using criteria outlined in the LUB. This allows site-specific
conditions to be imposed. This tool is useful for ensuring appropriate management of development on
a case-by-case basis; it is particularly useful in addressing the challenges of visual impacts. Site Plan
approval criteria for wind turbines/farms could address:

The location of structures;

The location of off-street loading and parking;

The location, number and width of driveway accesses;

The type, location and height of walls, fences, hedges, trees shrubs, ground cover or other
landscaping elements necessary to protect and minimize the land-use impact on adjoining lands;

The retention of existing vegetation;

The type and location of outdoor lighting;

The location of easements;

The grading or alteration in elevation or contour of the land and provision for the management of
storm and surface water;

The type of location, number and size of signs or sign structures; and

Provisions for the maintenance of any of the items referred to above.
Though this process does not involve a public hearing, people within the surrounding area are advised
of the decision and have the right to appeal the decision. This tool allows the Municipality to manage
potential impacts on a site-by-site basis by imposing site-specific conditions. The strengths and
challenges of this tool are presented in Table 4.6:
© 2006
PROJECT 1008690.
April 11, 2006
43
TABLE 4.6 Strengths and Challenges of Variance Application Process
Strengths

Provides the developer with some assurance that an approval may be obtained subject to meeting certain conditions.

The assessment criteria provide clarity by identifying what type of conditions can be imposed and what the assessment is
limited to.

Individuals within the immediate area have the ability to appeal the decision (similar to a variance).

The process does not usually require an extensive time period for processing and is relatively inexpensive when
compared to a development agreement.
Challenges

Ensuring staff have the correct skill set to make an evaluation and informed decision.

Ensuring there are clear and concise criteria for assessment so that both parties are aware of the extent of the
assessment and potential conditions that may be imposed.
4.5.6 Development Agreement
The Development Agreement process requires a full public notification and assessment of the proposal
to ensure its consistency with the policies of the MPS and may only be approved by a municipal council
after a duly advertised public hearing is held. It results in an agreement with the municipality outlining a
range of conditions that the developer is required to meet. The agreement is registered against the
property when it is finalized and runs with the land until it is discharged. Strengths and challenges of
this tool are presented in Table 4.7 below.
TABLE 4.7 Strengths and Challenges of Development Agreemnt Process
Strengths

It involves a full public process and extensive assessment of the application.
Challenges

Provides less certainty to the developer over what the final outcome might be causing the development to become nonviable from a financial perspective. In the eyes of the developer it is likely to be perceived as a challenge to development.
Any decision by a Council to approve or not approve an application for a development agreement may be appealed by
any aggrieved person to the NS Utility and Review Board.

The most time-consuming and expensive process, both for the Municipality and the developer.
4.5.7 Monitoring
Any planning document that is implemented should have a monitoring framework established to gauge
how effectively the plan is working. Though this is not a statutory requirement, it may be useful to
implement a framework for monitoring the development of wind turbines. A monitoring framework can
help the Municipality to determine the effectiveness of regulations that have already been implemented,
and providing guidance when a particular regulation is not working as intended. For example, it may be
advantageous to allow wind turbines to develop as-of-right in rural zones. However, should the industry
take off, over time the landscape in rural zones may change significantly because of this development.
A monitoring system would enable the Municipality to gauge how wind turbine development is occurring
in the rural environment in order to facilitate an appropriate response. In this example, introducing new,
more stringent, regulatory requirements could assist with mitigating the effects of over-development of
the landscape prior to its occurrence. Table 5.8 below summarizes the strengths and challenges of
implementing a monitoring framework.
© 2006
PROJECT 1008690.
April 11, 2006
44
TABLE 4.8 Strengths and Challenges of Implementing a Monitoring System
Strengths

Gauges how effective the regulatory tools are working based on an established set of criteria. The monitoring system
should be able to indicate whether the regulations are working to mitigate the potential effects of wind turbine
development and/or whether they are creating barriers to the development of wind energy.
Challenges

Staff resources would need to be allocated to set up a monitoring framework. Individuals would also need to be charged
with the task of monitoring the regulations. This team could form part of wider team within HRM charged with monitoring
of the effectiveness of planning documents.
4.6
Recommendations on Wind Turbine Regulations
The research undertaken in this study identifies regulatory mechanisms in other jurisdictions and assesses
their impact on wind turbine development. This research has shown that the regulatory mechanisms being
implemented in these jurisdictions vary greatly. For example, in Pincher Creek, Alberta, every application
goes through a public notification process and thorough analysis must be undertaken prior to the
application being submitted. In contrast, the Municipality of Argyle, Nova Scotia, permits wind turbines in
almost all zones and with very little regulatory control. Our research also identified differences in the types
of regulations that have been put in place; some are more quantifiable whereas others are based on
qualitative assessments such as the visual impact of wind turbines on the landscape.
The proposed regulations developed as part of this report are recommended as they achieve a fair and
reasonable balance among:

enabling the development of the industry;

ensuring reasonable safe guards against the potential impacts of turbine structures; and

providing a reasonable level of public input into the process of permitting wind energy development
projects.
The recommended regulations have been developed using the regulatory tools enabled in the MGA
and described in Section 4.5. The research has sought to identify the potential impacts of wind turbines
(Section 3) and develop regulations that seek to remedy, mitigate or avoid these potential impacts.
Some of the regulations outlined are based on what has been provided by other jurisdictions and
recommendations of regulatory controls identified through the research. The recommended regulations
provided here are generic and applicable to HRM as a whole, with the understanding that the
Secondary Planning Strategies and their accompanying LUBs would either conform to a tailored
version of these regulations or be over-ridden by them.
4.6.1. Definitions
Definitions play an important role in ensuring an individual has a clear understanding of what is being
referred to in the LUB. It is recommended that the following definitions be included in HRM LUBs’:
Clear Area: Area surrounding a wind turbine to be kept free of habitable structures.
Decommissioning: The final closing down of a development or project or the point at which it has
reached the end of its operational life.
Habitable Structures: All structures designed to accommodate people including residential, commercial,
institutional, industrial and recreational buildings, but not including accessory structures such as sheds.
© 2006
PROJECT 1008690.
April 11, 2006
45
Nacelle: The frame and housing at the top of the tower that encloses the gearbox and generator and
protects them from the weather.
Rotor: The blades and hub of the wind turbine that rotate during turbine operation.
Wind Energy Conversion Facility: All equipment, machinery and structures utilized in connection with
the conversion of wind to electricity. This includes, but is not limited to, all transmission, storage,
collection and supply equipment, substations, transformers, site access, service roads and machinery
associated with the use. A wind energy conversion facility may consist of one or more wind turbines.
Wind Monitoring or Meteorological Towers: Tower used for supporting anemometer, wind vane and
other equipment to assess the wind resource at a predetermined height above the ground.
Wind Farm: A development that entails the installation of more than one wind turbine.
Wind Turbine: A structure designed to convert wind energy into mechanical or electrical energy as a
utility.
Wind Turbine Total Height: The height from finished grade to the highest vertical extension of the
wind turbine, being the outer arc of the rotor blade measured vertically. See Figure 4.1.
FIGURE 4.1
Turbine Height
© 2006
PROJECT 1008690.
April 11, 2006
46
4.6.2. Regulatory Processes
The new wind zone maps resulting from the GIS exercise (Section 2) delineate those areas in HRM
that are suitable for wind energy development (Green Zones), those areas where wind turbines may be
accommodated but that a cautious approach is needed (Amber Zones), those areas that are probably
not suitable for wind development (Red Zones) and those areas where there should be no wind
development due to extreme sensitivities (Black Zones, or No-Go Zones). The recommended
regulatory approach outlined in the next few Sections depends on this zoning. Generally, more
restrictive regulations are recommended for more sensitive zones. The recommended regulatory
approach is also based on the scale of the development. More restrictive regulations are recommended
for larger wind energy developments. Table 4.9 below summarizes the types of regulatory tools
recommended based on zoning and the scale of development. These recommendations are detailed in
the next few sections.
TABLE 4.9 Summary of Recommended Regulatory Approaches
Single Turbine
Small facility
(2-10 turbines)
Large Facility (10+
turbines)
Green Zone
(Suitable)
As-of-right
Amber Zone
(Cautious)
Site Plan Approval
As-of-right
Development
Agreement
Development
Agreement
Site Plan Approval
Red Zone
(Not suitable)
Development
Agreement
Development
Agreement
Not Allowed
Black Zone
(Prohibited)
Not Allowed
Not Allowed
Not Allowed
4.6.2.1 Development Permit
It is recommended that the establishment of wind testing and monitoring towers and wind turbines be
permitted as-of-right subject to the standards below under the following situations:

A singular turbine within the Green Zone;

A small wind facility of less than 10 turbines within the Green Zone; and

Wind testing and monitoring towers in the Green Zone.
A standard Development Permit should be obtained from the municipality before the turbine or turbines
can be installed. Variances to the standards below could be sought.
If there is a serious intention to enable the development of renewable energy sources such as wind in
HRM, there need to be mechanisms put in place to encourage its development, while minimizing the
impacts. Any structure has an impact on the environment; the bylaws should provide guidance on what
is/is not acceptable according to the impacts that a structure generates and the sensitivity of an area to
that impact. For example, it is generally accepted that houses or power lines can develop as-of-right
provided they meet a set of regulatory standards. The study team is of the opinion that one wind
turbine or a small collection of turbines should be permitted as-of-right in the "green zone”, subject to
meeting the regulations detailed below. These regulations would mitigate the main impacts of wind
turbines while still enabling wind turbines to develop in the most suitable zones. Prior to wind farms
being installed wind testing needs to be undertaken and therefore it is important for wind
monitoring/metrological towers to be permitted as-of-right in the same zones as wind turbines.
© 2006
PROJECT 1008690.
April 11, 2006
47
Despite the favorable zoning, it may be difficult to receive approval to install a wind turbine in specific
sites within the Green Zone because the regulatory standards indirectly prohibit their establishment.
However as technology changes, wind turbines may eventually be able to conform to these regulations
and to be developed in these environments. For example, technological changes could enable smaller
turbines to develop that would meet the height and setback regulatory requirements of a zone. Also, it
may be possible to install turbines in the Green Zone without meeting the standards set below, if the
developers can successfully negotiate a variance based on local characteristics. Section 6.6.2.2.
describes the variance process as it would apply to as-of-right development within the Green Zone.
Based on the review of literature, a set of standards have been recommended for siting commercial
wind turbines in HRM. The standards are presented below and summarized in Table 4.10.
TABLE 4.10
Summary of Recommended Standards for Commercial Wind Turbines in HRM
Aspect
Total Height
Setback from Boundaries
Blade Clearance
Cable Layout
Lighting
Equipment Shelters
Colour
Noise Levels
Signage
Tower Access Safety
Abandonment or
Discontinuation of Use
Electromagnetic
Interference
Compliance with all other
Regulations
Recommended Standards
No wind turbine to be erected within HRM should be permitted to exceed a total height of 90
meters.
A wind turbine should be setback from any adjoining boundary of a property, three times the total
height of the turbine as measured from the closest edge of the base of the structure.
If wind turbines are being erected on two adjoining property this setback should be wavered along
the boundary where the wind turbines adjoin one another, or the lots may be consolidated.
The minimum vertical blade clearance from grade should be 7.5 m (24.6 ft) where the wind turbine
employs a horizontal axis rotor.
All cables used for the transfer of power from the property to the main grid or buildings consuming
the energy generated should be placed underground.
No lighting should be placed on the exterior of the wind turbine unit above a height greater than 5
m, except as required by Transport Canada for aviation safety purposes. Any other lighting used
shall be directional lighting towards the ground.
All equipment necessary for monitoring and operating the wind energy conversion facilities should
be contained within the turbine tower. If this is not feasible, ancillary equipment may be located
outside the tower subject to existing standards for auxiliary structures.
The colouring of all wind turbines should conform with Transport Canada regulations for aviation
safety (white and orange stripes). The colouring should provide a non-reflective matte finish.
When measured from the boundary of the site the noise level should comply with the Noise ByLaw of the Halifax Regional Municipality, which forbids “activity that unreasonably disturbs or
tends to disturb the peace and tranquility of a neighborhood”.
Signage should only be permitted on the nacelle unit and relate to the owner, operator or
manufacturer of the wind turbine.
To ensure public safety, the developer should construct a security fence with a lockable gate
around the wind turbine tower not less than 1.8 m (5.9 ft) in height if the tower is climbable. The
use of tubular towers, with locked door access, would preclude this requirement.
Upon abandonment or discontinuation of use, the owner should physically remove the wind
energy conversion facility within 90 days from the date of abandonment or discontinuation of use.
This period may be extended at the request of the owner and at the discretion of the Development
Officer.
Developers should be responsible for obtaining permits from Federal/Provincial authorities
demonstrating that the wind turbine will not interfere with electromagnetic signal or any
interferences will be corrected by the developer.
Proposed development of wind turbines should be consistent with all applicable provincial and
federal requirements, including but not limited to aviation and environmental assessment
legislation.
© 2006
PROJECT 1008690.
April 11, 2006
48
Wind Turbine Total Height
No wind turbine to be erected within HRM should be permitted to exceed a total height of 90 meters.
In general, the maximum height of turbines being erected in Nova Scotia is currently in the order of 70 –
90 metres. Consultation with developers in HRM suggests that they are foreseeing erecting structures
in the range of 65-80 metres. The Goodwood wind turbine, for example, is 75 metres in total height.
This is the typical height that Nova Scotians can expect within the next couple of decades. A turbine of
this height can generate approximately 600 – 900 kilowatts.
Setback from Boundaries and Clear Area
A wind turbine should be setback from any adjoining boundary of a property, three times the total height
of the turbine as measured from the closest edge of the base of the structure. If wind turbines are being
erected on two adjoining properties this setback should be adjusted along the boundary where the wind
turbines adjoin one another, or the lots may be consolidated.
There is considerable lack of consistency in the international literature on the appropriate set-backs. Most
jurisdictions distinguish between a required setback from property boundaries, and from adjacent
habitable buildings (i.e., Clear Area). The research undertaken by other municipalities and studies
relating to the impacts of wind turbines indicated that setbacks from property boundaries varied from
between one to three times the total height of the wind turbine. However, the safe distance from a
habitable unit is usually considered to be greater, up to four times the total height of the turbine.
The study team’s research evaluating wind turbine impacts, including noise, ice throw, blade throw, and
shadow flicker indicated that one and a half times the total height of the wind turbine would in most
cases be an adequate setback to minimize the potential impact beyond the property line. But a clear
area of three times of the total height of the turbine is required to provide complete protection from
these same potential impacts, especially in proximity to housing units. As a result, no wind turbine
should be located closer than a distance equivalent to three times its total height from any habitable
building as measured from the base of the unit. Conversely, no new building should be located closer
than a distance equivalent to three times the total height of an existing turbine away from its base. For
the range of turbine height recommended for HRM, this would translate to a setback of 250-300 m.
Most other jurisdictions within Canada and especially in Nova Scotia are using much smaller setbacks
in the 150-200 m range.
In order to address concerns with respect to potential “taking” or “third party expropriation” of
neighbouring lots by a wind developer, a conservative set-back of three times the total height of the
turbine is recommended. This means the wind developer would be required to provide appropriate
separation from any existing or potential habitable buildings within his or her own property.
It should be noted that this requirement could become prohibitive and may challenge the ability of wind
power industry to grow in HRM, as has been the case in other jurisdiction such as Prince Edward
Island. For this reason it is recommended that the Municipality considers relaxation of this set-back
requirement on the merit of each particular situation and in consideration of the adjacent properties. For
example, in an area where adjacent properties are already developed and there is no foreseeable
possibility of additional buildings on neighboring sites, the required setback from site boundaries can be
reduced to one and a half times the height of the turbine, provided the turbine will be located three
times its height from existing habitable units on adjacent sites.
© 2006
PROJECT 1008690.
April 11, 2006
49
In the situation where two neighbours decided to install wind turbines along a shared boundary, or
where the wind developer owns two adjacent properties and wind turbines are located on each
property, provision should be made to forego this setback requirement. Where there is a single owner
involved an option would be to require consolidation of the two lots thus eliminating the property line
and in turn eliminating the setback requirement.
Blade Clearance
The minimum vertical blade clearance from grade should be 7.5 m (24.6 ft) where the wind turbine
employs a horizontal axis rotor.
Though most modern turbines provide adequate clearance between the ground and the outer arc of the
blade it is considered appropriate to ensure there is an established clearance standard to avoid any
potential conflict with persons or vehicles located below a wind turbine. The standard provided is
based on research of regulations provided by other Municipalities.
Cable Layout
All cables used for the transfer of power from the property to the main grid or buildings consuming the
energy generated should be placed underground.
This is an important regulation that reduces the visual impact of wind turbines and their related
infrastructure within a landscape (urban or rural setting).
Lighting
No lighting should be placed on the exterior of the wind turbine unit above a height greater than 5m,
except as required by Transport Canada for aviation safety purposes. Any other lighting used should be
directional lighting towards the ground.
Lighting can have a visual impact on the landscape, particularly if positioned at a high elevation. At the
same time, lighting is also required for safety reasons, to access the units during the night. Therefore
this standard enables directional lighting to be constructed at a certain height on the structure and
ensures the focus of the lighting area is contained.
Equipment Shelters
All equipment necessary for monitoring and operating the wind energy conversion facilities should be
contained within the turbine tower. If this is not feasible, ancillary equipment may be located outside the
tower subject to existing standards for auxiliary structures.
This rule ensures the visual impact of the development is limited while providing flexibility to the
developer on the location of equipment shelters. Notwithstanding this, it is recognized that most
modern turbines are monopole designs that accommodate the ancillary control systems within the
tower structure.
Colour
The colouring of all wind turbines should conform with Transport Canada regulations for aviation safety
(white and orange stripes). The colouring should provide a non-reflective matte finish.
© 2006
PROJECT 1008690.
April 11, 2006
50
There is some disagreement in the literature on the required colour scheme of wind turbines. Currently
the Transport Canada regulations for aviation safety are applicable. From the perspective of visibility in
the landscape, as well as bird impacts, there would be advantages to a white or off-white colour
scheme. Transport Canada is currently in discussion with other departments including Environment
Canada on the suitability of this requirement. Until changes to the Transport Canada regulations are
approved, it is recommended that all wind turbines in HRM abide by the existing regulations on colour.
Noise Levels
When measured from the boundary of the site the noise level should comply with the Noise By-Law of the
Halifax Regional Municipality, which forbids “activity that unreasonably disturbs or tends to disturb the
peace and tranquility of a neighborhood”.
The first step in controlling noise levels for wind turbines is for HRM to consider establishing an overall
quantitative acceptable noise level for different areas within the municipality. To effectively protect
citizens from noise associated with all kinds of uses (i.e., not just wind turbines) HRM should consider
enhancing the current Noise By-Law by adding quantitative margins for certain designated activities.
Acceptable noise levels have been established in other Canadian jurisdiction such as the province of
Ontario.
It should be noted that some protection from noise should be achieved through the provision of
setbacks and clear areas around a turbine. Set backs recommended in this report also address other
potential impacts of wind turbines such as shadow flicker, ice throw, blade throw and tower collapse.
These setbacks are likely to be adequate in the short term in protecting residents against impacts of
noise, while HRM considers broader provisions on this issue. However, the importance and the
commonly-stated public concerns around the issue of noise require measurable noise regulation and
performance expectations be established as soon as possible.
Signage
Signage should only be permitted on the nacelle unit and relate to the owner, operator or manufacturer
of the wind turbine.
There should be limitations placed on the ability to erect signage used on these structures. Signage
could result in greater dominance of the structure in the environment. At the same time the operator or
manufacturer of the structure should have the ability to at least advertise their name. The regulation
proposed is commonly used in most other jurisdictions, and is considered a fair and reasonable
mechanism between balancing the potential impact while enabling the operator/manufacturer to
advertise their facility/equipment. In limiting the signage to the nacelle unit the standard in effect limits
the size and height of the signage as well.
Tower Access Safety
To ensure public safety, the developer should construct a security fence with a lockable gate around
the wind turbine tower not less than 1.8m (5.9ft) in height if the tower is climbable. The use of tubular
towers, with locked door access, will preclude this requirement.
Though most modern turbines consist of tubular towers, there may be circumstances where lattice
towers are used. For general public safety it is recommended that they be contained within a security
fence. This type of regulation is commonly used by other Municipalities.
© 2006
PROJECT 1008690.
April 11, 2006
51
Abandonment or Discontinuation of Use
Upon abandonment or discontinuation of use, the owner should physically remove the wind energy
conversion facility within 90 days from the date of abandonment or discontinuation of use. This period
may be extended at the request of the owner and at the discretion of the Development Officer.
“Physical removal” shall mean:
a) Removal of the wind turbine and tower, all machinery, equipment, equipment shelters,
underground electrical cabling, transmission and distribution lines, security barriers and all
appurtenant structures from the subject property; and
b) The location of the wind energy conversion facility should be either landscaped to the
satisfaction of the Development Officer or other form of permitted development.
Wind turbines are large structures that if discontinued are likely to become a blight on the landscape
and could pose safety issues. Therefore, the owner/operator should be responsible for the removal of
the structures, including accessory equipment, should they be discontinued for a period of 90 days.
This rule provides the developer with a fair and reasonable timeframe that affords them the flexibility
needed to deal with difficulties that may arise in the disposal of the equipment. From our research most
Municipalities have regulations similar to the rule outlined above.
Electromagnetic Interference
The developer should ensure that turbines are laid out in a way that they do not interfere with radio and
television signals. Drawings need to be made to show that turbines will not be erected in the line of
sight of transmission towers. Alternatively developers can be held responsible to introduce measures
that correct for any interruptions in signals (e.g., installing a repeater transmitter).
While electromagnetic interference from wind turbines is not necessarily different from that of large
buildings, care should be taken to avoid any such interference as a result of wind turbines. While most
Canadian jurisdictions do not have a procedure for this, some UK and US municipalities have required
developers to provide documentation showing that electromagnetic interference will not be an issue. It
would be wise of HRM to require similar provisions to avoid any possible conflict with local
telecommunication providers or their customers.
Compliance with other Applicable Regulations
Proposed development of wind turbines should be consistent with all applicable provincial and federal
requirements, including but not limited to aviation and environmental assessment legislation.
Regulatory processes can be complex and time consuming and it is important that where possible an
integrated approach between different levels of government should occur. The above is not for the
purposes of providing a regulation but rather as an advisory note contained in the Bylaw to alert
prospective developers that there are likely to be other regulations at the Provincial and Federal levels
that will apply.
4.6.2.2 Variance Applications
The following should be included in the LUBs to allow for variance to the above standards if it can be
demonstrated by the developer the impacts outlined below can be avoided or mitigated without
complying with the standards described in 4.6.2.1:
© 2006
PROJECT 1008690.
April 11, 2006
52

Reduction in setbacks (including clear area) subject to demonstrating the risk of the following will
not occur beyond the boundary:






Ice throw;
Blade throw;
Tower collapse;
Shadow flicker; and
Exceed noise parameters.
The maximum height could be exceeded subject to demonstrating the visual impact does not
dominate the landscape or the wind turbines are out of scale with the surrounding environment. A
relaxation of height requirements would not be automatically enabled by the Municipal Government
Act. Thus, MPS and LUBs need to be amended to allow for this variance.
Sometimes there are site-specific circumstances that may result in the regulations not being applicable
for the purpose for which they have been established. In certain cases, regulatory standards could
prevent the development of wind turbines without just cause. For example, a wind turbine may be
located on a slope where the adjoining boundary or dwelling is located at a higher elevation. The mere
geographical location of the dwelling in relationship to the turbine will mitigate many of the impacts of
the turbine. Therefore, some of the standard regulations may become redundant. In this case, the
variance process should enable the developer to forego the setback regulations if it can be
demonstrated the impacts for which the regulation was established are not relevant. Secondly, the
setbacks are based on the research of current technology and with rapidly changing technology and
improvement in the development of wind turbines the setback regulations may also become redundant.
Hence, there should be the ability for demonstrating such circumstances, which the variance process
enables. The onus of proof is on the developer.
Should an approval be granted or not, both the developer and the residents in the surrounding area (30
m from the subject property) have the right to appeal the decision that will result in the issue being
brought before Council for further consideration.
Provisions should also been made to enable a developer to seek a variance for the maximum height
control in the Green Zone. This is due to the following reasons:

There are site-specific circumstances where wind turbines could be located on large parcels of
property where their mere distance from adjoining properties diminishes their visual presence or in
locations where they may not be as noticeable (e.g,. a valley).

Enabling larger size wind turbines can also result in the reduction in the number of wind turbines
required as they result in generating more electricity while also maximizing the use of the wind
resource.
© 2006
PROJECT 1008690.
April 11, 2006
53
4.6.2.3 Site Planning Approval
It is recommended that the development of wind turbines be subjected to successfully obtaining a site
planning approval in the following situations:

Large facilities of ten wind turbines or more in the Green Zone; and

A singular wind turbine within the Amber Zone.
The turbines should comply with the permitted standards detailed in 4.6.2.1 unless approval is obtained
via a variance application process.
The permitted standards enable the development of up to ten turbines in the Green Zone, however, if
there is a commitment to the development of wind energy in HRM there should be a clear indication to
the wind industry by enabling large wind farms as a permitted use. For a wind farm of this size within
the Green Zone, a site planning approval process is recommended. A site planning approval process
can impose conditions to better manage the impacts, particularly visual impacts that become more
challenging to regulate when there are many wind turbines. The process gives the Development
Authority some control to mitigate the potential impacts of proliferation of wind turbines in certain parts
of the Municipality, while encouraging large scale wind development in the most suitable areas.
Enabling this process would give a clear indication that the development of wind farms is encouraged in
the Municipality, it would provide a reasonable degree of certainty regarding their establishment, and it
would afford the Municipality flexibility in the management of the structures. At the same time the onus
is on the developer to demonstrate the impacts can be managed.
Similarly, a site planning approval process is recommended for singular wind turbines in the Amber
Zone. The impacts of a singular turbine are usually not expected to be significant, but a site planning
approval process allows for an examination by the Development Authority of the special concerns in the
Amber Zone.
Similar to the variance process, should approval be granted or not there is the ability for appeal by both
the developer and residents (located within 30 m) that would come before Council for consideration.
The recommended assessment criteria for qualitative controls under site plan approval process include:

Visual – assessment should be made based on design guidelines developed specifically for the
development of wind turbines. This may include implementation of landscaping requirements.

Construction – the application should include a construction management plan that details how the
wind turbines will be delivered to the site and silt/sediment controls that will be implemented during
construction.

Maintenance – the application should include information regarding ongoing maintenance of the
wind turbine(s) and related infrastructure.
A requirement under the MGA regarding the use of the site planning approval process is that the MPS
and LUB need to stipulate those matters the Development Officer is restricted to in their assessment
and related conditions that may be imposed. With the increase in the number of wind turbines there is a
greater need to have the ability to impose site-specific conditions on the related impacts. In this context
it is the opinion of the study team that the Development Officer should have the ability to consider
matters relating to the potential visual, construction and maintenance impacts. It will be important to
establish clear guidelines for both the developer and the officer, particularly with respect to visual
© 2006
PROJECT 1008690.
April 11, 2006
54
impacts, because of their subjective nature. It will also be important to ensure these guidelines are fair
and reasonable and do not result in the inability to develop wind turbines; otherwise the purpose of the
regulation becomes redundant.
4.6.2.4 Development Agreement
It is recommended that the development of wind turbines be subjected to successfully obtaining a
development agreement in the following situations:

Small wind facilities of up to ten turbines within the Amber Zone;

Large wind facilities of more than ten turbines within the Amber Zone;

Singular wind turbines within the Red Zone; and

Small wind facilities of up to ten turbines within the Red Zone.
To provide clarity, the Development Agreement process should also clearly outline what impacts are
not acceptable, by using the standards outlined in 4.6.2.1 of this report as a guide. In addition, the
assessment of the development agreement application shall be limited to the following matters:

Noise – demonstrating compliance with the permitted noise standards.

Visual – assessment should be made based on design guidelines developed specifically for the
development of wind turbines. This may include implementation of landscaping requirements.

Location – ensuring the wind turbines are sufficiently setback from roads and adjoining property
boundaries using the permitted baseline as a guide. For any variance to the baseline standards
outlined in Section 5.2 the applicant will need to demonstrate the risk of the following will not occur
beyond the boundary:





Ice throw;
Blade throw;
Tower collapse;
Shadow flicker; and
Exceed noise parameters.

Construction – the application should include a construction management plan that details how the
wind turbines will be delivered to the site and silt/sediment controls that will be implemented during
construction.

Maintenance – the application should include information regarding ongoing maintenance of the
wind turbine(s) and related infrastructure.

Decommissioning – a bond may be required to provide security in the event the Municipality is
required to decommission the site.
Development agreements provide the ability to develop wind turbines and wind farms in those areas of
the Municipality that are generally considered less suitable for wind development, provided it can be
demonstrated that the impacts will not be a concern based on the specifics of the site.
It is considered that developing wind turbines in Amber and Red Zones, both of which may represent
serious concerns for the well-being of the region as a whole, requires a complete public participation
process because the scale of the impacts of the development can be wider reaching. The development
agreement process enables greater flexibility regarding the conditions that can be imposed on the
development when compared to the site planning approval process. It also engages Councilors in the
© 2006
PROJECT 1008690.
April 11, 2006
55
decision making process rather than placing the decision in the hands of an individual officer. Through
this process a developer can demonstrate why the basic zoning may not be applicable to the
development of the site, similar to a variance process.
If not stipulated, a development agreement can be wide reaching in what can be required by the
Municipality of the developer. It is important to provide the developer with a good understanding of
what will be considered and expected through an application for a development agreement. Therefore,
a specific set of criteria have been provided.
If a development agreement is required at the same time as a Provincial Government Environmental
Assessment (for turbines or wind rams 2MW or larger) the Municipality and the Province shall attempt
to coordinate a joint public notification process for the following reasons:

It provides an integrated process where the general public can get a wide range of questions
answered;

It does not result in imposing demands on the public’s time by having to attend different pubic
hearings on the same project; and

It can avoid repetition of similar issues (e.g., visual impacts).
4.6.2.5 Prohibited Areas
The establishment of wind turbines should be prohibited under the following situations:

Large facilities of more than ten turbines in the Red Zone; and

All wind turbine developments within the Black Zone.
There are some areas that may not be suitable for the development of wind turbines irrespective of the
technological advances. This is because of either their natural qualities or ecological value that any
structure located in the area is likely to compromise. In addition, there are tourist routes that are
attractive because of their natural qualities, particular corridors around the coastline that could be
adversely affected through the installation of a wind turbine that indirectly could affect the tourism
industry. Though wind turbines can become a tourist attraction it is important to place a balance on
their location, particularly along important scenic corridors. These corridors need to be clearly identified
and possibly protected. Section 2 of this report gives a more complete account of what factors were
considered in delineating the No-Go areas also known as Black Zones in the GIS exercise.
To discourage the development of large facilities in areas that are not generally suitable for wind
development based on the GIS exercise, development of large facilities should also be prohibited in the
Red Zone.
4.6.2.6 Monitoring
The success of any good planning document is found in establishing a monitoring framework to
measure the effectiveness of the regulations against the objectives, policies and mitigation measures.
This ensures the regulations are efficient and effective. To enable this it is recommended that a policy
be included along the following lines:
HRM shall establish a monitoring framework to gather data relating to the development
of the wind industry in the region and provide performance indicators to Council on an
© 2006
PROJECT 1008690.
April 11, 2006
56
annual basis. These indicators will be used to undertake any required changes to the
regulations in meeting the intentions of the policies or mitigation requirements.
Summary
The recommended regulations seek to provide balance by enabling the development of the wind
energy industry within HRM while creating fair and reasonable safe guards that protect the wider
community. At the same time the regulatory structure allows the developer to expand upon the
established regulatory baseline subject to demonstrating the impacts on the surrounding community are
not significant or avoided.
4.7
Recommendations on Small Wind Turbines
The interest in wind energy over the past few years has seen significant progress in knowledge and
experience around larger wind turbines. Commercial utility-scale wind turbines and wind farms are
increasingly seen as a mature technology that can provide reliable, clean and economically competitive
power. The picture around small wind turbines (SWTs) is much less clear, particularly in Canada. Even
though the SWTs are sometimes viewed simply as miniature versions of the larger turbines, there are
essential differences between the two in terms of technologies, costs, impacts, and the ways that
various levels of authority have attempted to regulate them.
There is not a clear consensus in the literature on the definition of “small” wind turbines. Some
definitions suggest power generation limits of 300 kW, others suggest a ceiling of 100 kW, while others
do not consider anything more than 1 kW to be small enough to qualify as a SWT. A recent study
commissioned by Natural Resources Canada (2005) categorized SWTs in three categories:

Mini wind turbines with a rated power output from 300 Watts up to 1000 Watts;

Small wind turbines (above 1 kW and up to 30 kW), and;

Medium wind turbines (above 30 kW, up to 300 kW).
It is clear from these definitions that there is a significant range of scales and uses as far as the SWTs
are concerned. The “medium wind turbines” in the above categorization are approaching the scale of
commercial utility-scale turbines, while the “mini wind turbines” are clearly very different. In practice the
SWT market is dominated by turbines in the smaller end of the scale, with the technology growing
fastest in the mini systems of 100 watts to 10 kW suitable for lighting, refrigeration and electric heating,
and even smaller micro system of less than 100 watts suitable for portable communications and
emergency lighting. On farms and in isolated communities, wind systems in the 10kW to 100kW, which
supply the normal electricity needs of a house, are also on the rise.
Perhaps a more important consideration in defining SWTs is that they are intended to generate just
enough power for the individual use of the owner. SWTs are not usually a commercial enterprise and
owners are not expected to make a profit off of them (except for the possible savings in energy costs
over time and potentially contributing surplus electricity to the grid). SWTs may or may not be
connected to the grid, and are often erected as single structures, as opposed to commercial large scale
wind turbines that are often erected in a group to form a wind farm. The cost of energy generation per
unit of power is often significantly higher for SWTs than for commercial utility-scale turbines. A turbine
generating enough power for a house usually represents an initial capital investment in the range of
tens of thousands of dollars, with several hundred dollars a year going into maintenance. As suggested
© 2006
PROJECT 1008690.
April 11, 2006
57
by the Canadian Wind Energy Association (CANWEA), the decision to install a small wind turbine can
be based on a wide variety of factors besides financing, including energy independence, energy price
stability and a desire to make a personal or corporate contribution to a cleaner environment. CANWEA's
website offers a summary of cost comparison of different turbine sizes and info on the cost-effectiveness
of small wind. It is noted that the length of the payback period depends on the system, the wind resource,
electricity costs in a given area, applicable financial incentives and how the wind system is used.
There has been some proliferation of SWT technologies in the United States over the past decade and
several states and municipalities have controls put in place to regulate the industry. However, in most
jurisdictions in Canada there are no specific regulatory tools for SWTs. In practice SWTs come under
review by planning departments as part of a Development Permit application or when exceeding the
permitted heights or a complaint from neighbours triggers a Variance process. This can often be costly
and confusing for Development Officers who have little understanding of the impacts of the small wind
systems. Regulating SWTs at the municipal level is particularly difficult for two reasons: 1) Information
on the impacts of SWTs are scarce; and 2) SWT technologies are changing so rapidly that regulating to
control them at the present time may become irrelevant in the near future.
Generally speaking, SWTs can have the same impacts as the large scale turbines discussed in Section
3 of this report. However, the scale of impact changes in sometimes unpredictable ways. Due to their
smaller size, SWTs are less of a concern than large turbines in terms of visual impacts, as well as
shadow flicker and electromagnetic interference. However, anecdotal information suggests that smaller
turbines sometimes emit more sound than larger turbines, and there are concerns with the possibility of
blade and/or tower failure and collapse. Even advocates of wind energy such as CANWEA currently
recommend against erecting SWTs on rooftops, holding that rooftop installations can be dangerous,
and the building itself is likely to cause turbulence that will reduce the turbine’s power output. However,
it is possible that rapid changes in technology of SWTs will remove concerns around noise, stability,
and safety in the very near future.
Given the difficulties in understanding the impacts of SWTs presently and in the near future, it is
perhaps presently unwise for HRM to attempt to draft bylaws and policies for the regulation of these
structures. Fortunately, CANWEA has commissioned a comprehensive study to explore the impacts of
SWTs and to provide recommendations to Canadian municipalities on how to regulate them. Below,
some examples of municipal regulations of SWTs are presented as background information, but it is
recommended that HRM take these into account and wait for the conclusive results from CANWEA
before implementing regulatory changes to enable SWTs. The report from CANWEA entitled “Small
Wind Siting and Zoning Study: Development of Zoning Guidelines and a Model Zoning By-law for Small
Wind Turbines (under 300 kW)” is scheduled to be released in April 2006.
State and county regulations in the United States
In North America, the state of California has the most aggressive legislation for enabling and promoting
SWTs. In October 2004, a new California law recognized small wind turbines (under 25 kW) as a “use
by right” in all but densely settled municipalities. In addition, the state offers a cash rebate of up to 50%
of the purchase price of a small wind turbine and allows net metering for domestic users. These
incentives permit homeowners to recoup their initial investment within approximately five years.
Elsewhere in the United State similar provisions are enabling SWTs. The American Wind Energy
Association (AWEA) has created a Handbook for Municipalities on Permitting Small Wind Turbines
© 2006
PROJECT 1008690.
April 11, 2006
58
(2003) based on the California experience. The following is an excerpt of this Handbook, describing a
Model Zoning Ordinance that is being taken up as a standard by jurisdictions in the US. The basic
approach taken in the US is to allow SWTs in all land-use zones as permitted use as-of-right subject to
a set of requirements including lot size, height, set-backs, noise, certification of the technology by
approved authorities, compliance with Uniform Building Codes, National Electric Codes, and Federal
aviation laws.
Municipal Regulations in Canada
As mentioned previously, most Canadian municipalities currently do not have clear guidelines to deal
directly with SWTs, though several are currently working on developing some such guidelines. Notable
exceptions include Pincher Creek in Alberta, Bruce County in Ontario, and City of Windsor in Ontario,
all of which have already established regulations around SWTs. The example of Pincher Creek and
Windsor are explored below. It is likely that SWTs erected in Pincher Creek would be for use on farms
and remote homes, while those in Windsor will likely be erected in urban and suburban areas.
The Municipal District of Pincher Creek covers provisions for small wind turbines in its main municipal
zoning bylaw, Land Use Bylaw No. 1050-02. This bylaw defines Small Scale Wind Energy Conversion
System as “A wind energy conversion system consisting of a single structure with the capacity to
generate electricity only for the property owner’s use on the site it is located, and not connected to the
grid. The system and supporting structure is less than 25 m (80 ft.) in height.”
In Pincher Creek, all Wind Energy Conversion System, including SWTs, require an application process
similar to a Development Agreement process where the Development Authority evaluate the merit of
the project on a case-by-case basis and based on public input gathered through a public hearing. The
applications required for SWTs are somewhat less extensive than for large scale turbines and must be
accompanied by:
a) manufacturer’s information on power generation and the tower;
b) appropriate letter of approval from Navigation Canada;
c) in land use districts where the use is discretionary, noise data indicating noise levels at the property
line should not exceed 30 dB;
d) an analysis for noise to any residences that may be located on adjacent properties within a 200 m
radius;
e) evidence that the strobe/shadow effect will not affect the enjoyment of the adjoining residences;
f) other information that may be required by the Development Authority.
© 2006
PROJECT 1008690.
April 11, 2006
59
© 2006
PROJECT 1008690.
April 11, 2006
60
© 2006
PROJECT 1008690.
April 11, 2006
61
Bylaw 1050-02 also specifies that the base of the Small Scale Wind Energy Conversion System shall
be located four times the height of the tower from the property line, and only one unit will be allowed on
a titled area. After this documentation is provided, a permit is only issued at the discretion of the
Development Authority based on the following factors:
a)
b)
c)
d)
e)
information provided in the application;
proximity to other land uses in the immediate area;
consideration of the cumulative effect of all WECS approved or proposed in the immediate area;
underlying utilities and
information received from the circulation of the application and the public.
The City of Windsor also includes provisions for SWTs in its municipal bylaws, but the requirements in
place are much less strenuous. The amended zoning bylaws for the municipality (Bylaw 8600 and 8518) have included a definition for SWTs. “A small wind system means a wind energy electrical
generating system consisting of a bladed turbine and supporting structure and all appurtenant electrical
and mechanical systems used for the generation of electrical power for direct consumption by the
owner/operator.” The zoning bylaws then proceed to permit the small wind systems in all zones within
the city as-of-right subject to the following requirements:
(a) A small wind system shall be permitted as an accessory use in any Zoning District in accordance
with the following regulations:
i) Minimum lot area- 0.2 hectares;
ii) Maximum tower height- 30 meters (subject to special restrictions near the airport); and
iii) The tower of the small wind system shall have a minimum separation from a dwelling a
distance equal to 110% of the total height of the tower and highest blade position.
These two examples suggest that there are significant variations among Canadian municipalities on
ways to incorporate provisions for SWTs into their bylaws. The approach suggested for singular large
wind turbines in HRM has been to permit them as-of-right and according to a number of standards (see
Section 4.5). It probably makes the most sense to approach the regulation of singular small wind
turbines in a similar fashion. Clearly, the standards and specifications that SWTs would have to abide
by would be different from those suggested for large scale turbines, and may be more similar to the
requirements of City of Windsor and/or Pincher Creek described above. It is recommended that HRM
waits for the CANWEA study on SWTs and consider the analysis and municipal regulations put forward
by that study before drafting its own set of standards for SWTs.
© 2006
PROJECT 1008690.
April 11, 2006
62
5.0
SUITABILITY ANALYSIS FOR SELECTED PUBLIC PROPERTIES
Seven publicly owned properties were analyzed in terms of their suitability for wind energy
development. Table 5.1 below shows an overall relative ranking of the seven sites. Further detail on the
suitability and restriction for each site is presented in the following sections. A set of suitability maps for
these seven properties are included in Appendix B of this report.
TABLE 5.1 Relative Suitability of Seven Public Properties
Property
Otter Lake Landfill
Relative Suitability
Tomahawk Watershed
Lake Major Watershed
Pockwock Watershed
Sackville Landfill
Western Commons
Mainland Commons
5.1
Lake Watershed
Located in the Waverley area of HRM, Lake Major Watershed is the current water supply for
Dartmouth, Cole Harbour, Westphal and Eastern Passage. It is comprised of a total of 7,000 hectares
including 2,900 hectares of Crown Land, 2,100 hectares owned by the Halifax Regional Water
Commission (HRWC) and 1,100 hectares privately owned and developed by individual owners.
Approximately one third of the area is part of the Waverly-Salmon River Long Lake Wilderness Area
and is protected from various activities under the Wilderness Act. The watershed as a whole is
protected by provincial designation.
As with other provincially designated watersheds, Lake Major has its own unique Provincial Regulations
which determine the ways in which activities can or cannot occur within the property. Lake Major
Watershed Protected Water Area Regulations, made under subsection 106(6) of the Environment Act,
specify procedures and policies with respect to Public Notification, Fire Restrictions, Vehicle and Vessel
Restrictions, Swimming/Bathing/Washing Restrictions, Fishing Restrictions, Forestry Restrictions, Pest
Control/Products/Biocides Restrictions, Refuse or Waste Restrictions, Discharges Prohibited, Landfill
Prohibition, Corridor Restrictions, Sewage System Requirements, Pit/Mine/Quarry Requirements, Soil
Erosion and Sedimentation Control, Road Construction Restrictions and Dwelling Unit Construction
Restrictions.
While activities are restricted within the Lake Major watershed to avoid negative impacts on the drinking
water supply for the municipality, not all activities are prohibited. In fact, the HRWC conducts some
sustainable forestry activities within the watershed, and dwelling units are erected on the privately
owned sections of the land. A review of the Provincial Regulations suggest that legally, and from the
perspective of protecting the drinking water supplies within the watershed area, there is no direct
prohibition of wind energy development, provided that proponents abide by all restrictions mentioned in
applicable Provincial Regulations. This will mean special efforts in obtaining necessary permits and
approvals, designing and constructing wind turbines in a way that has minimal impacts on the water
supply, and introducing measures to minimize impacts even further. It is possible to design, construct
© 2006
PROJECT 1008690.
April 11, 2006
63
and operate wind turbines that adhere to this level of protective restriction. A typical wind turbine
construction requires excavation of a 5 m diameter foundation, involves the pouring of limited amounts
of concrete, and can be served by an unpaved road, similar to the logging roads already in place
through parts of the watershed. Impacts on the watershed, if any, would be expected primarily during
the construction phase and could be managed with a rigorous construction management program.
Table 5.2 below summarizes the specific restrictions outlined in the Lake Major Watershed Provincial
Regulations that must be considered before wind energy generation development is contemplated.
TABLE 5.2 Lake Major Watershed Provincial Regulations
12
15
16
17
No road, pipeline, railway, telephone line, power line or other similar development shall be constructed on, over or
across the Protected Water Area or an easement granted thereupon unless the same is approved in writing by the
Administrator following consultation with the Board.
(1) No person shall at any time undertake any activity that causes or might cause soil erosion resulting in
sedimentation of a watercourse located within the Protected Water Area.
(2) Where sedimentation occurs, no owner, operator or person responsible for the property involved shall fail to
undertake immediate action to install erosion and sediment control measures.
(3) No person shall at any time permit water which has a suspended solid concentration greater than 25 milligrams
per litre to discharge from any construction site located within the Protected Water Area.
(4) Except for grubbing or earth moving required to construct a single or two-unit dwelling, no person shall commence
any activity requiring grubbing and earth moving within the Protected Water Area unless that person develops an
erosion and sedimentation control plan which is approved in writing by the Administrator following consultation with
the Board.
(1) No person shall undertake any road construction work in the Protected Water Area unless the work is conducted
between June 1 and September 30th, inclusive, in any year.
(2) No person shall expose at any time more than 1900 square metres of roadway subbase in the Protected Water
Area.
No owner, occupier, contractor or person responsible for constructing a dwelling unit within the Protected Water Area
shall proceed with the construction unless the following terms and conditions to control erosion and sedimentation are
met:
(a) all areas where vehicular activity will take place will be covered with rock or material to stabilize the area;
(b) during construction, should areas described in clause (a) become rutted, additional granular material shall be
applied to prevent the transport of silt from the site;
(c) if the dwelling unit is adjacent to a watercourse, ditch or storm sewer, all soil excavated to permit construction of
the foundation or basement of the dwelling shall be trucked out of the Protected Water Area or be completely covered
with a material to prevent erosion;
(d) exposed soil shall be covered to prevent erosion until a permanent protective cover is established;
(e) erosion protection shall be inspected at least twice a week by the owner, operator or person responsible and
repaired if unstable areas are found;
(f) soil which is exposed adjacent to a watercourse, ditch, or storm sewer shall be stabilized within twenty-four (24)
hours of exposure.
While wind energy development would have to abide by all restrictions in the Lake Major Watershed
Provincial Regulations, the Wind Energy Suitability Model (see Section 2) also identifies a number of
restrictions as well as opportunities for the Lake Major property. Generally speaking, the western and
southern sections of the property are suitable for wind energy development, while the north-eastern
corners as well as several patches to the centre of the property are less suitable. Within the more
suitable areas, elevation would suggest that the most promising spots might be identified along the
western boundary of the property, as well as the most south-eastern corner of the site.
A detailed look at the WESM (Figure B-1 in Appendix B) results suggest that the main restrictions on
the Lake Major Watershed are due to the existence of Environmental Protection Zones, Significant
Habitat, and minor issues with Construction Hazards and Surficial Geology on some parts of the
property. The north-eastern one-third of the property is within an Environmental Protection Zone
© 2006
PROJECT 1008690.
April 11, 2006
64
(Waverly-Salmon River Long Lake Wilderness Area) where it is best to avoid development of any kind.
The remaining portion of the property is also identified as another class of the Environmental Protection
Zone due to the Protected Watershed designation, but as discussed above this designation need not
preclude wind energy development. There are two patches of old growth forest as well as a number of
minor wetlands towards the centre of the property which constitute Significant Habitat. Also, throughout
the properties there are small patches of rock and areas of extreme slopes which constitute
Construction Hazards. The Surficial Geology is dominated by bedrock in the north-eastern one-third of
the property, which is also a limitation. Finally, given that residential areas abut the property to the
south, a narrow strip along the southern end of the property should be avoided.
Logging roads throughout the south-western half of the property provide an opportunity to facilitate wind
energy development. The wind resource appears to be moderate to good throughout the property, with
a particularly windy patch on the south-eastern corner. However, it is necessary to carry out a local
detailed monitoring study to determine the best potential turbine locations. According to the WESM,
there are no concerns on the Lake Major Watershed site with respect to interference of wind turbines
with Archeological sites, Bird Areas, or Utilities. Figures 5.1 and 5.2 illustrate what potential wind
turbines placed on this site might look like against the landscape.
5.2
Pockwock Watershed
Pockwock Watershed is the current water supply for Halifax, Bedford, Sackville, Timberlea, Fall River,
and Waverly. Located off of Highway 101, the watershed is primarily owned by the Crown and jointly
managed by HRWC and NS Department of Natural Resources (NSDNR). The area of the watershed
falls within HRM and Municipality of East Hants County, with roughly the south-eastern half located in
HRM and the north-western half located in Hants County. The total area of the Pockwock Watershed is
approximately 5,661 hectares.
Pockwock Watershed is protected by provincial designation and as such has its own set of regulations
for permitted activities and associated procedures. According to Pockwock Lake Watershed Protected
Water Area Designation and Regulations made under subsections 106(5) and (6) of the Environment
Act there are policies and procedures associated with Public Notification, Fire Restrictions, Vehicle and
Vessel Restrictions, Lake and Watercourse Restrictions, Fishing Restrictions, Forestry Restrictions,
Pest Control/Products/Biocides Restrictions, Discharges Prohibited, Landfill Prohibition, Corridor
Restrictions, Soil Erosion and Sedimentation Control, and Road Construction Restrictions.
Current uses of the Pockwock Watershed are limited to sustainable forestry practices lead by the
HRWC. There are no dwellings within the watershed. However, as discussed in Section 5.1 with
respect to the Lake Major Watershed, there is no direct prohibition of wind energy development within
Pockwock Watershed, provided that proponents abide by all restrictions mentioned in applicable
Provincial Regulations. This will mean special efforts in obtaining necessary permits and approvals,
designing and constructing wind turbines in a way that has minimal environmental impacts, and
introducing measures to minimize impacts even further. It is possible to design, construct and operate
wind turbines that adhere to this level of protective restriction. Impacts on the watershed, if any, would
only be expected during the construction phase and could be managed with a rigorous construction
management program.
© 2006
PROJECT 1008690.
April 11, 2006
65
FIGURE 5.1
View of Potential Wind Turbines on Lake Major Watershed (1)
© 2006
PROJECT 1008690.
April 11, 2006
66
FIGURE 5.2
View of Potential Wind Turbines on Lake Major Watershed (2)
© 2006
PROJECT 1008690.
April 11, 2006
67
Table 5.3 below summarizes the specific restrictions outlined in the Pockwock Watershed Provincial
Regulations that must be considered before wind energy generation development is contemplated.
TABLE 5.3 Pockwock Watershed Provincial Regulations
12
15
16
No road, pipeline, railway, telephone line, power line or other similar development shall be constructed on, over or
across the Protected Water Area or an easement granted thereupon unless the same is approved in writing by the
Administrator following consultation with the Board.
(1) No person shall at any time undertake any activity that causes or might cause soil erosion resulting in
sedimentation of a watercourse located within the Protected Water Area.
(2) Where sedimentation occurs, no owner, operator or person responsible for the property involved shall fail to
undertake immediate action to install erosion and sediment control measures.
(3) No person shall at any time permit water which has a suspended solid concentration greater than 25 milligrams
per litre to discharge from any construction site located within the Protected Water Area.
(4) Except for grubbing or earth moving required to construct a single or two-unit dwelling, no person shall commence
any activity requiring grubbing and earth moving within the Protected Water Area unless that person develops an
erosion and sedimentation control plan which is approved in writing by the Administrator following consultation with
the Board.
(1) No person shall undertake any road construction work in the Protected Water Area unless the work is conducted
between June 1 and September 30th, inclusive, in any year.
(2) No person shall expose at any time more than 1900 square metres of roadway subbase in the Protected Water
Area.
The Wind Energy Suitability Model (see Section 2) identifies a number of restrictions as well as
opportunities for the Pockwock Watershed property that need to be considered in conjunction with the
Provincial Regulations listed above. Unfortunately, the data available for the GIS mapping exercise was
limited to HRM. Therefore the analysis of wind suitability for the north-western half of the Watershed
property which falls within Hants County is absent for this analysis. Generally speaking, there are
suitable areas for wind development along the elevated eastern boundary as well as the south-western
corner of the property. The central areas of the property are less suitable.
A detailed look at the WESM (Figure B-2 in Appendix B) results suggests that the main restrictions on
the Pockwock Watershed are due to the existence of Significant Habitat, and minor issues with Surficial
Geology on some parts of the property. There is at least one patch of old growth forest, as well as an
area of importance to species designated as “Yellow” (sensitive to human activities or natural events)
by NSDNR. These Significant Habitats are located towards the centre of the property. In terms of
Surficial Geology, there may be some concerns with bedrock in the eastern portion of the property,
while patches of Silty Drumlin soil provide the most appropriate building conditions towards the centre
and south of the property. In addition, there is one minor area which may constitute a Construction
Hazard due to extreme slopes, and proximity to residential areas along a thin strip of land by the
southern boundary, both of which should be avoided by potential wind developments.
The optimal location for wind turbines will likely be along the eastern and western boundaries, where
existing logging roads provide access. In general, the wind regime over the whole property is
moderately good, however further and more detailed monitoring studies are required to determine the
best locations for turbines.
5.3
Tomahawk Lake Watershed
Unlike both Lake Major and Pockwock, the Tomahawk Lake Watershed is not currently a designated
watershed, nor is it currently used as a water supply for the municipality. Abutting the Pockwock
© 2006
PROJECT 1008690.
April 11, 2006
68
Watershed to the south, Tomahawk Lake Watershed is reserved as a potential future supplementary
water supply for areas now served by Pockwock Lake Watershed. It is owned about 90% by HRWC
and is protected from all activities with the exception of selective forestry. The Tomahawk Lake
Watershed does not have any regulations but it implicitly protected by HRWC regulations similar to
adjacent Pockwock Lake Watershed.
As discussed in Section 5.1 and 5.2 it is possible to design, construct and operate wind turbines that
have minimal impact on the landscape in which they are located. To develop wind turbines in the
Tomahawk Lake Watershed area, the HRWC Board would require a developer to keep in close
communication with the Board and keep them informed at every stage of the project. Approvals from
the board would be necessary to move to further stages. Impacts on the watershed, if any, would only
be expected during the construction phase and could be managed with a rigorous construction
management program. Considering the Tomahawk Lake Watershed is not currently used it may be a
prime candidate for wind energy development; given that soils would be stabilized following the
construction stage, thereby reducing the potential for erosion by the time the watershed becomes
necessary for use as a water supply for the municipality.
The WESM results (Figure B-3 in Appendix B) also suggest that the Tomahawk Watershed is highly
suitable for wind energy development. There are no concerns with construction of wind turbines on the
site, with the exception of a very small patch of Significant Habitat where “Yellow”-designated species
are known to exist at the center of the southern boundary of the site. The area of the property is
accessible throughout by existing logging roads. High elevations along the western boundary and the
southern half of the eastern boundary, as well as some central areas to the east of the lake, are likely to
be ideal spots for wind turbines. The general wind regime on the property is good, however further
studies would be required to determine the best wind-spots for potential developments.
5.4
Otter Lake Landfill
The Otter Lake Landfill is the site of HRM’s main landfill and waste management facility, one of the
most advanced solid waste management systems in North America. The Otter Lake Landfill site
includes: a mixed waste processing facility designed to handle 119,000 metric tons/year of municipal
solid waste, a composting system to process the mixed waste after recyclables are removed, and a
landfill for stabilized waste. HRM owns these facilities, with operation given to a private company, Mirror
Nova Scotia. The Otter Lake Landfill is the cornerstone of the Halifax waste management model, which
has been recognized nationally and internationally as an example in sound environmental
management. The landfill includes a composite-layer liner, leak detection, and leachate collection and
treatment, reducing the impact of the landfill on the surrounding area. Methane generated in the landfill
is also collected and burned off to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
The Otter Lake Facility has been extensively used for educational purposes by local schools that make
regular tours to the site. As well the site is routinely visited by delegations from across Canada and
around the world. In this sense, the site is ideal for the exhibition and promotion of new, renewable
energies such as wind. Since it is located away from residential areas it is also more likely that potential
aesthetic impacts of wind turbines on this site would be acceptable to HRM residents.
The WESM (Figure B-4 in Appendix B) suggests that the Otter Lake Landfill site is particularly suitable
for wind energy development, especially towards the west of the property . There are only minor
concerns with respect to Construction Hazards (three patches of extreme slope) and proximity to
© 2006
PROJECT 1008690.
April 11, 2006
69
residential area (one small strip at the northern corner of the property). There are small areas of
archeological significance through the site. Provincial data suggests that about half of the site is
possible significant habitat for species designated as “Red” (known to be or thought to be at risk) by
NSDNR. Potential wind energy development will have to consider the impacts on these species
carefully, in particular when determining the site layout.
The Otter Lake Landfill site is accessible by road throughout. The wind regime on the site is very good
according to the WESM and the south and western sections of the site are likely to be very suitable for
wind energy development given high elevations. More detailed wind studies would be required to
identify the best locations on the site for potential wind development.
5.5
Sackville Landfill
The Sackville Landfill, often referred to as the Highway 101 Landfill was used as the main solid waste
disposal site in HRM between 1977 and 1996. The landfill, now closed, contains some three million
tonnes of solid waste and has been the scene of multiple environmental concerns. The Municipality is
now moving towards reducing the environmental impacts of the landfill in several different ways. A
leachate treatment plant was constructed in 1987, groundwater is being monitored, and there has been
some talk about the potential to use the methane from the landfill to generate energy.
Similar to Otter Lake Landfill, the Sackville Landfill has the potential to showcase sound environmental
practices, and in that sense wind generation development may be appropriate on the site. However, the
WESM (Figure B-5 in Appendix B) suggests that the Sackville Landfill is somewhat less suitable for
wind development. There are residential areas close to the northern boundary and the south-west
corner and a few patches of land in the centre of the site have been identified as having archeological
significance. The Surficial Geology of the site is dominated by stony till plain which is not ideal for
construction. As well, some portions of the property are currently under treatment for leachate. There
may also be concerns around Significant Habitat where forests and wetlands are present throughout
the site.
It appears that the wind at the Sackville landfill is moderate, and while the land is not particularly
elevated it is fairly flat, which allows for a good wind regime. It is certainly possible to identify some
locations where turbines could be erected. The northern half of the property has better potential than
the southern half. The WESM suggests that there are no concerns with Birds, Utilities, Construction
Hazards, or Road accessibility on this site.
5.6
Mainland Commons
The Mainland Commons is a fairly small piece of land containing a collection of recreation facilities in
the Mainland North of Halifax (Clayton Park area). These include outdoor fields as well as buildings
containing indoor sport fields and their associated services. The facilities are intended to serve 200,000
people in a 20 minute radius of the Mainland Commons, the fastest growing community in Nova Scotia.
HRM's official goal for this property is stated as: "A state of the art, multi-dimensional facility to serve
residents of the western region of Halifax Regional Municipality for the next 30 years by providing a
venue for activities that promotes healthy and active living.” There is also significant public interest in
the property and a Halifax Mainland Commons Recreation Facility Citizens Action Group has been
active in pursuing opportunities mainly around community building and sports at this site.
© 2006
PROJECT 1008690.
April 11, 2006
70
Based on the results of the WESM (Figure B-6 in Appendix B), it appears that the Mainland Commons
have very limited potential for wind energy development. This is largely due to the existence of several
buildings on the site, which precludes the installation of turbines on more than half of the land. There
are also concerns with the presence of archeological sites on this property, and the importance of part
of the property as a source for water supply. Additionally, there could be potential difficulties in
construction on this site since the Surficial Geology of the site is dominated by bedrock. Given the level
of public sensitivity to what happens on this site and the low suitability according to the GIS model, it is
unlikely that wind turbines can be placed on this site. Figure 5.3 and 5.4 illustrate the level of visibility
and conflict with the surrounding landscape that potential wind turbines places on the Mainland
Commons might produce.
5.7
Western Commons
The Western Commons is a 350 acre parcel of land off of Highway 333. It consists of woodlands and
open space, and is in close proximity to residential and small commercial areas. With the growth of
residential development in the neighbouring communities of Goodwood and Hatchet Lake the Western
Commons has grown in importance as a designated site for active recreational use. There is much
public interest in the property as part of a green space network to be connected with Long Lake Park
Reserve and nearby facilities.
The WESM (Figure B-7 in Appendix B) suggests that there is considerable potential for wind
development at the Western Commons. Residential lands along the south-eastern boundary and to the
north and western corners of the site must be avoided as should the small patches of land throughout
the property that are recognized for their archeological significance. The main concern with the site
would be the potential presence of Significant Habitat of species designated as “Red” by NSDNR, and
proximity to an important Birding Area to the north. Special considerations would be necessary in siting
of any wind turbines to ensure species are not negatively affected.
There is very good wind throughout the site and some high elevations along the northern and western
boundaries of the site which may be suitable for wind turbines. Most of the site is accessibly by roads,
except for some patches towards the center. The Surficial Geology is Silty Till Plain on the northern half
and Stony Till Plain on the southern half with a patch of bedrock along the southwestern border, making
the northern half of the site generally more favorable for wind development in terms of soil suitability.
Detailed studies would be required to determine the most suitable locations for turbine placement.
© 2006
PROJECT 1008690.
April 11, 2006
71
FIGURE 5.3
View of Potential Wind Turbines on Mainland Commons (1)
© 2006
PROJECT 1008690.
April 11, 2006
72
FIGURE 5.4
View of Potential Wind Turbines on Mainland Commons (2)
© 2006
PROJECT 1008690.
April 11, 2006
73
6.0
FUNDING AND PARTNERSHIP OPPORTUNITIES
Given the interest in wind energy, both from an environmental and energy security perspective and as a
business opportunity, many organizations are encouraged to participate in the development and
establishment of the technology in HRM. Given the potential on some municipally owned sites (see
Section 5) HRM should consider pursuing partnerships opportunities that would promote development
of wind energy on such lands. The excerpts of the Municipal Government Act, bolded in Table 6.1
below, outline HRM’s power to lease or sell municipal property.
TABLE 6.1 Excerpts from the Municipal Government Act
Powers of municipality regarding property
50 (1) A municipality may acquire and own property granted or conveyed to the municipality either absolutely or in trust for a
public or charitable purpose.
(2) Where property is conveyed to a municipality in trust for a public or charitable purpose, the municipality holds the property
according to the terms of the trust and may do anything necessary to carry out the objects of the trust.
(3) The property vested in a municipality, absolutely or in trust, is under the exclusive management and control of the council,
unless an Act of the Legislature provides otherwise.
(4) Possession, occupation, use or obstruction of property of a municipality does not give an estate, right or title to the
property.
(5) A municipality may
(a) acquire property, including property outside the municipality, that the municipality requires for its purposes or for the use of
the public;
(b) sell property at market value when the property is no longer required for the purposes of the municipality;
(c) lease property owned by the municipality at market value;
(d) sell deeds for cemetery lots and certificates of perpetual care.
Sale or lease of municipal property
51 (1) A municipality may sell or lease property at a price less than market value to a nonprofit organization that the council
considers to be carrying on an activity that is beneficial to the municipality.
(2) A resolution to sell or lease property referred to in subsection (1) at less than market value shall be passed by at least a
two thirds majority of the council present and voting.
(3) Where the council proposes to sell property referred to in subsection (1) valued at more than ten thousand dollars at less
than market value, the council shall first hold a public hearing respecting the sale.
(4) The council shall advertise the public hearing at least twice, in a newspaper circulating in the municipality, the first notice to
appear at least fourteen days before the hearing.
(5) The notice of the public hearing shall include the date, time and place of the hearing, the location of the real property or a
description of the tangible personal property, the estimated value of the property and the purpose of the sale.
In the context of wind energy development it may be most appropriate for HRM to consider exercising
its powers under Section 50.5.c to lease its land to potential developers interested in developing wind
farms. Special partnerships between HRM and the private sector can ensure that HRM reaps some
financial benefits from the enterprise, while invigorating economic development in the region, and doing
its part for the environment. There are many private companies in Nova Scotia who could be potential
partners for HRM including Wind Driven Royalty Co, Scotian Wind Fields, Renewable Energy Services
Ltd. (RESL), and Fourth Generation Capital Corporation.
While there are currently no known not-for-profit organizations that are interested in developing wind
power, there may be some partnership opportunities with potential not-for-profit groups in the future.
Community groups, wind cooperatives, and environmental groups may express an interest in such
partnerships. To encourage enterance of not-for-profits into the field HRM may wish to consider offering
a lesser price to such organization for the lease or purchase of municipal land as stipulated by sections
51.1 and 51.2 of the Municipal Government Act.
© 2006
PROJECT 1008690.
April 11, 2006
74
There are a number of funding opportunities offering allowances, loans, research grants, and tax
breaks to encourage wind energy generation development in Canada. A summary of such funding
opportunities is provided in table 6.2 below for the benefit of HRM and its partners.
© 2006
PROJECT 1008690.
April 11, 2006
75
TABLE 6.2 Summary of Funding Opportunities
Program Name
Wind Power Production
Incentive (WPPI) NRCan / REED / ERB
Government Purchase
of Electricity from
Renewable Resources
(PERR) -
Technology Early
Action Measures
(TEAM) /
Atlantic Canada
Opportunities Agency
Business Development
Program
Green Municipal Funds
(GMF)
Recipient
Incentive Type
Repayable
Application
Process
Develop wind energy in
Canada
No
Negotiate a
contribution
agreement with
NRCan.
Purchase
agreement
REED Federal government
purchases some of its
electricity from ERES; promote
renewable energies
Unspecified
No
NRCan / Not
applicable
Contribution
Supports projects that are
designed to develop
technologies that mitigate
greenhouse gas (GHG)
emissions.
Unspecified
Possibly
Initial contact,
concept paper,
proposal
Repayable
contributions
Program offers access to
capital in form of interest-free,
unsecured repayable
contributions, focusing on
small and medium sized
enterprises.
Costs eligible for up
to 50%-75%
financing depending
on eligibility criteria.
Yes
Electronic
Application Form
available on their
site.
Grants and lowinterest loans
Support municipal government
action to cut pollution, reduce
greenhouse gas emissions and
improve quality of life. Offer
grants and low-interest loans
for innovative environmental
infrastructure initiatives that
generate measurable
environmental, economic and
social benefits.
Grants cover up to
50% of eligible
expenses, to a
maximum of
$350,000. Funds
offer loans, covering
15% to 25% of the
eligible capital costs
of qualifying projects.
Yes
New Intents to
Apply were
accepted in
Autumn 2005.
Review the GMF
Applicant's Guide.
Financial support
of installations
Energy distributors
Municipal governments.
All municipalities, large
and small, can benefit
from the financial
services and technical
expertise of the GMF.
Funding Level
Covers about half of
the current estimated
cost premium for
wind energy in
Canada
Electric utilities,
independent power
producers and other
stakeholders.
NRCan,
interdepartmental
municipal, provincial, or
federal programs, small,
medium, and large
businesses, and
international companies
or foreign
governments.
Most business sectors
are eligible except
retail/wholesale, real
estate, government
services, and services of
a personal or social
nature. Both commercial
and not-for-profit
applicants are eligible.
Purpose or Intent
© 2006
PROJECT 1008690 April 11, 2006
76
TABLE 6.2 Summary of Funding Opportunities
Program Name
Industrial Research
Assistance Program
/Technology
Partnership Canada
(IRAP-TPC)
Recipient
Innovative small and
medium enterprises
(SMEs)
Incentive Type
Contribution
© 2006
Purpose or Intent
Funding Level
Environmental Technologies
component encourages and
supports the development and
application of innovative
technologies that contribute to
the achievement of sustainable
development, or that have
significant environmental
benefits. Enabling
Technologies component
supports the development,
application and diffusion of
those critical technologies that
will have major impact and
benefits within and across
industry sectors.
Contributions will not
normally exceed 33%
of total eligible
project costs.
PROJECT 1008690 April 11, 2006
77
Repayable
Yes
Application
Process
Contact the IRAP
regional office
nearest to you by
calling their tollfree number (1877-994-4727).
TABLE 6.2 Summary of Funding Opportunities
Program Name
Recipient
Sustainable
Development
Technology Canada
Experts in sustainable
development technology
and part of a project
consortium that is: a forprofit corporation, a
partnership, a limited
partnership or a business
trust that has entered into
a contract relating to the
execution of the
applicant’s project; a forprofit corporation, a
partnership, a limited
partnership or a business
trust that has entered
instead into a
collaborative
arrangement; and a notfor-profit corporation, with
one of its purposes being
to undertake or fund the
development or
demonstration of
sustainable development
technology.
The Renewable Energy
Technologies Program
(RETP)
Stakeholders in the
energy industry, such as
manufacturers,
developers, consultants,
SMEs, universities,
research associations
utilities, provincial
governments and other
federal departments.
Incentive Type
Contribution
Cost-shared
agreements
© 2006
Purpose or Intent
Bridge the funding gap for the
support of clean-technology
projects to increase a project's
chance of success to market
and help Canadian
entrepreneurs.
Support technologies that have
demonstrated their ability to
meet market demand and help
achieve Canada's
environmental goals for
reducing climate change
effects and improve air quality.
Supports efforts by Canadian
industry to develop and
commercialize advanced
renewable energy
technologies, such as active
solar, wind power, bioenergy
and small hydro. Funds R&D
pre-commercialization,
including testing and
demonstration projects.
PROJECT 1008690 April 11, 2006
Funding Level
Repayable
Application
Process
Up to 33 percent of
eligible project costs
and never more than
50 percent of eligible
project costs for any
given project.
No
On-line Application
System process
available
Total funding
available through the
program is $5-20
million per year.
Yes- if
revenue can
be generated
from research
Send an email
describing your
idea.
78
TABLE 6.2 Summary of Funding Opportunities
Program Name
Canadian Renewable
and Conservation
Expenses (CRCE)
Recipient
Industry, developers,
investors, etc. fully
deductible expenditures
associated with the startup of renewable energy
and energy conservation
projects for which at least
50 percent of the capital
costs of the property
would be described in
Class 43.1.
Class 43.1 - CRA and
NRCan.)
Taxpayers who either
generate and sell
electricity or use energy
in other industrial sectors
Class 43.1 Accelerated
Depreciation from the
Dept of Finance
Canada
Taxpayers, especially
farmers and commercial
businesses
Nova Scotia
Community
Development
Investment Fund
(CDIF)
A business corporation or
association registered as
a community economicdevelopment corporation
by the Minister of
Finance
Incentive Type
Purpose or Intent
The CRCE category of
expenditures was to allow
investors to fully write-off
certain intangible costs
associated with investments in
renewable energy and energy
conservation projects. CRCE is
intended to promote
the development of
conservation and renewable
energy projects in the same
way that is currently done for
investments in other types of
resource activities.
Tax incentive
Tax incentive;
accelerated capital
cost allowance
(CCA
Business Investments in
Energy Conservation and
Renewable Energy
Tax incentive
Commercial on-grid wind
systems; Usually good for
farmers and commercial
businesses with high taxable
annual income
Equity tax credit
© 2006
Funding Level
100% deductable
Capital cost
allowance (CCA) rate
of 30 per cent for
certain types of
renewable energy
and energy efficiency
equipment.
Updated as per
Budget 2005:
Capital cost
allowance (CCA) of
50% annually on
declining balance
basis
A Community Economic
Development Investment Fund
("CEDIF") is a pool of capital
formed through the sale of
common shares to persons
within a defined community.
The fund is created to operate
or invest in a business or
businesses in that community.
PROJECT 1008690 April 11, 2006
79
Repayable
Application
Process
no
File taxes.
No
File taxes
no
File taxes
No
Several stages to
the application,
starting with filling
out an Offering
Document
7.0
CONCLUSION
As a leader in environmental sustainability and a promoter of clean and renewable energies, Halifax
Regional Municipality has taken some concrete steps to remove unnecessary barriers to emerging
industries such as wind energy generation. The Wind Energy Generation Master Plan has been an
effort in understanding the wind power industry, exploring its potential impacts, mappings its relative
suitability through the region, balancing its benefits against the needs of the community, and providing
recommendations for adjusting municipal zoning and bylaws to best accommodate it.
A significant component of this study has been the creation of a Wind Energy Suitability Model using a
GIS tool, presented in Section 2. This model has incorporated dozens of layers of data under three
broad themes: Wind Energy; Land Use Considerations; and Construction Considerations. In
conjunction with one another these three themes and their associate layers help visualize the spatial
dimensions of several environmental, cultural, social, and physical characteristics throughout HRM. The
model integrates the data, giving a scoring to each layer which represents the relative importance of
each consideration based on discussions among experts, stakeholders and HRM staff. The final result
is a map that delineates the most suitable areas (“Green Zone”), moderately suitable areas (“Amber
Zone”) and least suitable areas (“Red Zone”) for wind energy development. The GIS model itself is to
be used in conjunction with this final map to explore the potential and the constraints for each specific
site of interest in HRM. It is expected that the model will be expanded and updated as spatial
information is updated by HRM and as specific priorities of council and citizens are further identified
and incorporated into the considerations of the model.
As suggested by the GIS model there are a large number of sites in HRM that could be considered
highly suitable for wind energy development. That is not to say that potential wind development in these
areas will have no impacts. Section 3 explores the potential impacts of wind turbines and wind farms. A
wide variety of common concerns and potential environmental and socio-economic impacts are
explored including visual impacts, noise, shadow flicker, ice throw, blade and tower failure, impacts on
birds and bats, and construction and decommissioning impacts. The study draws on international
literature to clarify the current state of understanding around each of these impacts. In some cases it is
demonstrated that there is little consensus on issues due to limitations in data. In other cases it is
shown that the impacts are “perceived” as opposed to factual, or that their actual magnitude is largely
exaggerated in public debates. In other cases still it is suggested that the impacts can be significantly
reduce by technology and by best practices in design and regulations. Where significant environmental
impacts are likely, a Federal or Provincial EA process is usually required to properly address these
concerns.
It should be emphasized that while wind turbines can have some negative impacts on society and
environment, they also have large positive impacts, such as offering energy security, ensuring a nonpolluting source of energy, and offering a potential for economic development within the region. A welldeveloped and viable wind energy industry can reduce reliance on fossil fuel as a source of energy in
HRM, thus significantly reducing the associated pollution and emission of greenhouse gases. These
positive impacts, which are not explicitly captured in the current study, must be considered when
making decisions about wind energy development.
Many impacts of wind energy can be mitigated or reduced by adopting municipal regulations that
protect the public interest while allowing the wind energy industry to grow. Section 4 explores the
potential approaches to municipal regulations as a basis of recommendations to HRM. Existing
© 2006
PROJECT 1008690 April 11, 2006
80
regulations in HRM with implications for wind energy development are identified and it is shown that
HRM does not have the appropriate regulatory tools in place to accommodate wind energy
development at present. Four other Canadian jurisdictions in Alberta, Nova Scotia and Ontario, are
then consulted for information on municipal bylaws and regulations they have adopted to account for
different impacts of wind energy development. In addition, Federal and Provincial mechanisms and
regulations on wind energy development are described. Based on the lessons learned from literature,
and an understanding of planning tools available to HRM, a set of recommendations are presented on
the regulatory mechanisms that HRM may wish to use. The suitability of land for wind development
(Green, Amber and Red Zones) as well as the scope of potential projects (single turbines, small
facilities, and large facilities) is considered in presenting the recommendations. It is suggested that
different situations (zoning and scale) may require different regulatory approaches, ranging from as-ofright permission to build, to requirement for development agreements, and complete prohibition of wind
turbines on some sites.
With regards to small individually owned turbines, this study includes a literature search the results of
which are presented at the end of Section 4. It is concluded that information on the impacts and
appropriate regulations on small wind turbines is inconclusive at this point in time. HRM is encouraged
to wait for the release of a comprehensive study on this topic commissioned by CANWAE in April 2006
before moving forward on formulating regulations on small wind turbines.
Given the interest in wind energy, HRM has been asked about the possibility of erecting turbines on
specific public lands, including municipally owned land. Seven such properties were examined as part
of this study to determine the suitability for wind development. The results are presented in Section 5.
The Wind Energy Suitability Model was used as the basis of this analysis, and the potential
opportunities as well as constraints for each site were summarized. Three-dimensional renderings were
produced to show what the wind developments might look like on some of these potential sites. This
information should give HRM a general indication of whether or not it is worthwhile to further explore
the possibility of wind development on each of these sites. To complement this information, Section 6
summarizes some opportunities for funding and partnerships that HRM and other organizations may be
interested in pursuing.
The overall conclusion of this report is that there is some good potential in HRM for developing wind
turbines and wind farms. The suitability of land varies significantly throughout HRM and is context
specific. Local studies are needed to specifically identify locations with the best promise for wind and
the least amount of impact on the natural and social environment. Furthermore, HRM should move
quickly to put in place a set of municipal wind turbine regulations that are rigorous enough to protect the
public, but not so restrictive as to diminish the possibilities for moving towards energy security and
environmental health that the wind energy industry presents.
© 2006
PROJECT 1008690 April 11, 2006
81
8.0
REFERENCES
Asmus, Peter, Kevin Fullerton, Sarah Peterson, Heather Rhoads-Weaver, Angela Shutak, and Susan
Savitt Schwartz. 2003. “Permitting Small Wind Turbines: A Handbook, Learning from the California
Experience”, http://survivaldealer.com/survival-downloads/Cal.Permitting.Handbook.pdf
Australian Wind Energy Association. 2004. “Wind Farm Safety Issues: Fact Sheet 11”.
Awhitu Wind Farm, Resource Consent Application and Assessment of Environmental Effects, April 2004
Bat Conservation International. 2001. Bats in Eastern Woodlands. Bat Conservation International.
Available Online: http://www.batcon.org/nabcp/newsite/forrep.pdf [Accessed September 10, 2003.]
Bat Conserveration International website. 2006. www.batcon.org
Botha, P. 2005, June 22. “Project West Wind: Shadow Flicker Assessment Report”. Meridian Energy.
Braam, H.& Rademakers, L. 2004, February. “Guidelines on the Environmental Risk of Wind Turbines
in the Netherlands”. Netherlands: ECN Wind Energy.
British Wind Energy Association website, http:/www.bwea.com/ref/noise.html.
Brown, W.K., and B.L.Hamilton. 2002. Bird and Bat Interactions with Wind Turbines, Castle River Wind
Farm, Alberta. Report prepared for Vision Quest, March 2002.
Canadian Wind Energy Association (CanWEA). 2004, January. “Canadian Wind Energy Case Studies:
Pincher Creek Alberta”.
Canadian Wind Energy Association Small Wind Energy Website
http://www.smallwindenergy.ca/en/Overview/BenefitsIssues/Issues.html
CBCL Limited. 2003, September. “Pubnico Point: Wind Farm Environmental Assessment” (Project
Number: 031208).
County of Barnstable Massachusetts. 2004, December. Model Bylaw for Land-Based Wind Energy
Conversion Facilities.
Crawford, R.L., and R.T. Engstrom. 2001. Characteristics of avian mortality at a north Florida television
tower: a 28-year experience. Tall Timbers Research Station, Tallahassee, Florida.
Crockford, N.J., 1992. A review of the possible impacts of wind farms on birds and other wildlife. Joint
Nature Conservation Committee, JNCC report no. 27, Peterborough, United Kingdom.
Danish Wind Industry Association, http://www.windpower.org/en/tour/env/shadow.
Department of Trade and Industry, United Kingdom. 2005. “Planning: Onshore Winds”. Retrieved
January 24, 2006, http://www.dti.gov.uk/renewables/renew_3.5.1.6.htm.
Department of Trade and Industry, United Kingdom. 2005. “Planning: Onshore Winds, Shadow Flicker”.
Retrieved on January 24, 2006, http://www.dti.gov.uk/renewables/renew_3.5.1.4.htm
Environment Canada. 2005. Wind Turbines and Birds- A Guidance Document for Environmental
Assessment (Draft)
© 2006
PROJECT 1008690 April 11, 2006
82
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. Report prepared for National Wind Coordinating
Committee, August 2001.
Erickson, W., G.Johnson, D.Young, D.Strickland, R.Good, M.Bourassa and K.Bay. 2002. Synthesis
andComparison of Baseline Avian and Bat Use, Raptor Nesting and Mortality Information from
Proposed and Existing Wind Developments. Report prepared for Bonneville Power Administration,
Portland, Oregon. 96pp.
Genesis Power Limited. April 2004. “Resource Consent Application and Assessment of Environmental
Effects”, Palmerston North, New Zealand.
Gill, J.P., M. Townsley, and G.P. Mudge. 1996. Review of the impacts of wind farms and other aerial
structures upon birds. Scottish Natural Heritage Review. No. 21.
Global Energy Concepts. 2005. October. Public Health and Safety. New York State Energy Resource &
Development Authority
Gruver, J.C. 2002. Assessment of bat community structure and roosting habitat preferences for the
hoary bat (Lasiurus cinereus) near Foote Creek Rim, Wyoming. M.S. Thesis, University of
Wyoming, Laramie. 149pp.
Halifax Region Municipality, By-law Number 200
http://www.halifax.ca/legislation/bylaws/hrm/documents/By-lawN-200_000.pdf
Hall, L.S. and G.C. Richards. 1972. Notes on Tadarida australis (Chiroptera: molossidae). Australian
Mammalogy 1:46.
Horizon Wind Energy. 2005. “Kittitas Valley Wind Power Project, Washington: Wind Farm Safety”.
Retrieved January 24, 2006, http://www.horizonwind.com/whatweredoing.asp?id=19
Ireland Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government. 2004. Draft Planning
Guidelines for Wind Energy in rural settings
Johnson, G.D., W.P. Erickson, M.D. Strickland, M.F. Shepherd and D.A. Shepherd. 2000. Avian
Monitoring Studies at the Buffalo Ridge Wind Resource Area, Minnesota: Results of a 4-year
study. Technical report prepared for Northern States Power Co., Minneapolis, MN. 212pp.
Johnson, G.D., W.P. Erickson, D.A. Shepherd, M. Perlik, M.D. Strickland, and C. Nations. 2002. Bat
interactions with wind turbines at the Buffalo Ridge, Minnesota, Wind Resource Area: 2001 field
season. Electric Power Research Institute, Palo Alto, Califonia.
Johnson, G.D., W.P. Erickson, M.D. Strickland, M.F. Shepherd, D.A. Shepherd, and S.A. Sarappo.
2003. Mortality of bats at a large-scale wind power development at Buffalo Ridge, Minnesota.
American Midland Naturalist. In Press.
Jones, J., and C.M.Francis. 2003. The effects of light characteristics on avian mortality at lighthouses.
Journal of Avian Biology 34: 328-333.
Kansas Energy Council. 2005, April. Wind Energy Siting Handbook: Guideline Options for Kansas
Cities and Countries.
Kerlinger, P. 2000. Avian mortality at communication towers: a review of recent literature, research and
methodology. Prepared for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Office of Migratory Bird
Management.
© 2006
PROJECT 1008690 April 11, 2006
83
Kingsley, A., and B.Whittam. 2004. Wind Turbines and Birds: A Guidance Document for Environmental
Assessment. Draft. Document prepared by Bird Studies Canada for Canadian Wildlife Service,
Environment Canada, May 2004.
Kingsley, A., and B.Whittam. 2005. Wind Turbines and Birds: A Background Review for Environmental
Assessment. Draft. Document prepared by Bird Studies Canada for Canadian Wildlife Service,
Environment Canada, May 2005.
“Land Use and Zoning Issues Related to Site Development for Utility Scale Wind Turbine Generators”.
2004, January 19. http://web1.msue.msu.edu/cdnr/otsegowindsafety.pdf.
Larwood, S. 2005. June 16). “Permitting Setbacks for Wind Turbines in California and the Blade Throw
Hazard”. California Wind Energy Collaborative.
Lindsay, J., and M.Kearns. 2003. Mountaineer Bats. Presentation at the National Wind Coordinating
Committee meeting, “How Is Biological Significance Determined When Assessing Possible
Impacts?”, Washington, D.C., November 17-18, 2003.
Morgan, C., Bossanyi, E. & Seifert, H. 1998. “Assessment of Safety Risks Arising from Wind Turbine
Icing”. Gerrad Hassan and Partners Ltd (Bristol) and Deutsches Windenergie-Institut (Germany).
Municipal District of Pincher Creek No.9. 2005. Development Permit Application for Wind Energy
Conversions Systems.
Municipal District of Pincher Creek No.9. 2005. Land Use Bylaw No. 1050-02. pp.9, 66-69, 71-72, 75,
83, 107, 117, 139.
Municipality of the District of Argyle. 2002, October 12. Land Use Bylaw, pp. 26(a), 26(b), 65, 66, 18(a)
& 18(b).
Municipality of the District of Argyle. 2004, October 29. Municipal Planning Strategy, pp. 38.
Municipality of the District of Barrington. 1996, December 11. Municipal Planning Strategy, pp. 32(a).
Municipality of the District of Barrington. 1996, December 11. Land Use Bylaw. pp. 8, 26(a), 26(b), 65, 66.
Natural History Guide of Nova Scotia Website, http://www.batcon.org/home/default.asp
Natural Resources Canada. 2003, Environmental Impact Statement Guidelines for Screenings of Inland
Wind
Farms
Under
the
Canadian
Environmental
Assessment
Act,
http://www.canren.gc.ca/programs/index.asp?CaId=190&PgId=1155
New Zealand Wind Energy Association. 2005, August. “Birds and Bats: Fact Sheet 8”.
Niagara Escarpment Commission (NEC). 2003, October 6. “Policy Report: Wind Power Development”.
Nicholson, C.P. 2003. Buffalo Mountain Windfarm bird and bat mortality monitoring report: October
2001 - September 2002. Tennessee Valley Authority, Knoxville
Nielsen, A. 2003, November 20. “Shadow-Flicker Briefing: Wild Horse, WA.” Portland, OR: WIND
Engineers, Inc.
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. Tiburon, California. Prepared for the California Energy Commission, Sacramento,
Grant 990-89-003.
© 2006
PROJECT 1008690 April 11, 2006
84
Parfit, M. 2005. “Future Power: Where will the world get its next energy fix?” National Geographic,
August, pp. 2-31.
Percival, S.M. 2001. Assessment of the effects of offshore wind farms on birds. Report ETSU
W/13/00565/REP, DTI/Pub URN 01/1434.
Polisky. 2005. Identifying and Avoiding Radio Frequency Interference for Wind Turbine Facilities,
http://www.andrew.com/search/bn_TP-100321-EN.aspx
Power Engineering. 2004, August. “Ion Plasma Generator Reduces Wind Turbine Lightning Strikes”.
Power Engineering Magazine. Retrieved September 10, 2004,
http://pepei.pennet.com/articles/Article_Display.cfm?Section=Curri& Subsection
=Display&P=6&ARTICLE_ID=210663
Power Engineering. 2005, January 3. “Blaze results in wind turbine collapse”. Power Engineering
Magazine. Retrieved January 24, 2006, from
http://pepei.pennet.com/articles/Article_Display.cfm?ARTICLE_ID=244624&p=6
Province of Ontario Ministry of the Environment. July 2004. Interpretation for Applying MOE NPC
Technical Publications to Wind Turbine Generators, www.ene.gov.on.ca/envision/gp/4709e.pdf
Region of Queens Municipality. Draft Bylaw Regulations (ongoing).
Seifert, H., Westerhellweg, A., and Kröning, J. 2003, April 11. “Risk Analysis of Ice Throw from Wind
Turbines”. Deutsches Windenergie-Institut, Germany.
http://www.dewi.de/dewi_neu/deutsch/themen/magazin/26/boreas_vi_seifert_02.pdf
State of Wisconsin. 2003, October. Wisconsin Model Wind Ordinance for Towns/Counties (Draft).
Taylor, K. 2006, January 10. “Wind Open House”. Pincher Creek Echo. Retrieved January 19, 2006,
from http://www.pinchercreekecho.com/story.php?id=205997.
Young, D.P. Jr., Johnson, G.D., W.P. Erickson, M.D. Strickland, R.E. Good and P.Becker. 2001. Avian
and bat mortality associated with the initial phase of the Foote Creek Rim Windpower Project,
Carbon County, Wyoming: November 3, 1998 – October 31, 2000. Tech. Report prepared by
WEST, Inc. for SeaWest Energy Corporation and Bureau of Land Management. 32pp.
UK Sustainable Development Commission Website. http://www.sdcommission.org.uk/pages/media/list/wind.html
P:\EnvSci\100xxx\1008690 Wind Master Plan\Report\SECTIONS IN JW FORMAT\Draft Formatted April 6.DOC
© 2006
PROJECT 1008690 April 11, 2006
85
APPENDIX A
GIS Layers and HRM Wind Suitability Maps
APPENDIX B
Wind Suitability Maps of Specific Public Properties